Filipino Cities Choke on E-waste

In 2022, the Philippines generated approximately 537,000 metric tons of e-waste, placing it among the top producers in Southeast Asia. That figure, equivalent to 4.7 kilograms per person, represents discarded laptops, air conditioners, circuit boards, and mobile phones — much of which ends up not in formal recycling facilities but in the hands of informal dismantlers working along streets like Manila’s Onyx Street. For context, the United Nations’ Global E-waste Monitor reported that the country accounted for 540 million kilograms of e-waste in 2022, a number that has grown alongside rapid urbanization and shorter product life spans. The scale of the problem is clear, but what happens to this waste after it is discarded — and who handles it — is where the real story lies.

An estimated 80 percent of the country’s discarded electronics are handled by an informal network of over 100,000 recyclers — waste pickers, junkshop operators, and itinerant buyers. These workers, known locally as mambabaklas, provide an essential collection service that formal systems have not yet matched. But the methods they use — open burning of wire casings, acid stripping of circuit boards, and manual dismantling without protective gear — release a toxic brew of lead, mercury, and cadmium into the air and soil. The result is a public health crisis unfolding in plain sight, one that researchers and health workers say has been undercounted and underreported. For a deeper look at how pollution affects communities across the country, read about the urbanization challenges in Metro Manila.

What Informal E-waste Dismantling Means for Health and Livelihood

The core tension in the Philippines’ e-waste problem is not a lack of awareness about the dangers. Both the Philippine government and the Basel Convention, a global waste-management treaty signed by 191 countries, classify e-waste as hazardous. The World Health Organization has warned that exposure to e-waste chemicals can lead to asthma and reduced lung function in children, while pregnant women face higher risks of stillbirths and premature delivery. The problem is structural: the informal sector operates outside regulation, and the economic incentives to continue hazardous practices far outweigh the perceived health risks. As one dismantler put it, “Health is clearly not their first priority. Their priority is to have food on the table.”

Why Onyx Street Became a Flashpoint for E-waste Exposure

Onyx Street in Manila is home to hundreds of mambabaklas who have turned a kilometer-long stretch of roadside into an informal e-waste processing hub. Dexter Barsigan, a 47-year-old father of three, has spent 13 years stripping scrapped laptops and air conditioners with nothing but his bare hands and a pair of pliers. Three years ago, his hands began aching and his vision started to blur. On bad days, he can only watch his wife and nephew do the work. “Dismantling helps us put food on the table. It provides the money to send my kids to school,” he told reporters. The trade-off is stark: the same work that funds his children’s education is slowly damaging his health.

Burning rubber wire casings to extract copper is illegal, but it is faster than peeling them by hand. Circuit boards, which fetch as much as 470 Philippine pesos (about $8) per kilo, have especially high concentrations of toxic metals. Dr. Rosana Milan, physician-in-charge at Manila’s Pedro Gil Health Center, said her clinic has diagnosed half of the 12,000 people living along Onyx Street with respiratory issues, most of them children. “It’s very risky for the babies, the toddlers and even the school children… they’re sitting beside their father while the father is… burning the rubber,” Milan said. Dismantler Sammy Oligar said his one-year-old grandchild had been diagnosed with pneumonia that a doctor attributed to pollution from the burning. “The smoke would enter from our window and the child would inhale it,” he said.

The health risks extend beyond respiratory illness. Exposure to the substances found in e-waste can lead to anemia, kidney and thyroid diseases, and nerve damage, according to Apostol. Irvin Cadavona, a hazardous waste management officer with the environment department, cited risks ranging from cancer and neurological diseases to birth defects. Yet Barsigan has avoided doctors, worried he cannot afford treatment. Instead, he puts ointment on his hands and takes cheap, over-the-counter pain relievers. “If I stop dismantling, it’s as if I have also given up the hope of a better life for my children,” he said. This dynamic is not unique to the Philippines — similar patterns of informal e-waste processing exist across developing economies — but the concentration of dismantlers in dense urban areas like Manila amplifies the community-level impact. The situation is reminiscent of other environmental health challenges in the country, such as the pollution smothering Filipino coral reefs, where economic pressures and weak enforcement create compounding damage.

What Gets Missed in the E-waste Debate

→ Scroll right to see all columns

Most discussions about e-waste focus on the environmental damage and health risks, but a 2024 study published in Sustainability offers a more nuanced picture. Researchers surveyed 435 informal recyclers in urban Manila and used structural equation modeling to identify what actually drives their behavior. The results challenge the assumption that education or awareness campaigns alone can solve the problem. Economic factors — specifically income level (84.01%) and financial incentives (82.86%) — were the dominant predictors of recycling behavior, far outweighing attitudes or perceived control. The cultural-cognitive pillar — the shared norms and understanding within the community — also mattered significantly at 80.98%. But perceived behavioral control, a standard component of behavioral models, did not directly affect intention. The researchers concluded that for subsistence economies, economic survival acts as a “super-moderator” that overrides other factors.

The Policy Gap That Perpetuates Informality

Key legislation, including the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003) and the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Act (RA 11898), lacks provisions to integrate informal workers. This gap perpetuates a cycle of informality: recyclers remain marginalized while formal initiatives struggle to gain traction. As of 2023, there were 91 registered Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities in the country, but their uneven distribution and lack of infrastructure in many areas hinder effective waste management. The continued importation of secondhand electronics further aggravates the burden, adding to the volume of waste that must be processed.

The Role of Extended Producer Responsibility

The EPR Act (RA 11898) was designed to make manufacturers responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products, including end-of-life disposal. In theory, this should create a funding stream for formal collection and recycling. In practice, the law does not explicitly address how to incorporate the informal sector, which handles the vast majority of e-waste collection. The study from Sustainability recommends “Economic First Interventions” like buy-back schemes that would equitably integrate informal recyclers into formal EPR systems. Without such provisions, the law risks creating a two-tier system where formal facilities operate at low capacity while informal dismantlers continue hazardous practices.

What Can Be Done: Practical Steps for Change

Addressing the e-waste crisis requires moving beyond awareness campaigns toward structural interventions that align economic incentives with health and environmental goals. The research points to several concrete actions that policymakers, businesses, and communities can take.

Implement Buy-Back Schemes for Informal Recyclers

The most effective intervention, according to the behavioral study, would be direct financial incentives. A buy-back scheme — where informal recyclers are paid a fair price for collected e-waste at designated drop-off points — would address the dominant economic driver of current practices. This approach has been tested in other developing economies and could be funded through EPR fees collected from electronics manufacturers. The key is setting prices high enough to compete with the value recovered through burning and acid stripping, which means the scheme must be subsidized initially. For this to work, the government would need to register informal recyclers, provide them with identification cards, and establish transparent pricing. Organizations like Médecins du Monde (MdM), which already provides gloves, masks, and safety orientations to Onyx Street dismantlers, could serve as a model for how to reach and organize this workforce.

Expand and Decentralize TSD Facilities

The 91 registered TSD facilities are unevenly distributed, leaving many areas without access to formal recycling. A nationwide expansion, particularly in regions with high concentrations of informal dismantlers, would reduce the distance workers must travel to dispose of e-waste safely. The study from ejournals.ph recommends the development of a centralized e-waste collection system, but decentralization — smaller, community-level collection points — may be more practical in a country with fragmented geography. Each facility would need to be equipped to handle the specific types of e-waste common in its area, from circuit boards to refrigerators, and staffed by workers trained in safe dismantling techniques.

Prohibit the Importation of Secondhand Electronics for Disposal

The continued importation of used electronics, much of which arrives at the end of its functional life, adds to the e-waste burden without contributing to the economy. A clear ban on importing electronics intended for disposal, combined with stricter enforcement at ports, would reduce the volume of waste entering the informal stream. This measure is supported by the ejournals.ph study, which calls for a prohibition on secondhand electronics importation for disposal. Enforcement would require coordination between the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Bureau of Customs, and local government units.

Formal Recognition of Informal E-waste Workers

MdM and other organizations are calling for the recognition of informal e-waste workers as legitimate participants in the recycling economy. Formal recognition would open the door to training programs, health monitoring, and access to protective equipment. It would also make it easier to enforce safety standards without criminalizing the workers themselves. Cadavona acknowledged that the informal nature of the picker-junkshop relationship makes formal recognition “very hard,” but the alternative — continued exclusion — perpetuates the health crisis. A registry of informal recyclers, linked to a health monitoring program, could be a first step. This approach aligns with the broader need to address climate migration and displacement driven by environmental degradation, as both issues stem from the same root: economic vulnerability in the face of environmental hazards.

Frequently Asked Questions About E-waste in the Philippines

Closing Thoughts

The e-waste crisis in the Philippines is not a problem of ignorance — it is a problem of economic structure. The men and women who dismantle discarded electronics know the risks, but they also know the cost of stopping. Until formal systems offer a viable alternative that matches the income they earn from hazardous methods, the burning will continue, and the children sitting beside their fathers will keep breathing toxic smoke. The research is clear on what would work: financial incentives, formal recognition, and decentralized collection infrastructure. What remains to be seen is whether policymakers will act before the evidence gap closes for the wrong reasons. If this was useful, you might also want to read about youth activism in fighting climate change.

Sources

Filipino waters face pollution problems — A related look at how industrial and agricultural runoff affects marine ecosystems and coastal communities.

Informal e-waste dismantling poses health risks in the Philippines. The Japan Times, 2025.

A Circular Economy Framework for Informal E-waste Recycling in Manila. MDPI Sustainability, 2024.

E-waste Management in the Philippines: A Review of Policies and Practices. E-Journals, 2023.