MAKING SCHOOL CHAIRS FROM PLASTIC WASTES

MAKING SCHOOL CHAIRS FROM PLASTIC WASTES

The whole idea behind a circular economy is simple — keep materials out of dumps, landfills and our oceans, and bring them back into the market in useful forms. In the Philippines, where plastic pollution has grown into a full-blown crisis, it’s heartening to see companies such as Envirotech Waste Recycling Inc. (Davao City) and Plastic Flamingo stepping into line, turning plastic waste into school chairs and other furnishings.

Let me wear my commentary hat for a moment: their production side appears mature and stable, but what they really need now is financing, marketing support, government offtake, and scale. My wish? That the government would lean in strongly. And that private sector buyers would spot the opportunity and place orders. For instance: why not have the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) or the National Housing Authority (NHA) purchase their recycled-plastic tiles, wall panels or chairs for social housing, public schools and barangay halls?

---

Why this matters

Here are a few cold hard facts:

• The Philippines generates about 2.7 million tons of plastic waste annually.
  
  

• Only around 28 % of key plastic resins are recycled locally.
  
  

• Much of that plastic ends up in landfills, waterways, and eventually the ocean. For example, the country is estimated to contribute up to 20 % of its plastic waste into oceanic leakage.
  
  

• Via Envirotech’s own data: they process 60 to 90 tons of plastic waste per month and can produce roughly 1,500 school chairs from 30 tons of plastic in one such batch.
  
  

The environmental logic is strong: plastic waste → recycled products → reduced landfill / ocean leakage → new livelihood opportunities. On the social side, chairs for schools are a tangible community benefit.

---

The companies doing it

Envirotech Waste Recycling Inc. (Davao City)
Founded 2010 by engineer Winchester Lemen, Envirotech collects soft and single-use plastics and converts them into furniture and building materials. Each school chair reportedly uses 20–30 kg of plastic. Their business model combines environmental impact with local employment and up-cycling.

Plastic Flamingo
Although less highlighted here, Plastic Flamingo is another Philippine enterprise working to transform plastic waste into durable goods and furnishings. According to business-directory data, they focus on recycled-plastic building materials and furniture. 

---

My commentary, suggestions & questions

• Government support needed: While these businesses are doing good, they need “pull” from government — contracts for schools / public institutions. If DHSUD/NHA, DepEd or even barangay councils committed to buying these recycled-plastic chairs or wall panels, demand would rise and economies of scale could be achieved.
  
  

• Finance and markets: For firms like Envirotech and Plastic Flamingo the challenge is scaling: capital for more machines, marketing channels, supply of raw plastic waste, consistent orders.
  
  

• Private sector role: Corporations with CSR mandates can buy the products (chairs, tiles, panels) or sponsor waste-collection drives feeding these enterprises. For example, the company NutriAsia, Inc. and Del Monte Philippines, Inc. partnered to collect plastic waste and donated up-cycled school chairs via Envirotech.
  
  

• Consumer products expansion: With support of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), these enterprises could begin manufacturing wider product lines (e.g., furniture, home décor, consumer goods) from recycled plastic.
  
  

• Addressing raw-material supply: To produce enough chairs and panels, they need reliable feedstock — segregated, collected, sorted plastic waste. This implies better waste-management systems at barangay / LGU levels.
  
  

• Quality and durability: While recycled plastic products are innovative, public institutions need assurance on quality, durability, safety (especially for school furniture). Certification and standards are key.
  
  

• Price competitiveness: Recycled-plastic chairs must be cost-competitive against conventional wood or steel chairs. If recycled products are significantly more expensive, uptake will be slow.
  
  

• Scale and geography: These models are currently local (Mindanao, etc.). For national impact, they need to be adopted across Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, integrated into national procurement frameworks.
  
  

---

Final thoughts

I tip my hat to the founders of these companies. They are pioneers turning trash into treasure, aligning environmental sustainability with livelihood creation. But here’s the message to our policy-makers and business leaders: this is not the time for passive applause. It’s time for strategic partnership. We have a plastic-waste problem of millions of tons per year; we have innovative entrepreneurs ready with solutions. What we don’t yet have in full measure is consistent market demand, government procurement policy and scaling support.

Imagine: a classroom full of chairs made entirely from the plastic sachets and shopping bags that used to end up by rivers or in the sea. That would be a circular economy in action. That would be waste turned into value. That would be good design, good business, and good citizenship all in one.

So my question to you, dear reader: should our government simply regulate plastics harder, or should it also buy recycled-plastic solutions and in effect create the demand that makes the circular economy real? I believe the latter. Because waste is not just a problem—it’s a resource waiting to be harvested. And every chair made from plastic waste is one less bag clogging our rivers, and one more seat for the next generation to learn.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-31-2026

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