Developing a monitoring and evaluation framework to integrate and formalize the informal waste and recycling sector: The case of the Philippine National Framework Plan

542146

research-article2014

WMR0010.1177/0734242X14542146Waste Management & ResearchSerrona et al.

Original Article

Developing a monitoring and evaluation framework to integrate and formalize the informal waste and recycling sector: The case of the Philippine National Framework Plan

Waste Management & Research 1–14 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14542146 wmr.sagepub.com

Kevin Roy B Serrona1, Jeongsoo Yu2, Emelita Aguinaldo3 and Leonardo M Florece4

Abstract The Philippines has been making inroads in solid waste management with the enactment and implementation of the Republic Act 9003 or the Ecological Waste Management Act of 2000. Said legislation has had tremendous influence in terms of how the national and local government units confront the challenges of waste management in urban and rural areas using the reduce, reuse, recycle and recovery framework or 4Rs. One of the sectors needing assistance is the informal waste sector whose aspiration is legal recognition of their rank and integration of their waste recovery activities in mainstream waste management. To realize this, the Philippine National Solid Waste Management Commission initiated the formulation of the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector, which stipulates approaches, strategies and methodologies to concretely involve the said sector in different spheres of local waste management, such as collection, recycling and disposal. What needs to be fleshed out is the monitoring and evaluation component in order to gauge qualitative and quantitative achievements vis-a-vis the Framework Plan. In the process of providing an enabling environment for the informal waste sector, progress has to be monitored and verified qualitatively and quantitatively and measured against activities, outputs, objectives and goals. Using the Framework Plan as the reference, this article developed monitoring and evaluation indicators using the logical framework approach in project management. The primary objective is to institutionalize monitoring and evaluation, not just in informal waste sector plans, but in any waste management initiatives to ensure that envisaged goals are achieved. Keywords Waste management, monitoring and evaluation, informal waste sector, logical framework, indicators, objectives, goals, participation

Introduction The Philippines is continually faced with a wide array of social, economic and environmental challenges, one of which is solid waste management (SWM). The country’s population as of 2012 was 96,706,764 million (World Bank, 2013a) with a national waste generation rate estimated to be at 29,315 metric tonnes per day (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). Per capita waste generation is 0.70 kg day−1 in urban areas and 0.30 kg day−1 in rural areas. Metropolitan Manila, the National Capital Region, produces about 7620–7802 metric tonnes per day, which represent almost a quarter of the country’s solid waste generation (Alave, 2011). With the Philippines experiencing economic growth of 7.6% gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 (World Bank, 2013b) and 7.8% in the first quarter of 2013 (National Statistical Coordination Board, 2013), resource consumption and utilization keep increasing at an alarming pace, and are expected to impact on waste generation.

Significant strides in SWM have been made by the Philippine government in the area of SWM with the implementation of the Republic Act 9003 (National Solid Waste Management Commission, 2014) or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. The legislation stipulates specific targets,

1SEINAN

Group, Hirosaki, Japan of Interregional Environmental System, Tohoku University, Aoba-ku, Japan 3National Solid Waste Management Commission, Quezon City, Philippines 4School of Environmental Science and Management, University of the Philippines Los Banos College, Laguna, Philippines 2Department

Corresponding author: Kevin Roy B Serrona, SEINAN Group, 4-5 Kanda 5-Chome, Hirosaki, Aomori 036-8061, Japan. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016

2

Waste Management & Research

institutional, regulatory and financial arrangements, as well as a penalties and rewards system that will improve and strengthen SWM at the national and local levels. On the compliance side, local government units (LGUs) are mandated to comply with the provisions of the law, e.g. closing of open dumpsites, waste segregation, establishment of material recovery facilities (MRFs), etc., or face penalties. The National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC), the agency tasked to oversee the implementation of the law, has been at the forefront of initiating and mentoring LGUs towards achieving the envisaged goals of RA 9003. Among its functions include review, approval, coordination and monitoring of local SWM plans at the provincial and city/ municipal levels. It is also tasked to provide technical and capability building assistance to LGUs and conduct a sustained public information campaign (Varey et al., 2003). There is a substantial number of informal waste sectors (IWSs) in the Philippines, the majority of whom operate in urban areas where recyclable materials abound. In Metro Manila alone, their number ranges from 5000 to 7000 based on estimates. They are composed of waste reclaimers in the dumpsites, jumpers who climb up the garbage trucks to recover recyclable materials, garbage crew, itinerant waste buyers and illegal junkshops that recover materials and divert solid waste materials from final disposal (NSWMC, 2009). However, their economic and social contributions remain unrecognized. The National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector describes the benefits gained from informal waste recovery, namely: reduction in terms of need to extract raw materials and non-renewable materials, recovery is less costly and less harmful than disposal and retrieval of waste materials from the waste stream reduces the public burden to collect, transport, dispose and treat waste. In addition, it also provides needed employment and stimulates the creation of small and medium scale enterprises. Globally, there are more than two million informal waste pickers in the recycling industry engaged in various areas of waste recovery (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). The sector has achieved considerable gains in terms of recycling rates to the tune of 20% to 30% in low income countries and helped local government units or authorities save 20% in local waste management expenses (Velis et al., 2012). This is exemplified in China where approximately 20% of discards are collected by the informal waste sector for recycling (Hoornweg et al., 2005). Recovery rate by the sector goes up to 80% because of the direct selling that occurs to the people who depend economically from buying and selling recyclable materials (Gunsilius et al., 2011). Table 1 shows select cities with the informal waste sector exercising greater control of material recovery over the formal sector. In Quezon City, Philippines, the informal sector recovery was 23% in 2010 compared with 2% that was recovered by the formal sector. The big difference can be attributed to the fact that the IWS collects materials directly from households, business establishments and disposal facilities. This translates into substantial income for them. There is no specific provision for the IWS in RA 9003, but its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) calls for the inclusion

Table 1. Comparison of material recovery by formal and informal sector in six different cities. City

Cairo, Egypt Cluj, Romania Lima, Peru Lusaka, Zambia Pune, India Quezon City, Philippines

Formal sector

Informal sector

Tonnes

% of total

Tonnes

% of total

433,200 8900 9400 12,000 — 15,600

13% 5% 0.3% 4% 0% 2%

979,400 14,600 529,400 5400 117,900 141,800

30% 8% 19% 2% 22% 23%

Source: Scheinberg et al. (2010).

of a representative from the junkshop owners’ association in the barangay (basic political unit) SWM committee. There is a provision in Section 48 of RA 9003 that bars unauthorized removal of recyclable materials intended for collection by authorized persons, which renders informal waste recovery as outside of the legal system (RA 9003). In addition, waste picking and trading will be regulated in the transition period from open dumpsite into controlled dump and eventual eradication of informal waste recovery in sanitary landfills. IWS activities in controlled dumps are subject to the permission of owners or operator. In line with the national government’s policy on inclusive growth, the NSWMC, in partnership with the UNEP Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific, Advance Waste Management Project of the Japanese Government and the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, formulated the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector, which seeks to integrate the IWS in formal waste management systems through provision of a favorable policy environment, skills development and access to livelihood opportunities and social services, such as health, insurance and organizational affiliation (NSWMC, 2009). RA 9003 encourages the formation of cooperatives and associations that could serve as the venue for IWS participation in mainstream SWM. The Framework Plan defines IWS as “individuals, groups or small enterprises engaged in the recovery of waste materials either on a full-time or part-time basis with income generation as the motivation.” Their informal character is owing to the fact that they are not registered with any government agency and their working conditions are described as unhealthy and hazardous. Embedded in the said document is the strategic framework plan for the IWS, which stipulates key issues and challenges confronting the IWS as well as vision, mission and goals. Also included are proposed interventions, actors and partners, as well as key steps to implement the plan. However, there is a need to establish a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) scheme to ensure that qualitative and quantitative targets are achieved, and recommendations and lessons fully identified for replication in future programs for the IWS. The goal is to build a M&E framework in the waste sector so that stakeholders across national and local levels are conscious on how to gauge successes and failures in


3

Serrona et al. project implementation. This article attempts to establish a M&E framework in the context of the Philippine National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector with the goal of institutionalizing M&E systems at all levels of SWM interventions.

Research methodology Interventions in SWM have expanded from the technical, institutional, financial and public awareness perspectives. It is no longer confined to physical infrastructures; it has seriously considered the valuable role of service delivery agents, private sector and local communities towards realizing successful waste management programs. With institutions and community groups coming into play, project management with accompanying M&E components have become indispensable to ensure that planned targets are achieved, recommendations and lessons are identified and successful programs are replicated. As M&E is finely integrated in development programs, the results have become better and more attuned to the needs of partner communities. For example, the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank conducts evaluation studies on various themes, including environment, agriculture and rural development sectors. In its recent findings on climate adaptation, it found out that the Bank needs to incorporate climate risk assessment in project design and appraisal based on experience in Kiribati, Colombia and the Caribbean (Independent Evaluation Group, 2013). Therefore, initial questions raised in this research were: Does M&E aid in sustaining SWM programs for the informal waste sector? What are the requirements to institutionalize M&E in SWM? A strong M&E system is one of the contributing factors in achieving sustainable SWM, which is the main argument why the M&E framework for the IWS was developed. This research primarily takes data from the Philippine National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector, which carries the necessary narratives for the proposed IWS M&E framework. The framework plan was formulated based on a series of public consultations with the IWS, government and nongovernment organizations and other support agencies. Inventory of existing junkshops and waste reclaimers associations and government agencies were also made. A situational analysis of the IWS in the Philippines was likewise conducted. These were supplemented with a review of existing studies related to the IWS. Prior to finalizing the report, a validation workshop was made with key stakeholders (NSWMC, 2009). In crafting the M&E framework, a combination of research methods, namely desktop reviews, actual visits to IWS groups in select cities and municipalities in the Philippines and interviews, were utilized. A project entitled “Social Inclusion and Alternative Livelihood for the Informal Waste Sector” was taken as a reference study. The project is being supported by the World Bank and the Japan Social Development Fund (WB/JSDF) in recognition of the National Framework Plan for the IWS. The objective is to develop and expand livelihood opportunities and integrate them into the fold of formal waste management. The goal is to organize

3500 waste pickers in five pilot sites at 750 waste picker per sites; provide sub-grants for LGUs for SWM investment purposes; training and technical assistance for members of recycling cooperatives and employment and training with the private sector. There will also be grants as a start-up capital amounting to $20,000 per grant. Project duration is two years from 18 June 2012 to 15 August 2014. Pilot sites are General Santos City, Legaspi City and Albay Province, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, Butuan City and Cabanatuan City. Lead implementing agency is the Solid Waste Association of the Philippines (SWAPP), a non-government organization. In addition, main documents reviewed and analyzed were RA 9003 and the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector. The National Framework Plan spells out proposed interventions and potential partners in realizing the participation of the IWS in formal waste management. This is the main reference or derivative through which the proposed logical framework (lograme) and the monitoring and evaluation framework (MEF) were formulated, and which will be discussed in subsequent chapters. It should be noted that the Framework Plan is a pioneering effort of the NSWMC in dealing directly with the IWS in a manner that gives guidance to LGUs on how to collaborate with the said sector. It is, thus, important to discuss the policy and regulatory frameworks and M&E definitions and processes to contextualize the discussions.

Definition of M&E M&E is a reinforcing tool aimed at checking progress and evaluating outcomes. Generally, evaluation is defined as an assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of an on-going or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. It also provides information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons into the decision-making process of both recipients and donors (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Development Assistance Committee, 1991). Monitoring is defined as the ongoing process by which stakeholders obtain regular feedback on the progress being made towards achieving their goals and objectives. On the other hand, evaluation is a rigorous and independent assessment of either completed or ongoing activities to determine the extent to which they are achieving stated objectives and contributing to decision making (United Nations Development Programme, 2009). In summary, Table 2 lists the M&E aims. M&E is also a participatory exercise, where key stakeholders are involved not just as sources of information, but rather as active players in the development process. Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME) is defined as “a process through which stakeholders at various levels engage in monitoring or evaluating a particular project or policy, share control over the content, the process and the results of the M&E activity and engage in taking or identifying corrective actions (World Bank, 2013c). In the


4


Table 2. Objectives of M&E. Monitoring

Evaluation

•• Assess progress against schedules and targets •• Manage allocation of resources and funds •• Compare actual inputs and expenditures against budget •• Assess the quality of implementation •• Manage risks

•• Is the project fulfilling its objectives? •• What are the impacts? On beneficiaries? Community perceptions? •• What have been the outcomes of the project on service delivery? •• Is it efficient in how it converts resources/funds of pilot activities? •• How to improve effectiveness/efficiency of pilot activities? •• Are assumptions holding true and hypothesis valid? •• What are the lessons for the longer-term program?

Source: Collete (2003).

Table 3. Logframe matrix. Summary of objectives/ activities

Objectively verifiable indicators

Means of verification

Important assumptions/risks

Goals (broad national/ sector goal) Objectives (development outcomes at project end)

Source of info – who, when, how Source of info – who, when, how

Expected outputs (tangible results)

How the goals are to be measured, including quantity, quality and time How the objectives are to be measured, including quality, quantity and time How the results are to be measured, including quantity, quality, time

Activities (tasks/work)

Quantity, quality, time

External influences beyond the project’s direct control If the objectives are achieved, what assumptions must hold true to achieve the goals? If outputs are achieved, what assumptions must hold true to achieve the purpose? If activities are completed, what assumptions must hold true to deliver the results?

Source of info – who, when, how Source of info – who, when, how

Sources: Collete (2003) and European Commission (2004).

context of SWM, M&E plays an important role in determining the success of a SWM initiative and how it can be replicated or scaled up. SWM, being both social and technical in nature, needs regular monitoring of a whole range of activities like waste generation, waste segregation, recycling, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. Community participation is also an element that needs to be measured, as successful waste reduction or recycling programs hinge on this aspect. RA 9003 requires LGUs to come up with SWM plans. A monitoring program component is embedded in the prescribed SWM plan, which falls under the “Implementation Strategy” and states that the “monitoring program should provide accurate information and should show whether or not policies are succeeding and to monitor the performance of the SWM plan.” In addition, there is also a milestone component that highlights success stories across waste management stages from source reduction to establishment of sanitary landfills (NSWMC, 2012). To operationalize this, an MEF needs to be established because of the variety of SWM approaches and strategies that LGUs will employ in complying with RA 9003. The richness of implementation models, recycling systems and disposal options in SWM implementation will only be captured through a sound M&E system. In general, the application of M&E in waste management is considered necessary to measure progress, quantify costs and assess impacts at the community level. Sharp et al. (2010)

discussed succinctly the necessity of having a M&E system in household waste prevention interventions to collect robust and high-quality data, come up with decision on where to prioritize resources and ensure that waste preventions lead to behavior change. Furthermore, participation, which is a highly qualitative element, can be measured using appropriate tools and approaches.

Logical framework The logical framework (logframe) is a tool in development programs that prescribes a hierarchical approach to displaying how the project will be implemented to achieve its objectives. It shows the interrelationships between design elements, factors influencing success, indicators for project progress and impacts and means of project monitoring (Collete, 2003). It was originally developed for the United States Agency for International Development in 1969 as a tool to conceive a project and understand assumptions (World Bank, 2012). Based on experiences of the various bilateral and multilateral organizations, the logframe approach has resulted in measuring progress and impacts from project design, implementation and post-implementation stages. It is also the basis for coming up with a MEF. A standard matrix for the logframe is shown in Table 3. The vertical logic is a series of hypothesis linking the achievement of activities through outputs to project objectives and goal. It consists of the intended goals, objectives, outputs and activities,


5

Serrona et al. Table 4. Planning matrix for monitoring. Expected results

Indicators

M&E activity with data collection method

Time or Responsischedule and bilities frequency


Resources

Risks

Obtained from development plan and results framework.

From results framework. Indicators should also capture key priorities such as capacity development and gender. Risks need to be identified too.

How is data to be obtained? Example: through a survey, a review or stakeholder meeting, etc.

Level of detail that can be included would depend on the practical needs.

Systematic source and location where you would find the identified and necessary data, such as a national institute or academe

Estimate of resources required and committed for carrying out planned monitoring activities.

What are the risks and assumptio ns for carrying out the planned monitoring activities?

Who is responsible for organizing the data collection and verifying data quality and source?

Source: United Nations Development Programme, 2009

while the horizontal logic consists of the indicators, means of verifications (MOVs) and assumptions. The premise in logframe is that project elements are interrelated and external factors like environment, people, institutions, politics, climate, etc., play in project implementation. Thus, there is a column for assumptions, which describe the external factors that will play in the achievement or non-achievement of the vertical elements. It also contains the perceived risks that will come along in project implementation. The logframe aids in identifying resource requirements and costs (European Commission, 2004). The use of logframe has its own advantages and limitations. If used properly, it is logical, concise and objective. It places the project into the larger context of a sectoral/program goal and is a valuable tool for the management as it provides a summary of the project in a standard format (Collete, 2003). On the other hand, its limitations revolve around the use of a rigid or inflexible approach by organizations that restricts the flexibility of logframe utilization. Result-oriented projects may ignore the process itself, which is a feature of the logframe. It is also policy neutral when it comes to questions related to income distribution, access to resources, local participation costs or effects on the environment (World Bank, 2012). It is important to note that the logframe approach is one of the tools in project planning and management, and complements other tools like institutional capacity assessment, gender analysis, environmental impact assessment and economic and financial analysis (World Bank, 2012: 58). As stated previously, it has to be done in a participatory manner, whereby project stakeholders are involved in the whole process, e.g. identification of goals, outputs, activities and indicators among others. The role of indicators in the logframe setting is crucial in measuring quantity and quality in relation to the achievement of the design elements, namely goals, objectives, outputs and activities. As such, determining the right indicators should posses the “SMART” qualities: simple – easy to understand; measurable – quantitative where possible; attributable – directly relate to change measured; relevant – to management needs; and timely – at the right time to support management (Collete, 2003). In addition, indicators should emanate from the perspectives of both

the management and the stakeholders to whom the project is intended for. When linked with the project cycle, the logframe approach is embedded in each stage, such as project identification, formulation, implementation and evaluation and audit.

MEF With the logframe identified in the planning stage, the next step is the formulation of the MEF in order to proceed with the monitoring and evaluation activities. Whereas the logframe provides a structure for project implementation, the MEF provides the structure for all M&E activities. It describes the following:. 1. Requirements of users of the M&E information. 2. Description of the indicators and information to be collected. 3. Sources of information. 4. Responsibilities for undertaking all the different aspects of M&E. 5. How M&E information is to be collected, reported and used (including schedules and frequency). The MEF is derived from the logframe. It is likewise developed at the planning stages and should be considered as a necessary ingredient in project management (United Nations Development Programme, 2009). It gives management the upper hand in determining where the project is headed to and what are the accompanying issues or problems. Moreover, it also allows an objective view of how the project is faring. To achieve quality M&E, SMART indicators are the key as stated previously. There is a wide array of qualitative and quantitative collection methods that can be used in SWM, as can be seen in Table 5 (Bernstein, 2004). A combination of methods can be applied depending on needs. Other methods apart from the ones mentioned above can be used. MOVs could be reports, documentations, institutions and other platforms for validating information. One of the key result areas in a MEF is arriving at recommendations and lessons. M&E is done in three stages: pre, during and post stages of


6


Table 5. Quantitative and qualitative methods and tools. Tools

Brief description

Collection of secondary data Household survey

Existing reports and documentations sourced from the provincial, city, municipal and barangay LGUs, as well as from NGOs and international organizations. Random or stratified sample of households and collecting information about perceptions, views and suggestion on an existing or finished SWM project. Household information to be collected across different social groups to reflect wide stakeholder base. Aims to collect baseline information and gender-specific information on the target or beneficiaries to assess the socio-economic benefits and establish indicators for measuring the impact of an SWM project. Utilize interview questionnaires to gage perceptions on SWM conditions and institutions, priority needs and willingness-to-pay. It could also be used to assess project impacts. Held for each stakeholder group and based on income levels, gender, ethnicity and geographical location to draw experience and knowledge of issues in selection, preparation and implementation. Conducted to assess affordability by the beneficiaries or views on maintaining improved SWM systems at the onset or end of a project. Questionnaire intended for solid waste collection service providers to understand the nature of their constraints in service delivery and to estimate the level, frequency and quality of service emanating from SWM service improvements. Fieldwork technique to collect qualitative data and to deepen understanding of people’s motivations, perceptions and attitudes. Fieldwork technique aimed at physically assessing improvements in SWM infrastructures in the area of waste collection, hauling, disposal and recycling. Fora for beneficiaries and implementers to present and validate findings of surveys, FGDs and interviews and other assessment activities. It also aims to capture information that is not gathered from other assessment activities. This could be a method in CBM&E to generate community recommendations and lessons.

Socio-economic survey Semi-structured interviews Focus group discussions Willingness-topay Service monitoring survey Participant observation Ocular inspection Participatory stakeholder workshops

Source: Bernstein, 2004. CBM&E: community-based monitoring and evaluation; LGU: local government unit; NGO: Non-government organization; SWM: solid waste management.

a project. In the implementation stage, continuous monitoring generates proposals or recommendations to improve project outcomes. Recommendations, thus, are for immediate consideration. On the other hand, lessons are generalizations arising from evaluations that are intended for subsequent projects or programs (Collete, 2003). In SWM, an example of a recommendation is to allow the IWS to work in composting plants. On the other hand, the lesson would be that allowing them to work in all niches of waste recovery increases their visibility and income.

M&E in SWM Doing M&E in SWM is not a novel idea or practice, but developing a thorough M&E framework is a relatively new field of endeavor. SWM programs or projects have inherent focus on qualitative and quantitative indicators to gage success or failure. Waste generation amounts, growing disposal costs and rising tipping fees drive local planners to collect and analyze data and adjust programs to be sustainable and impact-oriented (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). Past research works have shown the importance of M&E in SWM. Sharp et al. (2010) emphasized the need to have robust and reliable M&E of household waste preventions to allow stakeholders to collect high-quality data, ensure that waste prevention initiatives are effective and creating behavior change and ensure prioritization of resources. Wilson et al. (2008) noted the lack of reliable SWM quantitative data in developing country cities

especially on informal recycling rates. Given the circumstances the IWS is in, there is little way to establish records of waste recovery, which is very important considering their recovery rate of 20% to 50%. The path to integrating the IWS should be accompanied by an M&E system that takes into account their contributions in waste recovery. M&E is done in a hierarchy. Development projects initiated by the national government or with support from international organizations, and which utilize the logframe approach, usually have a MEF that will guide the programs in conducting monitoring and assessments. At the community level, there is another level called “community-based monitoring and evaluation” (CBM&E), which is primarily used to assess impacts on the community and community perceptions (Collete, 2003). The methodologies in CBM&E differs from the institutional or project level M&E because the former deals directly with community members. Household surveys, informal meetings, ocular inspections and community mapping are some of the desired methodologies. Indicator-setting is also a task accorded to the community because they ought to define what success of failure for them is in SWM. In the case of the IWS inclusion, M&E should be incorporated in action plans. Waste pickers are to be involved in selecting appropriate indicators, identifying frequency of data collection and assessing progress. Indicators should be simple and data sources readily accessible (Bernstein, 2004). In a nutshell, CBM&E in IWS inclusion should be able to do the following.


7

Serrona et al.

MEF Indicators

Project 1 CBM&E

Indicators

Project 3 CBM&E

Project 2 CBM&E Lessons

Lessons

Figure 1. MEF and CBM&E loop.

CBM&E: community-based monitoring and evaluation; MEF: monitoring and evaluation.

•• Understand the importance of M&E in SWM at the community level. •• Develop local monitoring indicators and evaluation activities. •• Utilize locally appropriate methodologies and techniques in data collection. •• Feed M&E findings into larger SWM plans, e.g. municipal or provincial SWM plans. •• Feed quantitative monitoring reports into the SWM database. •• Translate M&E findings into improving their social and environmental conditions. The MEF that was developed for the National Framework Plan feeds into the CBM&E by way of validating the identified indicators from the community perspective. Conversely, CBM&E facilitates community-identified indicators to be fed into the central MEF. This process mutually connects the loop between the MEF and CBM&E. Figure 1 shows the loop that links MEF and CBM&E in a program. From Figure 1, SWM projects under the umbrella of a common or central MEF can share lessons. Concretely, LGUs who have SWM projects using the logframe approach communicate with the NSWMC on existing and emerging indicators, while the latter documents and ensures that the MEF reflects realistic indicators. It should also be noted that LGUs have their own MEFs too, but aligned with the central MEF that the NSWMC manages. The role of CBM&E is to determine and assess local impacts that are not fully captured in the regular M&E activities, such as the ones suggested in the MEF. It also provides an opportunity for the partner communities to independently provide feedback to NSWMC or LGUs in terms of the issues, problems and resolutions that are emerging on the ground. In the process, the MEF will additionally build on the merits of CBM&E and gives an opportunity for local stakeholders to be truly involved.

Results and discussions Laws and regulations The Philippines is replete with environmental laws and regulations pertaining to SWM. The major milestone was the passage of RA 9003, which comprehensively defined institutional, social,

financial and technical arrangements in SWM. The IWS situation has not been addressed in previous legislations, although waste picking activities in the Philippines commenced in the 1970s. Piecemeal programs like the “cash for trash” was launched in the 1980s, but failed because it tried to compete with the informal system. In addition, they were tagged as “squatters” then, which led to the demolishment of their makeshift shelters and subsequent relocation (Serrona, 2008). With RA 9003, the offshoots are the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector and the NSWMS, which are discussed in Table 6. The passage of RA 9003 facilitated the recognition of the status of IWS and the identification of subsequent SWM regulations with the purpose of emphasizing the crucial role that they play in addressing local waste problems. The National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector enabled NSWMC to promote a shift of thinking at the LGU level towards members of the IWS. There is now a conscious effort by LGUs to consider the plight of the IWS in light of improving local SWM systems. An example would be in General Santos City in Southern Mindanao, where the IWS is organized and waste picking is regulated to allow equal opportunity for the members to recover waste. Members were organized into groups and given specific days to collect recyclable materials at the dumpsite. In the Payatas-controlled dumpsite in Quezon City, members of the IWS sift through waste materials on pre-determined days wearing LGU-issued identification cards. In other words, current legislations legitimized their operations in disposal facilities and communities.

National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector This research endeavored to establish a logframe and MEF using the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector as the pilot or reference document. A review of the said document revealed the absence of a clear M&E component, which would have played a significant role in managing, monitoring and capturing recommendations and lessons down the line of implementation. It was rationalized that this is a good starting point for introducing and integrating the logframe approach in any SWM initiatives regardless of the scale of the project. In the document, there is a section detailing the strategic framework plan for the IWS consisting of a summary of issues and challenges, vision, mission, goals, proposed interventions and critical actors and


8


Table 6. Philippine laws and regulations. Legislation

Salient provisions

Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (RA 9003)

Centerpiece legislation on SWM in the Philippines. Enacted by the Philippine Congress to “adopt a systematic, comprehensive and ecological waste management program.” The law emphasizes source reduction, composting, recycling and re-use, which provides more economic and social opportunities for the IWS. Waste picking is acknowledged in the law and under Section 39 on guidelines for controlled dumps, it says that waste picking and trading shall be controlled.

National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector (2009)

Developed by NSWMC for the purpose of integrating the IWS in formal waste management systems by supporting them to enter new service roles and niches in separate collection and recycling, access to sorting space and transfer stations and sanitary landfills, support diversification of livelihood activities through cooperatives and associations and improve work conditions and better social services.

National Solid Waste Management Strategy (2012– 2016)

Identified policy gaps and ways to harmonize policies as a result of fragmented, overlapping and contradicting provisions of existing environmental laws. The strategy addresses the plight of the IWS by ensuring that waste management systems and infrastructures are disaster-proof to avoid accidents at dumps and other related facilities. Monitoring of communities hosting SWM facilities will be done, including working conditions of IWSs to promote safety and protect health.

Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160)

Devolved major functions from the national government to the local government units in areas, such as solid waste collection and disposal. Cities and municipalities are responsible for solid waste disposal while barangays (smallest political unit) take care of waste collection. It also empowers LGUs to levy fees and collect SWM fees or “user fees.”

IWS: informal waste sector; NSWMC: National Solid Waste Management Commission; SWM: solid waste management.

partners. The idea is that framework plans can be translated into specific plans as well as M&E documents. Ideally, the MEF should be made at the onset of project development, but there is no stopping from developing it as long as directions and activities are clearly laid out, such as the case of the framework plan. The limitation of this article is its sole reliance on the framework plan. Therefore, this is a document in progress as the indicators, assumptions and risks need to be validated with concerned stakeholders at the national and local levels of governance, including IWS groups and private enterprises. Table 7 shows the abbreviated logframe. The narrative column is taken from the framework plan. Table 7 reflects the hierarchical order of the logframe starting with the goals, objectives, outputs and activities. Again, the narrative column is sourced from the reference document while the indicators, MOVs and assumptions are supplied by the authors. As explained earlier, the basis for the MEF is the logframe and, therefore, the two are inextricably linked. For this research, a detailed MEF is formulated with consideration of the availability of resources and the range of data collection methods that are readily available for use. The MEF starts with the outputs down to the activities as they are the ones directly measured by the M&E activities. It elaborates on collection methods, frequency of data collection, responsible entities, MOVs, resources and risks. The M&E component can be primarily done by a unit within an organization, but it does not mean that other units are exempted from doing M&E. In fact, it is a function of all parties involved. The idea of having an M&E unit is to lead and consolidate M&E activities and also disseminate findings. Table 8 shows an abstract of the proposed MEF. The MEF is the main document of the organization in implementing M&E activities. In SWM projects, the indicators could expand and include technical and social indicators depending on

the scope of the initiative. The MEF could be considered a dynamic document because circumstances could change. The important point to consider is the constant reference to the expected results since it is the heart of the project. As stated previously, the participation of relevant stakeholders in the M&E process is crucial. Their perspectives should be taken in to consideration when assessing impacts. To do this, PME is used where qualitative and quantitative tools are employed (refer to Table 7). The question is to what extent are project implementers, such as the NSWMC, willing to embrace PME considering that it involves lots of work, requires resources (money and technical expertise) and time. It also requires reconciling timeframes because PME cannot just be rushed to meet project deadlines. It has to adapt to the local implementation phase. Therefore, a project design has to consider flexibility when setting targets that the community will perform. Recommendations and lessons are generated from various M&E tools, such as progress and evaluation reports that are primarily anchored on the MEF. As explained in the MEF section, the former refers to proposals related to project implementation or management to improve project outcomes, while the latter refers to generalizations designed for subsequent programs or projects. Lessons do not necessarily require immediate action for the current project (Collete, 2003). In Tables 8 and 9, lessons can be culled from the output level. For example, on “adequate access to basic services such as education and health and other social services,” potential lesson here could be the importance of having a geographical-based inclusion plan that will proactively address the basic needs of specific IWS groups. The enforcement indicator here would be the compliance of LGUs to provide basic services to marginalized groups such as the IWS. In assessing performance vis-a-vis identified indicators, both the qualitative and quantitative data that are collected should be


9

Serrona et al. Table 7. Logical framework for the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector. Narrative

Indicators


Goals Formulate and enforce policies that enable the informal waste sector to be integrated in the formal SWM system. Assist the informal waste sector to have access to employment and alternative livelihood opportunities by providing skills development and protection from occupational hazards and risks.

Number of well-established local policies on IWS integration in formal waste management. Number of skills training identified and conducted for the IWS.

NSWMC, LGUs.

TESDA, SWAPP, training documentations.

High interest of LGUs in integrating IWS into their fold. Clear local policies on IWS integration will be formulated. TESDA, SWAPP and other NGOs are able to effectively identify appropriate livelihood programs for the IWS.

Objectives To integrate the informal sector in the SWM system by providing them with a favorable policy environment, skills development and access to secured livelihood, employment and social services.

Assumptions

No. of integrated support services for the IWS identified.

NSWMC, TESDA, LGUs.

No. of local IWS policies passed.

Full realization of the provisions in the National Framework Plan for Informal Waste Sector is achieved.

Outputs Effective supporting mechanisms in place for the sector to enter new service roles and niches in separate collection, recycling and composting.

Specific areas or niches identified for IWS integration.

LGUs, NSWMC, SWAPP, UPLB SESAM.

Assured structural access to sorting space at transfer stations, materials recovery facilities, composting facilities and sanitary landfills.

Access modes identified for IWS in the formal SWM system.

MOA with LGUs.

Adequate documentation of new services and niches for IWS are done. Sustainable support mechanisms are put in place to ensure IWS role in collection, recycling and composting. Design for recycling and disposal facilities take into consideration the expected activities of IWS.

IWS: informal waste sector; LGU: local government unit; MOA: Memorandum of Agreement; NGO: Non-government organization; NSWMC: National Solid Waste Management Commission; SWAPP: Solid Waste Association of the Philippines; SWM: solid waste management; TESDA: Technical Education and Skills Development Authority; SUPLB: University of the Philippines - Los Banos, School of Environmental Science and Management.

analyzed in a way that will render them useful and beneficial for project implementers (European Commission, 2004). Analytical methods are shown in Table 9. With the logframe and MEF identified, the next step is validation with relevant stakeholders consisting of government agencies, non-government organizations, community groups and IWS groups. This can be done through participatory workshops and series of consultation meetings to ensure that indicators follow the SMART guidelines. NSWMC plays an important role in this endeavor as they will take the lead and guidance on implementing M&E activities. This complements their mandate of overseeing the implementation of RA 9003.

Social inclusion and alternative livelihoods for the IWS project The project aims to promote social inclusion and provide alternative livelihood for the informal waste sector in the Philippines to

complement basic infrastructure investments related to modernizing the sector, like closure of landfill and establishment of material recovery facilities (Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines, 2012). The project summary document outlines three development indicators, namely: number of informal recyclers in the cities/municipalities employed in a formalized system with a quantified target of at least 25% of the participating informal sector recyclers in the cities/municipalities; number of recyclers provided livelihood opportunities outside of the waste industry with a quantified target of at least 25% of the participating informal sector recyclers in the cities/municipalities; and increase in the average income of informal recyclers with a target of at least a 25% increase for participating informal sector recyclers. The project has three key components, namely: participatory strategic planning, social inclusion in waste management systems and alternative livelihood for the IWS. Table 10 shows an assessment of the project’s components vi-a-vis the parameters set in National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector.


Resources

Risks

Quality trainings provided Training on low-cost technologies assessments in waste recovery Number of trainings conducted

Field visits, project assessments, interviews

Access modes identified for IWS in the formal SWM system

As the need arises

NSWMC, SWAPP, Training UPLB SESAM, reports DOST

Training costs

Twice a year NSWMC, SWAPP. Data and Travel and LGU analysis of accommodation field research costs, workshop costs As the need NSWMC, LGU Data and Travel and arises analysis of accommodation field research costs, workshop costs

Trainings provided may not suit to local conditions

*Table 8 does not include the whole MEF, but rather an excerpt of it. DOST: Department of Science and Technology; IWS: informal waste sector; LGU: local government unit; NSWMC: National Solid Waste Management Commission; SWAPP: Solid Waste Association of the Philippines; SWM: solid waste management; SESAM UPLB: University of the Philippines - Los Banos, School of Environmental Science and Management.

Provide skills training on value adding strategies/low cost technologies in waste recovery and recycling and composting

Field visits and interviews

Specific areas or niche identified for IWS integration

Lack or limited skills in identifying new services for the IWS may hinder program replication or upscaling Not all LGUs may be warm to the idea of IWS integration


Effective supporting mechanisms in place for the sector to enter new service roles and niches in separate collection, recycling and composting Assured structural access to sorting space at transfer stations, materials recovery facilities, composting facilities and sanitary landfills Activities

M&E activity with Time or Responsibilities data collection schedule and method frequency

Indicators

Outputs

Expected results

Table 8. MEF for the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector.*

10 Waste Management & Research


11

Serrona et al. Table 9. Performance evaluation methods. Type of analysis

Description

Planned vs actual

Comparing original plan with actual achievements. For example, the program targeted 300 organized IWS groups, but only 150 were achieved. This would reflect a deficit of 150 and an issue with implementation performance. If the whole budget was spent for this, the M&E activity has to find out why this happened and what are the remedies to be introduced to address this issue.

Percentage/ratios

Useful when comparing planned with actual performance. A 50% achievement, for example when organizing IWS groups, shows low performance and needs to be analyzed and remedied.

Trends over time and comparison between periods

Data over different time periods are useful when analyzing project importance over time. They can also be used to analyze activities done at the same time in previous time periods and project what could be expected in future activities. For example, organizing IWS groups across a regional location can be compared based on time, resources and issues.

Geographic variance

Projects implemented across a regional location, for example, can be assessed based on success rate, implementation issues, cultural acceptance, etc. In the Philippines, some IWS workers belong to indigenous groups.

Group variance

Refers to monitoring and evaluating outcomes between different social groups, e.g. impact of IWS programs for men, women, indigenous and other vulnerable groups. For example, skills training for IWS groups should take a look at their distinct usability for men and women so that appropriate trainings are identified and avoid gender bias.

Work-norms and standards

Refer to service delivery activities that can be monitored by collecting information on worknorms or standards. For example, processing time for formal registration of IWS groups, approval time for IWS-initiated proposals and approval time for housing provisions for the IWS can be monitored, analyzed and compared with normal processing standards.

Source: European Commission, 2004. IWS: informal waste sectors.

Conclusions SWM programs or projects do not only refer to the delivery of implementation requirements; it should also possess clear and realistic M&E indicators, assumptions and activities. The rationale is that built-in M&E systems allow programs to be flexible, effective, impact-oriented and sustainable. The Philippines is in a position where it is a trailblazer in policy development that recognizes the role of the IWS in economic development as stipulated in the Philippine Development Plan (2011–2016), which envisions transformational leadership, institutional reform, economic stability and inclusive growth (National Economic Development Authority, 2011). Institutionalizing M&E in SWM is a challenge, but an opportunity for large- or small-scale projects to embrace the benefits of having to determine where the project is going, how far has it gone and what lessons are being learned in the process. The exercise of crafting a logframe and MEF is a tedious process. Yet it enhances and strengthens a project as in the case of the IWS framework plan. The caveat is that the indicators must not be universally applied but should depend on local circumstances and current conditions. Data collection can be costly at times, especially field visits, but it is worth it when aiming for first-hand information and actual interaction with stakeholders. It can also piggyback on regular activities to save on costs. Responsibility centers are likewise necessary to institutionalize sharing of tasks. In the case of the NSWMC, it is composed of 14 members from the government sector and three members from the private sector, and the potential for close collaboration is very

high with partnership mechanisms in place, such as the MEF. Risk identification is another parameter, which is useful in anticipating future issues and remediating them. A logframe approach in the SWM project development is essential, but it does not preclude other tools from being applied in waste management. In the case of the WB/JSDF project, the identified development outcome indicators are aligned with the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector and it focuses on improving access to formal waste management, livelihoods and laying the foundation for a strong IWS and private sector partnership with the government facilitating the process. In the Philippine context, the private sector plays an enormous role in local development and, in fact, the government is promoting public–private partnerships (PPP) because of the inherent limitations of government resources and the deep entrepreneurial bond that the private sector possesses. Directly linking up the IWS with businesses will allow the former to negotiate prices of recyclable materials and new products, which would result in adequate incomes. It will also facilitate the identification of appropriate skills, business models and product demands. In summary, the indicators generated for the MEF can be broadly categorized in a way that reflect the overall M&E requirements for the IWS sector in the Philippines. They are not inclusive as more will emerge in the implementation process. A logframe approach in SWM-related projects benefits both the implementers and the beneficiaries or partners. Theoretical underpinnings for this approach abound in the field of international development and SWM is a logical recipient. This approach is relatively new in SWM and will certainly gain popularity with


12


Table 10. WB/JSDF Social Inclusion Project vis-a-vis National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector. Project components

Relevance with proposed logframe and MEF for the Philippines National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector

Participatory Strategic Planning

Outputs: Establish participatory structures and process for at least 3500 members of the informal waste sector in five municipalities and in 2000 members of recycling cooperatives.

The framework plan stipulates organizing the IWS into association or cooperatives, which will pave the way for participatory processes to be integrated in IWS integration in formal waste management. In addition, the WB/JSDF Project aligns itself with the framework plan in terms of establishing a IWS waste management plan in the strategic SWM and yearly action plans of LGUs.

Development of strategic plans for at least 3500 members of the informal waste sector in five municipalities and in 2000 members of recycling cooperatives.

Working with IWS requires participatory approaches as explained in Table 5. Organizing them will consolidate their ranks and they will have greater influence and negotiating power in waste recovery and recycling business. The project will integrate this character, but the challenge is how to sustain it so that IWS groups become self-sustaining.

Social Inclusion in Waste Management Systems

The project will provide financial assistance to the IWS, which will be used towards the purchase of waste management equipment; formalization of the sector, e.g. registration and contractual arrangements; training support and institution building; business and market development and stakeholders meetings. The funds will also assist IWS groups during the transition period of disposal facilities, such as food for work and subsidized pricing of recyclables. The framework plan clearly stipulates the provision of skills training on value-adding strategies/low cost technologies in waste recovery, recycling and composting. It also aims to integrate the sector in transfer stations and MRFs and link up with microfinance institutions.

Outputs: Sub-grants to support for social inclusion, youth programs and transitional support made available to 3500 members of the informal waste sector in five municipalities.

Technical assistant for models to improve income and empowerment provided to 2000 IWS members in recycling cooperatives

The aspect of financial management needs to be strengthened in IWS and the ability to identify and develop local business concepts or models. The IWS is an emerging sector in the Philippines and their ability to innovate and make a difference hinges on appropriate capacity-building measures and institutional networks.

Alternative Livelihood for Informal Waste Sector

The project will link up with the private sector to train and hone appropriate skills of the IWS in business development. It will facilitate the identification of sound business concepts, which will emphasize the marriage of IWS and the business sector with innovative and sustainability mechanisms in place. The framework plan acknowledges the necessity of mutually integrating the capacities of the IWS and the private sector in improving waste management systems through appropriate skills training, product design, cooperative development, employment provision outside of the SWM, etc.

Outputs: Employment training programs in partnership with the private sector made available to at least 3500 members of the IWS. Facilitation and training for entrepreneurial development made available to at least 3500 members of the IWS. Delivery of sub-grants for working for viable business concepts in five municipalities.

The project’s inclination to tap the private sector is appropriate and timely as the IWS undertakings form part of an essential business flow, which supplies raw materials to manufacturing industries. The framework plan recognizes the private sector as an important ally in empowering IWS, both economically and socially.

Source: SWAPP, 2012. IWS: informal waste sector; LGU: local government unit; MRF: material recovery facility; SWM: solid waste management; WB/JSDF: World Bank and the Japan Social Development Fund.


13

Serrona et al. Table 11. Summary of main indicators. Key M&E areas for the IWS

Summary of main indicators

Policies/guidelines Capacity-building Support services Access modes Institutional arrangements Incentives

National and local policies IWS Plan integration in LGU action plans Skills training Enterprise development Alternative livelihoods Networking Health insurance Scholarships Child care Housing Job fairs Formal waste management system Micro-financial institutions International organizations Cooperative Association Micro-enterprise Provision of incentives for businesses, LGUs and stakeholders providing jobs and supporting IWS programs Formal and informal channels between IWS and LGUs, partners and other stakeholders Vertical and horizontal partnerships Public-private-IWS collaboration South-to-South exchange of best practices Price of recyclable materials IWS involvement in monitoring of SWM systems Compliance with safety, labor and environmental laws

Communication mechanisms Networking Monitoring systems

IWS: informal waste sector; LGU: local government unit; M&E: monitoring and evaluation.

its inherent advantages. Future waste management regulations in both developing and developed worlds should ensure that M&E components are embedded in programs or projects.

Acknowledgements The authors sincerely thank Ms. Maya Villaluz, Senior Environment Operations Officer of World Bank Manila Office and Ms. Lizette Cardenas, Executive Director of the Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines (SWAPP) for the data on the Social inclusion and alternative livelihoods for the IWS project.

Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding This research was carried out with the support of the Returning Scientist Program of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of the Philippines.

References Alave KL (2011) Metro Manila produces a fourth of Philippine garbage. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Available at: http://newsinfo.inquirer. net/42317/metro-manila-produces-a-fourth-ofphilippine-garbage (accessed 30 July 2013). Bernstein J (2004) Toolkit in social assessment and public participation in municipal solid waste management. urban environment thematic group. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org INTUSWM/

Resources/463617-1202332338898/socialassesstoolkit.pdf (accessed 4 August 2013). Collete G (2003) Project monitoring and evaluation in land administration and management. Presentation during the Evaluation Skills Enhancement Training, Quezon City, Philippines, 26–29 May 2003. European Commission (2004) Aid delivery methods: Project cycle management guidelines. Vol. 1. Brussels: European Cooperation Office. Available at: http://bank3.org/t/the-logframe-handbook-a-logicalframework-approach-to-project-e22-pdf.pdf (accessed 2 August 2013). Gunsilius E, et al. (2011) Recovering Resources, Creating Opportunities: Integrating the Informal Sector into Solid Waste Management. Eppelheim, Germany: Aksoy Print. Hoornweg D and Bhada-Tata P (2012) What a waste: A global review of solid waste management. Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers. World Bank. Hoornweg D and Lam MC (2005) Waste management in China: Issues and recommendations. Urban Development Working Papers No. 9. East Asia Infrastructure Department, World Bank. Independent Evaluation Group (2013) Learning from evaluation. Lessons from recent evaluations: Environment, agriculture, and rural development. Available at: http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/webpage/learningevaluation (accessed 2 October 2013). National Economic Development Authority. (2011) Philippine development plan 2011–2016. Available at: http://www.neda.gov.ph/PDP/2011–2016/ frontmatter.pdf (accessed 28 March 2013). National Solid Waste Management Commission (2009) National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector. Quezon City: NSWMC. National Solid Waste Management Commission (2012) National Solid Waste Management Strategy (2012–2016). Manila: NSWMC. National Solid Waste Management Commission (2014) Republic Act 9003. Available at: http://www.emb.gov.ph/embgovph/Portals/38/IEC/ R.A.%209003.PDF (accessed 1 July 2014).


14


National Statistical Coordination Board (2013) Philippine economy posts 7.8 percent GDP growth. National Accounts of the Philippines. Press Release. Available at: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/sna/2013/1st2013/2013qpr1.asp (accessed 30 May 2013). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Development Assistance Committee (1991) Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance. Paris. Scheinberg A, Simpson M, Gupt YE, et al. (2010) Economic Aspects of the Informal Sector in Solid Waste. Eschborn, Germany: GTZ. Serrona KR (2008) Integrated urban waste management in the Philippines: Interface of waste-to-energy and social participation. PhD Dis., Tohoku University. Sharp V, Sara G and Wilson D (2010) Methods to monitor and evaluate household waste prevention. Waste Management and Research 28(3): 269–280. Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines (2012) Social Inclusion and Alternative livelihoods for the Informal Waste Sector: Project Summary Document. United Nations Development Programme (2009) Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. New York, USA. Available at: http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/documents/english/pme-handbook.pdf (accessed 1 August 2013). United Nations Environment Programme (undated) State of waste management in South East Asia – Types of waste. Available at: http://

unep.or.jp/ietc/sps/state-of-waste-management/2.asp (accessed 29 July 2013). United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Wastes: monitoring and evaluation. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/ payt/top10.htm (accessed 2 August 2013). Varey N, et al. (2003) Final Report No. 6: Laws and Regulations. Metro Manila Solid Waste Management Project. Metro Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Velis C, et al. (2012) An analytical framework and tool (‘InteRa’) for integrating the informal recycling sector in waste and resource management systems in developing countries. Waste Management & Research 30(9 Suppl.): 43–66. Wilson D, Raba A, Chinwah K, et al. (2008) Building recycling rates through the informal sector. Waste Management. ScienceDirect. World Bank (2012) The Logframe Handbook: A Logical Framework Approach to Project Cycle Management. Available at: http://bank3. org/t/the-logframe-handbook-a-logical-framework-approach-to-projecte22-pdf.pdf (accessed 3 August 2013). World Bank (2013a) Philippines Overview. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/philippines/overview (accessed 19 May 2013). World Bank (2013b) Country at a Glance – Philippines. Available at: http:// www.worldbank.org/en/country/Philippines (accessed 31 July 2013). World Bank (2013c) Participation and civic engagement, “What is participatory monitoring and evaluation?” Available at: http://go.worldbank.org/ G966Z73P30 (accessed 28 February 2013).


Developing a monitoring and evaluation framework to integrate and formalize the informal waste and recycling sector: The case of the Philippine National Framework Plan

Recommend Documents