environmental and social management plan...

Environmental and Social Management

Plan (ESMP)

LEGAZPI CITY

Action Plan for the Reduction of Unintentionally

Produced Persistent Organic Pollutants (UPOPs) from

Solid Wastes through the Application of Best Available

Technologies and Best Environmental Practices

(BAT/BEP)

December 2015

SFG1829

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) Action Plan for the Reduction of Unintentionally Produced Persistent Organic Pollutants (UPOPs) from Solid

Wastes through the Application of Best Available Technologies and Best Environmental Practices (BAT/BEP)

i

Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)

Legazpi City’s Action Plan (AP) for the Reduction of Unintentionally

Produced Persistent Organic Pollutants (UPOPs) from Solid Wastes

through the Application of Best Available Technologies and Best

Environmental Practices (BAT/BEP)

COVER LETTER

SECTION Page

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1

2.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK ............................................ 9

2.1 Environment ................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Social ................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Relevant World Bank Safeguard Policies .......................................................................... 9

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Project Background and Purpose of the UPOPs Action Plan.......................................... 11

3.2 Preparation and endorsement of the UPOPs Action Plan ................................................ 12

3.3 Overall solid waste management goals ………………………………… ……………12

3.4 Screening and Selection of Specific Action Plan for GEF and

LGU Funding ................................................................................................................. 12

3.5 Description of Activities Under Disposal Window ......................................................... 18

3.6 Description of Activities Under Collection Window ...................................................... 19

3.7 UPOPs Action Plan Project Implementation Schedule ................................................... 21

3.8 Sub-Project Cost Estimate ................................................................................................ 21

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE DATA ................................................................................. 23

4.1 Basic Facts About Legazpi City and Its Waste Management Situation .......................... 23

4.2 Status of Open Burning of Solid Wastes at Source Community ..................................... 25

4.3 Status of Open Burning of Solid Wastes for Commercial and Alternative Fuel

Purposes ................................................................................................................. 26

4.4 Institutional, Legal and Financial Framework for SWM in Legazpi City ...................... 26

4.5 Overview of the Existing Sanitary Landfill at Barangay Banquerohan .......................... 28

4.6 Overview of the Proposed Closure/Rehabilitation of Dumpsite at Brgy.

Banquerohan ................................................................................................................. 29

4.7 Overview of Local Framework or Social Development Plan for Informal Waste

Sector ................................................................................................................. 31

4.8 Detailed Description of the Open Dumpsite .................................................................... 32

4.9 Detailed Profiles of the Affected IWS ............................................................................ 39

4.10 IWS Household Income & Income Sources .................................................................... 41

5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................................................... 46

5.1 Social Impacts ................................................................................................................. 46

5.2 Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................... 46



ii

6.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................ 57

6.1 No-UPOPs Action Plan Alternative ................................................................................. 57

6.2 With UPOPs Action Plan Alternative .............................................................................. 57

7.0 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (ESMP) ............................. 58

7.1 Details of the Proposed ESMP ......................................................................................... 58

7.2 Details of the Social Management Plan (SDP) ................................................................ 58

7.3 Built-in ESMP in the Tender Documents and Contractor’s Contract ............................. 59

7.4 Environmental Monitoring ............................................................................................... 59

7.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 59

7.6 Implementation Arrangement........................................................................................... 59

7.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 68

8.0 CONSULTATION, INFORMATION DISCLOSURE, & GRIEVANCE

REDRESS MECHANISM .................................................................................................... 69

8.1 Consultation and Information Disclosure ........................................................................ 69

8.2 Grievance Redress Mechanism ........................................................................................ 70

ANNEXES

Annex 1 Legazpi City’s SLF Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)

Annex 2 Legazpi City’s SLF Operation Manual

Annex 3 TOR for Contractors for the Execution of ESMP as Built in the

Technical Specifications

Annex 4 Social Development Plan (SDP)

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 Overall UPOP Action Plan for Legazpi City ...................................................................... 2

Table ES-2 Summary of Cost Estimates Proposed for GEF Grant Funding ........ …….…………......3

Table ES-3 Public Consultations and Disclosure at Various of the UPOPs Action Plan

Formulation……………….……………………………….. ............................................ 7

Table 3.1 Menu of Technical Alternatives and Assistance for Disposal

Window……………….…..…. ........................................................................................ 13

Table3.2 Menu of Technical Alternatives and Assistance for Collection

Window……….…………… ........................................................................................... 14

Table 3.3 Overall UPOP Action Plan and Sustainability Plan ....... ……………………………….15

Table 3.4 Summary of Cost Estimates Proposed for GEF-Funding ....... …………………………18

Table 3.5 Description of Activities Under the Disposal Window .................................................... 18

Table 3.6 Detailed Sub-project Implementation Schedule ............................................................... 22

Table 4.1 Key Figures for Legazpi City ............................................................................................ 23

Table 4.2 Sources of Municipal Solid Waste in Legazpi City ......................................................... 24

Table 4.3 Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in Legazpi City ................................................. 24

Table 4.4 Budget Appropriated by Legazpi City in 2013 for SWM

(Exclusive of supplemental) .............................................................................................. 27

Table 4.5a Physical Setup of the Open Dumpsite .............................................................................. 37

Table 4.5b Existing Equipment at the Open Dumpsite ...................................................................... 37

Table 4.6 Most Relevant Aspects of Open Dumpsite’s General Environment ............................... 37

Table 4.7 Waste Pickers’ Place of Residence ................................................................................... 41



iii

Table 4.8 Sex and Age of Waste pickers .......................................................................................... 42

Table 4.9 Population By Age Group and Marital Status .................................................................. 43

Table 4.10 Educational Attainment of Waste Pickers by Age Group ................................................ 43

Table 4.11 Household Size .................................................................................................................. 44

Table 4.12 Income Sources of Waste Pickers ..................................................................................... 44

Table 4.13 Monthly Income of Waste Pickers from Waste Picking and Other Sources ................... 45

Table 5.1 Sub-Projects Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 47

Table 6.1 Comparison of Alternatives (No-UPOPs Action Plan Alternative vs.

With UPOPs Action Plan Alternatives) ............................................................................ 57

Table 7.1 Summary of the Intended Livelihood Projects for IWS ................................................... 58

Table 7.2 Budgetary Requirement for SDP ...................................................................................... 58

Table 7.3 Environmental Mitigation and Environmental Monitoring Plan for

Legazpi City’s UPOPs Action Plan .................................................................................. 61

Table 7.4 Institutional Responsibilities for EMP Implementation ................................................... 67

Table 8.1 Public Consultations and Disclosure at Various of the

UPOPs Action Plan Formulation ...................................................................................... 69

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Overall waste management framework of Legazpi City……………….…..…. ............. 13

Figure 4.1 Existing cells and expansion area for Legazpi City

landfill at Barangay Banquerohan..................................................................................... 28

Figure 4.2 Location and Vicinity Map of Legazpi City’s

Banquerohan Dumpsite ..................................................................................................... 29

Figure 4.3 A total of 2.322 hectares of Banquerohan dumpsite is subject ....................................... 30

Figure 4.4 Makeshift sheds built and used by waste pickers as temporary

shelter and storage area ..................................................................................................... 31

Figure 4.5 The location Map of the Open Dumpsite ......................................................................... 33

Figure 4.6 Relative location of the SLF and the open dumpsite ........................................................ 34

Figure 4.7a Photo-documentation of the Open Dumpsite (Panoramic View) .................................... 33

Figure 4.7b Photo-documentation of the Open Dumpsite ................................................................... 34

Figure 4.8 Photo-documentation of the Burning Open Dumpsite ..................................................... 40

Figure 4.9 Indicative Final Lay-out of the Closed Open Dumpsite ................................................... 40



iv

ABBREVIATIONS/ ACRONYMS

AECID Agencia Espańola de Cooperacion Internacional para el Desarrollo

AO Administrative Order

BAT Best Available Technology

BCDI Bicol Consortium for Development Initiatives

BEP Best Environmental Practice

CCO Chemical Control Order

CENRO Community Environment and Natural Resources Office

CNC Certificate of Non-Coverage

CVO City Veterinary Office

DAO DENR Administrative Order

DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DOST Department of Science and Technology

EA Environmental Assessment

ECC Environmental Compliance Certificate

ECOP Environmental Code of Practice

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMB Environmental Management Bureau

EMB CO Environmental Management Bureau Central Office

EMB RO Environmental Management Bureau Regional Office

EMD Environmental Management Division

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EO Executive Order

ERA Environmental Risk Assessment

ESA Environmental and Social Assessment

ESAF Environmental and Social Assessment Framework

FASPO Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Office

FPIC Free and Prior Informed Consent

GEF Global Environment Facility

GNP Gross National Product

GOP Government of the Philippines

HCB Hexachlorobenzene

HDPE High-density polyethylene

IADE IWS Agro-Development Enterprise

IEC Information, Education, Communication

IPs Indigenous Peoples

IPOPs Integrated POPs Management

IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations

JSDF Japan Social Development Fund

LGU Local Government Unit

MT Metric ton

NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

NGO Non-Government Organization

NSWMC National Solid Waste Management Commission

OCENR Office of the City Environment and Natural Resources

OP Operational Policies

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins

PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzofurans

PD Presidential Decree

PEISS Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System



v

PMO Project Management Office

PMS Project Management Support

PNRI Philippine Nuclear Research Institute

POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants

PPG Project Preparation Grant

RA Republic Act

ROI Return of Investment

SA Social Assessment

SBPA Samahang Bagong Pag-unlad Association

SDP Social Development Program

ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan

SLF Sanitary Landfill Facility

SWAPP Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines

TWG Technical Working Group

UPOPs Unintentionally-produced Persistent Organic Pollutants

WB World Bank

WB-JSDF World Bank-Japan Social Development Fund



1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The Government of the Philippines has requested the assistance of World Bank to address

critical areas in POPs management which require immediate action. Five (5) components with

activities and sub-activities were identified. Among others, the reduction of releases of

Unintentionally Produced Persistent Organic Pollutants (UPOPs) through the introduction or

adoption of best available technologies (BAT) or best environmental practice (BEP) for field

activities, piloting or demonstration was identified as one of these 5 components.

2. It is recognized that (UPOPs) are generated from open burning of wastes in dumpsite, landfill

fires and from backyard burning of municipal solid waste. When UPOPs are formed, these

chemicals contaminate the environment and persist in nature for many years to decades or even

longer.

3. To mitigate the UPOPs emission from burning domestic wastes, the UPOPs Action Plan (AP)

for LGU Legazpi is prepared under the WB-GEF Grant No. TF095839 on Integrated Persistent

Organic Pollutants (IPOPs) Management Project. The Project is led by Department of Environment

and Natural Resources (DENR), and provided with assistance from the World Bank – Global

Environment Facility (WB-GEF), GEF Grant.

4. The AP is set out to demonstrate how dioxins and furans emission gases from dumpsite and

backyard burning may be effectively reduced. In addition, the AP is viewed as an intervention to

stop solid waste burning at the community, households and other public places, it may also be

viewed as an intervention to stop the spontaneous combustion in disposal sites.

5. The AP is composed various activities with safe closure and rehabilitation of the existing

dumpsite as a major sub-activity. To attain IPOPs reduction and the target intervention, the AP has

adopted the best available technology (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP) for reducing

UPOPs releases. Complete work and financial plans were formulated in order to fully implement

the AP.

6. Ancillary activities include the operation of the sanitary landfill and the construction of the city

materials recovery facility/composting center.

7. The AP has the potential to generate social and environmental impacts were addressed during

the UPOPs action plan implementation. The project is a Category B project. Necessary

environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) was carried out in accordance with pertinent

OP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment. All social impacts are all discussed and subsumed under

OP 4.01. Additionally, the assessment was carried out within the policy, legal, and administrative

frameworks of the Republic of the Philippines.

8. In the overall institutional framework plan, LGU Legazpi through its IPOPs Action Team (AT)

shall execute the AP and the ancillary activities where budgetary requirements for the AP are

jointly sourced/and or provided by the LGU and GEF Grant.

Project Description

9. At the onset, the sub-project has provided very clear screening technical criteria on how

investments in BAT/BEP shall be executed to cover (i) works to stop burning at dumpsites, (ii)

dumpsite closure and (iii) improvement in landfill operations to prevent burning. In the technical

criteria, menu of eligible activities are spelled out under the disposal and collection windows which

when found eligible; the implementation of such activities shall be covered under GEF Grant

funding.

10. Guided with these criteria, the LGU in close consultation and coordination with the Sub-

project Consultant, DENR and WB has crafted its overall AP, from which specific technical works

and activities are carefully selected for execution under this sub-project.

11. As a result, Table ES-1 presents the overall AP while Table ES-2 presents the summary of

activities that were selected eligible for GEF Grant.

12. Under the disposal window in the AP, the following major activities are to be implemented: (a)

activities that will stop and prevent burning at its current waste disposal facility at Sitio Caridad in

Barangay Banquerohan; and (b) activities that will expand collection coverage area to discourage



2

communities from backyard burning. Specifically, the 2.32-hectare Banquerohan dumpsite will be

subject to complete closure and rehabilitation. Other sub-project components include access road

with drainage system construction, site clearing, waste profiling, application of clay and topsoil

cover, perimeter slope protection, leachate collection and recirculation, gas venting, monitoring

wells, perimeter fencing , and including other necessary elements where BAT/BEP measures are

applied.

13. Under the collection window, current collection service area will be increased to cover eight

(8) more barangays by purchasing one (1) city dump truck and eight (8) motorized carts. About

5,135 households will benefit from this expansion plan, thereby incentivizing them not to burn

their wastes. The Action Plan will likewise cover advocacy programs and IEC on the avoidance of

open burning, enforcement through ordinances and citation tickets, and capacity development on

IPOP’s BAT/BEP.

14. Ancillary incudes the operations of the SLF and the city materials recovery facility/processing

center. The SLF has been issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) by EMB while

the city materials recovery facility/processing center shall be required to secure a separate

environmental clearance from EMB.

15. Table ES-1 shows the overall UPOP Action Plan for Legazpi City

Table ES-1: Overall UPOP Action Plan for Legazpi City

Initiatives

Specific Technical

Works and Activities and

Expenditures

GEF Exposure

(GEF Financial

Assistance)

LGU

Exposures

Sub-Total

Cost

1) Disposal Window

1.1. Prevent Future Burning Safe Closure and

Rehabilitation Plan (SCRP)

9,438,363 14,284,705 23,723,067.37

2) Collection Window

2.1 Waste Collection and

Advocacy

Purchase of collection

equipment and

implementation of various

advocacy actvities

10,700,000 19,293,500 29,993,500

2.2 Capacity Development

on UPOPs

Various capacity building

works

312,832 312,832

2.3 Capacity Development

on ESWM

Various capacity

development activities

550,000 550,000

2.4 Waste Diversion

Initiatives (Processing

and recovery)

Various Waste Processing

and recovery

5,270,855 5,270,855

2.5 Awards/Incentives

System

Provision of cash

incenyives nnd awards

1,500,000 1,500,000

2.6 Livelihood for IWS

(SDP Cost)

Provisions of various

alternatives livelihood

1,061,314 1,061,314

2.7 Monitoring, Evaluation

and Reporting

Monitoring and assessment

of Barangay ESWM and

ESMP implementation

510,000 510,000

Grand Total 20,138,363 42,783,206 62,921,569

Percent Exposure 32% 68% 100%

16. Table ES-2 presents the summary of cost estimates proposed for GEF Grant funding.



3

Table ES-2 Summary of Cost Estimates Proposed for GEF Grant Funding

Major Cost Item

TOTAL COST

(2014-2015)

(PhP)

PROCUREMENT OF WORKS

1. DISPOSAL WINDOW

1.1 Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan (SCRP)

Gathering, re-grouping and stockpiling of wastes (Includes site

clearing, grading and sub-grading preparation) - "profiling"

1,775,522

Application of compacted clay cover (0.45m thick; A=8,395.56 sq.m.

2,816,882

1.1.3 Application of top soil cover (0.15m thick; A=23,220.00 sq.m.) 3,010,548

1.1.4 Turfing/vegetation (Coverage area = 23,220.00 sq.m.) 1,366,336

1.1.5 Gas venting system 52,930

1.1.6 Boundary fence (Perimeter) fencing of the South/Eastern half of the

property (300.00 l.m. (barb wire with concrete post)

416,145

SUB-TOTAL 9,438,363

PROCUREMENT OF GOODS

2 - COLLECTION WINDOW

2.1 Purchase of one (1) city dump truck and eight (8) motorized barangay waste

collection vehicles and tri-color industrial bins 3,300,000

2.2 Purchase of 1 Unit Dump Truck for garbage collection 2,900,000

2.3 Purchase of 1 Unit Dump Truck for garbage hauling 4,500,000

SUB-TOTAL 10,700,000

GRAND TOTAL 20,138,363

17. The counterpart budget by LGU Legazpi required for the implementation of this Action Plan

shall be secured or allocated as follows:

For 2015:

Continuing Appropriation for IPOPs Project

(For instance, continuing allocation of P4.3 M as counterpart to the Closure of the Open

Dumpsite)

Allocation of 20% Development Funds equivalent to P8M

(This allocation shall fund the Operation and Maintenance of SLF and Garbage Collection

Operation to include maintenance of heavy equipment and garbage collection/ hauling

trucks and other equipment, fuel, oil & lubricants, PPEs and other related expenses)

OCENR Budget for Programs and Projects equivalent to P11.3M

(This amount will fund the following:

a) needed manpower for the operation of SLF, garbage collection & disposal operation,

community organizers;

b) waste reduction activities such as MRF/composting facility operation, common

marketing operation, earth savers program;

c) Information, Education Campaign;

d) ESWM Research; and

e) Capability Development Program

For 2016:

The same budget allocation as above (for 2015) is proposed and already approved at the

Executive level for inclusion in the 2016 City Budget.



4

18. The ESMP is prepared to support implementation of this AP and provides a clear and

sustainable management response to the identified sub-project’s social and environmental impacts.

19. In the crafting of the ESMP, the focus was with OP 4.01 under Category B. Social impacts for

the 91 members of the Informal Waste Sector (IWS) who may be deprived of livelihood source

from waste picking are subsumed under OP4.01. No land taking and relocation are required under

this sub-project.

Environmental and Socio-economic Conditions

20. Legazpi City has a land area of about 2014.20 sq. km. with the 2010 Census population of

182,201. The city is subdivided into 70 barangays of which 45 are urban barangays, while the

remaining 25 are rural barangays.

21. Based on a 2009 Waste Analysis and Characterization Study (WACS), each person in Legazpi

City generates about 0.29 kilograms (kg) of municipal solid waste per day. This figure does not yet

reflect the combined generation from households and other waste sources in the entire city.

22. Sources of domestic solid waste include residential /households 68.44 %), commercial (26.00

%), institutional (5.31 %) and market (0.25 %). Solid waste mostly consists of 58.87%

biodegradable wastes, 39.07 recyclables, 0.81% residuals and 1.25% special wastes.

23. The 2012 estimated solid waste generation is 152 m3/day, with only about two-thirds of this

total waste being collected for disposal to the existing open dumpsite. In 2012, the city has

allocated a total budget of PhP 20M for its solid waste management.

24. Legazpi City’s Open Dump Site. The dumpsite is located at Sitio Caridad in Barangay

Banquerohan at the same 16-hectare city owned property where the SLF is. The city has been

using the open dumpsite since 1998.

25. From the main road, there is an earth access road leading to the open dumpsite. The used area

was around five (5) hectares, but some portions only have thinly scattered waste (now vegetated).

The target area for closure is about 2.322-ha upon waste consolidation. Average waste fill height is

estimated to be between 8 to 15 meters. Of immediate concern is the 0.840-hectare area within this

section where most recent waste had been dumped.

26. The closure and rehabilitation of the open dumpsite is urgent. Based on LGU’s record, a big

fire happened at the western side of the old dumpsite in June 2010. The coverage of the fire was

approximately 1,000 m2 and the duration of the burning lasted for 8 hours. Early detection of fire

was observed by the Office of the City Environment and Natural Resources (OCENR) personnel

manning the landfill because of the thick smoke spotted in the site and the loathsome smell carried

by the wind and gasped by the residents living in the nearby barangays.

27. The Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) was immediately called for an early containment of fire

but the fire fighters could hardly suppress the ablaze open dumpsite. To assist BFP, the OCENR

personnel, using onsite heavy equipment hauled soil, covered the part of the dumpsite which was

sprayed with water by the fire fighters in order to stop the fire from spreading to other parts of the

dumpsite. The cause of combustion was not known but since there were no waste pickers at the

dumpsite when the burning occurred, most likely, the cause would have been a spontaneous

combustion due the very hot weather during that time.

28. To avoid further incidence of fire in the open dumpsite, the City Government intends to fully

cease in using the dumpsite once the implementation of this AP commences.

29. Legazpi City’s Sanitary Landfill. As ancillary facility to the AP, the City Government has

constructed its 2-cell, 1.4-hectare sanitary landfill adjacent to the dumpsite at Barangay

Banquerohan. The SLF is ready for full operation.

30. As of September 2015, actual percentage usage of this SLF is 30.39%, equivalent to 61,998

cu.m. actual landfilled residual waste + soil cover against the combined capacity of cell 1 and cell

2 (including air space) of 204,015 cu.m. Based on this actual usage, the remaining capacity for

landfilling is 69.61% or equivalent to 142,017 cu.m. which will extend the life service of the

sanitary landfill of up 3 or more years.

31. For the proposed construction of Cell 3, LGU Legazpi has undertaken cadastral mapping of the

prospective site for Phase 3. Land acquisition shall be implemented in 2016



5

32. IWS Sector in Legazpi City. The effects of UPOPs to the general public and to the members of

the IWS’s health and environment are serious concerns that require short- and long-term long

mitigation measures.

33. As of March 2014, the latest number of the IWS at the open dumpsite is 95. The waste

pickers came from four nearby barangays, namely, Banquerohan, San Francisco, Bariis and

Cagbacong, all of which are administratively part of Legazpi City. Majority of them are married

and work either as individuals or as family groups. They are between 7 to 70 years old, and

majority only finished elementary education. The daily needs of waste pickers depend on waste

picking since most are farm tillers and/or tenants. Their income ranges between PhP 1,000 and

3,000 per month, which is meagre for households with 3 to 7 members.

34. With pending closure of the dumpsite and operation of the SLF, the IWS members were

organized into an association called ‘Bagong Buhay’ (New Life) Association. It is planned that the

IWS will be engaged in long term livelihood activities depending on their skills and likes, such as

livestock raising, vegetable/upland rice farming, and others. Their livelihood projects will be

funded under this AP.

35. Latest series of consultation meetings conducted in the second quarter of 2015 noted around 71

IWS who signified their interests to participate in the livelihood projects offered to 95 IWS in the

SDP. Employment is the main reason for the reduction in number of interested IWS.

Impacts and Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)

36. Since 1998, the City’s open dumpsite is known to generate significant risk and adverse impacts

to public health and the environment. The open dumpsite is currently (a) contaminating

groundwater and surface waters, (b) pollute the air through emissions of landfill gases and

persistent organic pollutants (during episodes of dumpsite fire), (c) cause airborne and waterborne

diseases through carriers of diseases such as insects, vermin and other potential carriers of

diseases, and (d) devalue properties, among others.

37. The UPOPs Action Plan is viewed as a one stop shop plan consisting of focused mitigation,

and enhancement measures to address (1) the current problem of open dumping and (2) all

accompanying environmental pollutions and social effects being caused by the use of open

dumpsite. With this as the backdrop, screening of environmental impacts is made through a review

of all activities associated with various activities proposed under the disposal and collections

windows of this AP against no project scenario.

38. The plan is viewed as enhancement measure. The AP shall has no potential further gneertae

impacts and risks to environmental conservation and/or protection since the dumpsite area is

already an ecologically disturbed site. The area is not located in an environmentally sensitive and

precious ecology. With the AP in place, rehabilitation of the disturbed area of the open dumpsite

and its restoration towards better environmental conditions is expected to be achieved in due time.

39. During the formulation of this AP, basic design elements for the closure of the open dumpsite

with incorporation of BAT/BEP are incorporated, namely: (i) stabilization of steep slopes to

prevent erosion hazards, (ii) the implementation of leachate and gas management systems, (iii) the

design of the final cover, (iv) measures to prevent future illegal dumping at the site, (v) plan for

affected members of the IWS, (vi) installation of monitoring wells and (vii) security measures to

prevent unauthorized access to the closed site. As mentioned, consideration of these technical

elements comprise the necessary elements of the ESMP for the sub-project.

40. In summary, the ESMP for this sub-project is developed to effectively manage the

environmental issues. The plan includes: (i) mitigating measures to address the environmental and

social impacts; (ii) public consultations, disclosure and grievance redress; (iii) required monitoring

associated with the mitigating measures; and, (iv) institutional arrangements. ESMP covers the

pre-construction, construction, and operation phases.

ESMP Execution, Monitoring and Supervision

41. LGU Legazpi is directly responsible for the implementation of all activities in the AP

including ESMP. The DENR IPOPs PMO is responsible for project supervision and oversight of

implementation and DENR Regional office is in-charge of issuing ECC (for the ancillary



6

activities) and monitoring compliance to ESMP. The sub-Project Contractor will be responsible in

carrying out all the activities that will assigned to them with diligent compliance to ESMP. ESMP

execution will be part of their Contractual Obligation.

42. In the ESMP, the post closure management program is embedded as part of the sustainability

plan for the sub-project. Thus, under the sustainability plan, the AP’s continued maintenance and

ESMP monitoring are proposed to be undertaken for a period of at least five (5) years.

43. The cost of the Action Plan and ESMP are all considered in this AP.

44. The AP will be subject to periodic performance monitoring to ensure that ESMP are

implemented. Site-specific measures and environmental and social monitoring parameters as

indicated in this document are to be periodically supervised and monitored.

Consultation and Participation

45. The sub-project planning and the subsequent impact assessment document preparation of the

AP recognized the need for a meaningful public consultation and participation as central to an

effective ESMP. Within the context of “meaningful consultation”, LGU Legazpi initiated a process

of consultation during AP preparation.

46. During the AP preparation, LGU Legazpi with technical guidance and assistance from DENR,

the Consultants and WB has conducted Public Consultation (PC) in various occasions and

information disclosure at each phases of the AP development. During the conduct of the PCs, the

details of the sub-project components were presented to the stakeholders and their views on the

respective proposals were requested and solicited and later incorporated in the overall planning and

design of the AP. Stakeholders expressed support to the proposed UPOPs Action Plan.

47. The PCs and public disclosure initiatives at various stages of the plan development is presented

in Table ES-3.



7

Table ES-3: Public Consultations and Disclosure at Various of the

UPOPs Action Plan Formulation

Activities

Public

Consultations

Executed

Public

Disclosure

Executed

Yes No Yes No

1. Baseline Survey Updating of Current Waste

Pickers √

2. Assessment Study of Previous Waste Pickers LGU

Legazpi City-AECID ESWMP Livelihood

Beneficiaries and Current Waste Pickers

√

3. Consultation/Dialogue/Meeting with Waste Pickers √

4. Preparation of Key Results Areas Activity Details

for Inclusion in the Social Development Plan √

√

5. Conduct of Social Assessment Survey √

6. Skills and Capacity Development and Enhancement

of Waste Pickers √

√

7. IEC Campaign on IPOPs Management Project √

8. Formation/Organization of Implementation Team

for Projects to Waste Pickers √

√

9. Organization of Waste Pickers and Organizational

Strengthening √

10. Strategic Development Planning √

11. Preparation of Detailed Engineering Design of

Closure of the Dumpsite √

√

12. Bidding and Procurement √

13. Engineering and Construction Works √

14. Conduct of Regular Consultation/Coordination

Meeting To be done

To be

done

15. Progress Report, Monitoring and Evaluation

Report Preparation To be done

To be

done

Grievance Redress Mechanism

48. In the grievance redress mechanism, complaints about environmental and social performance

of the proposed sub-project during the construction and operation phases shall be handled by the

Office of the City Mayor though the Office of the City Environment and Natural Resources

(OCENR), the specific entity that is tasked to receive social and environment-related complaints.

49. Grievance and complaints will be handled through expeditious consultations between OCENR

– Office of the City Mayor, and the sub-project affected people or entity with the end view of

arriving at consensus resolutions of the problem.

50. Special feature of the Grievance Redress Mechanism is that the sub-project affected people or

entity will be exempted from all administrative and legal fees incurred pursuant to the grievance

redress procedures. All complaints received in writing (or written when received verbally) from the

sub-project affected people or entity will be documented and shall be acted upon immediately.

51. Details of the assigned personnel and office that will handle grievance redress are as follows:

Position Person In-Charge Address/Contact Nos.

Project Manager Mrs. Salve B. Corral

City ENRO

Office of the City Environment & Natural

Resources (OCENR), Motorpool

Compound, Airport Road, Legazpi City

Tel. No.-480-3349

CP No.- 09088679837

GRMO Ms. Lilian P. Calla

Proj. Devt, Officer/

Livelihood Officer



8

Conclusion and Recommendation

52. This AP is essential for Legazpi City’s holistic and integrated solid waste management as it

will address the city’s sustainable SWM. Once the sub-project and the ancillary projects are

implemented, Legazpi City will serve as a model for holistic SWM and more importantly, an LGU

as actual demonstration area in the reduction of UPOPs. The estimated implementation period is

from 2014 to 2016 while sustainability plan extends five years more from 2016.

53. Analysis of potential environmental and social impacts and risk revealed that the sub-project,

when implemented, could result to more positive social and environmental impacts which

significantly outweigh the sub-project’s potential adverse impacts. The ESMP will reduce a

number of adverse environmental impacts arising from the city’s practice of open dumping. The

ESMP is doable which includes the required basic technical elements of doing an environment

friendly means of closing and rehabilitating an open dumpsite. These elements are enumerated

below vis-à-vis their purpose and mitigation importance.

Elements of UPOPs Action Plan

(Closure and Rehabilitation of

the Open Dumpsite)

Purpose and Mitigation Importance

1) Stabilization of critical slopes;

Avoidance of dangerously high heaps of garbage thus

reducing hazards from unstable slopes and garbage slides

2) Final cover;

The soil cover serves various mitigation purposes, namely:

• Reduce infiltration of water into the disposal area;

• Reduce gas migration;

• Prevent burrowing animals from damaging the cover;

• Prevent the emergence of insects/rodents from the

compacted refuse;

• Minimize the escape of odours, and;

• Support vegetation

3) Drainage control systems;

Prevent soil erosion, garbage slide and scouring of the soil

cover cause by run-on and runoff of surface waters

4) Leachate and gas management

systems;

Avoidance of water pollution (both ground surface waters)

by collecting and treating the leachate within the limits of

local water quality standards

5) Fire control;

The landfill gas will be vented freely to the environment

thus lessening the impact of leachate on soil and surface

waters; Avoidance of methane gas accumulation and

consequently the avoidance of fires on dumpsites

6) Prevention of illegal dumping;

Avoidance of attempts to dispose of wastes especially that

SLF will be made readily available for more environment

friendly disposal of wastes

7) Resettlement action plan;

Provision of alternative livelihoods for affected members of

IWS; improved socio-economic conditions of affected IWS

8) Security Avoidance of illegal entries of people to the closed

dumpsite; Avoidance of fire or burning of waste at closed

dumpsite

54. With tailor made site specific ESMP that will address all potential adverse impacts and at the

same time promote social and environmental enhancement measures, the sub-project can be

implemented in an environmentally sound manner.



9

2.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PHILIPPINE

POPS MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

2.1 Environment

55. As POPs exist in different media and their control can be addressed through various

Philippine pollution control laws, the local policy, legal, and administrative frameworks relevant to

this UPOs Action Plan include the following laws and regulations: (i) PD 1586 - Establishing the

Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System, (ii) Republic Act No.9275 - Philippine Clean

Water Act of 2004, (iii) RA 6969 -Toxic substances & Hazardous & Nuclear Waste Control Act of

1990, (iv) RA 8749 - Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, and (v) RA 9003 - Act Providing for an

Ecological Solid Waste Management Program.

56. Relevant laws and regulations specific to municipal solid waste management and addressing

the prevention of fires at dumpsites have been in existence by virtue of DAO 98-49 Technical

Guidelines For Municipal Solid Waste Disposal and DAO 2001-34 (IRR of RA 9003), and DAO

2006-09 (General Guidelines in the Closure and Rehabilitation of Open Dumpsites and Controlled

Dump Facilities)

57. For environment assessment of the UPOPS Action Plan, Presidential Decree 1584 or the

Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System (PEISS) established the Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) is the relevant law. The Philippine environmental assessment system conforms

to WB’s OP 4.01 on environmental assessment requirements.

2.2 Social

58. Under the Philippine setting, there is no single policy that governs all aspects of land

acquisition, compensation and resettlement. Below are the enumeration of key legal and

administrative instruments most relevant to involuntary resettlement that are currently in force

locally:

The Philippine Constitution;

The Civil Code;

The Local Government Code (RA 7160);

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA 7381) and also specifically, Section 59,

Certification Precondition,

The Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279)

PD 856 Sanitation Code.

Supreme Court Ruling (1987) defining just compensation

DPWH DO 142 (1995): Aims to avoid unnecessary delays in civil works. Inclusion of

parcellary plans & cost estimates for ROW acquisition in detailed engineering stage.

EO 1035 & MO 65 on the acquisition and compensation of private properties

RA 6389: on disturbance compensation to agricultural leases

Executive Order 1035 (1985) provisions on land expropriation

RA 8974 (2000): on ensuring prompt payment of just compensation

SECTION 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of

Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale

2.3 Relevant World Bank Safeguard Policies

59. Operational Policy (OP) 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) is triggered in this sub-project since

there are potential adverse environmental impacts that are necessary to address and minimize. The

policy addresses the negative environmental impacts during UPOPS Action Plan implementation.



10

60. Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement) is not triggered as there is no land

taking is necessary to implement the sub-project. The social impact on livelihood provision for

affected members of the IWS is subsumed under OP 4.01 with the end view of giving fair and

humane arrangements with the affected IWS. No resettlement is required for the sub-project.



11

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Project Background and Purpose of the UPOPs Action Plan

61. Open burning of waste is the largest source of Unintentionally Produced Persistent Organic

Pollutants (UPOPs) such as dioxins and furans in the Philippines. Majority of the emissions result

from dumpsite/landfill fires and from the backyard burning of municipal solid waste and other

materials (e.g. electronic waste or cables) by households and recyclers. When formed, UPOPs are

released along with other pollutants such as heavy metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and

fine particles (PM), which eventually contaminate the environment (air, soil and sediments). Via

bioaccumulation, UPOPs as well as heavy metals are carried on in biota and in the food chain

including e.g. chicken and cattle around these open burning areas. Finally humans are exposed to

UPOPs e.g., via meat, milk and eggs.

62. Therefore, the open burning of waste need to be reduced and eliminated by appropriate

measures to reduce and eliminate UPOPs contamination of the environment, the food chain, and

for the ultimate protection of human health. This may be addressed through, but not limited to,

proper disposal management, improvement of ecological solid waste management (ESWM)

services and coverage areas and awareness campaigns on UPOPs and other pollutants, which

encompass the application of Best Available Technologies (BAT) and Best Environmental

Practices (BEP).

63. Dioxins and other POPs are regulated internationally by the Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants (www.pops.int). It promotes global action on an initial cluster of

twelve POP substances, with an overall objective to protect human health and the environment

from POPs and requires Parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the

environment. At the fourth, fifth and sixth meetings of the Conference of the Parties in 2009, 2011

and 2013, respectively, a total of 11 new substances or substance groups were added to the

Convention. The Philippines has been a Party to the Convention since February 2004 and is

currently updating the National Implementation Plan also addressing the newly listed POPs.

64. According to the Convention, Parties are required to take measures to reduce, and if feasible,

eliminate releases from unintentional formation of dioxin (the substance groups listed in Annex 1

of the Convention). The Stockholm Convention also foresees identification and safe management

of stockpiles containing or consisting of POPs. Waste consisting of, or containing, or contaminated

by POPs should be disposed of in such a way that the POP contents are destroyed or irreversibly

transformed so that they do not exhibit the characteristics of POP. Where destruction or

irreversible transformation does not represent the environmentally preferable option or POP

content is low, waste should be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Developing

countries face a range of challenges with these activities due to limited management and

destruction capacity1.

65. The UPOPs Action Plan for Legazpi City in its participation to demonstrate the reduction of

UPOPs from solid waste through the application of BAT and BEP covers the reduction of UPOPs

(including polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/F) from solid waste

dumpsite burning as well as backyard burning by communities. The demonstration falls under

Activity 2.3 of the Integrated Persistent Organic Pollutants (IPOPs) Management Project, which is

led by Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and provided with assistance

from the World Bank – Global Environment Facility (WB-GEF), GEF Grant No. TF095839.

66. Funding for activities including longer term planning activities will be provided by GEF Grant

and from the local government unit (LGU) budget.

1 Weber R, Aliyeva G, Vijgen J. (2013) The need for an integrated approach to the global challenge of POPs

management. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 20, 1901-1906. DOI 10.1007/s11356-012-1247-8 http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11356-012-1247-8.pdf



12

3.2 Preparation and endorsement of the UPOPs Action Plan

67. The UPOPs Action Plan has been prepared by the LGU-Legazpi City, through its Local IPOPs

Action Team with technical assistance from World Bank-Global Environment Facility (WB-GEF)

and DENR IPOPs Management Project. Discussions on the city’s situation and exchanges of ideas

on how to address UPOPs through proper ESWM were undertaken by the Legazpi City IPOPs

Action Team, consultants from WB-GEF IPOPs Management Project and the DENR. Interviews

and validation of data were conducted to properly develop standardized baseline questionnaires.

Joint findings and observations by the consultants were incorporated and items found in waste

management reports were also included. These were transmitted back to the Action Team for final

checking, review and encoding before final documentation.

68. The IPOPs Project Implementation Plan, as well as the city’s 10-year Solid Waste

Management Plan (SWMP), Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan (SCRP), Survey on waste

pickers, and the UPOPs Questionnaire for LGUs all served as reference materials for the

development of this Action Plan in an integrated approach.

3.3 Overall solid waste management goals

69. In compliance with the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (Republic Act 9003), LGU-

Legazpi prepared a 10-year SWMP to provide the overall direction for ESWM implementation in

the city.

70. The city’s SWMP ensures the protection of public health, environment, and sets guidelines and

targets for solid waste prevention and volume reduction through source reduction and waste

minimization measures. As shown in Figure 3.1, SWMP presents a progressive vision for

managing solid waste in the city that emphasizes segregation at source, waste reduction, reuse,

composting and recycling, collection and transfer, education and public information, assesses

existing programs and implements feasible actions towards a clean and green environment.

71. RA 9003 also foresees the gradual phase out, closure and rehabilitation of dumpsites as well as

the construction and operation of sanitary landfills for which the LGUs are tasked to implement. In

response to this, the LGU has prepared a full SCRP for Banquerohan dumpsite with detailed

engineering designs and program of works. This checklist has been submitted to EMB Regional

Office No. 5 to which receipt has been acknowledged.

72. Within this context, the IPOPs Project is seen as a support mechanism for the city to

implement interventions to stop solid waste burning at the community, households and other public

places and spontaneous combustion in disposal site, adopt best available technology and best

environmental practices for reducing UPOPs releases, fully implement the safe closure and

rehabilitation of the dumpsite, address potential environmental and social impacts of the sub-

project (i.e., impacts of the technologies), and approaches that will be used and the effects of sub-

project activities on the structures, livelihoods and other assets of waste pickers.

73. The LGU also sees the Local IPOPs Action Plan to complement the provisions of the local

SWMP. The plan shall provide specific steps that the City will adopt to advocate against and

control open burning of household wastes, expand the collection coverage area, fully close and

rehabilitate the dumpsite to prevent open burning, and to support a city-wide information,

education and communication (IEC) campaign on unintentional release of POPs.

3.4 Screening and Selection of Specific Action Plan for GEF and LGU Funding

3.4.1 Criteria for the Selection of Sub-Project Activities Eligible for GEF Funding

74. In the determination of the sub-project activities that are eligible for GEF Grant Funding, the

sub-project has provided a menu of technical alternatives and assistance for disposal and collection

windows, respectively, as screening guidance and criteria to the LGU. Guided with these criteria,

the LGU in close consultation and coordination with the sub-project Consultant, DENR and WB



13

Figure 3.1: Overall waste management framework of Legazpi City

has selected specific technical works and activities for execution under this sub-project. Table 3.1

and Table 3.2 provide these menus of technical alternatives and assistance for disposal and

collection windows, respectively.

Table 3.1: Menu of Technical Alternatives and Assistance for Disposal Window

Initiative Indicative

Activities/Expenditures

Indicative Technical

Assistance

I. Arrest Current Burning Soil cover

Fire suppression foams and

equipment to stop burning and

reshape /cap burning dumpsite

areas

Site assessment and

advisory services

Training for landfill

operators and fire

departments on fire

detection and suppression

II. Prevent Future Burning

A. Landfill/Dumpsite

Operations

Soil cover

Equipment for compaction

and cover

Training on operation of

landfill and landfill gas

facilities to prevent

burning

B. Full Closure of

Dumpsite

Soil Cover

Works for effective

compaction and cover

Landfill gas management

Enhancement of dump

closure plan

Technical advice during

dump closure

C. Improved Security

Improved security

Safety and waste inspection

systems

Establishment of rules and

procedures to prevent

ignition from scavenges,

hot or ignitable wastes

Maintenance work

*For LGUs with burning dumpsites



14

Table 3.2: Menu of Technical Alternatives and Assistance for Collection Window*

Initiative Indicative Activities/Expenditures Indicative Technical Assistance

Advocacy

Advocacy materials and dissemination

campaigns to reduce burning and

explain health and environmental issues

Consultations and advocacy

strategy

Enforcement

Logistical, technical support equipment

and other goods for improved

monitoring and enforcement

Drafting of LGU ordinances,

resolutions and guidelines

Technical

Collection trucks

Collection bins, community collection

stations

Repair and maintenance equipment and

facilities

Composting as an alternative to burning

for areas without collection

Logistical optimization of

collection systems

Design of new collection

approach

Training on good collection

practices and operation and

maintenance

*For areas with significant backyard burning

3.4.2 Selected UPOPs Action Plan for Implementation

75. Guided with the menu of technical alternatives and assistance for disposal and collection

windows, the UPOPs action plan was formulated by the LGU Legazpi City. The Overall UPOP

Action Plan and Sustainability Plan for implementation for the years 2014 to 2019 is presented in

Table 3.3.

76. Table 3.4 provides the summary of activities to be funded under GEF Grant. For Legazpi

City, the spread of the UPOP Action Plan that will be procured covers i) the prevention of future

burning under the disposal window; ii) expansion of collection coverage, advocacy and

enforcement under the collection window. To ensure sustainability of these initiatives, the LGU

shall provide the necessary implementation support comprising of social and environmental

enhancement programs, waste diversion initiatives, project monitoring and evaluation, provision of

awards and incentives and other human and fund compliments.

Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) Action Plan for the Reduction of Unintentionally Produced Persistent Organic Pollutants (UPOPs) from Solid Wastes through the Application of Best Available Technologies and Best Environmental Practices (BAT/BEP)

15

Table 3.3.: Overall UPOP Action Plan and Sustainability Plan (1of 3)

Windows Initiatives Specific Technical Works and Activities and Expenditures

LGU Legazpi Exposure

GEF Exposure (GEF Financial

Assistance) UPOPs Action Plan Sustainability Phase (Indicative Costs) TOTAL LGU EXPOSURES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2014-2015-2016

1 Disposal Window

1.1 Prevent Future Burning

1.1.1 Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan (SCRP)

1.1.1.1 Closure of Open Dumpsite

a) Gathering, re-grouping and stockpiling of wastes (Includes site clearing, grading and sub-grading preparation) - "profiling"

1,775,521.98

b) Application of compacted clay cover (0.45m thick; A=8,395.56 sq.m.)

2,816,882.44

c) Application of top soil cover (0.15m thick; A = 23,220.00 sq.m.)

3,010,547.63

d) Turfing/vegetation (Coverage area = 23,220.00 sq.m.)

1,366,335.73

e) Gas venting system

52,929.68

f) Boundary fence (Perimeter) fencing of the South/Eastern half of the property (300.00 l.m. (barb wire with concrete post)

416,145.25

g) Leachate collection system (Integrated design w/ filters & cushion, HDPE pipes & fittings w/ HDPE leachate manhole and include trench excavation)

2,052,032.93 2,052,032.93

h) Leachate recirculation tank (1-unit, 6.00m x 6.00m x 2.80m)

710,302.62 710,302.62

i) Monitoring well (Includes Concrete Apron & Barrier Post)

111,491.46 111,491.46

j) Construction of access road (For closure and rehabilitation works as well future use/development )

735,557.82

735,557.82

k) Drainage system and backfill (In preparation of leachate collection system)

675,319.83

675,319.83

1.1.1.2 Maintenance of closed/rehabilitated dumpsite 300,000.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 450,000.00 500,000.00 2,000,000.00

a) Leachate re-circulation

b) Vegetation/Landscaping

c) Monitoring of leachate and gas emission

d) Repair of eroded slopes and ditches for water surface runoff

1.1.2 Operation and Maintenance of Existing SLF (Phase 1) (Life service: 2013-2017)

1.1.2.1 Operation & maintenance of SLF Phase I (Manpower, fuel, oil & lubricants, maintenance of heavy equipment, PPEs, Etc.)

3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,100,000.00 3,400,000.00 3,700,000.00 4,000,000.00 4,300,000.00 27,500,000.00

1.1.2.2 Closure/Final Capping/Landscaping and maintenance of SLF-Phase I

Budget integrated in Item No. 1, B-1.1

1.1.3 Development of SLF Phase II (Life Service:2018-2023)

1.1.3.1 Lot negotiation

1.1.3.2 Purchase of lot and preparation of detailed engineering design and program of works

1,000,000.00

1,000,000.00

1.1.3.3 Mobilization and construction of SLF Phase II 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00

20,000,000.00

1.1.3.4 Operation and maintenance

Budget integrated in Item No. 1, B-1.1

1.1.4 Development of SLF Phase III (Planning starts 2 years before the closure of SLF Phase II)

Budget integrated in Item No. 2


16

Table 3.3.: Overall UPOP Action Plan and Sustainability Plan (2of 3)

Windows Initiatives Specific Technical Works and Activities and Expenditures

LGU Legazpi Exposure

GEF Exposure (GEF Financial

Assistance)

UPOPs Action Plan Sustainability Phase (Indicative Costs) TOTAL LGU EXPOSURES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2014-2015-2016

2

Collection Window

2.1 Expansion of collection coverage to 21 remaining barangays

2.1.1 Garbage collection on existing 49 covered barangays

2.1.1.1 Existing IEC Initiatives

a) Advocacy on ESWM on existing 49 covered barangays 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 650,000.00

b) Collection of segregated waste from the barangays (manpower, fuel, oil & lubricants, maintenance of collection/hauling trucks, PPEs, Etc.)

6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 48,000,000.00

2.1.2 Expansion of waste collection coverage to 21 remaining barangays

2.1.2.1Advocacy of ESWM to expanded barangays (2014-2015 - 8 barangays; 2016 - 7 barangays; 2017 - 6 barangays)

82,100.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 Budget integrated in Item No. 2, A-1 242,100.00

2.1.2.2Purchase of the following facilities/equipment to cover the waste collection in 21 remaining barangays

a) Purchase of city dump truck/maintenance

180,000.00 3,200,000.00 220,000.00 240,000.00 250,000.00 4,090,000.00 9,900,000.00

b) Purchase of barangay waste collection vehicle/maintenance by the barangays

840,000.00 720,000.00

1,560,000.00 800,000.00

c)

Purchase of tri-color bins/maintenance by the barangays

288,000.00 147,000.00 108,000.00

543,000.00

2.2 Advocacy on UPOPs 2.2.1 Advocacy Programs and IEC on the avoidance of open burning

2.2.1.1 Development and Reproduction of IEC materials on UPOPs

305,400.00

305,400.00

2.2.1.2 Orientation meetings to communities of all barangays

378,000.00

378,000.00

2.2.1.3Public awareness campaign on UPOPs through radio plugging

90,000.00

90,000.00

2.3 Enforcement 2.3.1 Production/Reproduction of citation tickets/ Enforcement of ESWM/UPOPs ordinances

75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 375,000.00

2.4 Capacity Development on UPOPs

2.4.1 IPOPs BAT/BEP Training Seminar to IPOPs Action Team and Support Offices

17,500.00

17,500.00

2.4.2 Training on UPOPs and Dumpsite SCRP for facility workers

5,640.00

5,640.00

2.4.3 Seminar-Workshop on UPOPs and Barangay-Level BAT/BEP options to include Resource Persons' honoraria, travel and accommodation, etc.

289,692.00

289,692.00

2.5 Capacity Development on ESWM

2.5.1 Training/Seminars/Observation Tours for Staff Development 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 1,200,000.00

2.6 Waste Diversion Initiatives (Processing and recovery)

2.6.1 Ecological Waste Management Center (MOOE, PS) 2.6.2 City Composting Facility (MOOE, PS) 2.6.3 City Common Marketing Facility cum Livelihood & Training Center (MOOE, PS) 2.6.4 LegazpiCity Earth Savers Program implementation to 10 participating schools and expansion to other schools within the city 2.6.5 Plastic for Rice Project (Residual Plastic) 2.6.6 Research/Development of other alternative technologies on waste reduction/processing/recycling

266,220.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 2,266,220.00

916,545.00 916,545.00 916,545.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 7,749,635.00

261,000.00 261,000.00 261,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 2,283,000.00

100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1,300,000.00

50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 400,000.00

174,000.00 174,000.00 174,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 1,022,000

2.7 Awards/Incentives System 2.7.1 Provision of cash/in kind incentives to best performing barangays, Eco Aides, Eco Waste Managers, schools and institutions on ESWM implementation

500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 4,000,000.00

2.8 Other Personal Services (Technical/Administrative) Lumpsum

2.8.1 Salaries and wages of staff 2.8.2 Benefits and overtime 2.8.3 Other logistical expenses

3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 15,000,000.00


17

Table 3.3.: Overall UPOP Action Plan and Sustainability Plan (3 of 3)

Windows Initiatives Specific Technical Works and Activities and

Expenditures

LGU Legazpi Exposure GEF Exposure

(GEF Financial Assistance)

Other Sources (JSDF/SWAPP,

BCDI, IWS Ben., Others)

UPOPs Action Plan Sustainability Phase (Indicative Costs) TOTAL LGU EXPOSURES

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2014-2015-2016

2014-2015

2.9.1 Livelihood Projects for IWS

1,061,314 797,394.00

2.9 Social & Environmental Enhancement Program

2.9.2 Support to Livelihood Project of IWS 2.9.3 Development of Nursery for

forestry/ornamental plants 2.9.4 Support to/Development of community-based

livelihood programs

50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 250,000.00

200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1,000,000.00

50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 350,000.00

2.10 Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

2.10.1IPOPs Project Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

2.10.2 Monitoring and assessment of Barangay ESWM implementation

180,000.00 180,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 860,000.00

50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 650,000.00

GRAND TOTAL 11,517,765.00 15,026,048.65

14,975,472.01

26,922,000.00 30,133,000.00 16,595,000.00 16,965,000.00 17,325,000.00 150,459,285.66

42,783,206

150,459,285.66 20,138,363

Summary of Percent Exposure % LGU Exposure = (42,783,206/62,921,569) x 100 =

68%% % GEF Grant Exposure = (20,138,363/42,783,206) x 100

= 32%

Total UPOP AP = 42,783,206 + 20,138,363

= 62,921,569



18

Table 3.4: Summary of Cost Estimates Proposed for GEF-Funding

Major Cost Item

TOTAL COST

(2014-2015)

(PhP)

PROCUREMENT OF WORKS

1. DISPOSAL WINDOW

1.1 Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan (SCRP)

Gathering, re-grouping and stockpiling of wastes (Includes site

clearing, grading and sub-grading preparation) - "profiling"

1,775,522

Application of compacted clay cover (0.45m thick; A=8,395.56 sq.m.

2,816,882

1.1.3 Application of top soil cover (0.15m thick; A=23,220.00 sq.m.) 3,010,548

1.1.4 Turfing/vegetation (Coverage area = 23,220.00 sq.m.) 1,366,336

1.1.5 Gas venting system 52,930

1.1.6 Boundary fence (Perimeter) fencing of the South/Eastern half of the

property (300.00 l.m. (barb wire with concrete post)

416,145

SUB-TOTAL 9,438,363

PROCUREMENT OF GOODS

2 - COLLECTION WINDOW

2.1 Purchase of one (1) city dump truck and eight (8) motorized barangay waste

collection vehicles and tri-color industrial bins 3,300,000

2.2 Purchase of 1 Unit Dump Truck for garbage collection 2,900,000

2.3 Purchase of 1 Unit Dump Truck for garbage hauling 4,500,000

SUB-TOTAL 10,700,000

GRAND TOTAL 20,138,363

3.5 Description of Activities Under Disposal Window

77. For the disposal window, the City Government intends to minimize environmental impacts,

including the reduction of UPOPs emissions from unintentional waste burning, by applying BAT/BEP

in the closure and rehabilitation of the Banquerohan Dumpsite. This includes access road with drainage

system, site clearing, waste profiling, application of clay and topsoil cover, perimeter slope protection,

leachate collection and recirculation, gas venting, monitoring wells and perimeter fencing.

78. Description of the selected UPOPs activities under the disposal window are described in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Description of Activities under the Disposal Window

Activities Description

1) Construction of access

road with drainage

system

An internal access road will be concreted to support smooth closure

and rehabilitation works as well as for future use/development, e.g.,

centralized composting facility. It will include a drainage system to

divert surface runoff away from the dumpsite. Activities include sub-

grade preparation, base correction and shoulder construction as well

as pouring of 0.20-m thick concrete over 540 m2 road.

2) Trench excavation and

backfill

As part of site preparations, about 1,612.50 m3 of earth will be

excavated and backfilled. This is done primarily in preparation for

laying out the leachate collection and recirculation system and partly

for clearing waste deposits.

3) Site clearing and waste

profiling: Gathering, re-

grouping, grading and

sub-grade preparation

The site will be cleared while waste deposits will be consolidated.

Waste will be pushed to a manageable area of 2.322 hectares for final

closure activities. Cut-and-fill method of grading of waste will apply.

Total amount of spilled waste will still have to be estimated but target



19

Activities Description

final slope will be 1:3. Whenever applicable, IWS will be hired to

provide unskilled manpower.

4) Application of

intermediate/final soil

cover (clay and topsoil)

Final cover consists of a 45-cm compacted soil and 15cm thick loose

topsoil. Clayey soil is available at the site. A backhoe and a truck will

be used to excavate and haul these inert materials for use as

intermediate/final soil cover. A bulldozer will be used to apply,

spread and compact clayey soil for top/side embankment over

8,395.56 m2 of dumpsite area with recent waste dumping. Other

sections within the 23,220 m2 dumpsite is already covered with

clayey soil and will just be subject to waste compaction. A 0.15-cm

of topsoil will then be loosely applied to the entire area.

5) Perimeter slope

protection

To further protect slope stability, a 3-m bench will be graded and

planted with wedella grass (also known as creeping peanut) over

972.2 lineal meters of dumpsite perimeter. This will be applied from

0 to 3m along the slope from the base, which covers an area of

2,916.60 m2.

6) Leachate collection

system with HDPE pipes

and fittings, manhole and

leachate recirculation

The design of leachate collection and gas extraction system is done in

one module, i.e., gas extraction pipes are mounted over and along

leachate drainage lines. A manhole will be provided to allow for

leachate recirculation thereby allowing for earlier gas production.

7) Installation of gas

venting system

As shown in Figure 6, nine (9) units of perforated 100 mm diameter

schedule 20 G.I. landfill gas extraction pipes will be placed about 50

m apart (or less) from each other. Estimated length of these pipes is 6

m but may vary depending on actual depth of the waste, which

includes the portions buried in waste, soil cover layers and the

exposed venting section. Each pipe is placed in concentricity with a

gravel-filled dry well for protection and enhanced gas collection.

8) Installation of two (2)

units of monitoring wells

Upstream and downstream monitoring wells shall be installed at the

site to monitor any environmental impacts caused by the development

works during closure. The wells will have concrete apron and barrier

post. These wells will also serve for long-term post-closure

monitoring of water quality around the site in preparation for future

land use plans.

9) Installation of boundary

(perimeter) fence

About 300 lineal meters of fence will be installed along the southern

and eastern periphery of the dumpsite. The fence will also serve as

demarcation line of the boundary of the government property. This

will consist of concrete post spaced 3 m apart with barbwires placed

at 0.2 to 0.3 m intervals.

3.6 Description of Activities Under Collection Window

79. One of the UPOPs activities proposed for GEF funding under the collection window is the

purchased of goods as follows:

Purchase of 4.5 m3 city dump truck for expansion of service area to 8 more barangays.

Purchase of eight (8) units of motorized barangay waste collection vehicles/carts

80. Measures to discourage open burning by households, establishments and recyclers will be

implemented and financed by the City Government of Legazpi City under the framework of the SWM

Plan. The prevention of burning of solid wastes at the source community will involve the following

improvements: waste segregation, composting, recycling, collection efficiency, IEC, establish linkages

with waste consolidators, and continual monitoring of solid waste burning.

81. Enhancing the regulatory and enforcement framework for restriction of open burning to prevent the

occurrence of backyard burning in households, establishments and institutions, the Local Chief

Executive will issue an Executive Order directing all the barangays to implement and/or enforce the

ordinance prohibiting the open burning (CO No. 017-2009). The Executive Order will explain the



20

background and rationale of the EO as well as the guidelines in implementing/enforcing the EO. A

more specific guideline or process for its implementation and/or enforcement will also be prepared.

Brochures and/or flyers will also be produced that will serve as materials for the information, education

and communication campaign.

82. Advocacy Programs and IEC on the avoidance of open burning to raise the awareness of the

residents and communities regarding the IPOPs Project and negative effect and impact of open burning

to human health and the environment, the City will conduct information, education and communication

(IEC) campaign activities. Brochures and/or flyers will be developed and reproduced by the City to

serve as materials for its information, education and communication campaign activities. These will be

distributed to barangays and to various sectors particularly to households. Barangay Assembly and/or

Purok Meetings will also be conducted in all the 70 barangays of the City in order to explain the

advocacy that is being done.

83. Development and reproduction of IEC campaign materials. IEC is a must and should be continuous

in order to attain the objectives set for the project and to sustain it. One of the best approaches in

disseminating information is through the distribution of brochures/flyers to all sectors concerned and

installation of posters/signage at strategic locations of the city and barangays. Hence this activity design

is prepared for the development, reproduction and posting of brochures, flyers, posters and billboards to

effectively disseminate the information about the implementation of the IPOPs Management Project -

its objective, causes and effects of UPOPs to health of humans and the environment, and others. Total

estimated cost is PhP 305,400.

84. Orientation meetings to communities of all barangays through barangay and purok assemblies.

Buy-in campaigns with communities will be done to engage their support against backyard burning.

The Punong Barangay and the two (2) Kagawad Chairs on Environment and Health who attended the as

proposed in Activity 2.2 will facilitate the activities in their respective barangays and will also act as

resource persons on selected topics. Brochures/flyers will be distributed during the activity. Target

participants are the community members (households, business, institution and other sectors residing

within the barangay). Invitations will be done by barangay officials through announcements, e.g., letters

or public billboards). Total estimated budget is PhP 378,000.

85. Public UPOPs awareness campaigns through radio plugs. Another effective means to further

promote the IPOPs Project to all sectors concerned is through the media particularly through the radio.

The City of Legazpi will conduct a radio plugging about the sub-project to at least three (3) radio

stations within three (3) months period to be done during the peak of IEC activities that will be

conducted. This will be done simultaneously with the conduct of Barangay Assembly/Purok Meetings,

the distribution of brochures/flyers and the installation of posters/signage about the sub-project.

Estimated cost is PhP 90,000.

86. Improvement of waste segregation at source and related measures (application of 3R approach;

education, improved infrastructure with separation bin, composting facilities, support/formalizing of

informal sector working at community level). Part of the IEC for barangays is the instruction of the

strict compliance to the ESWM program/system of the city particularly the practice of segregation at

source to support segregated waste collection. Focus will be given to the 21 barangays, which are not

yet covered by collection system. The residents will also be encouraged to practice the 3Rs of waste

management, i.e., reduce, reuse and recycle.

87. These non-implementing barangays of the ESWM Program will be covered gradually by the city in

the expansion of the program. The ESWM system suitable to these rural barangays will be established

such as enforcing to households, institutions and other waste generators, use of at least three (3)

receptacles/bins as temporary storage of waste at sources, establishment of BMRDOCs, and the

collection of segregated waste by the designated Eco-aides. Processing of waste particularly

biodegradables will be encouraged at households, purok and barangay level since these barangays are

located in the rural areas and they have sufficient areas for composting.

88. Expansion of waste collection system to eight (8) more barangays to discourage open burning at

the community level. At present, only 49 barangays (all 45 urban barangays plus 4 rural barangays) are

already covered by the waste collection system. The city government hopes to expand it to eight (8)

more rural barangays in order to incentivize people not to burn their waste. Direct beneficiaries would

be 5,135 households.



21

89. Orientation and planning meetings with barangay officials/leaders. Eight rural barangays that are

adjacent to those already implementing the ESWM Program are targeted for expansion. These

barangays are part of the twenty-one (21) rural barangays that are not yet covered by the ESWM

Program of the city. These are the priority barangays to implement the program from among the 21

non-implementing barangays since they affect the implementing barangays with their wrong waste

management practices such as non-segregation, burning and improper disposal of waste. The target

barangays are as follows: Pawa, Dita, San Joaquin, Bagong Abre, Buyuan, Estanza, Lamba and

Banquerohan. These barangays will undergo capability building workshops in order to prepare its

leaders, volunteers and the whole community about the implementation of the ESWM Program. Eight

(8) half-day trainings for 28 persons would cost PhP 5,600.

90. Conduct of Barangay Assembly and /or Purok Meetings on ESWM. The target participants are the

households, establishments, institutions and other sectors residing and/or operating within the barangay.

They will be invited and informed by the barangay through posting an announcement or distributing

letters of invitation. Total cost for all 8 barangays with 110 participants each is estimated at PhP 44,000.

91. Training-seminar cum local tour of existing BMRDOCs and the SLF at Brgy. Banquerohan. Five

(5) participants each (3 officials and two sectorial representatives) from the 8 expansion barangays will

be invited to attend the training-seminar. They will also visit existing operational BMRDOCs in the

city, learn from barangay practitioners, and will have an appreciation tour on where residual wastes end

up, i.e., the landfill at Barangay Banquerohan. Total estimated cost is PhP 32,500.

92. Provisions for city and barangay waste collection vehicles and bins. One factor why a household or

community resorts to backyard burning is due to non-collection of waste by the barangay or city. As

stated in Activity 4.4, Legazpi City plans to expand its waste collection service area from 49 to 57

barangays. With gradual expansion, eight (8) more barangays would each need motorized collection

equipment and sets of tri-colored waste collection bins. To support this, the city government would also

need to purchase one (1) additional unit of dump truck for residual waste collection.

3.7 UPOPs Action Plan Project Implementation Schedule

93. Table 3.6 provides the detailed sub-project implementation schedule from sub-project conception to

sub-project completion.

3.8 Sub-Project Cost Estimate

94. The total cost of implementation Legazpi City’s UPOPs Action Plan is estimated at about PhP

55,257,649 of which PhP 42,519,286 is the LGU’s exposure while PhP 12,738,363 is the GEF Grant

participation. By percentage participation, LGU Legazpi contributes about 77 percent of the total

amount while GEF Grant contributes around 23 percent.

95. Out of the estimated total cost, the amount allocated for the closure and rehabilitation of the open

dumpsite is about PhP 13,284,704.66.

96. Out of the total cost, the City has also allocated an amount equivalent to about PhP 2,292,529 for

the implementation of the SDP.



22

Table 3.6: Detailed Sub-project Implementation Schedule

ACTIVITY No. of

Days Responsible Unit Duration

1 Preparation of detailed description of

works/Cost Estimate & draft PBD

LGU/Consultant May to December

2015

2 Review and Approval of Documents 14 DENR-EMB/WB

3 WB NOL received by LGU 1 IPOPS-PMO

4 Advertisement of Invitation for Bids 1 BAC

5 Issuance of Bid/Tender Documents 30 BAC Secretariat

6 Pre-Bidding Conference 1 BAC

7 Issuance of Supplemental Notice 1 BAC

8 Submission and Opening Bids 1 LGU-BAC/TWG/

NGO/COA rep

9 Evaluation of Bids 14 BAC/TWG

10 Preparation of Resolution to Award

(RTA)

1 BAC 04 November

2014

11 Documents submitted to World Bank

through IPOPS-RO/PMO for prior review

14 LGU-IPOPS/WB December 2015

12 Approval/Issuance of Notice of Award

(NOA)

1 BAC December 2015

13 Posting of Performance Security/Signing

of Contract by the Winning Bidder

4 Bidder-

contractor/LCE/

Treasurer

January 2016

14 Issuance of Notice to Proceed 1 LCE/BAC January 2016

15 Pre-Construction Conference 1 BAC/TWG/UPOPS

AT

January 2016

16 Start of Work 1 LGU-Engg-/UPOPS

AT & EMB 5

January 2016

17 Punch Listing 15 LGU-Engg-/UPOPS

AT & EMB 5

January to Dec

2016

18 Final Inspection 1 LGU-Engg-/UPOPS

AT & EMB 5

Nov 2016

19 Completion/Final Payment 180 LGU-Engg-/UPOPS

AT & EMB 5

Dec 2016

20 Acceptance 1 Contractor/LGU Dec 2016



23

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE DATA

4.1 Basic Facts About Legazpi City and Its Waste Management Situation

97. Table 4.1 presents key demographic, geo-political and financial figures as well as solid waste

generation, collection and diversion data of Legazpi City.

Table 4.1: Key Figures for Legazpi City

Description Data

1) Population (Census, May 2010) 182,201

2) Population (Estimated, 2013) 210,608

3) Land area (sq.km.) 204.20

4) Total Number of Barangays

5) Number of Urban Barangays

6) Number of Rural Barangays

70

45

25

7) Total Budget for 2012

8) Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for 2012

PhP 573,419,613.

PhP 337,500,000.

9) Total Budget for SWM (2012)

10) Total Budget for SWM (2012 with

supplemental)

PhP 14,203,165 (thru OCENR)

PhP 20,000,000 (thru OCENR, subject for

approval)

11) Total Waste Generation (2012)

12) Waste Generation at Collection Area (2009)

13) Per Capita Waste Generation Rate

14) Total Waste Collection (2009)

15) Bulk density

152 m3./day

51 tons/day (based on WACS, 2009)

0.29 kg/capita/day (based on WACS, 2009)

198 m3 /day or 49.5 tons/day

0.208 tons/m3 (based on WACS, 2009)

16) Total Waste Collection (2012) 99 m3 ./day or 25 tons/day

17) Total Waste Diversion from 2009 data 99 m3./day or 25 tons/day

98. Based on a Waste Analysis and Characterization Study (WACS) conducted in 2009, each person in

Legazpi City generates about 0.29 kilograms (kg) of municipal solid waste per day. This figure does not

yet reflect the combined generation from households and other waste sources in the entire city. Tables

4.2 and 4.3 show the sources and composition of solid waste generated in Legazpi City.

99. Legazpi City is presently implementing an integrated Ecological Solid Waste Management

(ESWM) Program. The major components of the program are the planned closure and rehabilitation of

the open dumpsite, operation of sanitary landfill (SLF) and the establishment and operation of barangay

Material Recovery and Drop-off Centers (BMRDOCs) in cluster or individual barangays. Other

components include Information, Education and Communication (IEC) campaigns, capacity

development, monitoring and evaluation, livelihood development programs, as well as the closure and

rehabilitation of the open dumpsite.

100. The ESWM program started with a massive IEC campaign to stakeholders. The mandate of waste

minimization and waste reduction through segregation at source was promoted. The city presented to

the barangays an ESWM Framework which defines the roles and responsibilities of the barangays and

those of the city government. The Barangays, who took on the responsibility, is in charge of segregated

waste collection from households, business establishments and other institutions, as well as the

maintenance of BMRDOCs. Meanwhile, the city operates and maintains the SLF, the centralized

composting facility, the city transfer station and the Common Marketing Facility for special waste.

101. The “No segregation, no collection” policy is being enforced at two collection tiers – at the

barangay and the city level. To effectively implement this policy, the city distributed about 176

fabricated collection equipment (100 units of ‘padjak’ and 76 units of pushcarts), 239 tri-color bins as

well as 102 BMRDOCs to barangays for use of Eco-aides. In general, each barangay would have three

puroks and thus have three designated Eco-aides. The number of units given to each of the barangay

depends on the population of the barangay.



24

Table 4.2: Sources of Municipal Solid Waste in Legazpi City

Waste Source Percentage (%) by weight

Residential / Households 68.44 %

Commercial 26.00 %

Industrial (Manufacturing and Services) -

Institutional 5.31 %

Market 0.25 %

Table 4.3: Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in Legazpi City

Waste Component Percentage (%) by weight

Kitchen Waste %

Garden/Yard %

Sub-total for Biodegradables 58.87 %

Paper and Cardboard 12.05 %

Composite Packaging - %

Plastic (PVC, Plastic from E-waste, cables) 24.20

%

Plastic (Others, Non-halogenated) %

Metals 1.51 %

Glass 1.31 %

Textile - %

Leather and Rubber - %

Sub-total for Recyclables 39.07 %

Sanitary composites (napkins, diapers) %

Inerts (heavy, ceramics, grits, fines) %

Sub-total for Residuals 0.81 %

Waste electrical and electronic eqpt. (WEEE) 0.08 %

Household healthcare waste

1.17

%

Bulky waste (furniture, upholstery, etc.) %

Other hazardous waste in MSW stream %

Sub-total for Special Waste 1.25 %

TOTAL 100.0 %



25

102. The city collects waste from the barangay BMRDOCs on regular schedules, i.e., residual waste in

the morning (daily or every other day) and biodegradables in the afternoon (daily). The collection

system for recyclable waste is dependent on households and business establishments if they wish to

give it to Barangay Eco-aides as incentive. If so, these materials are sold to junkshops. Furthermore,

most barangays are composting the biodegradable wastes collected by Eco-aides. For those with limited

space, the city collects the biodegradables from the BMRDOCs and delivers the same to the centralized

composting facility in Barangay Banquerohan where the SLF is also situated.

103. Residual waste is collected at the city level. City waste collectors use 4 dump trucks (specifically,

one compactor and three open trucks) to collect residuals from BMRDOCs and bring to the City

Transfer Station, Two (2) hauling trucks transport the waste the SLF. These trucks are also responsible

for bringing biodegradable waste from some barangays to the centralized composting facility.

Meanwhile, the collection of special (and other non-sellable recyclable) waste from the barangays is

done only every Saturday to be delivered to the City Common Marketing Facility cum Livelihood

Center. This facility serves as a temporary storage area for waste such as residual plastics, broken

bottles and busted fluorescent lamps.

104. The residual plastics are recovered through the “Plastic for Rice” project which was launched in

December 2011 in partnership with Barangay Eco-aides and Eco-Waste Managers. For every five (5)

kilograms of dry and clean residual plastics they recover, the city exchanged it with one (1) kilogram

(kg) of rice. The city, in turn, shreds these plastics which some barangays use as filling materials for

throw pillows and other usable items as their livelihood project. In 2012, the city has recovered 3.49

tons of residual plastic. On the other hand, the recovered broken bottles are segregated. The colorless

glass cullet are disposed by the office by truckload at PhP 0.70 per kg while the colored ones are

temporarily stored for possible future sale. In 2012, the recovered broken glasses totaled 39.55 tons.

The recovered busted fluorescent lamps and other special wastes are also temporarily stored for

possible factory return.

105. The city is also implementing waste recovery program like the Earth Savers Program. Launched in

August 2011, the initiative was pilot-tested by OCENR in six (6) schools and later expanded to 10

partner schools in 2012. The objectives of this Program are (a) to inculcate among the school children

the habit of waste segregation, and (b) to recover recyclable wastes which could be a source of fund for

their school needs. From 2011-2012, 20.76 tons of recyclables were recovered out of this project.

106. In 2012, two years after segregation at source was fully enforced through the city’s ESMP

program, collected garbage amounted to 99 m3 per day, which was a 50% reduction in comparison with

2009 data of 198 cubic meters or 50 metric tons per day. This was primarily attributed to the recycling,

composting and other resource recovery activities made by the barangays and the city government as

well as the participation of residents and business establishments. Around 70% of households (from 49

barangays) are now estimated to practice segregation at source. Through buy-in campaigns with

barangay officials and the communities, it is estimated that 80 to 90% of waste collection is done in a

segregated manner.

4.2 Status of Open Burning of Solid Wastes at Source Community

107. Waste segregation has become a common name in Legazpi City today. But still there are this 30%

that are not yet complying with city policies. Some barangay Eco-aides are even sometimes tempted to

accept mixed waste in exchange of some amount they receive as payment for accepting mixed waste.

Waste generators who refuse (or are ‘lazy’) to segregate could have been resorting to indiscriminate

dumping or burning in some areas of the city particularly in vacant lots, streets, creeks and/or rivers.

108. There is no formal study yet conducted to determine the reasons why the community practices

open burning. However, based on focused group discussions and interactions with the community

members, they said that it is their way of managing or getting rid of their wastes, which is a traditional

practice. Some also burn waste to drive away pests, mosquitoes and flies. A few residents have actually

lodged formal complaints to the Office of the Mayor and OCENR against backyard burning by done

neighbors. Validation of feedbacks is made by the OCENR through actual inspection and interview

with the concerned individuals, after which a dialogue with the offenders is made.

109. There is no concrete data available as to the quantity of solid waste burned in the community.



26

110. Orientation meetings are regularly conducted with barangay constituents, business establishments,

schools, offices and other stakeholders. Prohibited acts and penal provisions under city ordinances are

being thoroughly explained, including those against open burning. A technical training for

Apprehending Officers was conducted before they were deputized and fielded to barangays or city

LGU. Violators of the ordinances are penalized through the issuance of citation tickets by the deputized

enforcers. Monitoring and assessment by OCENR staff are regularly undertaken at barangay levels.

Best performing barangays are annually given cash incentives.

111. Under Ordinance No. 0017-2009, penalties for non-compliance are as follows: Private individuals

(1st violation -PhP 300. or community service and/or imprisonment of not less than five (5) days at the

discretion of the court; 2nd violation –P500. or community service and/or imprisonment of not less than

ten (10) days at the discretion of the court; 3rd violation – P1,000. or community service and/or

imprisonment of not less than fifteen (15) days at the discretion of the court); Commercial, industrial

and other establishments (1st violation – P1,000. and/or imprisonment of not less than ten (10) days at

the discretion of the court; 2nd violation – P2,000. and/or imprisonment of not less than fifteen (15)

days at the discretion of the court); 3rd violation – P3,000 and/or imprisonment for thirty (30) days or

both at the discretion of the court); Future violation shall be a sufficient ground for non-renewal of the

business permit.

4.3 Status of Open Burning of Solid Wastes for Commercial and Alternative Fuel Purposes

112. The effects of UPOPs (including PCDD/F) to human health and environment, and its potential

sources such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics/pipes, copper cable coating/housing, waste electronic

and electrical equipment (WEEE), foams and synthetic carpets are concerns that are remote to the

stakeholders, including the informal waste sector (IWS).

113. During the conduct of IEC campaigns on ESWM, these matters were not brought to their

awareness. Barangay Eco-aides collect these kinds of wastes from the sources and temporarily store

these at the BMRDOCs. Eco-aides reveal that among POPs-producing materials, they only recover

recyclable plastic materials, which could be sold to junkshops, as well as residual plastics, which could

be exchanged for rice through the “Plastic for Rice” project. All others, including WEEE, are merely

treated as residuals. There is no existing practice of recovering valuable materials from WEEE.

114. Likewise, the city’s garbage collectors just deliver these at the SLF. At times, residuals are

dumped at the existing dumpsite where waste pickers salvage the WEEE materials especially electrical

or cable wirings and recover the copper from it by burning its plastic covering. Burning, which occur

most of the time at the dumpsite, is for them the fastest way to recover the copper materials which they

could sell to junkshops. However, this occurs only on a rare occasion because OCENR personnel do not

allow open burning at the dumpsite and they run after those persons that burn any material at the site.

115. There is no thermal treatment facility yet within, or engaged by the city, however there is a

cement factory in the nearby municipality, about 30 kilometers from the city, where the city’s residual

plastic waste could be negotiated.

4.4 Institutional, Legal and Financial Framework for SWM in Legazpi City

116. Legazpi City has organized its Local SWM Board since 2002. In the same year, a 10-year SWM

Plan was prepared for the city under a technical assistance grant from the Japan Bank for International

Cooperation (JBIC). The plan was presented to the Solid Waste Management Board, endorsed to the

Legazpi City Planning and Development Council for mainstreaming into the Medium Term Investment

Plan, and in 2003, was duly adopted/approved by the City Council through a Sangguniang Panlungsod

(SP) Resolution with corresponding budget allocation.

117. The overall ESWM implementation in Legazpi City is governed by Ordinance No. 0017-2009

otherwise known as the “Legazpi City Integrated Ecological Solid Waste Management Ordinance of

2009”. In addition, the LGU implements and enforces two other ESWM-related ordinances: City

Ordinance No. 0003-2008 otherwise known as the “Anti-Littering Ordinance of Legazpi City” and City

Ordinance No. 010-2008, “An Ordinance Requiring All Business Establishments within the City of

Legazpi to Undergo a Seminar on ESWM Prior to the Issuance/Renewal of Business Permit/License to

Operate”.



27

118. ESWM implementation is supported by the establishment of the Office of the City Environment

and Natural Resources (OCENR) in 2006, which is tasked to formulate, implement and pursue plans

and programs on environment and natural resources. The OCENR currently has 19 regular personnel,

13 contractual staff and about 120 job orders. The OCENR is responsible for Waste collection and

disposal; Operation and management of transfer station, sanitary landfill, composting facility, and

common marketing facility; Regular SWM performance monitoring of barangays; Regular SWM

seminars for business establishments; Implementation of the Earth Savers Program; Recovery programs

for residual plastics, broken bottles and busted bulbs/fluorescent bulbs; Continuous conduct of IEC

campaigns; Awards system to top SWM performing barangays; as well as Street sweeping.

119. Other support functions are provided by the City Engineering Office (CEO) for the design, cost-

estimates and implementation of infrastructure components, the City Planning and Development Office

(CPDO) for the integration of ENR plans and programs in the Medium Term Investment Plan (MTPIP)

and the Annual Investment Plan (AIP), the City General Services Office (CGSO) for procurement

services, the City Budget Office for the integration and allocation of counterpart budgets, as well as

other departments.

120. In terms of local funding, the City of Legazpi has duly appropriated PhP 14.203 Million in the

2013 General Budget to finance the city’s local SWM programs. The amount allocated is actually not

sufficient to cover all the expenses for the programs and projects being sustained by the OCENR,

specifically for the payment of job order workers for the garbage collection and disposal operation and

expenses for the maintenance of garbage collection trucks/ heavy equipment, and for other

environmental activities. Nevertheless, this concern is being resolved by appropriating additional

amount from the supplemental budget during the last quarter of the year, making a total budget

appropriation for the office in the amount of around PhP 20 Million. Table 4.4 presents the breakdown

of this budget according to cost centers (not yet inclusive of supplemental budget).

Table 4.4: Budget Appropriated by Legazpi City in 2013 for SWM

(Exclusive of supplemental)

Waste Source Budget Allocation

(PhP) Percentage (%) share

IEC, Reduction at Source 43,000.00 0.30 %

Collection / Hauling Services 11,655,000.00 82.06 %

MRF and Composting Operations 1,182,765.00 8.33 %

Disposal Facility Management 887,400.00 6.25 %

Others: Operation of Common Marketing

Facility (for special wastes) and Research

Activities

P 435,000.00

3.06 %

Total SWM Budget 14,203,165.00 100 %

121. In the city’s 2013 budget, no specific amount was appropriated for the closure of the open

dumpsite but a lump sum amount for capital outlays was earmarked to finance priority development

projects or to complement the cost of projects with subsidy grant such as the IPOPs project.

122. To reduce the city government’s subsidy for SWM, it has instituted a cost recovery mechanism via

garbage fees established in the issuance of permit to operate a business in the city, of which the city was

able to collect in 2012 the amount of PhP 1,096,300. This amount collected from business

establishments is believed to be very low. However, with the operation of an engineered disposal

facility and other waste reduction facilities, the city proposes to increase the garbage fee being collected

from business establishment through an amended Local Revenue Tax Ordinance. At the barangay level,

barangay households subsidize the cost of barangay solid waste management. This initiative is legal as

it is stipulated in the city’s SWM Ordinance No. 0017-2009 that garbage collection fee may be

collected by the barangay from the households in the amount of not less than PhP 20.00 but not more

than PhP 50.00 per month.



28

4.5 Overview of the Existing Sanitary Landfill at Barangay Banquerohan

123. The construction of Legazpi City sanitary landfill (SLF) commenced in 2010 upon receipt of

Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) No. ECC-RO5-0803-040-9200 from EMB Region 5 on

June 10, 2008 (see Annex 1- SLF ECC). The SLF Operation Manual is presented in Annex 2.

124. In the course of gathering of loan prerequisites, a Spanish agency, the Agencia Espaṅola

Cooperacion Internacional Para El Desarrollo (AECID) with representative from NEDA Region 5

informed the LGU that they have funds to subsidize ESWM implementation in the amount of EUR€ 1.5

Million. Additional amount of EUR€ 0.2 Million was given to ensure that the affected informal waste

sector (IWS) is provided with livelihood projects. Target duration was 18 months but during the

construction stage, some variations have to be pursued that extended project implementation to a total

of 24 months. The SLF became fully operational in October 2011.

125. About 22 kilometers away from the city center, the Category 2 SLF is located within a 16-hectare

property of the city government at Sitio Caridad in Barangay Banquerohan where the existing dumpsite

is also situated. As shown in Figure 4.1, it has currently two cells: Cell 1 (1.015 has.) and Cell 2 (0.371

has.) with fill height of about 8 to 10 meters. The SLF would have an estimated life span of 2.12 years

if all collected residual waste is dumped.

126. Both SLF cells are HDPE plastic-lined and have the following integrated facilities: wash bay,

equipment shed, administration building, and vault for sharps, leachate treatment facility, road network,

as well as water and power system. The distance between the SLF and the nearest water body is 500

meters. There are two houses located within 100 meters from the landfill. The locations of nearest

institutions are as follows: school (3 km), chapel (1 km) and barangay health center (5 km).

127. The daily landfilling activities include waste hauling to the tipping face, spreading and compacting

by a bulldozer or backhoe and soil covering. There are 19 personnel assigned at the landfill. One of the

functions of the SLF staff is to inspect all waste-carrying vehicles entering the landfill site to determine

whether the waste should be directed to the landfill cell, or should not be accepted in the site. The city is

presently using the bigger cell, which is Cell 1. From October 2011 until December 2012, the volume of

waste deposited at the cell amounted to 2,302 tons.

128. For future use, another section of the 16-hectare facility has already been designated for the

construction of another cell (No. 3).

Figure 4.1: Existing cells and expansion area for Legazpi City landfill at

Barangay Banquerohan



29

129. As of September 2015, actual percentage usage of this SLF is 30.39%, equivalent to 61,998 cu.m.

actual landfilled residual waste + soil cover against the combined capacity of cell 1 and cell 2

(including air space) of 204,015 cu.m. Based on this actual usage, the remaining capacity for landfilling

is 69.61% or equivalent to 142,017 cu.m. which will extend the life service of the sanitary landfill of

up 3 or more years.

130. For the past months, LGU Legazpi was experiencing difficulty in the dumping of wastes in the

active working cells due to the sticky clay materials on access road leading to the active cell and

likewise the difficulty of extracting clay materials for covering during rainy season. Both issues were

able to be addressed by LGU Legazpi. During rainy days, the LGU is using its back hoe to deliver the

waste to the active cell (instead of the dump trucks) and at the same time use the back hoe in providing

the soil cover material.

131. For the proposed construction of Cell 3, LGU Legazpi has undertaken cadastral mapping of the

prospective site for Phase 3. Land acquisition shall be implemented in 2016.

132. The Leachate Treatment Plant of the SLF holds its Wastewater Discharge Permit which was issued

renewal on April 24, 2015 by the Environmental Management Bureau V (EMBV) showing that it

maintains the quality of the effluent conforming with the Effluent Standard pursuant to the Philippine

Clean Water Act of 2004. Self-monitoring reports conducted by OCENR and the result of the

laboratory analysis of waste water conducted by the Department of Science and Technology (DOSTV)

were submitted as requisites for the renewal of the permit.

4.6 Overview of the Proposed Closure/Rehabilitation of Dumpsite at Brgy. Banquerohan

133. Legazpi City’s dumpsite is located at Sitio Caridad in Barangay Banquerohan at the same 16-

hectare city owned property where the SLF is. Vicinity map is shown in Figure 4.2. The city has been

using the open dumpsite since 1998.

Figure 4.2: Location and Vicinity Map of Legazpi City’s Banquerohan Dumpsite

134. From the main road, there is an access (although not concrete) road leading to the open dumpsite.

The used area was around five (5) hectares but some portions only have thinly scattered waste (now

vegetated). As shown in Figure 4.3, the target area for closure is about 2.322 hectares upon waste

consolidation. Average waste fill height is estimated to be between 8 and 15 m. Of immediate concern

is the 0.840-hectare area within this section where most recent waste had been dumped.



30

135. During rainy season, incoming waste had been diverted to the dumpsite even with the presence of

the SLF. Main reason is that trucks are stuck with thick clayey soil cover at SLF cells. The construction

of tipping or

136. Internal access road were not yet completely in place. Available daily soil cover material is also

too clayey and application may be thicker than expected. It was also observed that current SLF cells

have limited capacity despite very good waste diversion achieved by the LGU. Although it is apparent

that there are still biodegradables being delivered to the landfill cells, most of it comes from market

waste, which could easily be addressed by working with the market administrator. Nevertheless,

Legazpi City intends to fully cease in using the dumpsite once the implementation of safe closure and

rehabilitation plan (SCRP) commences.

137. The SCRP of the city’s open dumpsite was prepared in 2009 and submitted to DENR-EMB

Region 5 in September 2009 for evaluation. Acknowledgement of the plan was duly received by the

city in October 2009. The SCRP was prepared in compliance to the mandate of RA 9003 for LGUs to

close dumpsites and use an engineered sanitary landfill instead. The closure plan enumerated

appropriate measures to be undertaken to prevent environmental pollution caused by leachate or

methane gas resulting from the decomposition of waste. Slope stabilization and gradient control of the

disposal area as well as the quantity of the solid waste deposited were taken into consideration in the

plan preparation. Other engineering interventions necessary for the closure and rehabilitation of the

open dumpsite are: site preparation, roads construction, leachate collection system, slope protection

system, Erosion control/flood control/drainage system, gas venting, soil covering/final capping, buffer

zones, aesthetic improvement/landscaping.

Figure 4.3 A total of 2.322 hectares of Banquerohan dumpsite is subject

to complete closure

138. It should be noted that said SCRP is now updated to the level of Detailed Engineering Design

(DED) in Legazpi City’s UPOPs Action Plan and the subject of this environmental assessment



31

document. The project is at present ready for implementation once approval is secured from WB and

DENR.

139. The post-closure management activities will be carried out continuously after dumpsite closure

such as the monitoring of the environmental condition within and the surrounding areas in order to

control the potential hazard of the dumpsite. Specifically, the post closure management activities

include leachate re-circulation system, gas extraction and management as well as monitoring of the soil

cover. Proper recording shall be maintained. On funding, other open dumpsite closure activities not

covered by the IPOPs shall be assumed by LGU- Legazpi City.

4.7 Overview of Local Framework or Social Development Plan for Informal Waste Sector

140. With support from IPOPs Management Project, the City Government of Legazpi will implement

full closure and rehabilitation of its open dumpsite. With this plan, the waste pickers existing in the

dumpsite will be displaced and their livelihood will be affected. Based on initial studies, scavenging is a

secondary, if not the main, source of income of most waste picker families. Prior to the implementation

of the Legazpi City ESWM Program in 2009, it was recorded that there were about 100 to 120 waste

pickers present at the site. Figure 4.4 shows the photographs of makeshift shelters being used by the

IWS. But with the implementation of waste segregation at source and segregated collection as well as

the operation of the city’s landfill where waste picking is not allowed, the number of waste pickers

decreased.

Figure 4.4: Makeshift sheds built and used by waste pickers as temporary

shelter and storage area

141. In a 2010 IWS baseline survey, 86 waste pickers were interviewed. Another survey was conducted

in early 2013 in connection with the Social Inclusion and Alternative Livelihood for the Informal Sector

(IWS) Project, which is being implemented by the Solid Waste Management Association of the

Philippines (SWAPP) with funding from the World Bank – Japan Social Development Fund (WB-

JSDF) where about 76 scavengers were recorded. However, last March 2014, the LGU had a survey on

the latest number of the IWS at the open dumpsite and it was found out that there are still 91 IWS

salvaging recyclable materials in the area.

142. Although the city has already been operating its landfill since October 2011, the dumpsite

remained open, which the city still use from time to time particularly during rainy days wherein it is

difficult to operate the landfill since the soil that is being used to cover the disposed residual waste is

clay which is hard to extract/compact during rainy days. Another reason why the waste pickers are still

coming to the open dumpsite is because there are still recyclables that can be reclaimed due to some

sectors that are not yet or not proper in segregating their wastes.

143. The waste pickers come from four nearby barangays, namely, Banquerohan, San Francisco, Bariis

and Cagbacong, all of which are administratively part of Legazpi City. Majority of them are married



32

and work either as individuals or as family groups. They are between 7 to 70 years old and majority

only finished elementary education. The daily needs of waste pickers depend on waste picking since

most are farm tillers and/or tenants. Their income ranges between PhP 1,000 and 3,000 per month,

which is meager for households with 3 to 7 members. The said waste pickers are engaged purely on

waste reclamation, i.e., they are not involved in any activity of the city in its ESWM Program other than

the recovery of recyclable and biodegradable waste materials which they sell to local junk buyers

and/or serve as feeds for the pigs they raised in their backyards.

144. Before landfill construction, the IWS has not been organized. Their waste picking was only

scheduled into MWF (Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays) for women and TThS (Tuesdays, Thursdays

& Saturdays) for men while Sunday is family day for them which means either they stay at home and

do household works or go to waste picking together as family. But with the construction of the sanitary

landfill, they were organized into an association called ‘Bagong Buhay’ (New Life) Association and

engaged in livelihood activities depending on their skills and likes, such as livestock raising,

vegetable/upland rice farming and others. Their livelihood projects were funded by AECID under the

Legazpi City ESWM Program.

145. Hence, a Social Development Plan is prepared for the waste pickers who will be evicted due to the

dumpsite closure activities wherein socio-economic interventions will be implemented by the City

Inclusion and Livelihood Project. The SWAPP project, which includes the organization of the waste

pickers and the conduct of capability building activities, will finance/facilitate livelihood or enterprise

the scavengers’ association will identify based on the interest, knowledge and skills of its members and

the guidelines of the WB-JSDF. At present, SWAPP is now on its planning/implementation stage of the

project.

4.8 Detailed Description of the Open Dumpsite

4.8.1 Location of the Open Dumpsite

Name of Dumpsite Legazpi City Open Dumpsite

Location Sitio Caridad, Brgy. Banquerohan, Legazpi City, Albay

Coordinates in degrees : 13° 2'2.15" North Latitude, 123°45'55.54" East Longitude

Authority to Close Number: CP-RV #51-Nov’09 Date: November 20, 2009

Contact

Person/Designation

Ms. Salve A. Corral

City Envi. and Natural Resources Officer

Address Mailing Address:

Office of the City Environment & Natural Resources (OCENR), Motorpool

Compound, Airport Road,

Legazpi City

Telephone:480-3349; 481-7469

Fax No. (02) 480-3349 ; Email Ad: [email protected]

Email

4.8.2 Description of Dumpsite

146. Legazpi City is located on the east or Pacific coast of Albay province, specifically on Albay Gulf.

The City's dumpsite is located at Sitio Caridad, Brgy. Banquerohan which is situated about 22

kilometers south of City proper. The locations of nearest institutions are as follows: school (3 km),

chapel (1 km) and barangay health center (5 km). The location map is shown in Figure 4.5 while the

relative location of the SLF and the open dumpsite is shown in Figure 4.6. Figures 4.7a and 4.7b show

the photo-documentation of the open dumpsite at various angle of sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albay_Gulf



33

Figure 4.5: The location Map of the Open Dumpsite.



34

Figure 4.6: Relative location of the SLF and the open dumpsite.



35

Figure 4.7a: Photo-documentation of the Open Dumpsite (Panoramic View)



36

North face of the dumpsite East of the dumpsite

West of the dumpsite South of the dumpsite

Figure 4.7b: Photo-documentation of the Open Dumpsite



37

4.8.3 Physical Set-up of Dumpsite

147. Tables 4.5a and 4.5 b shows the existing physical set up of the open dumpsite

Table 4.5a: Physical Setup of the Open Dumpsite.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Parameter Unit Data/Statement

1. Access Route to Dumpsite m2

1440 (PCCP) Main road leading to OD

OODopedumps 2. Road Condition from the

national road to site

lm 100lm from the gate (concrete) to OD; 95lm

(gravel) from the dumpsite main road to

admin. Bldg. 3. Total Capacity

MT 39,236 (Est.)

4. Total area allocated for the

dumpsite

hectares 16 hectares

5. Area utilized and reckoning

date

m2 50,000 m

2

6. Average height of dump m 8 – 15 meters

7. Average slope deg 10% - 20%

8. Current volume m3 400,000 to 750,000

9. Current weight MT 83,200 to 156,000 (using bulk density of .208

tons/m3)

10. Soil cover status None

11. Gas management status None

Table 4.5b: Existing Equipment at the Open Dumpsite

Equipment No. Remarks

1. Brand new dump truck

2. Old Dump Truck

3

1

Residual waste collection – AM

Biodegradable Waste - PM

Capacity: 4.5 m3

Capacity: 8m3

3. Hauling Truck 2

Capacity: 10m3

4. Heavy Equipment 3 Crawler Loader, Backhoe, Wheel Loader

5. Brgy. collection equipment

(pushcart/padjak)

176 For segregated waste collection by barangays

6. Industrial waste bins (tri-

colored)

239 Depends on the volume of waste per barangay

4.8.4 Overview of the General Environment of the Open Dumpsite

148. Table 4.6 contains the enumeration of the most relevant aspects of open dumpsite’s general

environment.

Table 4.6: Most Relevant Aspects of Open Dumpsite’s General Environment Parameter Data

A. WATER

Body of water in the

vicinity

Name of Water Body Caridad River

Distance from Dumpsite 500 meters

Relative direction from dumpsite Towards East

Approximate flow rate of stream Dry Creek (stream)

Flooding



38

Site is located in flood prone area Yes No √

Highest Flood Level from ground

level, m

Year

B. AIR

Climate Type Type II

Prevailing Wind

Direction at the

Dumpsite

From northeast towards southwest

C. SOCIAL

Existing settlement

within the dumpsite

Number of families None

Number of persons None

Waste pickers

Estimated Total Number 120

Registered Number, if any 86

Number of houses

Adjacent to the dumpsite fence 2

Within 100m distance from the

dumpsite

2

Presence of IP

community

√ None Name if any

Nearest Institutions

Distance Direction Name

School 3 km DS Don Bosco Agro-Mechanical

Tech.Center

Church 1 km DS Sitio Caridad

Hospital, clinic 5 km DS Brgy. Health Center

Interest Groups on the

operation of the

dumpsite

Name of Group Address Interest

None

4.8.5 Status of Waste Combustion/Fires and Description of Fire Suppression Done to Stop

Burning at the Dumpsite

149. In June 2010, a big fire happened at the western side of the old dumpsite. The coverage of fire

was approximately 1,000 square meters (m2) and the duration of the burning lasted for eight (8)

hours. Early detection of fire was observed by the OCENR personnel manning the landfill because

of a thick smoke spotted at the site and the loathsome smell carried by the wind and gasped by the

residents living in the nearby barangays. The Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) was immediately

called for an early containment of fire but the fire fighters could hardly suppress the ablaze open

dumpsite. To assist BFP, the OCENR personnel, using onsite heavy equipment hauled soil and

covered the part of the dumpsite which was sprayed with water by the firefighters in order to stop

the fire from spreading to other parts of the dumpsite. The cause of combustion was not known but

since there was no presence of waste pickers at the dumpsite when the burning occurred, most

likely, the cause would maybe be a spontaneous combustion because of the very hot weather during

that time.

150. To avoid occurrence of fires and prevent their spreading, the following shall be observed by

the LGU:

All Landfill moving equipment and vehicles shall be equipped with portable fire

extinguishers. Operation and maintenance of the extinguishers shall be in accordance with

the manufacturer’s recommendation.



39

Fire extinguishers for all classes of fire shall be provided at the landfill site. Class A fires

are fires in ordinary combustible materials. Class B fires are fires in electrical equipment.

The administration building, motor pool shall be provided with one (1) fire extinguisher

with 2 ½ gallon cylinder of ABC type each.

Personnel and visitors shall not light fire or throw cigarette stubs in the site. Proper signs

on this must be posted in conspicuous places.

Accidental fires that may occur in the surface of laid waste shall be smothered with soil

and/or water.

All personnel shall be trained in the proper usage of all fire-fighting equipment at the

landfill as well as in fire prevention and management. A fire brigade shall be formed from

selected landfill personnel. Once a month, the brigade should be drilled on fire prevention

and fire-fighting procedure. The assistance of a government fire-fighting agency shall be

solicited for this purpose.

For particularly large fires, the Legazpi City Fire Department shall be called for assistance.

151. The landfill personnel shall strictly enforce the “No Smoking” policy within the site.

Monitoring of gas shall be carried out throughout the life of the landfill and even after landfilling

stops. In the absence of utilization, the landfill gas shall be emitted into the air to avoid explosion.

A portable field monitor for these gases shall be available at site all the time. Photo-documentations

of the burning at the open dumpsite are shown in Figure 4.8.

4.8.6 Indicative Target Final Lay-out (Post Closure and Rehabilitation of the Open Dumpsite)

152. Upon implementation of the proposed closure and rehabilitation plan as embodied in the

Legazpi City’s UPOPs Action Plan, Figure 4.9 shows the indicative final lay-out of the closed open

dumpsite.

4.9 Detailed Profiles of the Affected IWS

153. In the closure and rehabilitation activities that will be done in Legazpi City’s Open Dumpsite,

the existing IWS in the dumpsite will be deprived of their source of income. The city, together with

the Solid Waste Association of the Philippines (SWAPP) through its Social Inclusion and

Alternative Livelihood Project which is funded by World Bank-Japan Social Development Fund

(WB-JSDF) and other possible fund donors will find its way to ease the lives of the ninety-one (91)

displaced individuals at the dumpsite by creating job opportunities for them.

154. These waste pickers come from the four (4) barangays surrounding the dumpsite namely

Banquerohan, San Francisco, Bariis and Cagbacong, all of which are barangays of Legazpi City.

Among the 4 barangays, Banquerohan, where the open dumpsite is located, has the highest number

of waste pickers having 38 out of 91 total waste pickers while Cagbacong, the farthest among the 4

barangays, has the lowest having only 6 waste pickers. The Table 4.7 shows the place of residence

of the 91 Banquerohan IWS.



40

Figure 4.8: Photo-documentation of the Burning Open Dumpsite

Figure 4.9: Indicative Final Lay-out of the Closed Open Dumpsite



41

Table 4.7: Waste Pickers’ Place of Residence

BARANGAY MALE FEMALE TOTAL

San Francisco 21 11 32

Banquerohan 20 18 38

Bariis 3 12 15

Cagbacong 5 1 6

TOTAL 49 42 91

155. Forty-nine (49) out of 91 waste pickers are male while 42 are female. Their age ranges

between 10 to 65 years old, 10 being the youngest and 65 as the oldest among the waste pickers.

Majority of them (77 waste pickers) falls between the ages of 18 to 59 years old while 9 waste

pickers are considered as minors with ages 10 to 17 years old. On the other hand, 5 waste pickers

belong to the senior citizens group with ages 60 years old and above. Table 4.8 below shows the

Sex and Age of the IWS.

156. For the marital status, 61 of them are married while 28 are single, including the 13 youths with

ages 19 years old and below. While the widower and separated has the least number with 1 each.

Please see Table 4.9 shows of the IWS’ Population by Age Group and Marital Status.

157. As to the educational attainment of the waste pickers, majority or 52 of them attained only 5th-

7th grade while only 2 of them attained post-secondary level (1 finished a vocational/technical

course and another 1 is a college undergraduate). The next table (Table 4.10) shows the

Educational Attainment of Waste pickers by Age Group.

158. Of the 91 waste pickers, majority or 52 of them have a household size ranging from 6 to 10

and above, 36 of them have 3-5 members, while 3 waste pickers have only two (2) members in

their household. Table 4.11 shows the waste pickers’ household size.

4.10 IWS Household Income & Income Sources

159. Of the 91 waste pickers, forty-four (44) of them consider waste picking as their principal

source of income while forty-seven (47) responded that waste picking is their other source of

income. However, of the 47 respondents who go to the open dumpsite to support their main source

of income, seven (7) of them go to the OD to recover food scraps for their pigs, if not sell the

recovered feeds to some individuals raising hogs in their backyards, while 11 of them are students

who come to the site to recover recyclable materials that could be converted into cash to sustain

their studies. But almost all of the waste pickers have other economic activities where they could

gain additional income to support the basic needs of the family. Table 4.12 shows of the IWS’

income sources.

160. In the data herein provided, it could be noted that other than waste picking, farming (root crops

and vegetables) and livestock raising (particularly hogs) are the main sources of income of the

waste pickers. On the other hand, the reasons for coming to the dumpsite by some waste pickers is

to get food scraps for feeds of their hogs and also to look for some money to support the studies of

the In-School youths.

161. The 91 waste pickers consists of 64 households, nine (9) households of which have a size of

more than ten (10) members.

162. For the combined household income of the waste pickers, majority or 55 of the 64 households

fall between the income bracket of below P 7,500.00. These 55 households are considered earning

income below the poverty threshold which is P 7,821.00 per month for a family size of 5.

Surprisingly, ten (10) households are earning above P 10,000.00 per month, the highest income of

which is P 34,749.00 by a household whose sources of income are: farming, employment of 3

members of the family and income from waste picking.



42

Table 4.8: Sex and Age of Waste pickers AGE GROUP MALE FEMALE BOTH SEXES

10 1 - 1

11 - - -

12 1 - 1

13 - - -

14 2 - 2

15 - - -

16 2 1 3

17 1 1 2

18 2 - 2

19 3 - 3

20 - 1 1

21 4 - 4

22 1 - 1

23 4 1 5

24 1 1 2

25 - - -

26 1 - 1

27 1 - 1

28 1 - 1

29 1 4 5

30 - 2 2

31 2 2 4

32 - 1 1

33 - 3 3

34 1 1 2

35 - 1 1

36 1 1 2

37 3 1 4

38 2 - 2

39 1 2 3

40 - 2 2

41 4 2 6

42 1 - 1

43 - - -

44 - 1 1

45 1 - 1

46 - 2 2

47 - - -

48 - - -

49 - 1 1

50 - 1 1

51 2 - 2

52 - 2 2

53 1 2 3

54 2 1 3

55 - - -

56 - - -

57 - 1 1

58 - - -

59 - 1 1

60 1 - 1

61 - - -

62 1 - 1

63 - 1 1

64 - 1 1

65 - 1 1

66 - - -

67 - - -

68 - - -

69 - - -

70 - - -

TOTAL 49 42 91



43

Table 4.9: Population By Age Group and Marital Status

AGE GROUP

MARITAL STATUS

SINGLE MARRIED WIDOWER DIVORCED/

SEPARATED

COMMON

LAW/LIVE-IN TOTAL

Below 10

years old

0 0 0 0 0 0

10-14 4 0 0 0 0 4

15-19 9 1 0 0 0 10

20-24 11 2 0 0 0 13

25-29 1 7 0 0 0 8

30-34 1 10 0 1 0 12

35-39 0 12 0 0 0 12

40-44 1 9 0 0 0 10

45-49 0 4 0 0 0 4

50-54 1 9 1 0 0 11

55-59 0 2 0 0 0 2

60-64 0 4 0 0 0 4

65 and above 0 1 0 0 0 1

TOTAL 28 61 1 1 0 91

Table 4.10: Educational Attainment of Waste Pickers by Age Group

HIGHEST

EDUCATIONAL

ATTAINMENT

AGE GROUP

Below

10

10

-

14

15-

19

20-

24

25-

29

30-

34

35-

39

40-

44

45-

49

50-

54

55-

59

60-

64

65 &

above

TOTAL

No Grade

Completed

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pre-School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Elementary

1st-4th Grade 0 2 0 5 0 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 18

5th-7th Grade 0 2 4 6 5 5 8 8 2 8 1 2 1 52

High School

Undergraduate 0 0 3 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

Graduate 0 0 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 11

Post-Secondary

(Voc./Technical)

Undergraduate

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Graduate 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

College

Undergraduate

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Academic Degree

Holder

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 4 10 13 8 12 12 10 4 11 2 4 1 91



44

Table 4.11: Household Size

HOUSEHOLD SIZE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD

1 0

2 3

3 7

4 14

5 15

6 11

7 6

8 10

9 12

10 4

Above 10 9

TOTAL 91

Table 4.12: Income Sources of Waste Pickers

163. On income from waste picking, twenty-five (25) waste pickers are gaining the amount of

below P 1,000.00 per month only. However, 9 of these are students earning below P500 in their

waste picking work to address their needs in their studies. Table 4.13 shows the monthly household

income of waste pickers from waste picking and other sources.

164. With the upcoming closure of the open dumpsite of Legazpi City wherein these waste pickers

will be evicted from their waste picking activity, there is really a need to provide them with a

livelihood based on their skills and experience. Through these alternative livelihood activities, they

can earn income equal or more than the income they earn in waste picking where they can support

the basic needs of their respective families/households.



45

Table 4.13: Monthly Income of Waste Pickers from Waste Picking and Other Sources



46

5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

MEASURES

5.1 Social Impacts

165. The open dumpsite is situated in a remote location and it is devoid of community residents.

Compared to other dumpsites in the Philippines, there are no informal settlers residing/squatting in

the area, thus, no physical structures either permanent or temporary in nature that exists. The

presence of the waste pickers in the dumpsite is limited only to a situation where the sanitary

landfill facility could not be operated due to heavy rainfall occurrence. The site where the opean

dumpsite is located is a property of LGU Legazpi thus no land taking is necessary.

166. The practice of scavenging by the waste pickers according to them is centered mainly on two

reasons, to wit: 1.) to search for recyclable materials to be sold to junk buyers, and 2.) to retrieve

biodegradable kitchen wastes/food scraps to serve as animal feeds for swine backyard raising.

167. Makeshift resting/waiting shed out of scrap materials like tarpaulin, plastics, sacks or any

related material are used and some just make use of the present naturally shaded areas to protect

them from the weather elements while waiting for the expected wastes that are to be disposed.

Recovered waste materials are temporarily stored on site while waiting for the junk buyers. These

waste materials which are typically recyclable wastes are immediately sold to junk buyers at the

end of the working day. There are about four local junk buyers from the barangay who directly

transact to the waste picker to buy the retrieved recyclable wastes. While the biodegradable

feedstuff are brought to their places of abode for animal feeds.

168. Income gained by each waste picker from waste picking of recyclables at the dumpsite of

Legazpi varies which ranges from P10.00 to 200.00 pesos per day plus food scraps for animal feeds

gathered by some of them. This gain of the waste pickers from the dumpsite will cease once the

open dumpsite is already closed. However, social impact to the economic aspect of the waste picker

will be experienced by them due to a direct loss of a certain amount which used to be a

supplementary to their other income sources.

169. A total of 91 waste pickers is presently getting their source of livelihood from the open

dumpsite. Impacts to the waste pickers when closure activities of the dumpsite commence will

have minimal to significant economic effect to their lives as waste pickers. During opendumpsite

closure, the IWS will not be allowed to go to the site during the construction and engineering works

for safety and health reasons thus depriving them their source of livelihood.

170. Specific significant social impacts of open dumpsite closure to the affected waste pickers can

be summarized as follows:

Loss of source of livelihood for 91 waste pickers who are completely or partially dependent

on continued dump site operations;

Deterioration of already poor economic status of the whole family of waste pickers who

sourced their means of living from waste picking; and,

Loss of financial source for 11 students to support their studies who are deriving school

allowances from waste picking.

5.2 Environmental and Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures

171. Table 5.1 summarizes the subproject’s environmental and social impacts and mitigation

measures.



47

Table 5.1 Sub-Project’s Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of

impacts Impact Description Management Plan

Supporting Details and Relevant Provisions of the

Management Plan (as Contained in the Technical

Specifications and Contractor’s Contract)

1) Site

preparation garbage slide;

soil erosion

minimal to

moderate garbage slide beyond the dumpsite

property has the potential to cause

nuisance and property conflict with

adjacent property owners;

garbage slide can cause pollution of

nearby Caridad creek which is 500-

m away east of the dumpsite;

soil erosion can result to the siltation

of nearby Caridad creek

EMP to avoid garbage slide:

During the grading and sub-grading preparation, all excavation

materials including old wastes must be confined within the

confines of the dumpsite property. It is not acceptable to dump

any of these materials outside of the dumpsite property;

All construction materials including heavy equipment to be used

during site preparation must be confined within designated or

specific area and should be inside the property of the open

dumpsite;

In summary, the use area outside of the property line of the open

dumpsite must be avoided to eliminate nuisance and conflict with

adjacent property owners, and contamination and/or pollution of

adjacent Caridad creek and private properties.

EMP to minimize, eliminate or avoid soil erosion:

During site preparation, soil or silt interceptor must be provided by

the Contractor in order to avoid or address the problem of soil

erosion.

ECOP to address garbage slide and soil erosion:

Overall, to address garbage slide and soil erosion, the Contractor

should refer to the details of this EMP as provided under Items

A.5.4.3 (Environmental Protection During Construction) and C.2.3

Construction and Material Specifications, Section VI -

Technical Specification of the PBD which will eventually form

part of the Contractor’s Contract Agreement.

A.5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

A.5.4.1 Environmental Protection Plan

Contractor to submit an Environmental

Protection Plan with operational details within

one month after arrival on site.

A.5.4.2 Environmental Officer

The Contractor shall have on his staff on Site for

the duration of the Contract a designated officer

qualified to promote and maintain sound

environmental management during construction

and specifically the implementation of the

approved Environmental Protection Plan. This

officer shall have authority to issue instructions

and shall take precautionary measures to prevent

environmental damage, including but not limited

the establishment of environmentally sound

working practices and the training of staff and

labor in their implementation.

A.5.4.3 Environmental Protection during

Construction

1. The road crosses or passes close to several

areas of existing or recent instability, and the

Engineer shall have the power to disallow

the method of construction and/or the use of

any borrow/stockpile/spoil disposal area if in

his opinion the stability and safety of the

Works or any adjacent feature is endangered,

or if there is undue interference with the

natural or artificial drainage, or if the method

or use of the area will promote undue

erosion. In particular, the Contractor shall

note that side-casting of spoil (downslope

disposal of material from excavation) will

not normally be permitted.

2. Borrow areas and quarries shall be sited,

worked and restored with conservation

measures and planting to the satisfaction of

the Engineer, and in addition reinstate the

area so that it satisfies any agreement with

the landowner.

3. Following excavation, the Contractor shall

take all steps necessary to complete drainage

and slope protection works in advance of

each rainy season. Erosion or instability or

sediment deposition arising from operations

not in accordance with the Specifications

shall be made good immediately by the

Contractor at his expense.

4. Notwithstanding approval of the intended

method of working, the Contractor shall at

all times be responsible for constructing the

earthworks in accordance with the

Specifications and Drawings.

2) Construction

of access road access road

construction

may damage

existing

vegetation;

access road

may cause

swamping of

illegal land

occupants and

IWS during

SLF and MRF

operation;

access road

may cause land

conversion

(from

agricultural to

built-up area)

Moderate to

significant new access road alignment may

damage existing vegetation (i.e.,

cutting of trees);

provision of access road may lead to

in-migration of illegal settlers;

access road may induce land use

conversion from agricultural to

built-up area;

LGU Legazpi should provide a clear and specific alignment of the

access road to be used for the long-term operation of the SLF and

the proposed MRF and for the maintenance of the closed open

dump site;

The LGU should be able to regulate the land use along the access

road as prescribed in their CLUP and should be able to avoid

and/or regulate the proliferation of illegal land conversion and

illegal settler;

Materials shall not be stored on any roadway except where and as

permitted by the designated Engineer of LGU Legazpi City.

Stockpiling of construction materials shall be confined to such

areas as may be approved by the designated Engineer of LGU

Legazpi City. Additional space required, unless otherwise

stipulated, shall be provided by the Contractor at his expense;

Where stockpiling is done outside of the right-of-way, the

Contractor shall secure the permission of the property owner and

the site shall be abandoned immediately when the portion of the

Works for which it is required is completed, and the natural

surfaces shall then be restored as nearly as possible to the original

condition by the Contractor at his expense;

The Contractor shall pay all costs, expenses, compensation or other

disbursements, which may be incurred by him in negotiations with

owner, occupier or public authority. The full costs, expenses,

compensation or other disbursements shall be deemed to be

included in the Contract Price. The Contractor shall be responsible

for all damage, which he may do to land or property lying outside

the working space as defined above.



48

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of





Construction traffic generated dust should be minimized by

watering the roadways; and,

The Contractor should be able to Section IV and A.5.10, Section

VI - Technical Specification of the PBD which will eventually

form part of the Contractor’s Contract Agreement.

5. The project area can experience inclement

weather – fog, heavy rainfall and typhoons –

and earthquakes. It will be deemed that the

Contractor is familiar with these conditions

and has formulated his work programme

considering possible loss of time due to

these causes, and it shall be the obligation of

the Contractor to revise his work programme

and enhance his construction efforts as

necessary to ensure timely completion of the

work scheduled for each working season.

Where damage from rainfall, flooding or

earthquake is exceptional the provisions of

Clauses 5.07 and 5.10 of the General

Provisions shall apply.

A.5.4.4 Revegetation of Disturbed Ground

1. Where directed by the Engineer, the

Contractor shall establish vegetation on fill

slopes, cut slopes of 1V: 1H or less, worked

out borrow pits, and other areas which may

include roadway shoulders and verges, spoil

disposal areas, stockpile areas, quarries,

access tracks, plant sites, camps, landslide

scars, gullies, and stream and river banks.

Prior to placing topsoil and/or establishing

vegetation on embankments, all fill material

not compacted to the required standards shall

be removed from the side slopes.

2. The Contractor shall be responsible for

supplying sufficient planting material to

carry out all revegetation work, and shall

establish and operate plant nurseries as

necessary and shall make his own

arrangements for procuring cuttings, slips

and seed for growing.

A.5.4.5 Prevention of Pollution and Soil Degradation

1. The Contractor shall ensure that his activities

do not result in any contamination of land or

water by polluting substances. He shall limit

the sourcing out of soil cover materials in

sites that are approved by DENR, including

seeking the proper clearance for the creation

of borrow pits. He shall implement physical

and operational measures such as earth

bounds of adequate capacity around fuel, oil

and solvent storage tanks and stores, oil and

grease traps in drainage systems from

workshops, vehicle and plant washing

facilities and service and fuelling areas and

kitchens, the establishment of sanitary solid

and liquid waste disposal systems, the

maintenance in effective condition of these

measures, the establishment of emergency

response procedures for pollution events,

and dust suppression, all in accordance with

3) Drainage

system During rainy

season, leachate

generation is

high

Significant

(during rainy

season)

Leachate contamination of Caridad

creek and groundwater

Hydraulic gradient of final surface and side slopes for surface

drainage should be able to allow the surface runoff to flow

sufficiently for maximum removal of runoff and to minimize

runoff percolation into the open dumpsite to minimize leachate

generation.

It is recommended that the final surface of the fill should be graded

to about 2 - 4%, while the side slopes should have a vertical to

horizontal ratio less of about 1:3 (see below figure).

Grading of the final surface

Erosion of road

surface and

periphery is

high

Significant

(during rainy

season)

Siltation of nearby Caridad creek

4) Leachate

management Surface and

groundwater

and soil

contamination

(due to

discharge of

untreated

leachate)

Moderate

(during dry

season) to high

(during rainy

season)

leachate contains high BOD and

microbial load that could

contaminate Caridad creek and

groundwater underneath the open

dumpsite;

leachate from mixed waste dumped

in the open dumpsite may contain

hazardous materials such as

batteries, used oil, paints, or other

hazardous wastes and should not

reach the nearby Caridad creek

The Contractor' shall employ construction methods that will

prevent entrance or accidental spillage of old solid waste,

construction, leachate, debris and other objectionable pollutants

and wastes into Caridad creek. Aside from leachate and old solid

waste, such pollutants and wastes include but, are not restricted to

refuse, garbage, cement, concrete, sewage effluent, oil, waste

water, human wastes and other petroleum products. The

Contractor shall submit his plan showing the location and detailed

design and plans of the water pollution prevention systems and

facilities to the designated Engineer of LGU Legazpi City for

concurrence and approval.

5) Landfill gas

management

Air pollution

especially

emission of

methane gas

Very high Gas emission from open dumpsite

contains methane gas ( a greenhouse

gas); malodorous gas is likewise

emitted from open dumpsite which

can irritate nearby community and

cause respiratory diseases

Nine (9) units of perforated 100 mm diameter schedule 20 G.I.

landfill gas extraction pipes will be placed about 50 m apart (or

less) from each other. Estimated length of these pipes is 6 m but

may vary depending on actual depth of the waste, which includes

the portions buried in waste, soil cover layers and the exposed

venting section. Each pipe is placed in concentricity with a gravel-

filled dry well for protection and enhanced gas collection. The

materials to be used as gas pipe are flexible enough to withstand

movement as the landfill settles;

A provision for methane gas capture may be considered by the

LGU Legazpi, however, entails a significant capital investment and

for this sub-project may not be a viable option. In fact, a technical

staff from LBP who is in-charge of CDM methane recovery project

has visited the project site and found the viability as negative.

6) Application of

soil cover

Breeding ground

of vermin, flies,

and other

potential carriers

of communicable

Very high Proliferation of diseases; Poor

sanitation conditions;

Application of intermediate/final soil cover (clay and topsoil) shall

be employed. Specifically, the final cover is comprised of a 45-cm

compacted soil and 15cm thick loose topsoil. Clayey soil is

available at the site and in nearby sites approved by DENR to

ensure continuous supply. A backhoe and a truck will be used to



49

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of





diseases excavate and haul these inert materials for use as intermediate/final

soil cover. A back hoe and bulldozer will be used to apply, spread

and compact clayey soil for top/side embankment over 8,395.56

m2 of dumpsite area with recent waste dumping. Other sections

within the 23,220 m2.dumpsite is already covered with clayey soil

and will just be subject to waste compaction. A 0.15-cm of topsoil

will then be loosely applied to the entire area.

normal good practice and to the satisfaction

of the Engineer.

2. Should any pollution arise from the

Contractor’s activities including the

improper deposition of sediment he shall

clean up the affected area immediately at his

own cost and to the satisfaction of the

Engineer, and shall pay full compensation to

any affected parties.

3. The Contractor's construction activities shall

be performed by methods that will prevent

entrance or accidental spillage of solid

matter, contaminants, debris and other

objectionable pollutants and wastes into

streams, flowing or dry water courses and

underground water sources. Such pollutants

and wastes include but, are not restricted to

refuse, garbage, cement, concrete, sewage

effluent, industrial waste, oil, waste water,

human wastes and other petroleum products.

The Contractor shall submit his plan

showing the location and detailed design and

plans of the water pollution prevention

systems and facilities to the designated

Engineer of LGU Legazpi City for approval.

4. For the construction works during rainy

season, silt generated by the construction

should be prevented from entering into the

rivers by construction of canals which will

direct the storm water from the construction

site to the nearest possible infiltration site

(e.g., natural depressions or temporary

retaining basins).

5. Oil pollution should be avoided by proper

construction management (e.g., training of

operators, laborers and workers). A

comprehensive action plan should be made

and submitted by the Contractor for approval

of the designated Engineer of LGU Legazpi

City to prevent accidental oil and related

products spills in contaminating surface and

ground water.

A.5.4.6 Protection of Trees and Vegetation

1. Unless otherwise provided in the

Specifications, the Contractor shall ensure

that no trees or shrubs or waterside

vegetation are felled or harmed except for

those required to be cleared for execution of

the Works. The Contractor shall protect trees

and vegetation from damage to the

satisfaction of the Engineer. The Contractor

shall be responsible for obtaining any

necessary felling permits and for ensuring

the disposal of felled trees in accordance

with prevailing regulations. No tree shall be

Garbage slide,

soil erosion

Very high Garbage slide can cause damage to

property and life;

Soil erosion can result to the siltation

of nearby water bodies and clogging

of drainage canals

7) Spreading and

compaction of

waste

Garbage slide,

soil erosion

Very high Garbage slide can cause damage to

property and life;

Can cause pollution of nearby Caridad

creek;

The active working face should be minimized as much as practical.

An appropriate size is about 2 to 3 times the width of the

compactor vehicle.

Waste is spread and compacted in layers not greater than 0.6m (2

ft.) after compaction.

Compaction of the waste should be on a slope of about 20-30%

and worked from the bottom of the slope to the top

Waste spreading and compaction

8) Fencing and

putting up of

gate

Illegal entries

people;

Very high Exposure to health risk and hazards; The fence shall cover the entire perimeter of the open dumpsite

using cost effective fence materials consisting of chain link fence

fabric, concrete post, etc. as specified in the Technical

Specifications;

To avoid land disturbance and movement, fence shall generally

follow the contour of the ground. Grading shall be performed

where necessary to provide a neat appearance

High potential for

fires or garbage

fire;

Very high Illegally entering people may initiate

fire on dumpsite

High potential for

illegal or

indiscriminate

wastes dumping

containing

hazardous wastes

Very high As there is no screening of waste

entries, illegally dumped mixed waste

in the open dumpsite may contain

hazardous materials such as batteries,

used oil, paints,

or other hazardous wastes may

contaminate soil and water and impact

public, plant and animal community

around the open dumpsite

9) Environmental

and health

impacts

Open burning of

solid waste

causing emission

of toxic

substances to the

air from the

Very high Cause air pollution;

Irritation from emission of toxic

substances to the air which can cause

respiratory illnesses;

Emissions of UPOPs

Provision of security fence and gate

Provision of signage to provide advices and warning to the public

Total cessation of dumping in the site



50

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of





burning of

plastics and other

materials

removed without the prior approval of the

Engineer and any competent authorities.

Should the Contractor become aware during

the period of the Contract that any tree or

trees designated for clearance have cultural

or religious significance shall immediately

inform the Engineer and await his

instructions before proceeding with

clearance.

2. In the event that trees or other vegetation not

designated for clearance are damaged or

destroyed, they shall be repaired or replaced

to the satisfaction of the Engineer.

A.5.4.7 Use of Wood as Fuel

The Contractor shall not use or permit the

use of wood as a fuel for the execution of

any part of the Works, including but not

limited to the heating of bitumen and

bitumen mixtures, and to the extent

practicable shall ensure that fuels other than

wood are used for cooking, space and water

heating in all camps and living

accommodations. Any wood so used must be

harvested legally, and the Contractor shall

provide the Engineer with copies of the

relevant permits if required.

A.5.4.8 Fire Prevention

1. In addition to the provision of adequate fire-

fighting equipment at his base camp and

other facilities to the satisfaction of the

Engineer, the Contractor shall take all

precautions necessary to ensure that no

vegetation along the line of the road outside

the area of the permanent works is affected

by fires arising from the execution of the

Works. These precautions shall include :

a. the prevention of fires for any purpose in

the vicinity of the Works except where

expressly permitted by the Engineer.

2. Should a fire occur in the natural vegetation

or plantations adjacent to the road for any

reason the Contractor shall immediately

suppress it. In the event of any other fire

emergency in the vicinity of the Works the

Contractor shall render assistance to the civil

authorities to the best of his ability.

3. Areas of forest, scrub or plantation damages

by fire considered by the Engineer to have

been initiated by the Contractor’s staff or

labor shall be replanted and otherwise

restored to the satisfaction of the Engineer at

the Contractor’s expense.

A.5.4.9 Restricted Areas

In undertaking the Works, the Contractor

shall be aware that the Engineer may

prohibit or restrict the Contractor’s activities

10) Waste picking Social, sanitation

and public health

problems persist

Very high Image of poverty and poor social

condition;

The IWS are exposed to health risk

and hazards

Provision of Social Development Plan with focus on livelihood

provision. Details are provided in a standalone SDP report



51

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of





in other ecologically, culturally or

historically sensitive areas which become

known to him during the course of the

project. The location of any such areas shall

be notified to the Contractor by the Engineer

at the earliest opportunity.

A.5.4.10 Relations with Local Communities and

Authorities

1. In siting and operating his plant and facilities

and in executing the Works the Contractor

shall at all-time bear in mind and to the

extent practicable minimize the impact of his

activities on existing communities. Where

communities are likely to be affected by

major activities such as road widening or the

establishment of a camp or quarry or

extensive road closure or bypassing, he shall

liaise closely with the concerned

communities and their representatives and if

so directed, shall attend additional meetings

arranged by the Engineer or procuring entity

to resolve issues and claims and minimize

impacts on local communities.

2. Any problems arising from his operations

and which cannot be resolved by the

Contractor shall be referred to the procuring

entity through the Engineer. The Contractor

shall be responsible for any compensation

due or reinstatement necessary with respect

to any damage caused by him to areas

outside the Site and no separate payment will

be made in this regard.

A.5.4.11 Privately or Community-Owned Services

and Structures

1. The Contractor shall take all necessary

precautions to ensure that no public or

private services, utilities or similar facilities

are damaged or interrupted by the Works.

These precautions shall include but not be

limited to liaison with public and private

service providers, local government units,

and private owners; a condition survey of all

affected services; provision of a satisfactory

alternative service while the Works are

carried out; and reinstatement of a

satisfactory permanent facility after

completion of the Works in each area.

2. No service or utilities shall be disturbed or

cut before arrangements have been made for

a satisfactory alternative service, or the

Contractor has obtained agreement in writing

from the service provider or owner to a

temporary cessation of service.

3. Not less than 14 days before commencing

site clearance on any particular section of

work in accordance with his agreed



52

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of





Programme of Work, the Contractor shall

supply the Engineer for his approval a copy

of his condition survey of all utilities and

services to be affected, copies of any

agreements with service providers and

owners, his plans for providing temporary

service, and his plans for reinstating

permanent service following construction of

the Works.

4. Provision of temporary and permanent

services shall be to at least the pre-existing

level of service and to the satisfaction of the

Engineer.

A.5.4.12 Water Supply for Construction

1. The Contractor shall make his own

arrangements at his own expense for water

supply for construction and other purposes.

Only clean water free from deleterious

materials and of appropriate quality for its

intended use shall be used. In providing

water the Contractor shall ensure that the

rights of and supply to existing users are not

affected either in quality, quantity or timing.

2. In the event of a dispute over the effect of

the Contractor’s arrangements on the water

supply of others, the Engineer shall be

informed immediately and shall instruct the

Contractor as to appropriate remedial actions

to be undertaken at his expense.

A.5.4.13 Hot Mix, Screening and Crushing Plants

The Contractor shall not locate any hot mix,

screening, crushing or similar potentially

polluting plant closer than 200m to any

settlement, unless such plant is fitted with

dust suppression equipment and be operated

and maintained at all times in conformity

with the manufacturer’s specifications,

instructions and manuals.

A.5.4.14 Operation of Crushing Plant and Stock

Yard

The Contractor shall locate plants and stock

yard away from residential and

environmentally sensitive areas. Provide

adequate pollution control devices, air filters,

etc. and the equipment shall be operated

during daytime only.

A.5.4.15 Construction and Management of Work

Camp

The location of the work camp shall be far

from residential areas. Provide adequate fuel

or LPG for cooking and other needs. The

collection and treatment of solid wastes shall

be maintained during construction. Illegal

fishing and hunting in the vicinity of the

camp shall be prohibited. Cutting of trees

shall be avoided and removal of vegetation



53

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of





shall be minimized. Water and pit latrine

facilities shall be provided for the

employees. At conclusion of the project, all

wreckage, rubbish or temporary works that

are no longer required shall be removed or

given to local residents. All temporary

structures including office building, shelters

and latrines shall be removed to prevent

encroachment within the road right of way.

The site shall be restored to near natural or

stable conditions. The Engineer shall report

in writing that the camp has been vacated

and restored to pre-project conditions before

acceptance of the works.

A.5.4.16 Traffic Control

The Contractor shall ensure that all works

are adequately sign posted (see Table

4.16) especially where restrictions on the

width of the roadway are imposed due to

construction works. The Contractor shall

provide details in writing to the Engineer

for his approval at least 7 days in advance

of the works. On receipt of the Engineer’s

approval, advance warning signs, coning

and bunding, stop and give way signs,

other appropriate signing and lighting

shall be provided and maintained by the

Contractor in accordance with his

proposals and the effectiveness of this

signing and lighting shall be constantly

monitored by the Contractor.

All full, partial and temporary road

closures shall be manned by the

Contractor, day and night. All operatives

shall be trained and fully briefed by the

Contractor on their responsibilities. These

shall include achieving minimum

disruption to traffic consistent with the

safety of pedestrians, construction

operatives and supervisory staff and

vehicular traffic.

Utilization of flagmen is necessary to

direct the flow of traffic for any

restriction to traffic (reduction to one

lane-whatever is the duration of time).

Where appropriate the traffic controllers

or flagmen shall be provided with

communication equipment.

A.5.4.16.1 Medical and First –Aid Facilities

The Contractor shall carefully plan his

traffic control arrangements and liaise

with all concerned parties to advertise and



54

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of





seek agreement on the most universally

acceptable traffic management practices.

Diversions shall be advertised in advance

and fully signed and lighted when

implemented. Safety of all parties using

and working on the road shall be

paramount. The Contractor will be

required to provide and maintain effective

protective fences, bunding, etc. below

slope works and to define the edges of

steep excavations or existing downslopes,

and in association provide signing and

lighting as necessary.

All barricades, fences and such other aids

as are required shall be reflectorized and

shall conform to the regulations of the

DPWH and shall be illuminated at night

by lanterns.

The Contractor shall appoint, subject to

the approval of the Engineer’s

Representative, a responsible member of

his staff to inspect daily all traffic aids

within the site and to arrange such

cleaning and repair as the Engineer

considers necessary to maintain the

proper effectiveness of these traffic aids

at all times.

A.5.4.16.2 Contractor’s Liability and

Responsibilities

he Contractor shall be fully liable for

traffic control and safety. Approval by the

Engineer of the Contractor’s traffic

control and signing proposals in no way

will be construed as relieving the

Contractor of any of his obligations or

liabilities.

A.5.4.17 Measurement and Payment

The Contract price is understood to

include the cost of environmental

protection measures, monitoring and

reporting.

I. Roads

Sufficient access roads for clear and safe

working.

II. Parking

Sufficient parking areas.

III. Plant

It is anticipated that a crushing and

batching plant will be required together

with cranes and other accessorial items of

a functional plant.

Cost for the fabrication yard is deemed to

be included in the pay item for

mobilization and demobilization.

A.5.10 FINISHING/CLEARING THE SITE



55

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of





Upon completion of all construction operations,

the entire roadway or roadways shall be finished as

specified in these specifications.

Stockpiling of materials on the finished

construction area and drifting of materials across

the pavement will not be permitted. The finished

pavement shall be cleaned of all dirt and foreign

material.

The slopes of embankments, excavations, road

approaches, road connections, ditches, channel

changes, and material sites within or adjacent to

the project boundaries shall be finished to the lines

and grades called for by the plans. Ditches and

channels within or adjacent to the project

boundaries shall be cleared of debris and

obstructions. Sewers, culverts and other drainage

facilities and their appurtenant structures

constructed under the contract shall be cleaned out.

All stones and other waste material exposed on

slopes, which are liable to become loosened, shall

be removed and disposed of. All materials and

debris resulting from clearing and grubbing

operations not previously removed shall be

disposed of.

All materials resulting from the above specified

finishing operations shall become the property of

the Contractor and shall be disposed of outside the

project boundaries unless otherwise permitted by

the special provisions.

Disposal of materials shall be disposed of in

designated areas as approved by the Engineer.

A.5.11 WORKING SPACE, STORAGE AND

STOCKPILING OF MATERIALS

The Contractor shall be solely responsible for

providing all other areas he may need for the

construction of his temporary offices, warehouse,

workshops, laboratory, storage areas, etc.

Materials shall not be stored on any roadway

except where and as permitted by the designated

Engineer of LGU Legazpi City. Stockpiling of

construction materials shall be confined to such

areas as may be approved by the designated

Engineer of LGU Legazpi City. Additional space

required, unless otherwise stipulated, shall be

provided by the Contractor at his expense.

Where stockpiling is done outside of the right-of-

way, the Contractor shall secure the permission of

the property owner and the site shall be abandoned

immediately when the portion of the Works for

which it is required is completed, and the natural

surfaces shall then be restored as nearly as possible

to the original condition by the Contractor at his

expense

The Contractor shall pay all costs, expenses,



56

Site Activity/ies

Potential

environmental

and social and

impacts

Magnitude of





compensation or other disbursements, which may

be incurred by him in negotiations with owner,

occupier or public authority. The full costs,

expenses, compensation or other disbursements

shall be deemed to be included in the Contract

Price. The Contractor shall be responsible for all

damage, which he may do to land or property lying

outside the working space as defined above.



57

6.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

6.1 No-UPOPs Action Plan Alternative

172. The existence of the open dumpsite in Legazpi City is a not a desirable practice where

indiscriminate dumping of solid waste happens without regard to the surrounding environment. As

it is, Legazpi City’s open dumpsite is characterize by the following: (i) un-covered waste, (ii) prone

to open fires and/or waste periodically on fire which generates UPOPs and other gas pollutants, (iii)

mixed wastes are dumped which may contain chemically and biologically hazardous materials, no

application of cover soil, (iv) leachate is discharged untreated and directly to the surrounding

environment, (v) landfill gases are unmanaged which at optimum condition can cause open fire.

173. In terms of social impacts, the existence of open dumpsite is often characterized with the

presence of unorganized waste pickers. The open dumpsite also becomes habitat for disease

causing vectors.

174. From the point of view of community sanitation and environmental protection, open dumpsite

generates a lot of adverse impacts to the environment and to public safety and health.

175. In the UPOPs Action Plan for Legazpi City, the existing open dumpsite is proposed to undergo

complete closure and rehabilitation. The closure of the open dumpsite will enhance the city’s

SWM practices. Without the UPOPs Action Plan, the practice of open dumping will persist with its

social and environmental impacts unmitigated. Therefore, the no-UPOPS Action Plan alternative is

not desirable.

6.2 With UPOPs AP Alternative

176. With AP implemented, it will bring about an array of improvements in the SWM practices in

Legazpi City. Foremost of all is the closure and rehabilitation of the existing open dumpsite;

secondly is the operation of a sanitary landfill, a more orderly system of waste disposal. In this

case, environmental pollution is abated.

177. In line with social status improvement of the waste pickers, built in to the AP is the provision

of alternative livelihoods that could potentially provide more earnings to the waste pickers and their

social welfare improved.

178. With AP implemented, burning or fire at the open dumpsite will be addressed thus

minimizing, it not eliminated at all, the emissions of UPOPs and other gas pollutants.

179. Below is a simplistic comparison of the two (2) alternatives which justifies the need to

implement UPOPS Action Plan.

Table 6.1 Comparison of Alternatives

(No-UPOPs Action Plan Alternative vs. With UPOPs Action Plan Alternatives)

Item of Concern No-UPOPs Action Plan

Alternative

With UPOPs Action

Plan Alternative

1) Surface and groundwater contamination

cause by leachate

Persistent / causing damage to the

environment and public health

Mitigated / adverse

impacts are minimized if

not eliminated

2) Soil contamination Persistent / causing damage to the


Mitigated / adverse


not eliminated

3) Open burning of solid waste causing

emission of toxic substances to the air from

the burning of plastics and other materials



Mitigated / adverse


not eliminated

4) Breeding ground of vermin, flies, and other

potential carriers of communicable diseases



Mitigated / adverse


not eliminated

5) Air pollution No gas management/causing damage

to the environment and public health

Mitigated / adverse


not eliminated

6) Waste picking Social, sanitation and public health

problems persist

Mitigated / adverse


not eliminated



58

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (ESMP)

7.1 Details of the Proposed ESMP

180. The details of the subproject’s environmental management plan (EMP) are provided in Table

5.1.

7.2 Details of the Social Management Plan

181. LGU Legazpi’s UPOPs Action Team has crafted its own Social Development Plan. There are

91 intended beneficiaries of the alternative livelihood programs. The list of proposed alternative

livelihood program is presented in Table 7.1. The total beneficiaries does not tally to 91 IWS

because the livelihood programs can be taken as multiple livelihood programs by some members of

the affected IWS, thus the total exceeds 91 IWS.

Table 7.1: Summary of the Intended Livelihood Projects for IWS

182. The details of the project implementation for the proposed livelihood projects/intervention

namely the Hog Raising Project, Organic Crop Production with Urban Container Gardening,

Junkshop or Buy & Sell of Scrap and Education Support to IWS are presented with in great details

in the Project Brief Section of the SDP Document.

183. Presented in Table 7.2 is the estimated needed budget for all IWS intervention including its

source of funds.

Table 7.2: Budgetary Requirement for SDP

184. Full details of the SDP is presented in Annex 4 (SDP).



59

7.3 Built-in ESMP in the Tender Documents and Contractor’s Contract

185. Tender Documents and Construction Contracts. Environmentally responsible procurement

advocates the inclusion in construction contract documents the provisions addressing the

management of social and environmental impacts and risk during construction. For the sub-

project’s tender documents, the contractor’s TOR (for the execution of ESMP) is included as part of

the Philippine Bidding Documents (Section IV- Specifications and TOR for Contractors for ESMP

Implementation) (See Annex 3).

186. Unanticipated Environmental Impacts. Where unanticipated environmental impacts become

apparent during project implementation, LGU Legazpi with guidance from DENR/EMB shall

prepare a supplementary environmental assessment and ESMP to assess the potential impacts and

outline mitigation measures and resources to address those impacts.

7.4 Environmental Monitoring

187. For effective implementation of the ESMP, it is essential that an effective monitoring program

be designed and carried out. The objectives of the monitoring program are:

To ensure that the measures suggested herein are being taken during construction

To evaluate the efficiency of the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures

To investigate the adequacy of the ESMP as well as suggest improvements to it

To generate data that could be incorporated in future ESMPs

To evaluate what additional enforcement is required for the effective implementation

7.5 Summary of ESMP and Environmental Monitoring

188. Table 7.3 shows the summary of ESMP and Environmental Monitoring

7.6 Implementation Arrangement

189. This subsection presents the: (i) institutional set-up, (ii) implementation schedule, (iii) required

clearances and permits, and (iv) capability building.

7.6.1 Institutional Setup for ESMP Implementation

190. LGU Legazpi is the executing agency while DENR is the project implementing agency.

191. LGU Legazpi has the overall responsibility for sub-project execution up to completion.

192. DENR through its Project Management Office (PMO)/TWG with assistance from the

Consultant shall provide advisory assistance to LGU Legazpi in areas of technical design,

procurement, construction and compliance with safeguard requirements.

193. At the sub-project level, LGU Legazpi will be responsible in ensuring that all sub-project

ESMP requirements are met and executed during pre-construction, construction and operation

phase of the sub-project.

194. During the implementation phase, the Office of the Mayor through its OCENR, will function

as an entity to address grievance redress and ensure that all public complaints are promptly

addressed and resolved.

195. The planned livelihood project for waste pickers will be co-implemented by the city with the

non-government organization (NGO) that also has a project with the IWS. This is the Solid Waste

Management Association of the Philippines (SWAPP) through its local partner, the Bicol

Consortium for Development Initiatives (BCDI) or SWAPP-BCDI. The SWAPP was

commissioned by the World Bank-Japan Social Development Fund (WB-JSDF) to implement a

project for the informal waste sector. Since the target beneficiaries of the project are the same,

hence, the city will collaborate with SWAPP-BCDI to avoid overlapping or conflict of schedule of

activities with the project beneficiaries.



60

196. The over-all management and supervision of the IWS Livelihood Program will be done by the

City Government of Legazpi through its implementing office, the Office of the City Environment

and Natural Resources (OCENR). The OCENR will coordinate with the City Veterinary Office

(CVO) and will ask their technical assistance in the implementation of the Hog Raising Project.

The OCENR will also establish a working camaraderie with SWAPP-BCDI to attain an effective

implementation of the Organic Crops Production Project and its other livelihood intervention

activities/strategies with the IWS. Other organizations/institutions will also be tapped such as the

Don Bosco Agro-Mechanical Technology Center for its expertise and technology in organic

farming and livestock raising and in enrolling the IWS youth in its Agro-Mechanical courses. For

the identified project Buy & Sell of Scrap, the city will also establish a partnership with junk buyers

within the city. On the other hand, the city will ensure that the skilled IWS particularly the youth

who graduated in agro-mechanical and other courses will be employed by the city where their skill

is needed.



61

Table 7.3: Environmental Mitigation and Environmental Monitoring Plan for Legazpi City’s UPOPs Action Plan

Environmental

Concern Objective

Impact mitigation Performance and Impact monitoring

Proposed Mitigation

Measures

Responsible to

Implement

Measures

Timing to

Implement

Locations to

Implement

Measures

Mitigation

Cost

Performance

Indicator (PI)

Frequency &

Verification

Responsible

to Monitor

Monitoring

Cost

DESIGN & PRE-CONSTRUCTION

1. UPOPs Overall Action Plan (Detailed

Engineering Design,

PBD, Specifications and TOR for

Contractors (for

ESMP execution) and project

disclosure

Incorporate design measures in the

project design to

minimize environmental

impacts.

Compliance to WB and GOP

environmental

assessment process. Establishment of

Grievance Redress

Mechanism

1. Secure the services of the design and advisory

consultant to address

design requirements. 2. Formulate EIA and

ESMP based on detailed

design and submit to WB for review and approval.

3. Ensure ESMPs are

included in bidding and contract documents

4. Implement plan for

Grievance Redress Mechanism as described

in the EIA and inform

local authorities 6. Based on UPOPs

Action Plan, prepare the TOR for Contractors for

EMP Implementation

before construction commences.

LGU Legazpi (OCENR)

Pre-Construction Phase

Open Dumpsite Cost included in

overall

project cost.

UPOPs Action Plan in its entirety, EA and

ESMP Report

approved by DENR and WB; Permits and

clearances from

relevant authorities secured; and DED for

construction completed

During detailed design by the LGU;

Completion of Detailed

Engineering

Design, PBD, Specifications and

TOR for

Contractors (for ESMP execution

PMO - EMB/TWG

Consultant

Part of the PMO - EMB/

TWG

and Consultant

operational

cost

2. Social safeguard

instrument (SDP)

To ensure that the

identified social

impacts are addressed and

social mitigation

measures are acceptable to the

affected IWS

Provision of alternative

livelihoods

LGU Legazpi

(OCENR)

Pre-Construction

Phase

Open Dumpsite Cost

included in

overall project cost.

UPOPs Action Plan in

its entirety, ESMP and

SDP approved by DENR and WB

Completed prior to

commencement of

dump closure works

Availability of

completed and approved

documents;

Ground

implementation of

SDP;

Monitoring

parameters as indicated in the

SDP document.

PMO -

EMB/TWG

Consultant

LGU Legazpi City

Part of UPOPs

Action Plan

costing; PMO-EMB cost;

Consultant’s

cost; LGU cost

3. Environmental To ensure that the Provision of sound LGU Legazpi Pre-Construction Open Dumpsite Cost UPOPs Action Plan in Completed prior to PMO - Part of UPOPs



62

Environmental

Concern Objective


Proposed Mitigation

Measures

Responsible to

Implement

Measures

Timing to

Implement

Locations to

Implement

Measures

Mitigation

Cost

Performance

Indicator (PI)

Frequency &

Verification

Responsible

to Monitor

Monitoring

Cost

Safeguard Instrument

(ESMP)

identified social

and environmental

impacts are addressed and

social and

environmental mitigation

measures are

executed properly

environmental

management measures as

spelled out in this document (details are

enumerated below:

(OCENR)

Phase included in

overall

project cost.

its entirety, EA and

ESMP

Report/approved by DENR and WB

commencement of

dump closure works

Availability of

completed and

approved documents;

Ground implementation of

ESMP;

Monitoring

parameters as

indicated in the ESMP document.

EMB/TWG

Consultant

LGU

Legazpi City

Action Plan

costing; PMO-

EMB cost; Consultant’s

cost;

LGU cost

CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONAND MAINTENANCE

3.1 Site preparation Avoidance of

garbage slide and soil erosion

All those

mitigationindicated in Table 5.1 Item 1

Contractor (as

part of their Contract)

LGU Legazpi City to ensure

that the SEMP

is properly executed by the

Contractor

Complete plans

and drawings during DED /

design stage;

SEMP execution

during

construction phase

Within or

inside the confines of the

dump site

property/area;

Built-in as

part of the construction

cost

Garbage piling in

accordance with 1:3 slope requirement and

soil erosion control

measures implemented;

Technical

Specifications and ECOP adhered

Daily

Construction site

ocular/visual

inspection;

Site engineer report;

Incidence report

Photo

documentation

LGU

Legazpi

EMB 5

Regional Office

Part of the

Annual allocations on

Items 2.9 and

2.10 of Table 10 of the AP

3.2 Construction of

access road

Provision of sufficient access

roads for clear and

safe working

All those mitigation measures that are indicated

in Table 5.1 Item 2

Contractor (as part of their

Contract)

LGU Legazpi

City to ensure

that the SEMP is properly

executed by the

Contractor

Complete plans and drawings

during DED /

design stage;

SEMP execution

during construction

phase

Inside the confines of the

dump site

property/area ;

Within the

designated ROW for the

access road

Built-in as part of the

construction

cost

Technical Specifications and

ECOP for access road

construction adhered and complied with

Daily

Construction site

ocular/visual inspection;


Tree cutting

incidence report

Photo

documentation

LGU Legazpi

EMB 5 Regional

Office

Part of the Annual

allocations on

Items 2.9 and 2.10 of Table

10 of the AP



63

Environmental

Concern Objective


Proposed Mitigation

Measures

Responsible to

Implement

Measures

Timing to

Implement

Locations to

Implement

Measures

Mitigation

Cost

Performance

Indicator (PI)

Frequency &

Verification

Responsible

to Monitor

Monitoring

Cost

3.3 Drainage system Provision of

efficient drainage

system to avoid soil erosion.

All those mitigation

measures that are indicated

in Table 5.1 Item 3

Contractor (as

part of their

Contract)

LGU Legazpi

City to ensure that the SEMP

is properly

executed by the Contractor

Complete plans

and drawings

during DED / design stage;

SEMP execution during

construction

phase

Inside the

confines of the

dump site property/area ;

Built-in as

part of the

construction cost

Technical

Specifications and

ECOP for drainage design adhered and

complied with;

Efficient drainage

system completed

Daily

Construction site ocular/visual

inspection;


Photo

documentation

LGU

Legazpi

EMB 5

Regional

Office

Part of the

Annual

allocations on Items 2.9 and

2.10 of Table

10 of the AP

3.4 Leachate

management

Avoidance of incidence of surface

and groundwater

and soil contamination

cause by leachate

All those mitigation measures that are indicated

in Table 5.1 Item 4

Provision of leachate

management systems in the

form of leachate collection system with HDPE pipes

and fittings;

Provision of drainage control systems to separate

runoff and minimize

leachate production;


Contract)

LGU Legazpi

City to ensure


executed by the

Contractor


during DED /

design stage;

SEMP execution

during construction

phase


dump site

property/area ;


construction

cost


ECOP for leachate

design and construction adhered and complied

with;

Leachate management systems in the form of

leachate collection

system with HDPE pipes and fittings

completed;

Drainage control

systems to separate

runoff and minimize leachate production

provided and

completed

Daily

Construction site



Photo documentation

LGU Legazpi

EMB 5 Regional

Office

Part of the Annual

allocations on


10 of the AP

3.5 Application of soil cover

To stabilized waste piles;

To reduce nuisance from odor

emission;

To reduce leachate production;

To serve as media

for surface vegetation

Application of intermediate/final soil

cover (clay and topsoil) shall be employed.

Specifically, the final cover

is comprised of a 45-cm compacted soil and 15cm

thick loose topsoil. Clayey

soil is available at the site.


Contract)

LGU Legazpi

City to ensure that the SEMP

is properly

executed by the Contractor


during DED / design stage;

SEMP execution during

construction

phase


dump site property/area ;


construction cost


ECOP for soil cover adhered and complied

with;

Leachate reduction

achieved;

Surface vegetation are

visible and present

Daily

Construction site ocular/visual

inspection;


Photo

documentation

LGU Legazpi

EMB 5

Regional

Office

Part of the Annual

allocations on Items 2.9 and

2.10 of Table

10 of the AP

3.6 Landfill gas To minimize Provision of gas vents to Contractor (as Complete plans Inside the Built-in as Technical Daily LGU Part of the



64

Environmental

Concern Objective


Proposed Mitigation

Measures

Responsible to

Implement

Measures

Timing to

Implement

Locations to

Implement

Measures

Mitigation

Cost

Performance

Indicator (PI)

Frequency &

Verification

Responsible

to Monitor

Monitoring

Cost

management dumpsite fire due to

methane

combustion (both spontaneous and

man-made)

avoid methane gas build

up;

Provision of security fence

to avoid accidental fire

cause by intruders;


measures that are indicated in Table 5.1 Item 5

part of their

Contract)

LGU Legazpi

City to ensure


executed by the

Contractor

and drawings

during DED /

design stage;

SEMP execution

during construction

phase

confines of the

dump site

property/area ;

part of the

construction

cost

Specifications and

ECOP for landfill gas

vents adhered and complied with;

Open burning not existing

Construction site



Photo documentation

Legazpi

EMB 5 Regional

Office

Annual

allocations on


10 of the AP

3.7 Spreading and

compaction of waste

To attain waste

piling stability and avoid garbage slide

and soil erosion


measures that are indicated in Table 5.1 Item 7

- The active working

face should be minimized as much as

practical. An

appropriate size is about 2 to 3 times the

width of the compactor

vehicle. - Waste is spread and

compacted in layers

not greater than 0.6m (2 ft.) after

compaction.

- Compaction of the waste should be on a

slope of about 20-30%

and worked from the bottom of the slope to

the top

Contractor (as

part of their Contract)

LGU Legazpi City to ensure

that the SEMP

is properly executed by the

Contractor

Complete plans

and drawings during DED /

design stage;

SEMP execution

during

construction phase

Inside the

confines of the dump site

property/area ;

Built-in as

part of the construction

cost

Technical

Specifications and ECOP for spreading

and compaction of

waste adhered and complied with;

Waste compaction and slope are achieved;

Soil erosion measures

executed and completed

Daily

Construction site

ocular/visual

inspection;


Photo

documentation

LGU

Legazpi

EMB 5

Regional Office

Part of the

Annual allocations on

Items 2.9 and

2.10 of Table 10 of the AP

3.8 Fencing and putting up of gate

To avoid illegal entries of people

and unwanted

wastes;

- The fence shall cover the entire perimeter of

the open dumpsite

using cost effective fence materials

consisting of chain link

fence fabric, concrete post, etc. as specified

in the Technical

Specifications; - To avoid land


Contract)

LGU Legazpi

City to ensure


executed by the

Contractor


during DED /

design stage;

SEMP execution

during construction

phase


dump site

property/area ;


construction

cost


ECOP for fencing and

gate adhered and complied with;

Illegal entries of people are prevented

Daily

Construction site



Photo documentation

LGU Legazpi

EMB 5 Regional

Office

Part of the Annual

allocations on


10 of the AP



65

Environmental

Concern Objective


Proposed Mitigation

Measures

Responsible to

Implement

Measures

Timing to

Implement

Locations to

Implement

Measures

Mitigation

Cost

Performance

Indicator (PI)

Frequency &

Verification

Responsible

to Monitor

Monitoring

Cost

disturbance and

movement, fence shall

generally follow the contour of the ground.

Grading shall be

performed where necessary to provide a

neat appearance

3.9 Environmental and health impacts

Avoidance or minimization of air

pollution and

malodorous rom LFG;

Avoidance or minimization of

leachate generation

and discharge

Avoidance of the

area to become breeding grounds

for vermin, flies,

and other potential carriers of diseases;

Avoidance of

incidence of diseases

Provision of gas management systems;

Provision of leachate management system


Contract)

LGU Legazpi

City to ensure


executed by the

Contractor


during DED /

design stage;

SEMP execution

during construction

phase


dump site

property/area ;


construction

cost

Visual –vermin, flies, and other potential

carriers of diseases are

not existing/present;

LFG and leachate

management facility constructed and

completed;

Meaningful water

quality monitoring for

the following parameters: pH, total

coliform, COD, BOD,

total mercury, lead, chromium, nitrates

using the monitoring

wells executed;

Results are reported

and feedback to DENR;

Daily

Laboratory results

of water quality analysis;

Site ocular/visual inspection;


Photo documentation

LGU Legazpi

EMB 5 Regional

Office

Part of the Annual

allocations on


10 of the AP

3.10 Welfare of the

affected waste pickers

To provide

alternative livelihood equal or

better than the

earnings from waste picking

Provision and

implementation of SDP

LGU Legazpi

(OCENR)

Completed prior

to commencement

of construction

Open Dumpsite Cost

included in overall

project cost.

Inventory of affected

stakeholders; SDP initiated and/or

completed

Monthly to

quarterly;

SDP

accomplishment reports

Photo documentation

Consultant

LGU

Legazpi City

EMB 5

Regional

Office

Part of UPOPs

Action Plan costing; PMO-

EMB cost;

Consultant’s cost;

LGU cost



66

197. In order to ensure that the IWS and their livelihood projects will be sustained, the umbrella

organization of the IWS, the Samahang Bagong Pag-unlad Association or SBPA, will be

strengthened/institutionalized. Since the SBPA will have a big role in sustaining the projects of the

IWS, hence necessary capability building trainings will also be provided to its officers/leaders and

necessary policies, systems and procedures will be formulated or set-up. These will be

facilitated/provided by the city and the SWAPP-BCDI. Regular and strict monitoring and

supervision to the projects, the IWS and the SBPA will also be conducted to ensure the success of

the Plan.

7.6.2 Project Performance and ESMP Monitoring Reports

198. Project performance monitoring has the overall objective of achieving the desired outcomes

through reporting of as measurable events or parameters or aspects that can be monitored and

verified.

199. At the tendering stage, advocating socially and environmentally responsible procurement is a

desired outcome and is made possible by incorporating clear cut Terms of Reference (TOR) for

Contractors in the execution of ESMP in subproject specifications and contract.

200. On the other hand, construction phase desired outcomes include effective execution and

management of ESMP thus minimizing social and environmental impacts and reducing risk to

public.

201. In the preparation of monitoring and ESMP accomplishment reports during sub-project

implementation, the Contractor shall submit to LGU Legazpi a monthly monitoring report.

202. On the basis of the Contractor’s report, LGU Legazpi shall prepare monthly ESMP

monitoring and accomplishment report to be submitted to EMB Region 5 which will be

subsequently forwarded (by EMB Region 5) to PMO EMB Central Office.

203. Lastly, PMO EMB Central Office shall then prepare semi-annual ESMP accomplishments

and monitoring reports to WB.

204. This reporting cycle is repeated as feedback mechanism scheme to all key players consisting

of the affected stakeholders, Contractors, LGU Legazpi, DENR/EMB and the World Bank.

7.6.3 Implementation Schedule

205. As presented in the project description (Section 3.7 on UPOPs Action Plan Project

Implementation Schedule), the sub-project’s advertisement of invitation to bid may happen on

September 2014, the awarding of the contract on November 20`14 and the sub-project completion

and acceptance on June 2016.

206. LGU Legazpi shall ensure that construction contract provisions related to the ESMP is

included in the tendering stage on September 2014 and the ESMP monitoring to continue during

the construction and operation phases.

7.6.4 Clearances and Permits

207. Base on most recent DENR regulations governing the closure and rehabilitation of open

dumpsite and on the basis of the sub-project Agreement or Contract between LGU Legazpi, the

DENR and the World Bank, the LGU may proceed with the sub-project implementation provided

that all procedural and regulatory requirements are met (Table 3.6).

7.6.5 Capability Building

208. In the overall sub-project implementation plan, the sub-project Consultant and DENR

provide workshops and training on capability building to effect “technology and knowledge

transfer” pertaining to the technical and administrative requirements of the following: (i) project



67

management advisory services, including detailed engineering designs, preparation of contract

documents, support to UPOPs Action Team with construction supervision and quality control, and

the preparation of any resettlement plans; and (ii) institutional development and capacity building

for LGU Legazpi.

7.6.6 Specific Institutional Responsibilities.

209. Table 7.4 provides the detailed institutional responsibilities.

Table 7.4: Institutional Responsibilities for EMP Implementation

Agency Responsibilities

DENR-EMB

Executing agency with overall responsibility for UPOPs Action Plan sub-

project implementation.

Ensure that sufficient funds are made available to LGU Legazpi

Ensure that LGU Legazpi, regardless of financing source, complies with the

provisions of the ESMP and WB safeguard policy.

Ensure that LGU Legazpi complies with Government environmental

policies and regulations.

For project duration ensure that the PMO and LGU Legazpi retain

dedicated Technical Support Consultants including safeguard specialists to

oversee ESMP implementation.

Ensure that EMB Region 6 and LGU Legazpi monitor environmental

protection and mitigation measures in the ESMP and those activities that

are embodied in the detailed designs

Ensure that LGU Legazpi has secured environmental clearances

certification from DENR and WB (in this case NOL) prior to award and/or

commencement of civil works contracts

Ensure that LGU Legazpi establishes and implements an environmental

grievance redress mechanism, as described in this ESMP, to receive and

facilitate resolution of affected peoples' concerns, complaints, and

grievances about the Project's environmental performance

Ensure that the bidding and contract documents include the ESMP.

Ensure that PMO/TWG submits semi-annual monitoring reports on EMP

implementation to WB.

LGU Legazpi City

Ensure that bidding and contract documents include the ESMP

Submit monthly and semi-annual monitoring reports on ESMP

implementation to PMO

Ensure that the sub-project ESMP preparation and implementation of

method statement is site specific for Contractor’s execution

Ensure that ESMP provisions are strictly implemented during various

project phases (design/pre-construction, construction and operation) to

mitigate social and environmental impacts to acceptable levels.

Ensure that Project implementation complies with WB's safeguard

For project duration, commit and retain a designated unit/staff (as

Safeguard Specialist) to oversee ESMP implementation

Check that environmental protection and mitigation measures in the ESMP

are incorporated in the detailed designs

Check that necessary environmental clearances and approval(s) are secured

from World Bank and DENR prior to award of civil works contracts

Participate in grievance redress mechanism, as described in the this

document, to receive and facilitate resolution of affected peoples' concerns,

complaints, and grievances about the sub-project's environmental

performance



68

Agency Responsibilities

Undertake monitoring of the implementation of the ESMP (mitigation and

monitoring measures) with assistance from EMB-PMO and the Contractor

Report to WB and DENR/EMB on all aspects of social and environmental

management and monitoring at required frequency

Prepare monthly and semi-annual social and environmental monitoring

reports for submission to PMO-EMB/DENR and WB.

Based on the results of ESMP monitoring, identify environmental corrective

actions and prepare a corrective action plan

Contractor

Recruit qualified environmental safeguard specialist to ensure compliance

with environmental statutory and contractual obligations and proper

implementation of the ESMP

Implement all ESMPs in coordination with and LGU Legazpi City and

relevant authorities

Prior to start of construction, update all ESMPs for approval by

EMB/DENR and LGU Legazpi

Provide sufficient funding and human resources for proper and timely

implementation of required mitigation measures in the ESMP

Implement additional environmental mitigation measures for unexpected

impacts, as necessary

7.7 Conclusions

210. The ESMP document revealed that the sub-project could have positive environmental impacts

with minor negative impacts but are by large manageable.

211. The ESMP will generally enhance the environment and reduce sub-project adverse

environmental impacts to acceptable levels. It includes specifications for social and environmental

protection measures for each potential adverse impact and include detailed monitoring plan. It also

spells out responsibilities for each relevant organization in the implementation of the ESMP. The

ESMP ensures implementation of the social and environmental mitigation measures and

monitoring during pre-construction, construction and operation. Therefore without delay, the sub-

project should be immediately implemented.



69

8.0 CONSULTATION, INFORMATION DISCLOSURE, & GRIEVANCE REDRESS

MECHANISM

8.1 Consultation and Information Disclosure

212. The sub-project planning and the subsequent impact assessment document preparation for the

proposed UPOPs Action Plan recognized the need for public consultation and participation as

central to effective environmental safeguard. Within the context of “meaningful consultation”,

LGU Legazpi initiated a process of consultation during UPOPs Action Plan preparation.

213. During the UPOPS Action Plan preparation, LGU Legazpi with technical guidance and

assistance from DENR, the Consultants and WB has conducted Public Consultation (PC) and

information disclosure at each various phases of the plan’s development. During the conduct of

the PCs, the details of the sub-project components were presented to the stakeholders and their

views on the respective proposals were requested. Stakeholders expressed support to the proposed

UPOPs Action Plan.

214. The PCs and public disclosure initiatives at various stages of the plan development is

presented in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Public Consultations and Disclosure at Various of the

UPOPs Action Plan Formulation

Activities

Public

Consultations

Executed

Public

Disclosure

Executed

Yes No Yes No

1. Baseline Survey Updating of Current Waste

Pickers √

2. Assessment Study of Previous Waste Pickers LGU

Legazpi City-AECID ESWMP Livelihood

Beneficiaries and Current Waste Pickers

√

3. Consultation/Dialogue/Meeting with Waste Pickers √

4. Preparation of Key Results Areas Activity Details

for Inclusion in the Social Development Plan √

√

5. Conduct of Social Assessment Survey √

6. Skills and Capacity Development and Enhancement

of Waste Pickers √

√

7. IEC Campaign on IPOPs Management Project √

8. Formation/Organization of Implementation Team

for Projects to Waste Pickers √

√

9. Organization of Waste Pickers and Organizational

Strengthening √

10. Strategic Development Planning √

11. Preparation of Detailed Engineering Design of

Closure of the Dumpsite √

√

12. Bidding and Procurement √

13. Engineering and Construction Works √

14. Conduct of Regular Consultation/Coordination

Meeting To be done

To be

done

15. Progress Report, Monitoring and Evaluation

Report Preparation To be done

To be

done



70

8.2 Grievance Redress Mechanism

215. The implementation of this Social Development Plan (SDP) intends to be fully compliant to

World Bank’s safeguards requirement on grievance redress mechanism. Complaints about social

and environmental performance of the proposed project during the construction and operation

phases shall be handled by the City Social Welfare and Development Office and Environmental

Protection Division – Office of the City Mayor, the entities that are tasked to receive social and

environment-related complaints.

216. Grievance and complaints will be handled through expeditious consultations between City

Social Welfare and Development Office and the project affected people or entity with the end view

of arriving at consensus. For this project, the following procedures shall be followed:

a) Grievance or complaints shall be filed by the project affected people or entity with the

City Social Welfare and Development Office who will act within 15 days upon receipt

thereof;

b) If no understanding or amicable solution can be reached from the City Social Welfare

and Development Office within 15 days of registry of the complaint, he/she can file the

complaint to the Office for Legal Affairs, which should act on the complaint/grievance

within 15 days from the day of its filing;

c) If no understanding or amicable solution can be reached, or if the project affected people

or entity does not receive a response from the Office for Legal Affairs within 15 days of

registry of the complaint, he/she can Appeal to the Community Environment and Natural

Resources Office, which should act on the complaint/grievance within 15 days from the

day of its filing;

d) If the project affected people or entity is not satisfied with the decision of the

Community Environment and Natural Resources Office, he/she, can submit the

complaint to Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) Regional Office III;

e) Other entity as needed

217. Project affected people or entity will be exempted from all administrative and legal fees

incurred pursuant to the grievance redress procedures. All complaints received in writing (or

written when received verbally) from the project affected people or entity will be documented and

shall be acted upon immediately according to the above outlined procedures.

218. Details of the office and personnel in-charge to handle grievance redress are provided below:

Position Person In-Charge Address/Contact Nos.

Project Manager Mrs. Salve B. Corral

City ENRO

Office of the City Environment

& Natural Resources (OCENR),

Motorpool Compound, Airport

Road, Legazpi City

Tel. No.-480-3349

CP No.- 09088679837



71

ANNEXES



72

Annex 1 Legazpi City’s SLF ECC



73

Annex 2 Legazpi City’s SLF Operation Manual



74

Annex 3 TOR for Contractors

(Environmental and Social

Management Plan (ESMP)

Implementation)



75

Annex 4 Social Development Plan (SDP)