I. INTRODUCTION

Policymaking exists in a context. And it should work in accordance with its context. It is also influenced by its context. Policymaking has a social, political, cultural, and economic purpose. It exists to solve problems in its contexts, i.e., social, political, cultural and economic problems. The contexts of policymaking have different characteristics. They have different problems and need different approaches to solve their problems.

This study is a prospective evaluation of the implementability of Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Ordinance No. 99-004 entitled, "Regulation Governing Proper Refuse Management at Source in Metro Manila Area and for Other Purposes."

The primary objective of this study is to determine the implementability of the policy and to find out what are the factors that will affect the success or failure of the implementation of the policy.

II. THE PROBLEM ON SOLID WASTE

Solid waste is a perennial problem of every society in this planet. Solid waste is the "granddaddy of all environmental problems" (Wells, 1996: 127). The problem of solid waste exists since the creation of man. According to Melosi, a garbage historian, "since human beings inhabited the earth, they have generated, produced, manufactured, excreted, secreted, discarded and otherwise disposed of all manner of waste" (Melosi as quoted by Wells, 1996: 127).

The Presidential Task Force on Waste Management (PTFWM) in their manual, Solid Waste Management for Local Governments, cited an international definition of solid waste. It says that solid waste is:

"...non-liquid waste material arising from domestic, trade, commercial, industrial, and mining activities. It also includes wastes arising from the conduct of public services such as street sweepings, landscape maintenance, and the clearing of typhoon-wrought debris. Note that the term 'non-liquid' is relative, because it includes sludge (semi-liquid slurry) such as those from industrial sources and from sewage treatment plants" (PTFWM, 1997: 1).

Wells gives three categories of solid waste. He says that these three categories would help policymakers in defining solid waste when they formulated solid waste and environmental policies. The first category is municipal waste. Municipal wastes are wastes that are generated by the households and small commercial and industrial firms (Wells, 1996: 128). The second category is industrial waste. These are the wastes that are generated by large industrial firms, which includes hazardous or chemical wastes generated by large industrial firms (Wells, 1996: 128). The third category is the SQHW. This is an acronym for "small-quantity hazardous waste" (Wells, 1996: 128).

The categories of solid waste also give us an idea of the different sources of solid waste (see Figure 1 above). These are the households, commercial, industrial and institutional establishments. They are the different groups, which produce different kinds of waste in the society and in the environment.

Solid waste is increasing. There are various factors that lead to the increasing volume of solid waste (see Figure 2 below). The first factors are income and population. Beede and Bloom in their essay, "Economics of the Generation and Management of Municipal Solid Waste," give us a clear explanation of these factors. They say:

"We estimate that the global burden of solid waste amounted to 1.3 billion metric tons in 1990, or .67 kilograms of waste per person per day. Industrial countries account for a disproportionate share of world solid waste relative to their share of world population, while developing countries account for a disproportionate share of the world's solid waste relative to their share of world income. Cross-county and time-series analyses reveal that solid waste generation is positively associated but inelastic with respect to per capita income, and positively associated and unit elastic with respect to population size" (Beede and Bloom, 1999: 1).

However, Wells argues that population is weakly associated with the generation of solid waste (Wells, 1996: 132). He says that it is the Gross National Product (GNP) that is strongly associated with the increasing volume of solid waste. According to him, "nations with high per capita GNP have the luxury of wasting materials; nations with low per capita GNP do not have that luxury" (Wells, 1996: 132).

The second factors that lead to the increasing volume of solid waste are the phenomenon of the "throwaway society" and "packaging" (Wells, 1996: 130). The former means that that the increasing volume of solid waste is a "result of an increase in the nonconsumable disposable goods people acquire that they cannot or will not recycle" (Wells, 1996: 130). While the later means that packaging adds to the increasing volume of garbage in the society or in the environment (Wells, 1996: 131).

The third factor that leads to the increasing volume of solid waste is technological inadequacy. The traditional technology used in solid waste management, i.e., open dumpsite and sanitary landfill, are detrimental to the environment. According to Wells, "landfill technology has not been environmentally benign. Landfills pollute through a variety of ways, including the release of liquids into both surface and ground water, run off of contaminated water into surface water systems, and the release of toxic gases into the air" (Wells, 1996: 135). Thus, the landfill technology, as well as open dumpsite, is inimical to public health, safety and welfare (Acosta & Lorenzo-Villreal, 1998: 1).

These traditional technologies are not only environmentally feasible, but they are also not politically viable, because of the not in my backyard (NIMBY) syndrome. No people in any municipality or city want their place to be a dumpsite of all kinds of waste, because of the negative externalities that wastes cause to their communities, homes, and properties.

Another factors that lead to the increasing volume of solid waste are the lack of information and education program on solid waste management and lack of applied research and development of appropriate technologies for solid waste management (Acosta and Lorenzo-Villareal, 1998: 1). Local governments and government agencies responsible for solid waste management do not conduct information and education campaign on the innovative solid waste management practice that they want to introduce. They do not conduct information drives, trainings, and seminars to let the public know of the value and process of the new solid waste management practice that they want to introduce to the public. And the national government do not give enough support for research and development of an appropriate solid waste management technology that will be beneficial to all sectors of the society.

And the last factor that lead to the increasing volume of solid waste is due to "the lack of cohesive and comprehensive national policies on solid waste management" (Acosta and Lorenzo-Villareal, 1998: 1). The national government does not have a concrete policy that will guide all sectors of the society in addressing the problem of solid waste. A national policy on solid waste management that will address the social, political, and environmental issues of solid waste management.

III. SOLID WASTE: METRO MANILA EXPERIENCE

Metro Manila is one of the societies in this planet that encountered problems in solid waste management. Metro Manila is one hundred percent (100%) urban. It has a population of 14,440 persons per square kilometer (Water and Sanitation Forum, 1997). And it generates 5,350 tons of solid waste per day (Innovative Practices on Solid Waste Management, 1999: 1). Of the 5,350 tons of solid waste generated everyday in Metro Manila, 4% is recycled; 6% is disposed by the households; and 73% is collected by the garbage trucks provided by the local government units. (Innovative Practices on Solid Waste Management, 1999: 1). The remaining 27% is "illegally discharge of at open spaces, rivers, esteros, canals and other waterways, which brings about urban environmental problems, including poor sanitation in the living environments" (Innovative Practices on Solid Waste Management, 1999: 1). According to the Philippine Yearbook 1992, the high incidence of environment and health problems in Metro Manila is related to waste problem (Water and Sanitation Forum, 1997). Recently, flash floods in Metro Manila are blamed to improper and illegal disposal of solid wastes in canals, esteros, rivers, and other waterways.

Solid waste problem in Metro Manila started almost 30 years ago. In 1969, then Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) formulated several master plans for the garbage problem . But they were not implemented due to lack of funds and political will of the local officials (Ubac, 1999). In 1990, Metro Manila was struck by another garbage problem . And then Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) resorted to dumping the waste at the Manila Bay (Ubac, 1999). In 1999, Metro Manila was greeted by another garbage problem when residence of Antipolo and San Mateo, Rizal protested the dumpsite in their area. A clear manifestation of not in my backyard (NIMBY) syndrome. To solve the problem temporarily, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed by Sec. Roberto Aventajado, Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Flagship Projects (PCFPP), local officials of Rizal province, and the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) on July 20, 1999. And in this Agreement they agreed to use the San Mateo Landfill up to December 2000.

At the height of the garbage crisis brought about by the protest of the people of Rizal province, the MMDA formulated and approved its Ordinance No. 99-004. The ordinance is entitled, "Regulation Governing Proper Refuse Management at Source in Metro Manila Area and for Other Purposes," or, it is well known as, "color coding scheme on garbage segregation." This policy mandates all producers of solid waste to segregate properly their solid wastes according to their different kinds. This policy is intended to reduce the volume of solid waste dumped into open dumpsites and landfills inside and outside Metro Manila.

IV. PREVIOUS POLICIES ON SOLID WASTE

But prior to this policy, there are government policies on solid waste management. These policies are created and approved by the national government during the time of Marcos and Aquino. They are as follows:

Presidential Decree No. 825 "Providing penalty for improper disposal of garbage and other forms of uncleanliness and for other purposes," November 7, 1975. This policy sets penalties for violations (such as imprisonment of not less than 5 days but not more than one year or a fine of not less than P100 or more than P2000 or both) and empowers the Secretary of Public Works Transportation and Communication, with the assistance of health officials and local governments concerned for the supervision and implementation of the decree.

Presidential Decree No. 856 "Code on Sanitation of the Philippines," December 23, 1975. Section 82 of this policy states that "cities and municipalities shall provide an adequate and efficient system of collecting, transporting and disposing of refuse in their areas of jurisdiction in a manner approved by the local health authority. Section 83 further provides that additional requirements on refuse storage and disposal.

Presidential Decree No. 984 "The National Pollution Control Decree and its Implementing Rules and Regulations," August 18, 1976. Chapter IV, Art. 2, Section 82a of the said policy prescribes that "Solid waste shall be stored, collected, processed, transported and disposed of in such a manner as to control dust emission, windblown material, odors and prevent harborage for vermin and insects. The solid waste shall be sorted in such a way that it is not a health of a safety hazard, unsightly and cannot be considered a public nuisance."

Presidential Decree No. 1152 "The Philippine Environment Code," June 6, 1977. Section 43 of the said policy says that "preparation and implementation of waste programs shall be required of all provinces, cities and municipalities. The Department of Local Governments and Community Development shall promulgate guidelines for the formulation and establishment of waste management programs."

Executive Order No 432 "Ordering the Strict Enforcement of Presidential Decree No. 825 Providing Penalties for Improper Disposal of Garbage and other Forms of Uncleanliness," October 23, 1980. "The EO calls for the strict implementation of PD 825 and further designates the Barangay Tanod as sanitary officers in the area and supported by the Metropolitan Manila Authority."

Memorandum Circular No. 30 "Creating the Presidential Task Force on Waste Management," November 2, 1987. "The Task Force was created to identify an effective collection and disposal system or technology that can be effectively sustained on a long terms basis; and to identify the most appropriate government agency that would assume the lead role in waste collection and disposal management and corresponding accountability, supporting and cooperating agencies, public and private; and define their respective participation and responsibilities..." (Water and Sanitation Forum, 1997).

Aside from the policies mentioned above, another national policy, which was passed and approved during the Ramos Administration, is Republic Act No. 7924 "An Act Creating The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Defining Its Powers and Functions, Providing Funds Therefore and For Other Purposes." The Sec. 3 of R.A. 7924 defines the scope of MMDA services. It says:

"metro-wide services under the jurisdiction of the MMDA are those services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual local government units (LGUs) comprising Metropolitan Manila."

This includes under Sec. 3c:

"solid waste disposal and management which include formulation and implementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for proper and sanitary waste disposal. It shall likewise include the establishment and operation of sanitary land fill and related facilities and the implementation of other alternative programs intended to reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste."

Under Sec. 6 of R.A. 7924, the Metro Manila Council is the policymaking body of the MMDA. The Council is composed of Mayors in Metro Manila. Aside from making policies, other functions of the Council are:

"Sec. 6b. It shall approve metro-wide plans, programs and projects and issue policies and regulations and resolutions deemed necessary by the MMDA to carry out the purposes of this Act.

"Sec. 6c. It may increase the rate of allowances and per diems of the members of the Council to be effective during the term of the succeeding Council. It shall fix the compensation of the officers and personnel of the MMDA, and approve the annual budget thereof for submission to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

"Sec. 6d. It shall promulgate rules and regulations and set policies, and standards for metro-wide application governing the delivery of basic services, prescribe and collect service and regulatory fees, and impose and collect fines and penalties."

The Sec. 9 of R.A. 7924 says that:

"the implementation of the MMDA's plans, programs and projects shall be undertaken by the Local Government Units (LGUs), the concerned national government agencies, the People's Organization (POs), Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and the private sector and the MMDA itself where appropriate. For this purpose, the MMDA may enter into contracts, memoranda of agreement and other cooperative arrangements with these bodies for the delivery of the required services within Metropolitan Manila."

It is very clear that the policies, programs and projects by the MMDA, which was formulated and approved by Metro Manila Council, are implemented or carried out by concerned national government agencies, LGUs, POs, NGOs, and the private sectors or the private individuals (see Figure 3 above). The implementation process of the MMDA invites participation from the civil society. MMDA and LGUs alone cannot implement successfully the policies of MMDA without the participation of the NGOs, POs, and private individuals.

Prior to the Ordinance No. 99-004, the MMDA, through the Metro Manila Council, formulated and approved Ordinance No. 96-009. This policy is entitled, "Prohibiting Littering/Dumping/Throwing of Garbage, Rubbish Or Any Kind Of Waste In Open Or Public Places, And Requiring All Owner's, Lessees, Occupants of Residential, Commercial Establishments, Whether Private or Public To Clean And Maintain The Cleanliness Of Their Frontage And Immediate Surroundings And Providing Penalties For Violation Thereof." On the "whereas" portion of the ordinance, it says that the objective of the policy is "to regulate the indiscriminate dumping/littering/throwing of garbage, refuse, filth and other kinds of solid waste in public places, rivers, canals, drainage and other water outlets...." Based on the situation of Metro Manila in terms of its solid waste problem, this policy of MMDA is not properly implemented. The same with the policies formulated and approved by the national government since 1979. The problems experienced and encountered by Metro Manila in solid waste tell us that the various policies to address solid waste remain written, not yet done properly!

The question now is, can the new policy, i.e, Ordinance No. 99-004, be successfully implemented by the MMDA and other groups involved? This question will be addressed in the entirety of this paper.

V. MMDA ORDINANCE NO. 99-004

This policy was approved by the Metro Manila Council on February 25, 1999, after the protest of the people of Rizal province. Based on the "whereas" portion of the policy, the Council consulted NGOs, POs, LGUs, and the academe on the effectivity, viability, and enforceability of this policy on January 28, 1999 and February 18, 1999. It was stated on the policy that it would be implemented on March 28, 1999. But due to unknown reasons, its implementation was held by the MMDA, and was moved to June 25, 1999. Again, the MMDA did not push through its implementation on the said date. It was moved from June 25 to September 25, 1999. Recently, it was reported in an early news program of ABS-CBN Channel 2, a national television, that the MMDA is blaming the garbage contractors, who were hired by LGUs in Metro Manila to collect and dispose solid waste, for not properly enforcing the said policy. Aiza Mercado, the president of the Solid Waste Contractors Association (SWACAP), threatened the MMDA that they will not collect the garbage if the said agency will continue blaming them for the failure of the implementation of the policy.

Objectives of the Policy

On the "whereas" portion of the policy, it says that if solid waste are not properly segregated, collected and disposed, it can expose and endanger the inhabitants of Metropolitan Manila to diseases and public nuisance. Thus, the policy was formulated to ensure urban protection from solid waste and control pollution brought about by solid waste, which are not properly segregated, collected and disposed. This policy promotes and safeguards the health and sanitation of residence and communities in Metro Manila and reduces solid waste at its source.

Scope of the Policy

Sec. 1 of the ordinance says that the policy shall be applied within Metro Manila only. And sectors or groups that generate solid waste shall observe this policy. These are the "households, firms, commercial or business establishments, institutions, occupants, owners, tenants, lessees of industrial establishments, refuse, collectors, disposal area operators and junk dealers, private scavengers and all other persons generating, accumulating, storing, collecting, transporting, processing, treating, utilizing, and disposing refuse or other waste material in Metro Manila."

Sanitary Requirements for the Segregation/Storage of Solid Waste

The Sec. 3 of the ordinance states the sanitary requirements for the segregation and storage of solid waste in the households and establishments. Firstly, the ordinance requires that all households and establishments should have different containers for different types of waste, i.e., biodegradable, non-biodegradable, hazardous, and pathological wastes. The containers should be color-coded: "green" for biodegradable waste; "black" for non-biodegradable waste; "red" for hazardous waste; and "yellow" for pathological waste (Sec. 3.1/Sec. 3.2/Sec. 3.3).

Secondly, the ordinance requires that waste containers should be properly concealed to avoid the escape of foul odor and the entry of vermin. It also requires that the waste containers can be easily lifted and handled without spillage by the collector, and they should be placed at designated place at designated time during the days of collection (Sec. 3.4/Sec. 3.5).

Thirdly, it requires that the weight of the containers should not exceed 7.0 kilograms for the households and 15 kilograms for commercial and institutional establishments. Containers that exceed this required weight shall be collected separately or scheduled for special collection. And they are subject for the local health officer's inspection as recommended by the sanitary engineer/inspector (Sec. 3.6/Sec. 3.9).

Fourthly, it requires that tree trimmings may be placed outside a container provided that such trimmings are secured in bundles of convenient weight and size (1.20 meter in length). Also, it requires that ashes be placed in plastic, metal or equivalent containers with covers. While broken glasses and other sharp objects should be placed in securely enclosed hard cardboard with tie to avoid injury of garbage collectors. Lastly, it requires that containers of soiled food, beverage tin cans, bottles and other washable containers should be thoroughly washed and dried before placing them inside their container (Sec. 3.7/Sec. 3.8/Sec. 3.10/Sec. 3.12).

Lastly, the ordinance requires that solid waste should be properly sorted at source, and it encourages households and establishments to practice recycling and composting. But it discourages burning of solid waste at source. The ordinance also requires that the name and address of the establishments or owners of the house should be written or placed in the containers (Sec. 3.1/Sec. 3.11/Sec. 3.13).

Sanitary Requirements for the Collection of Solid Waste

Sec. 4 of the ordinance requires that collectors of solid waste should wear proper uniform, identification card, an up-to-date health card, and a personal protective paraphernalia during the collection of solid waste. Secondly, it requires that all collectors should undergo an annual medical check-up (Sec. 4.1/Sec. 4.2/Sec. 4.3).

Thirdly, the ordinance states that garbage collectors should not collect solid waste that are not properly sorted and segregated, i.e., not placed in color-coded containers with label. Also, it requires that collectors should return all empty containers to the owners with care. However, containers that are in poor condition should not be returned unless requested by the owners (Sec. 4.5/Sec. 4.6/Sec. 4.7/Sec. 4.8).

Fourthly, it requires collectors not to leave behind the spilled contents of any container, or any solid waste falling out of the garbage truck, or any solid waste placed in the designated collection area (Sec. 4.9).

Lastly, it requires that containers should be placed outside the property line of residents only during the scheduled time and day of garbage collection. And it does not allow scavenging during collection and storage of solid waste (Sec. 4.11/Sec. 4.12).

Sec. 4.4 of the ordinance also requires the MMDA to give orientation to the collectors on the collection of solid waste in compliance with the requirements of this policy.

Sanitary Requirements for the Transportation of Solid Waste

The ordinance requires that all garbage trucks should have two compartments: one for the biodegradable waste painted with green and the other for non-biodegradable painted with black. Garbage trucks that do not have the two compartments should collect the different wastes on separate schedule. For garbage trucks that have built-in compactors, only non-biodegradable waste should be compacted while biodegradable waste should be hauled in a specially designed compartment (Sec. 5.1).

Secondly, it requires that all garbage trucks should have a hauling body constructed of metal. All joints in the hauling body should be closed and smooth to avoid the dripping and leakage of draining water or liquid. All garbage trucks should have a means to cover the solid waste. And they should not be loaded of solid waste that exceed its side wall length (Sec. 5.2/Sec. 5.3).

Thirdly, it requires that garbage trucks should be well painted and sanitized. They should be washed and applied with disinfectant/deodorizer as often as possible to prevent persistent odors. They should have the name, logo and telephone number of the contractor/agency and the name of the city or municipality being served on the sidewall of the hauling body (Sec. 5.4/Sec. 5.5).

And lastly, it requires garbage collectors to load solid waste properly, which will not permit material to swing off, fall out or jar loose and fall to the ground while in motion (Sec. 5.6).

The ordinance imposed fines for those who will violate this policy. For first offense, a fine of P1,000.00 or community service of two (2) days and compulsory seminar for one (1) day will be imposed. While for second offense, a fine of P3,000.00 or community service of four (4) days and compulsory seminar for one (1) day will be imposed. And for the third offense, a fine of P5,000.00 or community service of six (6) days and compulsory seminar for one (1) day will be imposed (Sec. 7.3). The ordinance further says that if the violator is a commercial, institutional, or industrial establishment, the president, manager, or person responsible for its operation will be held liable. While if the violators are condominiums, apartments, or residents, the owner or the household head will be held liable (Sec. 7.2).

VI. CAN MMDA ORDINANCE NO. 99-004 BE IMPLEMENTED?: AN ANALYSIS

The Content of the Policy: State Interest Analysis

a. Type of Benefits and Resources Committed

Solid waste is a societal problem. It causes environmental and health problems. It pollutes the air, causes floods, and contaminates the water and food that people eat. That is why it endangers public health and sanitation. The formulation of this policy addresses these problems brought about by improper disposal of the increasing volume of solid waste. The policy ensures that public health and sanitation and the environment are being protected through proper segregation, collection and disposal of solid waste.

That is why the government spends money to solve the problem of solid waste. Local Government Units (LGUs) spend 3% to 15% of their annual budget for solid waste management. The MMDA spends 40% of their annual budget for solid waste management.

The collection of solid waste is carried out by the LGUs, MMDA, and private contractors. The LGUs in Metro Manila have 210 garbage trucks, while the MMDA has 69 trucks, and the private contractors have 1,230 garbage trucks. The technology used in waste disposal is traditional, i.e., open dumpsite and landfill. Inside Metro Manila, there are eight open dumpsites operated by LGUs (Quinones, 1998: 7). And outside Metro Manila, there is only one landfill, the San Mateo landfill, which will be closed on December 2000.

b. Extent of Change Envisioned

To achieve the objectives of the policy and to ensure its benefits to the public, the policy introduces innovative solid waste management practices to the people of Metro Manila. These are the proper segregation of solid waste by using color-coded container for each type of waste and the recycling of solid waste. These two innovative solid waste management practices are meant to reduce solid waste at source.

According to Qui�ones (1998: 7), the people of Metro Manila have a prevailing culture of dumping wastes in open lands and waterbodies. People in Metro Manila throw their garbage in esteros, rivers, and canals. They just leave their garbage along the streets, not properly concealed, and they let the rats, dogs, and cats feast on it. Not only that, people in Metro Manila are not use to throw their waste in different containers according to its kind. Filipinos, not only Manile�os, are use to throw their garbage in one container.

Throwing one's garbage is a lifestyle or a way of life because people do it daily, every hour, every minute, every second of the day. It is also a habit. Some people throw their garbage in the trashcans while others throw it somewhere else. Throwing garbage is also is a culture, because it involves values and perception.

The innovative management strategies that the policy would like to introduce to the public are something new to them. They are not use to throw their garbage in a color-coded containers. They are not use to re-use or recycle their waste. Thus, the extent of change envisioned by the policy is high. The policy, for it to be successful, needs to change people's lifestyle, i.e., throwing of garbage in a proper container according to its type. It needs to change people's values, i.e., value on "collective" cleanliness and health. It needs to change people's perception, i.e., waste is detrimental to one's life, and it can be a source of income. And it needs to change people's habit, i.e., throwing garbage on their proper container. The policy regulates attitude, not just behavior. Changing ones attitude is not easy because it should start from changing one's beliefs and values.

Most of the people in Metro Manila are not familiar with the different types of waste. There are people who are not aware and knowledgeable of biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes. This factor is another indicator that the change envisioned by the policy, which is high. Implementors of the policy do not only need education or information campaign, but also value formation.

Van Meter and Van Horn say that there are two dimensions that affect implementation. These are the amount or extent of change envisioned and the goal consensus (Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975: 460-461). They say that when the amount of change envisioned by the policy is high or major change, it cannot be implemented successfully. But when the amount of change envisioned by the policy is low or minor change, it can be implemented successfully.

Based on this view of Van Meter and Van Horn, this policy could not be implemented successfully because the amount of change that it envisioned is high. The policy demands a major change on the lifestyle, attitude, values, perception, or culture of the public towards the proper segregation of solid waste. Changing the variables that need to be changed for the success of this policy is not easy. It cannot be attained in a short-term basis. It is a great challenge on the part of the government and the civil society.

c. Site of Decision Making and the Implementors of the Policy

It was stated above that programs, projects, and policies of the MMDA are implemented with the assistance and cooperation of the LGUs, NGOs, POs, private individuals, and other national agencies concerned. In this policy, the main implementors are the LGUs through their garbage collectors and the private groups and individuals who generate solid waste. The site of decision making also lies in these parties.

The success of this policy depends greatly on these parties. There are socio-economic factors, which affect these implementers, that need to be considered. Garbage collectors that visit residential areas every week are not highly educated. They did not finish college. Some of them did not reach high school. The requirements of the policy on the part of the collectors is quiet enormous. Garbage collectors should have a technical know-how of the different types of waste that they will collect and disposed everyday.

It was reported that the MMDA is blaming the solid waste private contractors, which were hired by LGUs to collect solid waste in their areas, for not implementing properly the said policy. The MMDA, before blaming the garbage collectors, needs first to educate, not just orient, garbage collectors of the technical requirements of the policy.

Policies, to be implemented successfully, require implementors to be competent, committed, and credible. Competency means that they have technical know-how of their job. Commitment means that they know the goals and objectives of the policy and show willingness to achieve them. Credibility means that they manifest sincerity and seriousness in doing their job and in achieving the goals of the policy. The credibility, competency, and commitment of the garbage collectors should be evaluated, because under this policy, they are not just collecting and throwing wastes. They have objectives to achieve, which were articulated by the policy.

On the part of the private groups and individuals, which generate waste, there are factors that should be considered. One of the generators of a large amount of waste is the household. Not all households live in a middle-class village or barangay. Most of them live in squatter areas or in depressed barangays. Not all households have members that are educated and knowledgeable of the requirements of the policy.

Based on the paper entitled, Innovative Practices on Solid Waste Management, which was presented on the policy issue forum at the National College of Public Administration and Governance:

"waste collection is not usually provided uniformly across urban areas. Services are generally concentrated in the main commercial and business district and often leave out low income and peripheral areas... Obviously, there are sectors of the society that are further marginalized by the non-collection of their waste. These sectors are generally found in highly congested and inaccessible areas."

Based on observation, households who live in slum or squatter areas do not properly disposed their waste. They throw their waste anywhere, usually in canals and esteros. The reason for this was mentioned above. There is a poor collection services to these poor households. How can they comply with the policy? This is a big question and a great challenge on the part of the MMDA and LGUs.

Another factor that should be considered is the level of knowledge of the households on the requirements of the program. Not all households know what are the types of solid waste especially those who live in slum areas or depressed areas. Households, who live in middle-class subdivisions and barangays and first-class subdivisions, entrust the segregation of waste to their helpers. Are they knowledgeable of the requirements of the policy? Again, another question which needs definite answer.

Sad to say, the MMDA and LGUs are doing nothing to address this problem. They do not launch intensive and extensive information and educational campaign to the households about the requirements of the policy. Also, sad to say the households remain silent, as if they know what they are going to do, on this matter.

The theory of Van Meter and Van Horn says that the success of the implementation of the policy depends in two variables: the amount of change and the goal consensus. It was mentioned earlier that the amount of change envisioned by the policy is high. In contrast to the amount of change, the goal consensus of the policy is low because of some socio-economic factors that affect the implementers. Van Meter and Van Horn say that when a policy has a low goal consensus and the amount of change envisioned is high, its percentage of implementation is low (see Figure 4 below). It cannot be implemented successfully!

The Context of the Policy: Pluralists and Public Choice Analysis

a. Interests of the NGOs

The implementation of the policy did not encounter strong opposition from the households and establishments. These groups are silent with regard to this policy. But the NGOs, the advocates of waste segregation and recycling, are very critical of the MMDA. They say that they will not support the MMDA in implementing the policy, because of the existence of the landfills which, according to them, are detrimental to the environment and inimical to public health. According to Ma. Ceres P. Doyo, in her article in Philippine Daily Inquirer:

"So many voices offering alternative solutions, so many people trying and succeeding in finding solutions, but the Metro Manila Development Authority seems deaf and blind to all these, preferring to maintain the environmentally hazardous and obsolete practice of dumping" (Doyo, 1999: 8).

NGOs, such as, Mother Earth Unlimited and Metro Manila Linis-Ganda Inc. do not support the MMDA in this policy, not because they do not like the policy, but because they want landfills out! They said that landfills are no longer needed because they have alternatives to solid waste management, which are environment friendly and not costly. These are recycling and segregation. Leonora N. Camacho says that the MMDA wants "to spend billions of pesos in maintaining sanitary landfills and hiring garbage trucks" (People's Journal, 1999).

The interests and beliefs of this group are different from the beliefs and interests of the MMDA and LGUs. This group wants landfills out, and they want their suggestions to be heard and applied by the government. The MMDA, in this policy, adopted their suggestions. But it maintains landfills. That is why the environmentalist opposed the MMDA.

In October 1999, the NGOs again expressed their "non-support" to the policy because of the landfills. They said that they have new technologies that are effective and environment friendly. Rene Lozada of Wastecon, a member of the group, says that his company converts unmanageable toxic wastes to neutralize and detoxify substances like hollow blocks and paints (People's Journal, 1999). He also says that they can convert all types of waste to avoid filling them at the dumpsite. He say that the technology that they use, which is called hydromex, can solve waste problem in Metro Manila. But the MMDA does not make it as their top priority.

Levi Tandug, a member of the March Four Movement, who organized the protest against the use of San Mateo landfill says that they want MMDA and Metro Manila to realize the need for segregation, not dumping of waste (People's Journal, 1999). He also accused MMDA of lack of information campaign on the proper segregation of solid waste.

The NGOs articulate their interests clearly. They do no want to support the MMDA in this policy because of the existence of landfill. The role of the NGOs in the success of this policy is vital. They play an important role in the successful implementation of the policy. Their opposition is not a good sign for the MMDA.

b. The Compliance and Responsiveness of the Public

The compliance and responsiveness of the public at the early stage of the implementation of the policy is low. The MMDA and the LGUs do not conduct extensive and intensive information campaign. The households and establishments remain silent and do not comply. It is only the NGOs that are vocal of their opposition against the policy.

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The success of the implementation of the policy is low, or would not be successful, because of some problems in the content and context of the policy. In the content of the policy, there are some problems with regard to the implementers of the policy. They are not very knowledgeable of the policy's requirements, not only because of their low educational attainment and their physical location, but also because of lack of intensive and extensive information and educational project on the part of the MMDA and LGUs.

Another problem in the content of the policy is the amount of change envisioned by the policy. The policy needs to change the culture, lifestyle, and habit of the public in terms of proper segregation and disposal of solid waste. This could not be achieved by the implementers overnight. This involves long-term planning.

In the context of the policy, there are NGOs that do not throw their support behind the policy as a sign of their protest against the landfills maintained and managed by the MMDA. It is against their interest, i.e., environmental protection. They believe that landfills should be phased out because of its threat to the environment. Aside from that, they are suggesting alternative ways and new technologies to solve the problem. But the MMDA and LGUs do not consider their suggestions.

The compliance of the public is not clear. The households and establishments do not express their support or opposition to the policy. They do not articulate their interest with regard to this policy.

For the readers, MMDA, LGUs, NGOs and other groups concerned in the implementation of this policy, the writer would like to share these seven guiding principles of solid waste management:

1. Waste is resource.
2. Waste prevention is better than waste regulation and control.
3. There is no single management and technological approach to solid waste. An integrated solid waste management system will best achieve solid waste management goals.
4. All elements of the society are fundamentally responsible for solid waste management.
5. Those who generate waste must bear the cost of its management and disposal.
6. Solid waste management should be approached within the context of resource conservation, environmental protection and health and sustainable development.
7. Solid waste management programs should take into consideration the physical and socio-economic condition of the concerned communities, and be designed according to their specific needs. (Water and Sanitation Forum, 1997).

The MMDA should listen and take into consideration the suggestions of the NGOs regarding the innovative technologies that are environmental friendly. The NGOs and the MMDA and the private sector should cooperate and coordinate to one another for the success of this policy. The MMDA alone, together with the LGUs and the collectors, cannot solve the problem of solid waste.

The MMDA should address the socio-economic conditions and physical locations of some of the generators of solid waste. And they also have to address the technical competency and capability of the collectors of solid waste. The MMDA and the LGUs should conduct an extensive and intensive education and information campaign for the success of the policy.

VIII. SELECTED REFERENCES

"Sanitary Landfills Are Everything Except 'Sanitary'." People's Journal. Vol. XXI No. 300 October 8, 1999.

"Solid Waste Management in the Philippines." Water and Sanitation Forum. Vol. 2 Issue No. 2 1997.

Beede, David and D. E. Bloom. "Economics of the Generation and Management of Municipal Solid Waste." 1995 (Internet).

Congress of the Philippnes. R.A. No. 7924: An Act Creating the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Defining Its Powers and Functions, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes. Metro Manila: March 1, 1995.

Doyo, Ceres P. "Dump Crisis Fans Call For Options." Philippine Daily Inquirer. Vol. 14 No. 234 August 1, 1999.

Metro Manila Council. MMDA Regulation No. 96-009: Prohibiting Littering/Dumping/Throwing of Garbage, Rubbish or Any Kind of Waste in Open or Public Places, and Requiring All Owner's, Lessees, Occupants of Residential, Commercial Establishments, Whether Private or Public to Clean and Maintain the Cleanliness of Their Frontage and Immediate Surroundings and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof. Makati City: August 22, 1996.

Metro Manila Council. MMDA Regulation No. 99-004: Regulation Governing Proper Refuse Management at Source in Metro Manila Area and for Other Purposes. Makati City: February 25, 1999.

Metro Manila Development Authority & Japan International "Cooperation Agency. SWM Study for Metro Manila Concludes." Metro Manila Solid Waste Management Bulletin. Vol. 1 No. 7 January 1999.

Presidential Task Force on Waste Management. Solid Waste Management For Local Governments. 1997.

Qui�ones, Nelia C. "Updates on Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Philippines: Its Implication on National R & D Agenda." Canopy International. Vol. 24 (1-6) January-February 1998.

Wells, Donald T. Environmental Policy: Abnormal Perspective to the Twenty-First Century. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1996.