Waste-to-Energy in the Philippines: Current Controversies and Policies

A Laguna biogas pilot and Plastic Odyssey’s recycling work show why policy must distinguish organic recovery, mechanical recycling, pyrolysis and incineration.

Website article draft | Policy status checked 13 August 2026

SAN PABLO CITY, Laguna – As the Philippines moves toward a broader policy framework for waste-to-energy, a pilot project in this city is testing a pathway that is often overshadowed by the national argument over incineration: turning segregated organic waste into biogas through anaerobic digestion.

Reurasia Management Corporation, Alterna Verde Corporation and German climate organization atmosfair gGmbH launched the Biosfair Project on April 7 during a local stakeholder consultation at Alterna Verde’s Solid Waste Ecological Recovery and Recycling facility. The project is expected to be commissioned by the end of 2026.

At pilot scale, the facility is designed to process about 1,200 tons of organic waste each year from public markets, food establishments and municipal waste streams. Project proponents expect it to generate roughly 250,000 kilowatt-hours of renewable electricity annually for waste-recovery operations and nearby site activities, while producing organic fertilizer and avoiding methane emissions from organic matter sent to landfills.

The project is being developed under the Gold Standard certification framework. Its April consultation brought together local government solid-waste officials, the Global Green Growth Institute, recyclers, academic institutions and nearby residents. That engagement will be important as the project moves from design to operation and begins to produce measurable data on feedstock quality, energy output, emissions avoided and community impacts.

One label, very different technologies

The term “waste-to-energy” covers processes with very different feedstocks, emissions profiles and public-health risks. These include anaerobic digestion of food and other biodegradable waste, recovery of landfill gas, pyrolysis and gasification, and the combustion of municipal solid waste.

Biosfair is not a mixed-waste incinerator. Anaerobic digestion breaks down organic matter in the absence of oxygen, producing biogas that can be used for energy and a nutrient-rich residue that may be processed as fertilizer. Its environmental case depends on consistent segregation at source, proper handling of digestate, control of methane leaks and transparent monitoring.

Plastic Odyssey illustrates another part of the recovery spectrum. During its 2024 stopovers in Manila and Cebu, the French-led expedition trained local recycling entrepreneurs and helped inaugurate two recycling micro-factories in partnership with DELFINGEN. Its model emphasizes sorting and mechanical recycling, using small-scale, locally maintainable equipment to turn suitable plastic into new materials and products.

For plastic that is too dirty, degraded or mixed to recycle mechanically, Plastic Odyssey presents pyrolysis as a last-resort recovery option. The process heats selected plastics at high temperature without oxygen and converts them into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons. Plastic Odyssey itself stresses that the process requires careful control to protect operators and produce usable fuel.

That sequence matters. Mechanical recycling keeps material in circulation; converting plastic back into fuel ultimately returns fossil carbon to the atmosphere when the fuel is used. Pyrolysis also raises questions about feedstock selection, process emissions, residues, energy efficiency and whether “recovery” could weaken incentives to reduce and redesign plastic packaging.

A policy landscape in motion

The Philippine legal framework already contains both support for resource recovery and strict environmental limits.

Republic Act No. 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, makes segregation, reuse, recycling and composting central to local waste management. It also recognizes practical applications of resource recovery, including waste-to-energy generation. Republic Act No. 9513, or the Renewable Energy Act, includes biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal waste within biomass resources and directs the Department of Energy to encourage waste-to-energy systems.

At the same time, Section 20 of Republic Act No. 8749, or the Clean Air Act, prohibits the burning of municipal, biomedical and hazardous waste when the process emits poisonous and toxic fumes. DENR Administrative Order No. 2019-21 sets guidelines for waste-to-energy facilities handling municipal solid waste, including environmental compliance, cleaner production and emissions monitoring.

The Extended Producer Responsibility Act of 2022 further requires large enterprises to recover or offset an increasing share of their plastic packaging footprint. The statutory target rises to 60 percent by the end of 2026. The law favors circular-economy measures such as reuse and recycling, but it also lists thermal treatment among possible recovery or diversion facilities, a provision that has intensified debate over what should count as responsible plastic recovery.

Congress is now considering a more explicit national framework. The House of Representatives approved House Bill No. 9157 on third reading on May 20, 2026, and transmitted it to the Senate five days later. Several Waste-to-Energy Act bills are also pending in the Senate, where a joint committee hearing was held on February 9.

The issue gained further political momentum in July, when President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. called in his fifth State of the Nation Address for the 25-year-old ecological solid-waste law to be updated and aligned with modern practices, including waste-to-energy and waste-treatment technology.

Why the debate remains contentious

Supporters argue that well-regulated waste-to-energy facilities can reduce pressure on landfills, recover energy from residual or biodegradable waste, limit methane emissions and give local governments another tool for managing growing waste volumes. The San Pablo pilot offers a practical test of that argument at a decentralized scale, using a defined organic feedstock rather than mixed municipal waste.

Environmental and community groups draw a sharp line between biological recovery and thermal systems that burn waste. The EcoWaste Coalition, Greenpeace and other advocates have warned that incineration can release toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases, leave hazardous ash, lock local governments into long-term feedstock commitments, compete with recycling and threaten the livelihoods of waste pickers. They have also called for stronger public participation in legislative hearings and project-level decision-making.

Those concerns do not make every waste-to-energy technology equivalent, but they do set a high bar for public policy. A credible framework should state which waste streams may be used only after reduction, reuse, recycling and composting options have been exhausted. It should require continuous emissions data where thermal processes are involved, full accounting of lifecycle carbon, safe management of ash and other residues, independent audits, transparent project costs and contracts, and meaningful consultation with host communities and informal waste workers.

Projects must also be assessed on what they may displace. A facility that depends on a steady supply of recyclable paper or plastic can undermine a circular economy. A facility that treats source-separated food waste while returning nutrients to productive use may complement it. Technology approval, therefore, cannot substitute for a functioning waste hierarchy.

The question policy must answer

The experience of Biosfair and Plastic Odyssey suggests a more useful way to frame the national discussion. Waste-to-energy should not be treated as a single yes-or-no proposition.

The more precise questions are: What waste is being handled? Can it still be prevented, reused, composted or mechanically recycled? What process will be used? What emissions and residues will it produce? Who bears the cost and risk? How will local communities and waste workers share in the benefits or be protected from harm?

For the San Pablo pilot, the next milestone is evidence. Once commissioned, independently verifiable results on waste diversion, electricity generation, fertilizer quality, methane control and community safeguards will determine whether the model can be responsibly replicated.

For national policy, the challenge is broader. The Philippines needs rules that can enable appropriate innovation without weakening the country’s commitments to waste reduction, clean air, public health and a just circular economy. The technology behind the label, and its place in the waste hierarchy, should decide the outcome.