LET US USE PLASTIC SORTING MACHINES

LET US USE PLASTIC SORTING MACHINES

It’s often said that necessity is the mother of invention. If ever that maxim was borne out in our times, it would be in the case of the new plastic-sorting machine recently developed by students at Central Luzon State University (CLSU). In a country where plastic waste has become a national shame, it’s a beacon of hope.

The problem is stark

The Philippines generates an estimated 2.7 million tons of plastic waste annually. Of that, around 20 percent leaks into our oceans—our mountains of islands and coastline make the issue even worse. Seven of the world’s top ten rivers for plastic pollution are in the Philippines. In short: we are among the worst in mis-managed plastic waste and yet our infrastructure for sorting and recycling is weak.

And yet, rather than wait, the young minds at CLSU said: “We’ll sort it.”. The new plastic sorting machine, developed through a collaboration of the university’s Institute for Climate Change and Environmental Management (ICCEM), the Department of Information Technology, the ASKI Foundation and Coca‑Cola, has been soft launched as of March 2025. It can categorize polyethylene-terephthalate (PET) bottles into five classifications (Clean, Not Clean, Good Plastic, Blue and Reject).

Why I believe this matters

• Automating the MRFs: In many barangays our materials recovery facilities (MRFs) rely heavily on manual sorting. It’s labor-intensive, error-prone and slow. A machine that does the sorting more reliably can raise the quality of recyclables, reduce contamination, and improve downstream recycling.
  
  

• Scaling potential: A locally designed machine means we are not wholly dependent on imported equipment. It also stimulates local innovation and keeps cost and maintenance closer to home.
  
  

• Supports the circular economy: With better sorting, more plastic has a pathway from “waste” back into “resource”. In a country where only about 28 % of key plastic resins were recycled in 2019 and the material-value loss is upwards of US$890 million per year.
  
  

• Youth and education: This invention came from students. That means a culture of innovation is alive; for me it signals we can entrust the next generation with technical solutions—not just policymakers.
  
  

But—and yes, there is a “but”—here are my thoughts and suggestions

• Patent and market: If the machine works as promised, the government should support CLSU to patent it, then help market it to LGUs, barangays, cooperatives and the private sector. Without the “business side”, it will stay as a prototype.
  
  

• Deploy to cooperatives: Instead of giving one machine to one barangay, the model should be coop-owned (think: multiple barangays share it), ensuring high utilization, cost-sharing, and maintenance economies of scale.
  
  

• Link to MRF upgrades: The machine is a tool—but it must sit inside a functioning system. Many MRFs are under-resourced. Integration means training operators, ensuring power supply, maintenance support and a market for sorted plastics.
  
  

• Cost-benefit evaluation: We need hard numbers. How many kilos of plastic can it sort per hour? What is the cost of the machine vs the value of the plastics reclaimed? How many jobs are supported? If these numbers are favorable, budget allocations will follow.
  
  

• Beyond PET bottles: The current machine sorts PET bottles into categories. But much of our pollution is multilayer sachets (which alone account for perhaps 52 % of the residual plastic waste stream), and difficult-to-recycle plastics. Future versions might expand to other resin types or complex formats.
  
  

• Incentivize collection: A machine is only as good as the feed-stock. Barangays must improve waste segregation at source so that the sorting machine isn’t processing highly mixed or contaminated waste (which reduces value).
  
  

• Monitor impact: Collect data on contamination rates before and after machine deployment, volumes processed, plastics sent to recycling vs landfill/leakage. Show public impact.
  
  

My questions to policymakers

• Why hasn’t the government already scaled such technology? Is it funding, awareness, logistics or incentive structure?
  
  

• Can the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) or the Solid Waste Management Commission adopt this in their circular economy roadmaps?
  
  

• Could the machine become part of LGU waste-management grants so that barangays can access it?
  
  

• Will there be mechanisms to ensure local manufacturing of spare parts to avoid “dead machines” languishing in the field?
  
  

Final word

In a country drowning (literally) in plastics, we need more than fines, bans, slogans. We need solutions. The sorting machine from CLSU is not a silver bullet—but it is a practical, locally-rooted step forward. If we use it well—with policy support, finance, and operations—it could make a measurable dent in our plastic waste problem.

Here is the crux: innovation must meet deployment. A brilliant machine unused in a warehouse helps no one. But one humming away in a barangay, sorting plastics which were once littering our streams, becomes a symbol of change.

Let’s not let this machine sit idle. Let’s not let our plastics keep overwhelming our rivers and oceans. Let’s mobilize, scale up, refine and deploy. Because if we don’t act now, we’ll be the ones sorted out by our plastic legacy.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-30-2026

HELPING FARMERS THROUGH A PORTABLE GRAINS DRYER

HELPING FARMERS THROUGH A PORTABLE GRAINS DRYER

When I read about the invention of Anihon — a compact, portable grain dryer developed by young Filipino inventor John Dence Flores — I felt a surge of optimism. Maybe this is the kind of innovation our farmers have been waiting for: practical, climate-smart, home-grown. According to his research, roughly 408,764 metric tons of palay—about 4.5 per cent of the country’s harvest—are lost annually because traditional drying fails during rainy spells or power outages. 

Let’s unpack why this matters, what the invention offers, and how the government (and we the public) could toy with turning this into scale.

---

Why this matters

In many rural areas, rice farmers face a cruel post-harvest challenge: they harvest; then come the rains or clouds; then they lay out on roads or highways to dry. That practice, as Flores points out, is fraught with hazards—wind blowing the grains away, theft, vehicles crushing them, and more. 

 Add to that: climate change means more unpredictable weather; outages and storms affect drying; weather fluctuations reduce safe sun-drying days. If a significant chunk of harvest is lost before it even reaches the market, farmers lose income and productivity suffers.

So a device that helps small farms or cooperatives dry palay reliably, rain or shine, is a practical solution. Flores says Anihon is designed for “small farms and cooperatives that cannot afford industrial-scale dryers.”

---

What the dryer offers

Here are the features that make Anihon stand out:

• Hybrid power: It runs on electricity and waste (used) cooking oil. That means during blackouts or unreliable power, the used oil mode can keep things going.
  
  

• Compact and modular: It has four drying trays and an eight-hour drying cycle in its prototype version. Built with industrial design sensibilities (thanks to his mentor engineers at De La Salle–College of Saint Benilde).

• Circular economy angle: Using waste cooking oil gives it an environmental plus. In my opinion, that means a dual benefit—reducing waste and helping farmers.
  
  

• Field-tested component: A unit donated to farmers in Aklan for pilot trials. Good proof of concept. 

---

My comments and suggestions

This invention is promising, but as always the journey from prototype to mass-deployment is the tougher part. Here are some thoughts:

• Scale it through cooperatives: The government or its agricultural agencies could include this dryer in the donation program of simple agricultural machines. Instead of giving one to one farmer, give to a coop, harvest group or barangay cluster, so more farmers share the benefit and cost.
  
  

• Ensure cost-effectiveness: Whatever the cost of Anihon, I’d argue the investment will pay for itself through reduced losses. But the price must be affordable. Data on exactly how much is saved per unit/year would help build the business case.
  
  

• Match it to infrastructure: Power reliability, used cooking oil supply (for the hybrid mode), availability of spare parts-distribution networks—these all matter. If the machine sits idle because there’s no oil fuel or spare part, the promise vanishes.
  
  

• Go for renewables next: Flores has hinted at expanding to solar and wind. If that happens, then you elevate the solution even further—less dependence on grid power or cooking-oil fuel.
  
  

• Monitoring & impact measurement: We should track how much reduction in post-harvest loss is achieved when these units are deployed, and what that means for farmer incomes, food security and national rice supply.
  
  

• Mind the logistics: Farmers in far-flung barangays may need training, servicing, spare parts. The simplest machine often falters not in design but in use, maintenance and local adaptation.
  
  

---

Questions for policy-makers

• Why is this not yet rolling out widely? What barriers exist (funding? manufacturing? awareness?).
  
  

• Can the Department of Agriculture or Department of Science and Technology integrate this into its machine-donation or technology adoption programs?
  
  

• Could funding be structured so farmer co-ops co-finance and share the unit, maybe pay back some of the savings over time?
  
  

• What partnerships (private-public) can we forge to manufacture these locally, keep cost low, create jobs?
  
  

• How many millions of pesos is lost nationally each year in post-harvest losses (not just palay drying failures)? If the figure is large, that justifies urgent action.
  
  

---

I believe inventions like Anihon exemplify what we call “appropriate technology”—technology that fits the socio-economic context, responds to real need, and uses available resources. This one doesn’t need ultra-large infrastructure; it’s lightweight, tailored to small farmers. That’s powerful. And the fact it uses used cooking oil speaks to context-awareness.

If we fail to deploy this thinking at scale, we risk letting bright ideas stay in labs, prototypes once-celebrated, but not reaching the fields where farmers plant, sweat and harvest.

We must ask ourselves: if this unit could prevent even 1 per cent of post-harvest losses nationwide, what does that translate into tons of rice, pesos of income and food-security? And if that’s so, why not make it a national program?

---

To the young inventor John Dence Flores: I say well done. To the government: there is a golden opportunity here to translate design into deployment, into real farmer benefit. To the farmer: you should be the end-beneficiary of tech like this, not just the test-site.

Let’s not allow this dryer to be a nice story in a newspaper and then disappear. Instead, let’s turn it into a national wave—one where the harvest is secured, losses drop, incomes rise, and items once laid out on highways in the rain become relics of the past. In a country where rice is life, every grain counts. And with innovations like Anihon, maybe we can protect more of them.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-29-2026

PROS AND CONS OF NON-WORKING HOLIDAYS

 PROS AND CONS OF NON-WORKING HOLIDAYS

Don’t get me wrong—I’m not against the many non-working holidays in the Philippines. They have their place. But here’s the question I keep coming back to: Do we have too many non-working holidays?

It’s easy for our government to proclaim another “non-working holiday.” A long weekend here, a commemorative date there. But are these decisions backed up by solid economic studies? I’m not protesting—just asking. And in fact, I’m far more pro-economy and pro-consumer than anti-holiday.

---

The appeal of non-working holidays

There are real benefits:

• Rest and Recovery – Holidays give workers a break. A day off matters. It helps reduce burnout, improves morale, and might even boost productivity when they return.
  
  

• Cultural and Historical Recognition – Many of these days commemorate events of national importance: heroes, tragedies, religious observances. That lends meaning, identity, collective memory.
  
  

• Premium Pay for Some – For employees who work on non-working holidays, the extra pay (for example +30% or more) can be a welcome bonus.
  
  

• Boost to Tourism and Retail – Long weekends spark domestic travel, spending on food, leisure, accommodation. The government argues this helps the economy. For example, the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development(DEPDEV) said the Oct. 30, Nov. 1–2 holidays would boost local tourism.
  
  

---

The flip side

But—and yes, there is a but—there are drawbacks:

• Reduced Productivity – Business gets paused. Especially sectors like manufacturing, logistics or services with continuous operations. Employers may face downtime, delayed deadlines.
  
  

• Cost and Confusion – For companies that do open, there’s increased labour cost. For example, one study cited that extra paid holidays for the BPO industry cost approximately ₱750 million per day.

• Daily-Wage Workers Lose Out – “No work, no pay” applies to many on special non-working days. So a declared holiday can mean a lost wage for someone already vulnerable.
  
  

• Competitiveness Impact – The Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) have flagged that our number of holidays is high by regional standards and could discourage investors. 

• Service Disruption – Government offices, banks, public services may halt operations. For ordinary citizens needing access to services, the holiday can mean waiting.
  
  

---

A Philippine snapshot

Let’s look at some context:

• In the Philippines, national holidays consist of regular holidays (employees get full pay even if they don’t report) and special non-working holidays (often “no work, no pay” if you don’t report).

• According to official Senate data: for 2024 there are 12 regular holidays and 9 special non-working holidays—a total of 21 national days.

• The PCCI counted “about 27 holidays a year” when you include additional proclamations and local holidays.
  
  

So yes: many long weekends, many break days. And one can ask: if we have so many, is the balance still healthy?

---

My thoughts and questions

• Should there be a ceiling on non-working holidays declared by proclamation (not by law)? Maybe a limit so the business environment can plan.
  
  

• What about daily wage workers? While salaried employees may get the break or premium pay, daily-waged folks may lose income. Are we protecting the most vulnerable?
  
  

• Could some commemorative days be special working holidays instead of full non-working ones? That might allow the observance while keeping business rolling.
  
  

• Are economic and productivity studies done before proclaiming more holidays? The DEPDEV and business groups say it should be. In 2018, business groups complain that every additional holiday costs the BPO industry hundreds of millions
  
  

• Should we localize holidays more? Perhaps recognizing certain days in specific regions rather than nationwide non-working days—so that not everyone pauses all at once. The ECOP has suggested combining or localizing some.
  
  

---

Suggestions for a balanced approach

• Review the holiday calendar: Set an annual cap on additional non-working holidays beyond the fixed ones.
  
  

• Differentiate holiday types more clearly: Make sure companies and workers know whether a day is “regular holiday”, “special non-working holiday”, or “special working holiday”. Clarity reduces disputes.
  
  

• Protect vulnerable workers: For daily-waged workers, consider guaranteeing income or offering alternative days off so they’re not unintentionally disadvantaged.
  
  

• Tie holidays to economic boosters: Use non-working holidays strategically in tourism or events (especially local ones) where the economic benefit outweighs the productivity loss.
  
  

• Publish impact assessments: Before adding a holiday, have the government or DEPDEV publish a brief on foreseen labor, cost and productivity impacts.
  
  

• Promote optional work: Companies that must operate (banks, logistics, manufacturing) should have the option for staff to work on these days and earn premium pay—but it shouldn’t be mandatory for everyone remaining closed.
  
  

---

Holidays are more than days off—they reflect our culture, our history, our national rhythms. They matter. But they also matter economically. We must ask: Are we celebrating so much that we undermine productivity? Are the benefits evenly distributed? Are we mindful of daily-wage workers, investors, service providers, ordinary Filipinos who count the working day as income?

I’m not saying cut all holidays. Far from it. But paying attention—really planning—can help us have the best of both worlds: cultural observance and a robust economy that works for everyone. Because if we’re pro-holiday and pro-economy, then we must ask the tough questions and strive for the right balance.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-28-2026