1

Case Studies in Community-Based Solid Waste Management

Bali, Indonesia, 2005

* Open Dump Site in Temesi Village, Bali, Indonesia

Dashiell Gerdes

Environmental Studies Undergraduate Senior Thesis

Faculty Sponsor: Alan Richards

2

Abstract:

The beauty of Bali, the world’s tropical island paradise, is in decline. Rampant buildup of solid waste now threatens the health of communities and the environment. Recent innovations in community-based waste management strategies offer a potential way out. This study seeks to provide an accurate representation of the waste management situation in Bali, Indonesia, in 2005. To do so will require a review of relevant aspects of Indonesian history, political economy, environmental policy, development of education, and culture, as well as an in depth look into Bali and the Balinese context. After the background to the current situation has been set, a series of case studies will follow, highlighting the potential that community-based alternative waste management schemes have to revolutionize the waste management paradigm on Bali. A review of international community-based waste management projects and a summary of community-based waste management theory will provide a framework for comparison, and contribute to the interpretation of the Balinese case studies. A summary of these findings will inform a set of recommendations for current and future waste management initiatives in Bali. Concluding statements will also address directions for future research.

Bali’s environmental movement has reached a cusp, and community participation is vital to its success and sustainability. In light of the grave effects of repeated terrorist bombings on the economy and morale of the island, and the slow recovery from the financial crisis of 1997-98, it has become all too clear that Bali must take its future into its own hands. Acknowledgements: Many people have contributed to this project, but special thanks for their help is due to Tiromsa Sinaga, I Gusti Raka Panji Tisna, Termana, Jessica Champlagne, Wayan Budiarto, Alan Richards, and Sarah Rabkin.

3

Table of Contents: Abstract Acknowledgements Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview

1.1 Introduction 1.2 Overview of Study

Chapter 2: Background to the Study 2.1 Indonesia Country Report 2.2 Environmental Discourse 2.3 Education System and Development of Environmental Education 2.4 Bali Report

Chapter 3: Data Analysis and Interpretation

3.1 Case Studies 3.2 Literature 3.3 Synthesis and Analysis

Chapter 4: Review, Conclusion and Recommendations 4.1 Review 4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations

Bibliography

4

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 1.1 Introduction:

“No one can deny that Indonesia faces serious waste management issues. Although there is no easy solution, there are a few simple, low technology exercises that can dramatically reduce the amount of waste to be dealt with,” wrote Tiromsa Sinaga, Assistant Executive Director and Environmental Programs Coordinator of the Indonesian Development for Education and Permaculture Foundation (IDEP), for the Jakarta Post in early August, 2005 (26: p.1). Developing countries face critical waste management problems that pose serious hazards to people and the environment, and Indonesia is no exception, but recent developments in the theory and practice of solid waste management have offered many new insights into dealing with this enormous problem. This inquiry into non-governmental community-based solid-waste management will illustrate the nature of these developments by reviewing relevant history, and will highlight their inherent potential for success by examining recent efforts in Bali, Indonesia, through a series of case studies.

Tiromsa plays a central part in the non-profit (NP) non-governmental organization (NGO), located in Ubud, Bali, and is integral to the development and implementation IDEP’s many environmental education and waste management programs. Under Tiromsa’s guidance, I conducted a study of solid waste management schemes in Bali during the summer of 2005. While volunteering at IDEP that summer, I was often exposed to polluted air from smoldering trash, water poisoned from poor sanitation and profligate waste, the distressing beauty of a landscape littered with trash, and especially to the unfortunate ignorance of many peoples’ attitudes towards waste. I became seriously concerned by this problem and, by paying closer attention, I noticed that although the waste problem is severe, there is an equally serious set of people experimenting with alternative methods of waste management, and achieving some measure of success. This research into the variety of organizations involved in community-based alternative waste management projects currently active in Bali will contribute to understanding the recent and rapid increase in the number of such projects, and how to ensure their success and sustainability.

Over the course of the two months I lived and worked in Sayan village, Bali, from June 20th to August 20th, 2005, I had the opportunity to meet with and interview many of civil society’s leaders in waste management. Formal and informal interviews were conducted with six organizations active in a variety of solid waste management projects, as well as with local community members and leaders, a recently retired Minister of Tourism, women’s groups, artists, musicians, religious figures, students, academics, journalists, businesspeople, and other activists and researchers (Interviews). The cyclically reflective methodology of action research informed the process. Most of the research is centered in and around the Ubud area, and also districts in southern Bali, which are both cultural hubs and tourist centers that are atypical to the rural majority of the island. To get a better picture of the waste management situation throughout the island, limited research was conducted in some remote areas, and by conducting interviews with experts from those areas. An extensive literature review was conducted, ranging from international case studies of community-based waste management projects

5

and community development theory to Indonesian and Balinese history. I believe this study fully portrays my experience in Bali, and also that the interviews and case studies are sufficient to represent waste management in Bali, 2005, and to provide a useful analysis.

This study is a timely and important contribution to an ongoing movement. Solid waste in Bali has become an acute problem; past and current municipal efforts to manage the buildup of waste have proven ineffective, posing serious hazards to the health of communities, the environment, the economy, and the future of the island. Challenging obstacles exist at every level, from national to local, but the possibility for an effective waste management system is not an illusion. Unfortunately, the lack of oversight of this problem has left a significant gap in the literature on this subject, and quantified data was frustratingly lacking in the records available to me. This study does not claim to be comprehensive. Nonetheless this report seeks to accurately depict the situation based on my experience, and lay a foundation for future study. Promising alternatives to the current system do exist, as illustrated by recent innovations in community-based waste management programs both in Bali and worldwide. Many of these programs offer potential solutions to Bali’s waste problem, but implementation at the community level has proven difficult due to a variety of economic, political, social, and cultural reasons. This paper will explore these factors in order to assist current and future efforts. Bali’s environmental movement has reached a cusp, and community participation is vital to its success and sustainability. In light of the effects of repeated terrorist bombings on the economy and morale of the island, and the slow recovery from the financial crisis of 1997-98, it has become all too clear that Bali must take its future into its own hands. 1.2 Overview of Study:

Half a century of rapid growth and industrialization in Indonesia under Suharto’s New Order has left major gaps in environmental regulation, management capabilities, and education. Commercial enterprise has exploited precious resources at unsustainable rates, leaving behind widespread pollution, environmental degradation, and damaged communities. The government has made some attempts to ameliorate these problems, but has proven largely inadequate at addressing both the root causes and the symptoms. At the local level, consumerism has been encouraged and adopted, changing the way people and communities relate to their natural environment, while dumping ever increasing quantities of waste into habitats and ecosystems. Prior to industrialization, waste management was not an issue; because most waste was biodegradable, and because populations were not dense enough to discard waste en masse, there was no problem. But industrialization and accompanying population growth have transformed the composition and quantity of waste into serious environmental hazards, and now non-biodegradable waste is discarded in unsafe quantities. Since the 1960’s, waste management has been the responsibility of the municipal government, but only in 1985 was a governmental body created to explicitly regulate it, and recycling has not been part of its policy. Because of this, waste management has been overwhelmingly neglected at the community level. Another weak link problematized by the government is the lack of practical environmental education in schools, without which people cannot understand the hazards posed by the accumulating waste and poor management techniques, and cannot be easily

6

convinced of the benefits of better management. Waste in communities is often burned or discarded in gutters and waterways.

Bali is a unique case study, but can provide insight into Indonesia’s waste problem as a whole. The Balinese are a welcoming people, and have preserved one of the world’s most intricate and beautiful cultures in spite of what has been going on around them. The combination of the allure of Balinese culture and the tropical beauty of the island has become a magnet for tourists. Regrettably, the centuries-old, sustainable relationship between the Balinese and their island is in rapid decline. The island has seen unparalleled levels of development in the past fifty years. The tourism industry and infrastructure dominates the economy and much of the geography, and life on the island has begun to depend on the continuous presence of tourists. The millions of tourists who traffic the island each year spend their time and money in cultural centers and tourist markets, indelibly changing life on Bali from sustainable to parasitic, imposing commercial consumerism and the commodification of Balinese culture. The rapid growth of tourism has catalyzed rates of land conversion from productive agriculture into large-scale tourism-related development, and resources are increasingly diverted to development projects at the expense of local communities, traditional economies, and environmental degradation.

Along with exacerbating the problems of population growth and increases in density, poverty and unemployment, tourism has challenged traditional ways of life to rapidly adapt or become extinct. One thing that has been made ever more available to the public, however, is disposable, packaged goods. An excess of waste has been brought into an environment unequipped to manage it. The municipal government’s handling of this waste has been disastrous; the waste management infrastructure is inadequate and overloaded, and now unmanaged landfills are destroying valuable ecosystems and threatening public health, and still there is no word of reform, or even recycling, from the authorities. Low levels of environmental education have left people and communities with little concept of the scope of this problem, and almost nowhere to turn.

A remarkable cost-recovering micro-economy has grown up around refuse, but the scavengers who collect, sort, and eventually recycle many kinds of waste are burdened by social stigma. Now, as even the tourists are putting pressure on the government and communities to clean up their act, it has become the responsibility of civil society to address this problem, and there has been some progress. Cultural barriers, structural hurdles and economic obstacles lie in the path of a sustainable waste management system, but these challenges may be overcome by applying alternative, community-based management models. Recent community-based waste management projects in Bali offer insight into how to proceed, but to understand their message some background must be reviewed (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28 and Interviews).

7

Chapter 2: Background to the Study

In order to understand Bali’s waste problem and the response at the community level requires some background. Provided here is a review of relevant Indonesian history, its treatment of its environment and waste, the economic forces driving waste production, the way governance has manifested itself, and the ways in which communities interact with waste. 2.1 Indonesia: Country Report Cultural History:

The peoples of Indonesia have a long history. The country consists of more than 360 ethnic groups and over 500 dialects. The first inhabitants of Indonesia date back a million years to the ‘Java Man,’ known more commonly as homo erectus, but the present day Indonesians are descended from Austronesian immigrants from southern China, around 3000 B.C. Successive periods of immigration to the archipelago have since imbued the population with a wide variety of practices and beliefs. Agriculture and metalwork have long been Indonesian traits, transferred from the Asian mainland in Bronze and Iron ages. Buddhism and Hinduism, stemming from migration from and trade with India and China, date back to first century A.D. Islam transferred later, at around the 13th century, and was widely accepted throughout, although Bali has remained overwhelmingly Hindu to this day.

European and Christian involvement in the region began in the 16th century, followed by a 350-year period of colonization by the Dutch, with only minor interruptions by the British in the 1800s and the Japanese during World War II. Indonesia declared its national independence in 1945, but had inherited a legacy of Dutch-influenced government, law and education institutions. A short period of contact with Chinese and Soviet Communism followed, but that influence was violently suppressed at the onset of Suharto’s New Order in 1965. Suharto’s regime and its many five-year plans were capitalist friendly, and in many ways Indonesia proceeded to rapidly and haphazardly develop along modernistic lines. Now, after the fall of Suharto in 1998 during the financial crisis, Indonesia is run by a democratically elected government and headed by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Indonesia is a member of the United Nations, OPEC, and other international organizations and treaties, and is becoming more globalized. This is an auspicious time in Indonesian history; although the country faces many challenges, it has the potential to make great changes (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28). Land and People:

Geographically, Indonesia is a long, volcanic archipelago stretching between Asia and Australia and out into the pacific, sharing borders with other countries in a few places. The country consists of more than 17,000 islands, over 6,000 of which are inhabited. It is wealthy in natural resources; home to much of the world’s tropical rainforests and terrestrial and marine biodiversity, Indonesia occupies only 1.3% of the world’s surface but about 17% of the worlds life forms live in its territory. Also,

8

Indonesia’s territory holds large volumes of oil, natural gas, and other valuable natural resources.

Indonesia is the fourth most populous nation in the world, with over 241 million people. The diversity in language and ethnicity mentioned above is complemented by an equally diverse set of cultures and natural environments. The nation is subdivided into 27 provinces, with much variance in characteristics. In a few places, mostly in Java, the population is as densely concentrated as any urban area in the world, but Indonesia is still overwhelmingly rural. The population is about 90% Muslim, 2% Hindu, 7% Christian, with a final 1% belonging to ‘other’. Large percentages of the population are unemployed and in poverty; depending on which formula is used, poverty estimates range from 25% to well over 50% of the population. Many people lack essential clean water, sanitation, and waste management.

Traditional Indonesian society has a mutualistic relationship with the environment. Dependency is acknowledged, but not in a limiting form. Traditional knowledge of and management practices towards natural resources have been in existence since early history. For instance, “Indonesians have the knowledge of utilizing some six thousand species of flowering plants for needs of food, clothing, shelter, derivative products and health care. In addition hundreds of animals and microbial species are also being put to use for human livelihood” (20: p.23). Throughout history, the sustainability of Indonesian peoples’ lifestyles has been due to this careful stewardship. Disappointingly, the fast pace of development in Indonesia during the 20th century to present has not been so sustainable, and Indonesian culture is struggling to adapt (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28, CIA Factbook). 2.2 Environmental Discourse Environmental Problems:

Indonesia’s environmental problems are numerous. It is a resource rich country, and has a long history of environmental exploitation, and also a remarkable indifference towards low-income communities. Its timber industry is a well-known environmental disaster—widespread illegal logging, government-subsidized timber-exporting and paper-pulp industries have depleted forest resources, severely polluted ecosystems and human habitats, displaced indigenous communities, and caused major floods, landslides and climate-changing forest-fires. Oil extraction in the oil-rich Aceh province in northern Sumatra and the ensuing strife over property rights has caused major ecological degradation and social upheaval. Increasing privatization of agriculture and the profligate use of pesticides and high-yield monoculture farming practices popularized during the Green Revolution have resulted in immeasurable negative impacts on natural and human environments. Land redistribution, agrarian reform and transmigration policies have also created major environmental and social problems. Indonesia has an undeniably bad track record regarding both the natural environment and marginalized/low-income communities. In this light, it is no wonder that the government has also neglected solid waste management (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28).

9

Causes of Waste: The production of waste in Indonesia dramatically changed for the worse with the

onset of industrialization and the accompanying economic boom. It is worth noting that prior to industrialization, most waste generated at the community level was biodegradable, and that hazardous pollution at the community level originated around the same time as industrial pollution as well. Industrial development was slow to take hold in Indonesia, with little growth up through the 1950-60’s due to complex social and political circumstances that discouraged investment. With the onset of Suharto’s New Order in 1965, however, Indonesia’s economy was opened up and the nation began to rapidly industrialize under a series of five-year plans. To encourage fast growth and foreign investment, policies were not oriented to protect laborers or the environment, and more often provided incentives and subsidies to expedite extraction, catalyzing the accompanying environmental degradation.

The rapid pace of change during this period left many gaps in the structural capacity of regulatory oversight, including corruption, lack of funds, and expertise, which directly contributed to industrial pollution. Industrial byproducts increased exponentially; polluting effluent streamed unchecked out of factories and into surrounding habitats, increased emissions in industrial and urban areas poisoned the air, and hazardous solid waste was dumped wherever was convenient. The general attitude of the New Order economy could be characterized as ‘pollution pays,’ but at the expense of communities and the environment. Industrialization also changed waste production in communities, in quantity and composition; non-biodegradable commodity goods were consumed and discarded at increasing rates. The lack of oversight has also made it difficult to find quantified data about the environment (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28, Transparency International). Government Initiatives for the Environment:

The pollution problem began to receive governmental attention in the early 1970’s. Indonesia was faced with challenging questions concerning its treatment of its environment at the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East in 1971, and again at the Stockholm Conference on the Environment in 1972. The Bandung Conference in West Java, 1972, was the first major initiative addressing the human and development related impacts on the environment. The first important steps in environmental responsibility were undertaken after the appointment of Emil Salim, 1978, to head the newly created State Ministry for the Monitoring of Development and Environment. The national park system was expanded and conservation of environmental resources became a priority, but still mostly in the economic sense. The Ministry’s name was changed to the Ministry for the Population and the Environment, 1983, and then finally settled with the Ministry of Environment in 1993. Bureaus of the Environment were created in all 27 provinces to regulate local initiatives. Environmental policy was consolidated under ACT No.4 in 1982, which soon required companies to produce environmental impact statements, 1986, and was eventually supervised by the Environmental Impact Management Agency, 1990, and subsidiary branches throughout the provinces. The attitude had begun to resemble more of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, motivated by a need to regulate environmental impacts for continued economic growth.

10

Indonesia has also ratified the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species, is signatory to the 1985 Vienna Convention and 1987 Montreal Protocol for ozone protection, as well as the 1992 UN Framework Convention on climate change. Other international commitments include the Statement of Forest Principles adopted at the UNCED Earth Summit, the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and Agenda 21 concerning sustainable development. But despite the nominal good intentions of these top-down efforts, compliance with environmental legislation has been weak. Also, very little was done to address community level issues, and solid waste management was a low priority.

In 1985 a Directorate of Solid Waste Management was established and charged with developing policies and providing technical assistance to communities. It cooperates with the agency of Home Affairs concerning with management issues, and the Board for the Study and Application of Technology in order to provide policy recommendations and implement pilot projects. Contrary to the top-down bureaucratic system, the programs encouraged by the Directorate placed tremendous responsibility on individual municipalities to organize and manage solid waste management systems, and, unfortunately, programs continually fell short of their goals. In 1978, 34% of city residents had formal solid waste management, and less than 15% in smaller towns. “The limited success of many [waste management] programs in Indonesia may be attributed to…[an] attempt to apply a Western solid waste management paradigm…What appears to be needed is a system that carefully builds on indigenous strengths while avoiding expensive, inappropriate, and imported ideas and technologies,” (25: p.118, 6,8,9,10,12, 13,17,20,23,28). Infrastructure for Waste:

Although environmental awareness and concern had been born and some issues addressed, action was weak and ineffective at the community level. In response, many municipalities have endeavored to reform their waste management sectors, experimenting with different kinds of collection and management schemes, but consistently operate using a general model. A typical Indonesian solid waste management system delegates organizational responsibility to community associations within the municipality. Community members are expected to put their waste into provided bins which are then collected at prescribed times, yet pickups are far more common in richer neighborhoods than in poorer areas. Waste is transported to a transfer station—more like an ad hoc dumpsite characterized by unmanaged overflow—and then becomes the responsibility of the local Sanitation Department. The Sanitation Department is also responsible for collecting waste from commercial and industrial areas, and the waste is eventually transported by truck to an open dump. The garbage workers who provide the labor for the collection and transport of waste routinely perform their functions manually, loading and unloading waste by hand and with baskets. Although there are some advantages inherent in decentralization of this kind, such as flexibility, increased formal employment, and that it is relatively inexpensive, this labor-intensive system has thus far proven inadequate. Programs are often under-funded and use inappropriate technologies based on Western circumstances, and little to no effort is made towards cost-recovery through recycling and/or composting.

11

*typical garbage truck in Ubud, Bali, and a waste collector carrying a trash basket

Despite many challenging problems, progress has been made in solid waste management and there have been many useful innovations. The government itself has experimented with a few pilot projects using alternative collection methods out of which some promising solutions have risen. Officially employed garbage workers sometimes work side by side with informal scavengers, to good effect. Community-based organizations and non-governmental organizations have become increasingly involved in the waste management sector. Innovations in different types of community participation may have the potential to revolutionize the waste management sector. Although community participation has been acknowledged as beneficial, much of its success hinges on environmental education (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28).

2.3 Education System and Development of Environmental Education Indonesian Education System:

The environmental movement began to take shape as a result of economic interests as much as from genuine concern for stewardship. Congruently, Indonesia realized that a certain amount of environmental awareness among its citizens could benefit the economy, and also communities. Indonesia’s education system is centrally

12

planned and managed, with varying degrees of flexibility in each province. Payment for enrollment is often expensive, and many families struggle to provide for their children’s education. At the age of seven, students are required to attend school, through primary (grades 1-6) and up to the first-level secondary school (grade 9). General level secondary school and post-secondary higher education are optional. The style of teaching gives the teacher a great deal control over the students, is often based on rote memorization, and generally abides the Pancasila moral, religious and civic education principles. Literacy throughout the country is now about 77% in ages 10 and above (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23, 25,28, CIA Factbook). Environmental Education:

Historically, there was not much of an environmental component in the standard education. Environmental education in Indonesia began around the same time as the macro-policy framework for the environment. The 1972 Bandung seminar promoted initiatives to start environmental education programs. Shortly after, the government opened a few Centers of Environmental Studies at major universities throughout Indonesia, taking steps towards instilling environmental awareness in policy-research circles. The first program designed for the community level was the Teacher Training and Education Institutes, at which teachers, training to become primary and secondary schoolteachers, were to go through a Demographic and Environmental Education Program. The program was then supposed to be taught at primary and secondary schools, spreading environmental awareness at the local level, but “lack of funding, teachers’ expertise and time have kept its implementation at a very minimal level,” (20: p.34).

Despite increased attention to environmental issues in both the media and education sectors, cultural attitudes towards waste are naïve. Lack of proper education is the heart of the difficulty in organizing sustainable solid waste management systems based on bottom-up management. Handling waste has been seen as either the government’s responsibility or the denigrating work of scavengers and a signifier of low social status, and waste itself has largely been viewed as more of an aesthetic problem than a health risk. The effect of this is that communities have been ill equipped to manage their own waste, and socially ignorant of its hazards (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28 and Interviews). 2.4 Bali Report The macro-scale issues discussed in the previous sections are experienced at the community level in a variety of ways. To understand how Indonesia’s waste paradigm has been experienced in Bali first requires some background on Bali and a review of the Balinese cultural context. Through this lens it is then possible to look at Bali’s economy, governmental and political institutions, waste management infrastructure, education system and understand how these have influenced the waste problem in Bali today.

13

*Bali seen from the top of Gunung Agung Background Information on Bali:

Nehru called Bali “the morning of the world,” and it is hardly an understatement. The island is known as a paradise throughout the world—studies have shown the province may be more well-known than Indonesia itself. The island evokes an image of a verdant, mountainous jungle surrounded by tropical beaches. It is a small island, its 5632 thousand square kilometers encompass less than 0.3% of the area of the country, yet the island is home to more than 3.5 million people. Perhaps Bali’s most unique characteristic is the way in which the vibrant and enduring Balinese culture has lived sustainably with the land. The relationship between the Balinese and their island was described by Peter Ashton, a Harvard botanist, as “the island where humans developed one of the happiest places on earth for themselves yet still preserved the rainforest” (20: p.36).

14

*traditional rice paddie terracing

Culture permeates all aspects of Balinese life. Balinese Hinduism is the prevailing faith on the island, and its customs inform all levels of social interaction. Ceremonies are performed year round, with the effect of making Bali to seem as if in constant celebration. Handmade offerings to the earth and spirits are made and distributed daily, requiring major investments in time and resources from communities and families. Onlookers find it difficult to distinguish between the spiritual and the earthly: the Balinese would not even bother to do so. The Balinese revere their land and are bound to it; they have a responsibility to their ancestors to nurture it. Communities organize around their faith, and functions such as cremations and coming of age ceremonies are frequent, and generally end with a cleansing, ritualistic offering to the earth. This faith-based way of life has existed harmoniously with the island for centuries, but is now under threat.

Bali has always appealed to foreigners. Bali was colonized by the Dutch from the late 1800s through the mid 1900s, but had, by this time, already experienced external influences dating far back into history. Contact with foreigners intensified noticeably starting in the 1920’s, forever changing life on the island. Around three quarters of the population lives in rural areas, and the other quarter in dense urban areas, and now more than 30% of people on the island are unemployed. Agriculture has historically been the main occupation on the island, although a booming tourist industry has caused Bali to become the flagship of the Indonesian tourism economy. In 1969, agriculture provided around 60% of the islands gross regional domestic profit, while tourism related activities

15

produced around 12%. In 1990, however, agriculture’s share of the economy had shrunk to 35% and tourism claimed 22%. Less than 50,000 tourists visited the island in 1970, but by 1992 the number had grown to over 2.5 million, and has continued to grow. The centralized Indonesian government’s planning has encouraged economic growth through mass tourism, subsidy, and investment in infrastructure, and continues to do so despite risks to Bali’s environment and pressures on Balinese society.

Tourism and related developments are the major driving force behind environmental degradation on Bali, and, along with a growing population and problems with poverty and unemployment, has seriously increased the production and mismanagement of waste. Productive agricultural land has increasingly been converted into development, forever changing traditional ways of relating to the environment. As redistributive land reform forces rich landowners to avoid losses by investing in tourism and related industries, farmers have been forced into other, less stable occupations, and many wind up in the unpredictable tourism-service industry. Local powers have become more centralized and vested in tourism development, encouraging cultural commercialization and stagnation. Increased exposure to the world market has commercialized values and lifestyles at the village level and led to many serious impacts on the life of the island, not the least of which is the increased availability of packaged goods, which has led to consumerism and the buildup of solid wastes. Non-biodegradable waste production from domestic consumerism has increased, as has waste production from tourist facilities such as hotels, restaurants and gift shops. Indirect impacts from tourism have also become common; water shortages in villages have become more frequent as water is diverted to large-scale developments. Beach erosion, land degradation, and pollution have been linked to development and tourism. Other factors contributing to waste are the increase in density and poverty that come attached to population growth on a small island, weak financing in the waste management sector, lack of the political will to manage waste, weak enforcement of collection services, bulky, centralized infrastructure, and weak public awareness.

A problematic and unfortunate dependence on tourism has developed over time, with grim consequences for people and the environment. Solid waste management is now a serious problem on the island. The draw of the natural beauty of the island is now at stake, and tourism, and thus Bali’s economy as a whole, has been on the decrease since the financial crisis of 1997 and the repeated Bali Bombings of 2002 and 2005. Income generated by tourism is used to support the service industry, and service provision has worsened with the decline. With this central part of the economy at risk, it has become increasingly apparent that the status quo in solid waste management is insufficient, and that alternative initiatives must be explored from within (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28, WIkipedia and Interviews) Social Structures and Community:

The success of waste management programs in Bali is in-part dependant understanding how power is distributed. Power politics on the island are complicated and hierarchical, and government institutions as well as community organization are top-down, age and gender differentiated, and power usually falls with older males. Local government answers primarily to the centralized state, but a certain amount of autonomy and flexibility is specified in the Sanitation Department. The hefty inertia of the

16

governmental bureaucracy is a key obstacle in implementing reform in the waste management sector, although the government has been known to cooperate with progressive initiatives under certain circumstances. Community political structures also pose complications. The local Bupati, or Regent, often must first approve projects in specific regions, and then support can be gained from local community leaders and businesses, before finally being implemented at the community level. There are alternative routes to the final implementation of a project, sometimes bypassing some or all of the aforementioned sequence of political considerations, but all must navigate cultural considerations and community-politics hurdles (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28 and Interviews). Cultural Influence on Attitudes Toward the Environment:

Numerous cultural characteristics must be considered in the organizational and implementation phases of setting up community-based solid waste management projects. Waste has a defined place in the spiritual hierarchy, as can be seen analogously through the construction of a family compound. Each compound follows traditional triadic conventions in design; the temple is placed at the northernmost, or ‘top’, section of the compound and this is the holiest area, in the middle is the family’s living quarters, and at the bottom of the ladder, positioned in the southernmost part of the compound, is the kitchen, bathroom, and waste pile, signifying that these earthbound activities have low spiritual status. Waste management is thus a lowly task, below the concern of most males, and is consigned to the chores of the women, who also perform most domestic functions such as cooking, washing and cleaning. Historically, this system has not proven to be an environmental problem, the Balinese lifestyle had sustainably related to the environment while most products were biodegradable, but cultural traditions have been slow to adapt to the increased levels of malignant waste. Interviews with numerous active and concerned parties have identified this cultural attitude as one of the greatest challenges in organizing and implementing waste management projects.

The issue is a complicated one that can be broken down into three factors: the slow adaptability of traditional attitudes and habits, the low level of environmental education, and the low willingness to pay for services perceived as unnecessary. The first is discussed above, but heavily influences the latter two. Studies have shown that only a small number of high school teachers in Bali have incorporated environmental education into their curriculum, and that that general knowledge of environmental issues is not widespread. Some teachers trying to implement waste management programs at their schools have even been confronted with resistance in the community. High rates of unemployment, widespread poverty and lack of basic clean water and sanitation services are the heart of many of the challenges in increasing public participation in alternative solid waste programs; the culturally informed priority on waste management is not as urgent as the survival based need for provisions of food and water.

On a positive note, Balinese culture particularly lends itself towards replication, the close-knit community lifestyle spreads news fast and most people are quick learners; successes in one region are easily copied in another, although this has yet to happen in the waste management sector. The difficulty of overcoming these challenges has created a serious waste problem, and made examples of successful waste management programs few and far between (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28 and Interviews).

17

*waste accumulating on the side of a stream Waste in Bali:

Solid waste has accumulated along the sides of roads, riverbanks, beaches; basically everywhere people traverse in cities, villages, and rural areas. Many people simply discard their waste wherever they want, either that or burn or bury it. Solid wastes on the island are mainly organic, around 70-80%, and the 20-30% that is inorganic is composed mainly of recyclable materials, consisting of plastics, cans, metal materials, glass, clothes, rubber, and paper. Waste generation per person has increased, up from an average of 910 grams/person/day in 2000 to well over a kilogram per day in 2005. This is a relatively conservative estimate, but is still significant. In the capitol city of Denpasar, population just over half a million, the amount of waste collected by the government is around 1,707 m3/day, a quantity that would fill between 150-200 trucks, but the volume of waste collected and taken to a final dump site is only 1,462 m3/day: a waste collection ratio of 86%, none of which is recycled. Waste pickup service varies dramatically by region, and Denpasar is notoriously better off than other areas. Tourist and business areas generally get their waste taken away by government trucks, but in more rural areas people are often left to their own devices. In large cities, those with populations above 500,000, studies have shown that about 11% of waste is picked up by waste haulers and taken to a final dump site, 64% is burned or buried, 6% is composted, and 19% is simply thrown down the banks of rivers and streams. In smaller cities (pop<500,000) about 19%

18

goes to the landfill, 54% is burned or buried, 7% gets composted, and 20% thrown to river banks. Service coverage in villages and rural areas is much worse (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28 and Interviews).

*burning trash on roadside

Waste management in Bali: The service provided by the government is disorganized. People in both urban and rural areas are supposed to bring their waste out to the curb in baskets. The government has prescribed a schedule for pickup that varies from region to region, and, outside of the high-priority tourist areas, the schedule is unreliable, sometimes leaving waste to pile up for extended periods before pickup happens, if it happens at all. The employees who deal with this waste are doing it manually, frequently without gloves or other appropriate equipment, and the waste-transport vehicles are often in disrepair. Weak financing of waste management at the municipal level contributes to this problem Typical income sources are taxes and the local budget allocation, the national budget allocation, independent retribution, and informal waste advantaging and private sector participation, but corruption and misuse of funds is rampant.

Some of the major symptoms of the waste problem can be highlighted through a description of the government’s largest landfill, slightly off the southeast coast, which is overflowing. The landfill’s lifespan has been shortened due to lack of maintenance and it

19

is spilling into the ocean, causing severe water pollution, killing nearby coral reefs and turtle populations, and decimating others in the fragile marine ecosystem. The government has been trying to buy land for a new landfill site, but land is expensive and it is complicated to negotiate with surrounding communities over such land use, with the consequence of increasing accumulation and spillover at the old landfill. The government responds negatively to inquiries concerning this landfill and tries to keep interested parties away—my formal requests were ignored, and I was turned away at the door when I went on my own (6,8,9,10,12,13,17,20,23,25,28 and Interviews).

*trash sloping downhill into a river

Recycling and Scavengers:

Despite increasing pressure from NGOs and the tourist market for better management, the municipal government does not recycle. Waste buildup creates sanitation problems and negatively affects local health, air and soil quality through the burning of plastics, batteries and other toxics, and degrades the general quality of life. Recycling happens only on the smallest scales; a number of people known as pemalung, or scavengers, independent and unemployed by other means, search for recyclable material that can be resold as an income supplement. There is a market on the island for recyclable material: in mid-year 2005, clear glass was worth 50 rupiah/kilo, a large Bintang beer bottle was worth about 400 rupiah/kilo, aluminum was worth 4000

20

rupiah/kilo, white paper sold at 700 rupiah/kilo, newspaper at 400 rupiah/kilo, cardboard went at about 600-700 rupiah/kilo, and clear plastic bottles worth 1000 rupiah/kilo. This is not a lot of money; the rupiah trades to the dollar at roughly 10,000 to 1, but the sheer quantity of waste available for cost-recovery makes scavenging a practical lifestyle for some. Even batteries and light bulbs have recycling outlets; by separating the components, metal and glass can then be resold. The chalky, dried battery acid from inside the batteries is mixed with water and sold as paint, and few people know this is a hazard. Because there is no cost-effective way to recycle plastic bags and wrappers they can be found everywhere. The island’s scavengers take large quantities of recyclable materials to Javanese buyers located near Denpasar, the west coast, and other areas. Despite the usefulness of this demographic, there are unfortunate social stigmas directed at scavengers, and they are considered social outcasts rather than service-providers (Interviews). NGOs and Community Participation:

A number of progressive organizations have been endeavoring to ameliorate the waste problem through a variety of means. There is an active civil society on the island, and a growing body of environmental NGOs and enlightened businesses are experimenting with alternative forms of waste management. The various efforts have had mixed results, but there are many similarities that can be seen between projects. Many focus on raising community participation levels through environmental education; educational meetings frequently emphasize the 3 Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle), on-site separation, and organic composting. Empowering women and youths has been found to be a very useful approach; often it is the women who deal with waste, and teaching them how to handle it properly and even make a profit from it can seriously reduce waste levels while adding to their economic security. Also, teaching youths to respect their environment can be useful in the short term as well as part of long-term planning to cerate positive change. Approaching politicians and schools early on in the process is a useful strategy; their support can help finance and initiate programs. Organizing and utilizing the skills and resources of scavengers is becoming more popular in addressing the common need for a reliable management infrastructure because the scavengers are already familiar with the processes on a small scale (Interviews). The details of different case studies will be discussed in the next chapter.

Chapter 3: Data Analysis and Interpretation

One of the most striking experiences I had while living with a host family in the village of Sayan in Bali was the incessant smell of burning trash. The family had no other method to dispose of its trash, so when the pile got too big they would simply light it on fire. The neighbors did the same, either that or bury it, toss it in gutters that run down into rivers, or simply onto the riverbanks themselves. On my way to work I would see a river clogged with a mountain of trash, chickens and chicks scraping through trash in the gutters in search of food, odd colored smoke arising from slow burning trash piles, and children throwing wrappers on their playground. I asked people about this, and gathered that people were dissatisfied but did not know what to do or even exactly what they were dissatisfied about. Often they could not imagine an alternative situation. I spoke to the

21

banyar, community, leader about the waste management system, and was told a little bit about how the community meetings are organized, and was surprised to find that this problem did not rank very high. For example, community ceremonies take such precedent over the concern for waste management that in comparison the issue of waste is never really raised. It was from this starting point that I began exploring the waste management situation in Bali, and the following case studies are the result.

*trash accumulated in drainage gutter

3.1 Case Studies IDEP:

The first case study I focused on was conveniently where I was working, Indonesian Development for Education and Permaculture (IDEP), a NP NGO active in environmental issues since the mid 1990’s. IDEP’s environmental department is active in a variety of ways, including demonstrating permaculture gardens, Wastewater Gardens, organic composting, gathering an organic seed bank to encourage local farmers to diversify their approach to farming, and also developing and implementing environmental education programs and providing infrastructure for community-based waste management projects.

22

*IDEP’s main office

While volunteering at IDEP during the summer of 2005 I was part of such a project: students from a high-school in Tojan village, just outside of the cultural center of Ubud where IDEP is located, had approached IDEP asking for help in organizing and implementing an alternative waste management program at their school. IDEP was enthusiastic about starting the process. The first step was writing a proposal and applying for a grant. Such projects can be done with little to no overhead, sometimes through micro-credit programs, but it is much more difficult. While waiting for the results on the grant proposal, a curriculum for implementing the program was developed. This consisted of an environmental education component; teaching the students the hazards of waste, how to handle it properly by separating on site and composting, and how waste can be economized through recycling, and would then be followed the provision of recycling containers and a pickup service. Meetings were held with representatives with the school to see if this curriculum was appropriate, asking for their input on the process. It is IDEP’s policy to include as high a level of community participation as possible in such projects, on the basis that a sense of ownership will arise and contribute to the overall success of the project. The service was to be run initially by an IDEP volunteer; the waste would be picked up and taken to recycling facility in Temesi village once a week, until a collection service could be formally set up using scavengers or local community members. The initiative for this project came from the local Bupati, or Regent, which played an important role because the success of a project is often

23

dependant on local political support. In lieux of the grant, which had fallen through, the community was going to fund the project. Financial support would come from the Bupati and local businesses, and, after training from IDEP, community members would run the whole program. Unfortunately, the cost recovery from the actual sale of recyclable goods would not amount to very much, because the value of the waste typically produced in rural areas is not high, and also because the capacity for processing at the Temesi facility was already overloaded. I was disappointed to have to leave the country before seeing the project through, but nevertheless, this project is definitely a step in the right direction and has the potential for expansion and replication.

In the past, IDEP took a different approach on a project in another village near Ubud. In this project, after initial contact meetings, training sessions were focused on the PKK, a women’s group common throughout many villages in Bali. The women of the community were taught how to manage their household waste more effectively through separating recyclables on-site and composting, and how to run a micro-credit program to sell the waste. A collection service was run by the women, who brought waste to a central transfer point in the village, and then the collected waste was sold to scavengers who would resell to their own buyers. The project was operating with a healthy profit margin, over 500,000 rupiah ($50 US) had been earned, and it had also received recognition from local government and newspapers as a successful startup. IDEP, hoping to withdraw from the project, then contracted out the operation to Bali Journey, an NGO based in the community and run by an important male figure. IDEP donated 4 million rupiah to Bali Journey in order for them to expand the project, but was disappointed to watch the funds be misused on an expensive one-time cleanup operation. This was done at the micro-credit recycling program’s expense and the program is unfortunately no longer running, while the village has mostly returned to its previous state of cleanliness. This project highlights many issues surrounding community-based waste management in Bali; the roles of local politicians and power structures, gender relations, and attitudes towards waste all play an deciding parts in the success of a project (Interviews). ABC Solutions:

The next case study is of ABC Solutions. ABC Solutions is a private business, set up by Brenda Ritchmand, which operates recycling pickup services in and around Ubud. It has been in operation since 2001, with an expanding group of clients, now numbering around 150. ABC was set up as a side project to a larger business venture, an organic restaurant called Bali Buddha. Customers pay 50,000 rupiah a month to have their recyclables picked up by ABC. Due to the high cost of the service most clientele are expatriates who can afford to care about recycling, about 75%, and also a few businesses that can afford the service, 25%. Although it is not technically a non-profit, ABC tries to reinvest its income into expanding recycling service in the community. Bali Buddha and ABC both offer recycling on-site at no cost.

In May, ABC was approached by a delegation from a nearby community, Nyuh Kuning, and was asked to help facilitate a community recycling/cleanup project. The incentive provoking the community to take on the project was in the form of a national ‘cleanest village’ contest, with a hefty award to the winner. Also, a community leader was supporting the effort to compete. ABC accepted, negotiated a $100 dollar donation from a community run midwifery clinic, and began the project. Collection nets were

24

placed outside approximately 80 living compounds, essentially including the whole neighborhood of about 600-800 people. A few separate one-day training programs to teach community members were provided, mainly directed at the PKK women’s group, focusing on the hazards of waste, how to separate on-site, and where to put organics. The same was done at local schools. Collection now takes place once a day, and the waste is brought via truck to a temporary dump site, and is then sold to scavengers, other buyers, or given to the recycling plant in Temesi. Serious problems and constraints in the program were that many community members had poor attitudes towards handling waste, threw recyclables in the trash, trash in the recycling, and that composting was not a successful part of the program. Also, the priority of the program was not as high as an important cremation ceremony and was thus put in the background during the preparation period. Nonetheless, Nyuh Kuning won the cleanup competition in the Bali province, the accompanying award, and was placed in the top five cleanest communities in the nationwide competition. ABC Solutions continues to operate the program without a fee, reinvesting all profits from the sale of recyclables into upkeep for the program. Factors that led to the success of this program include the much needed political support, practical environmental education, the integration and participation of women’s groups, schools, and community members, and also the outside provision of a management infrastructure (Interviews).

*Bali Buddha’s recycling bins

EcoBali: EcoBali is another privately run waste/recycling collection service, but is

altruistic in its intent. EcoBali was formed last year by Catherine Wheeler and Wayan Paolo, in response to problems at the Temesi facility. The facility had been operating at about 1/6 of its capacity because about 70-80% of the waste it was getting was organic. Although they had composting facilities, they could not find a market for selling the

25

processed compost. EcoBali was set up in the tourist district of southern Bali, centered in Kerobokan, in the hopes that the waste gathered there would be of higher value to the Temesi facility. The composition of waste in rural areas generally makes it less valuable than that produced in industrial areas. The business is essentially non-profit at this point: EcoBali has only two possible income vectors, one from the slight pickup service fee that they charge, and the other from the resale to recycling facilities, but EcoBali is not charging the Temesi facility for the higher quality waste they provide. This is to support the facility for the time being, until Temesi can become more self-sustaining All of EcoBali’s income from pickup fees is being used to expand the service. At this point they have around 31 pickup sites, 2 of which are industrial factories while the rest are residences, businesses and restaurants. The waste they have been getting in south Bali is of higher value, but also poses new challenges: such as how to deal with sawdust, textile scraps, foam, and other industrial waste. Long-term plans include expanding the service into low-income communities at subsidized cost, and also implementing environmental education programs in target communities. EcoBali is an interesting and innovative response to the slow pace of change in Bali’s recycling movement. This project functions as an infrastructural support system for the Temesi facility, and demonstrates the potential for success of alliances and mutual support (Interviews).

Bali Fokus:

The NP NGO BaliFokus was formed in 2000 in south Bali, and is funded by the German BORDA foundation through a flexible five-year contract, but also gets some funding from USAID and other groups. They are a high-profile organization that engineers sanitation and solid waste management projects. The Temesi waste processing/recycling facility, located in the Gianyar province of Bali and neighboring Ubud, and was established through a joint effort by BaliFokus and the Rotary Club of Ubud in 2004. The facility is staffed entirely from workers in the surrounding village, who went through training programs organized by BaliFokus. Funding from the Rotary Club of Ubud provided 10 trucks to pickup waste throughout the Gianyar and Ubud regions, and Temesi cooperates with scavengers to do the pickups. A rare negotiation with the government has allowed the Temesi trucks to take over some of the municipal routes in the area, but has led to many complications. The facility has a conveyor belt, allowing workers to separate recyclables into bins and take labels off, which makes them more valuable. The program takes what it can into composting, but there is a problem marketing it, and it is piling up because no one is buying it yet. The facility was built on an existing landfill, and can take about 40-50 cubic meters a day (not yet the projected full-capacity load of 80 cubic meters/day), which is unfortunately only 2-3 truck loads per day. Around 20% of all waste arriving at the facility goes to the landfill outside because it is unusable wet organics, big tree branches, plastic bags or other un-processable material. A major problem with the facility stems from it being so close to its own landfill; the workers have to walk upstairs every five minutes or so just to breathe. But because of the proximity they don’t have to re-transport much of the unusable and overloaded waste to the government landfill. Some of the other truckloads do end up taking excess waste to the open dump in southeast Bali, discussed in 2.5.

26

*Temesi landfill

With the help of other participating organizations, such as EcoBali and ABC Solutions, broader markets for their recyclables and their compost are being looked for, and they may succeed in eventually becoming self-sustaining. At first Temesi employed 65 people, but now there is only about 30. Some of the workers from the local village were not adaptable to the constant dealing with waste. Despite the fact that the village of Temesi organized its own village cleanup, presumably in response to increased environmental knowledge, people’s negative attitudes towards the work environment continues to be a problem. A proposed solution is to further employ scavengers who are accustomed to waste, but this draws up many other issues, including an inherent mistrust of the scavengers. Other problems include friction and competition between NGOs and other groups, western/industrial engineering not being appropriate to local circumstances, the difficulties of trying to operate at full capacity and be self-sustaining, and the major issue of how to manage plastic packaging.

27

*Temesi facility BaliFokus has also implemented a number of other decentralized solid waste

management programs. They engineered a smaller waste processing facility in Monang Moning in 2003, which can process about 20 cubic meters a day, and educated the local community to operate it. It was partially funded by a church group in the area but is now self-sustaining, and is an example of the benefits of a high degree of community participation. BaliFokus has had a beach cleanup service in the tourist area of Seminyak and Kuta since 2002, which brings in higher value recyclables and employs scavengers in the area. A collaborative project with JICA, the Japanese aid program, was started in the capitol city of Denpasar in 2003, and has up to the present to provide scavengers with equipment, organization, and technical support in running a broad collections service up to the present. BaliFokus runs awareness raising media campaigns and environmental conferences focusing on developing the capacities of community women, and has a firm grasp of how to sequence a project for maximum participation, which encourages replication. Since 2000, BaliFokus has also provided technical assistance to the Jimbaran waste processing/material recovery facility (13 and Interviews).

28

Yayasan Wisnu:

The Jimbaran facility was set up in 1995, and currently has a capacity of 40 cubic meters a day, and has a side project employing community women making handicrafts out of the recycled materials. Yayasan Wisnu was integral to the implementation of the project, and the women’s micro-cerdit program. Wisnu is an environmental education NP NGO that focuses on sanitation and solid waste management issues. Wisnu provided the human resources and networking capabilities to connect the Jimbaran facility with businesses and hotels, and provided technical training and information on how to engineer the program to recycle effectively and economically. The village of Jimbaran provided the labor. Within a few years the Jimbaran facility was making a large profit because the fees and recyclables from the industrial sector are much more valuable than those in the rural sector, and come in larger quantities. The facility services around 10 hotels near Sadua, and each provide 2-3 million rupiah donations monthly, fully sustaining the program and leaving room to profit on the sales of the re-processed goods. Wisnu separated from the facility in 2000, claiming that those running the facility no longer needed their support, and also that the business mentality behind the organization running the facility was contrary to Wisnu’s mission.

Wisnu’s goals and approach are more community oriented. Wisnu is split into two departments, the first of which is the environmental department that promotes environmental education programs and recycling. This department works in schools and communities, raising awareness about the hazards and economics waste issues and how to deal with recycling, and emphasizing the benefits of community participation and reduction of waste. The department also effectively demonstrates a micro-credit paper-recycling program they have on their site. Interested communities are provided with the training and supplies to create their own paper from their own recycled materials, and Wisnu then helps to sell what they can to organizations such as World Wildlife Foundation and the Orangutan Society. The other half of Wisnu is a profit generating collection service that provides for the environmental programs. The service provides receptacles and does pickups at around 50 sites, including two restaurants and a hotel, and charges a small fee—less than the government for the same service plus recycling. They are also trying to get an eco-tourism program started (Interviews).

29

*Yayasan Wisnu Warung Bambu: Warung Bambu is a restaurant run by Nyoman Tirtawan in Lovina. Nyoman and his wife have been running environmental education and recycling programs out of the restaurant since the Bali Bomb, in September of 2002. Initially, they were loaned some money from a friend in Germany to start a village cleaning. At the same time began advocacy work directed toward the government, seeking to make an alliance for more reliable waste pickup service. The initial clean up project was ineffectual due to lack of support from the village head, and a general lack of motivation on the part of the community. The government did not respond. Another project was started, this time going into schools to give lessons on waste and promoting environmental awareness: explaining that garbage is not garbage, that it can be valuable when disposed of properly. They also started an education program for restaurants in their area, and started a local recycling system in Lovina, now servicing 15-20 locations of which most are restaurants and hotels. This was a big improvement in the area because, until the hotels had not been disposing of their waste properly. The service initially came to do pickups once a month, but there were problems. The service was provided for free, and people did not respect it or cooperate with the on-site separation policy. The program was expensive to operate, and required long hours because there was only one vehicle. It ran poorly at first, and they learned the lesson that it takes user-investment from the beneficiaries of the service, both to instill ownership and

30

cooperation, and also in order to support the effort itself. With the new funds collected, they invested in washable bags of different colors and with pictures of the appropriate waste to throw inside and sold them to their private customers to make the service more convenient for all. Pickups were eventually outsourced to scavengers, but often the scavengers would only take the most valuable stuff, ignoring organics and even leaving behind some low-value recyclable materials. The waste is transported to a temporary dump site, is brought to a large recycling facility in the city Singaraja, and finally the re-processed waste is sold to buyers from Surabaya in Java. The waste was initially given to the waste facility in Singaraja for free, but eventually an agreement was made where the facility would split the profit from the sales for the upkeep of the service. Major problems identified in the course of these developments centered around the low level of environmental education, the lack of willingness to manage waste in low income communities despite the cost-recovery benefits, and the lack of discipline among the scavenger community. The education programs and training provided by the service now addresses these issues, along with strategies for how to replicate the project, focusing on educating women and youths (Interviews). Overview:

The case studies described above provide a general picture of the extent of alternative waste management projects in Bali. Most of them have started recently, the oldest only date back to the early 1990’s, and they have been growing rapidly despite many problems. To encourage the expansion and replication of this movement throughout the island, practical solutions to problems must be developed. Looking at the big picture is discouraging at this point; even though there has been progress in a few situations, mismanagement of solid waste is still characterizes the vast majority of the island. It is imperative that solutions to these operational problems be discovered and implemented now, so that the movement can move on to tackling the larger and harder issue of expanding throughout the island. For this purpose, it is useful to review the experiences of other community-based waste management projects throughout developing countries elsewhere in the world. Doing so provides contrast to the situation on Bali, allows progress to be measured normatively, and may also provide useful solutions to common problems. 3.2 Literature Review

One of the most common characteristics in developing countries has been the inconsistency between the rapid growth of population and the provision of infrastructure to increasingly marginalized populations, and now many populous areas lack necessary services. The collection, transportation, and safe disposal of solid waste are normally the responsibility of municipal authorities, but, unfortunately, the capacities of municipal authorities are often overwhelmed by population growth. Serious hazards to public health produced by the above inequality can increasingly be found in low-income communities, including overcrowding, settlement in illegal or dangerous regions, the absence of water and basic sanitation, and the unchecked buildup of solid waste. Improperly disposed of waste can increase the occurrence of disease, especially in children, and also degrades local environmental quality, creating a vicious cycle that exacerbates health problems.

31

Typically one to two thirds of waste produced in low-income areas in developing countries is not collected, resulting in indiscriminate buildup of waste in the streets and drains, contributing to flooding and the breeding of insects and other disease related vectors. The waste that is collected is frequently disposed of improperly in uncontrolled dumpsites, or burned or buried, polluting water resources, the soil and air. Major challenges in solid waste management include inadequate service coverage and operational inefficiency, limited utilization of recycling activities, inadequate landfill disposal, and inadequate management of hazardous wastes. Factors that influence solid waste management in developing countries vary from place to place, but include waste amount and composition, access to waste for collection, awareness and attitudes, and financial institutions and legislation (1-5,7,11,14-16,18,19,21,22,24,26,27,29-34).

Solid waste management has been identified as essential to sustainable urban and community development, including the need to minimize waste production, maximize reuse and recycling of goods, promote environmentally sound refuse disposal, and expand waste service coverage. Solid-waste management differs greatly between countries and regions, with distinctions attributed to the prevailing socio-economic, financial, legal, political, and cultural circumstances, and thus any solid waste management plan must seriously take into account local context. Despite the many differences, it has been widely acknowledged that community involvement, or lack of, is both part of the problem and potential solution to the dilemma, and that there is a critical need to develop appropriate local refuse management schemes that involve community members in adequate long-term planning. Changes in the ways that many large international environmental organizations relate to indigenous local peoples have manifested themselves in a growing body of literature criticizing ‘community development/participation’ initiatives, but waste management theory and practice is still firmly rooted in community participation and based on an action research methodology. Reviews of alternative refuse collection schemes based on increased community participation, and/or involvement of small private enterprises reveal many promising approaches to expanding service in low-income areas, and show how to increase the chance of success and sustainability in projects ((1-5,7,11,14-16,18,19,21,22,24,26,27,29-34).

Identifying both the advantages and the shortcomings within these schemes is an essential step to developing solutions to problems, as will be highlighted in the following examples. A pilot project in a low-income community in Karachi, Pakistan, housing over 3,000 people in around 400 housing units, consisted of three broad phases that helpfully illustrate a general framework for setting up an alternative waste management plan. The first phase was identifying an appropriate community based on a criteria assessment of the specific cultural attitudes and regional demographics that would influence the project, including surveys of local infrastructure, education, diversity, socio-economics, and desire for refuse collection. The second step was ‘Informing, Educating and Motivating’, by providing educational resources and training through awareness raising campaigns. After selecting volunteers for advanced training in concepts of waste management that addressed common issues, constraints, components, impacts, and actions required for successful implementation of a waste management project, people became naturally motivated. The community was involved in all phases of implementation, from assessing the situation to designing, implementing and evaluating the system. The design of the

32

scheme highlighted the importance of using an appropriate garbage container in the household, sorting on site, and avoiding littering. A local community-based organization was formed by female volunteers to organize the collection of the refuse, supervise implementation, and keep track of the finances, while a small household contribution was required for the service. Other efforts to improve existing infrastructure were conducted simultaneously, including secondary refuse collection from the temporary community dump sites, the designing of an improved sewage system, the provision of better electric connections and street lights, water treatment, training of teachers, street sweeping service, and a general community cleanup. These extra efforts illustrate that designing a community-based waste management scheme can be part of a larger strategy of community improvement. The third phase of this project covers the final evaluation of the project, and the assessment of any shortcomings in the project design or methodology. Identified limitations and constraints were due to a fragile political system, low incomes, low priorities on waste management, low willingness to pay, and the need for continuous support from a supervising NGO. It was noted that both community awareness and willingness to participate were central to the success the project, because primary refuse collection requires the most maintenance of all urban infrastructures. A survey of people’s attitudes during the evaluation phase showed significant improvements in community disposal practices and in attitudes towards participation in waste management. The project framework described here illustrates the importance of community participation and environmental education, the valuable role women can play, the need for evaluation and problem solving, and the potential for integrating other improvements into the scope of a project (1). In a study of other community initiatives in solid waste management in Karachi, it was noted that many communities have similar goals, including a reliable and regular waste collection service, street sweeping, a system for the collection of garden waste and construction debris, and the reduction of pollution in neighborhoods through removal of temporary dump sites. Four case studies from middle-income areas were provided to highlight these trends, the first of which concerns a house-to-house collection scheme servicing 800 houses and run independent of the government. In this case, collection crews in pickup trucks stop at various points to load waste from bins onto the trucks and drop off the waste at a central pickup point, at which point the waste becomes the responsibility of municipality. Each house was charged a small fee to provide for the operation and maintenance costs of the service, and some revenue was gained from the resale of separated recyclables. Constraints to this scheme centered on the low-replicability of the service due to lack of will or economic incentive. The second case study concerns an area where waste collection is organized through an informal group of housewives who collect a small fee from the serviced households and schools. Over the course of time, the women’s organization selected to increase the fee and use the revenue to include a street sweeping service along their regular route. The success of this initiative highlights that increased environmental awareness will create a desire for environmental cleanliness matched with an increased willingness to pay. In another area, an organization of housewives created an objective to collect money to purchase waste collection bins to address the issue of waste disposal in plots of open land in their community. Following consultation with local constituents, bins were placed in appropriate sites, and the contributions of the women went towards establishing a

33

collection service. Constraints included low levels of participation, and increased housing density due to the clearing of waste from open plots. The final example is a community that not only started a local waste collection service and education program, but also organized itself into groups to monitor the success of the program. These case studies demonstrate the point that enterprising communities can develop initiatives to solve distinct problems on their own, and imply that similar community integration with waste management practices can be developed in other low-income areas under the right circumstances (3). An effective way to empower low-income communities to adopt waste management programs is through micro-enterprise, such as informal recycling. These systems are already common in many cities, and can be encouraged in a variety of ways. Micro-enterprise is typically characterized by service-delivery businesses, community cooperatives, or individuals managing a small share of the market while independent of outside controls, and generally with fixed input/buying costs, variable output/selling costs, and entrepreneurially pursuing profit. The service provider takes responsibility for all aspects of the service, including hiring and firing workers, managing contracts, providing labor, etc. A few levels of micro-enterprise have been identified—those who earn a their income through survivalist collection, scavenging, those that are permanently or temporarily employed but also supplement their income through private waste collection, and municipal employees as emerging entrepreneurs engaging in self-marketed private work. There is a complex set of agreements between micro-enterprise entrepreneurs, with the communities they operate in, and with the municipal government that generally distinguishes between types of micro-enterprise, resulting in various levels of security and risk regarding payment, regular employment, expanding markets, competition, and status. There are many ways to encourage the success of micro-enterprise for the management of solid waste, depending on the subjective circumstances, but most often a main feature of such a strategy is to decrease the risk taken on by the entrepreneur by consolidating and stabilizing payment methods through greater organization, institutionalization and community representation—a role frequently filled by community-based organizations (CBOs) or NGOs. Micro-credit programs can also be useful in empowering women to organize profitable waste collection schemes in their communities (1-5,7,11,14-16,18,19,21,22,24,26,27,29-34).

In Bangalore, India, a variety of NGOs and CBOs have been actively involved in organizing and supporting waste services since 1993. The abilities of such organizations are helpful in eliciting participation in communities. In 1998, the Urban Waste Expertise Program (UWEP) chose Nagapura, a ward of Bangalore and home to around 60,000 people, for a large pilot project in integrated waste management, seeking to consolidate and coordinate the efficiency of the waste services in the region. Cost recovery had not been optimal and capital costs were based on the contributions of neighborhoods, and there had not been linkages between the various programs in the area, leaving many gaps in the service. The planning process involved comprehensive assessment of the existing waste management infrastructure, in order to determine the exact role of the project in different sectors. Understanding the roles of and coordinating the different service providers and waste generators was the first step. Intervening at the production level followed, consisting of widespread education and awareness raising campaigns about the various aspects of local governance and the role of community members in that context.

34

Separating at source, composting, and environmentally safe disposal systems were all integral to the operation, as well as community participation at every level. Assisting and facilitating existing service providers would be made easier once the citizens had a broader understanding of the programs. Workshops were held with local businesses, hotels and restaurant owners, informing them of their roles in the process. Women had already been playing large roles in the existing system, having high participation in waste management committees, and also played a large role in the new project. Young people were targeted in education and training programs by focusing on both students and their teachers, creating an increased sensitivity to environmental issues. Waste collectors received training in safety measures, and in methods for encouraging on-site separation and avoiding competition. Once all necessary constituents had been approached, trained, and included in group meetings, the project was launched. Appropriate equipment was provided, and communication material aimed at motivating participation was distributed, and pickups were begun. Initial participation was only 30% of the population, but in response to this problem a door-to-door contact program was initiated, engaging women and student volunteers, after which participation increased to around 90%. The program-monitoring indicators were based on the percent participation of residents, the degree of separation (around 50% upon collection, and later furthered by waste collectors), the cleanliness of the communities, and the involvement of the waste management committees. This high budget, multi-layered project underscores the value of well defined roles and responsibilities, community meetings and participation at all levels, the important role of women and youths in meeting goals, and of the value of flexible supervising agencies that can facilitate communication and problem solving. These lessons can be useful even in low-budget community initiatives (14).

A case study of Hyderabad, India, provides insight into the social stigmas surrounding scavengers and waste collectors. Since 1993, the municipal authority has experimented with alternative waste management schemes managed by CBOs in lower, middle and upper income areas, servicing over 100,000 households. The scheme is based on a house-to-house collection service operated by informal waste collectors, and includes recycling and composting. The operatives were selected from a pool of unemployed youths, providing many jobs to needy people. The Hindu culture and caste system in which this service takes place unavoidably affects attitudes and behavior towards waste collectors, and many citizens were extremely reluctant towards hiring such waste collectors for the scheme. The negative social stigmas surrounding untouchables manifests itself at the community level through many people being dissatisfied with the underclass working in their neighborhood. Yet studies have shown that attitudes are changing, that waste collectors in cities are sometimes seen as entrepreneurs, and that traditional roles are becoming more flexible, however slowly. Although the work is still viewed as demeaning, the high level of organization and income earned through collection may be overriding these social stigmas. Despite this, the negative stigma remains problematic, and involved agencies need to exert influence on citizens to acknowledge the value of this demographic (27).

A variety of indicators can be used to gauge the success and sustainability of a waste management project. It is useful to look through the perspective of those engaged in the process to assess primary collection schemes. Indicators from the user’s perspective can be broken into categories, such as the improvement of the area, the

35

convenience of service, affordability, frequency and reliability, and sustainability. Measures of these indicators can be created by supplying brief questionnaires to users and also by quantified data, such as the number of waste piles before and after the scheme, surveying the income levels of the community and how many people regularly pay for the service, the number of inactive service days, etc. Sustainability is difficult to measure, but at the user level it can be gauged by analyzing the payments/costs of the scheme and by exploring any problems that have arisen and if/how they can be overcome. There is some overlap in indicators between the municipality’s perspective and the user’s, such as the area of improvement, but there are also other considerations, such as the level of municipal support, the impact on municipal services, staff satisfaction, and complaints. Municipal support can be measured through a questionnaire directed at the municipality concerning the quantity and nature of inputs and the value of the results. Considerations of impacts on municipal services include workers being diverted from their proper jobs and if the scheme has increased the capacity of the municipality in solid waste activities, which can be measured by surveying workers about their activities, surveying the effects on the secondary collection stage, and through a questionnaire on capacity building. Staff satisfaction and complaints are simpler to measure, consisting of questioning the staff regarding their satisfaction, and surveying the number, intensity and nature of all complaints. Indicators of project success from a NGOs or CBOs perspective also include the area of improvement and user satisfaction, as well as the fulfillment of specific project aims, level of recognition from the users, replicability, and sustainability. Measurements of sustainability from this perspective include payment/cost analysis, an evaluation of constraints to the project and potential solutions, surveying the amount and nature of support provided by the NGO/CBO and the feasibility of withdrawing that support. It is useful to define success and sustainability indicators from the perspective of all stakeholders in the system to encourage understanding and cooperation (1-5,7,11,14-16,18,19,21,22,24,26,27,29-34).

Case studies of projects in Dhaka, Biratnagar, Kathmandu, Patan, Khulna, Quito, and many others areas have yielded a body of literature that has identified common features of community-based waste management projects that provide valuable insight for future initiatives. Comprehensive assessment of local conditions, including history, demographic data, institutional and legislative context, infrastructural facilities, the socio-economic environment, and identifying key stakeholders, is an essential first step to any project. Waste disposal practices and the technology used vary from region to region, and educational programs must be formed strategically. Motivational factors must be determined to provide incentive for community involvement and to encourage sustainability and replication through participation. Constraints must be identified early on, and consideration of their impact must be incorporated into the project. Municipal governments, formal private sector organizations, informal waste pickers, and communities all suffer from financial and technical constraints that must be respected, such as low ability to pay, low cost recovery ratios, inadequate fee collection, and inappropriate technology. Problems arising from poor financing include low participation of households, low priorities on waste, low willingness to engage in collection and recycling, low willingness to keep public spaces clean, and low willingness to pay. At the managerial and operational levels, problems include low willingness to manage, unrepresentative management, lack of accountability to the community, low salary of

36

operators, low social status and bad working conditions, unreliable service, and problems arising from a lack of space. Institutional constraints stem from a general lack of critical thinking and lack of political will, oftentimes plans for waste management have already been outlined and improvements or adjustments confuse and frustrate the agencies involved. The list of problems is long and detailed, but solutions can be found once the problems have been identified. Each of the above problems has accompanying mitigations that often become clear as the problem is identified (1-5,7,11,14-16,18,19,21,22,24,26,27,29-34).

In any specifically located waste management project the problems and solutions will differ substantially, but this identification process is essential to ameliorating the negative effects of problems and to increase the possibility of successfully applying innovative solutions. Problems identified in the Bali case studies will be compared with problems from the literature in an attempt to find similarities and compatible solutions.

3.3 Synthesis and Analysis

Waste management in Bali is at a crossroads, on one side stands the status quo of rapid environmental degradation and its consequences, while the other is a path towards a more sustainable future. To increase the chances of a successful transition to an alternative community-based waste management paradigm, tangible and practical lessons must be drawn out from the available information and used to create innovative solutions to current problems. Here an analytical framework derived from the summarized literature will be applied to the Balinese case studies in their specific context to produce a series of project recommendations and to draw broader strategic initiatives for positive change.

IDEP:

NGOs in Bali are pioneering new territory in alternative waste management schemes, and IDEP is well positioned to play an important and influential role in the future of the movement. IDEP’s strategy emphasizes both environmental education and demonstrations of successful recycling, composting and waste management pilot projects. This is a strong strategic starting point because it leaves room for flexibility and innovation while providing a visionary reference point and a wide variety of ways for communities to get involved. IDEP acts primarily as an information clearinghouse, waiting for communities to determine their own level of involvement by approaching IDEP with questions. IDEP has a well-equipped team that can effectively implement and sustain programs under changing circumstances, but lacks the funding to take on large-scale projects or marketing endeavors. IDEP’s objectives are circumstantially broad, and there are many more noteworthy components to it than just the environmental department’s projects, including disaster response teams operating in the tsunami-hit Aceh province and crisis response and support projects in south Bali where the terrorist bombings have recently occurred. IDEP is characterized by a “do what we can” attitude that stems from the variable financial conditions and social instability that they are dealing with. As such, IDEP could seriously benefit from acquiring a broad program-level grant to expand and focus their waste management activities, but, unfortunately, this

37

is currently unlikely due to external factors. In the meantime, there are some simple and tangible strategies that IDEP could beneficially use to broaden their impact.

Firstly, marketing and publicity campaigns are essential for raising awareness and engaging community participation, and should be central to any plan encompassing a larger area than one village. It has been made clear that communities will take action themselves given the right incentives, but awareness levels are low and many communities lack the leadership or vision to start themselves. Even in Ubud, I found that many people did not know of IDEP or their activities. If IDEP could expand its sphere of influence, communities may become concerned with waste of their own right. We have seen that friendly competition can be a good motivator to clean up, and IDEP could politicians and the communities they represent against their neighbors if the right incentive is found (i.e., money or prestige/publicity). Secondly, creating a visible and interactive network of NGOs and concerned stakeholders is essential to expanding the movement and encouraging replication. Competition between NGOs is a major obstruction, causing problems and slowing progress. Often times NGOs are unaware of each others activities. With an open network of allied parties such information could be shared, resources could be made collective, and programs institutionalized. Scavengers could be organized into informal unions to increase their job security through organization and representation. Going further, organizing groups of buyers and sellers of waste and recyclable goods could be beneficial; by institutionalizing waste management activities and holding regular meetings to communicate needs and complications, the future of waste management could be come much more inclusive and participatory.

At a project level, IDEP’s Tojan Village project shows promise. Community sponsorship and funding will create a sense of ownership about the program, and the support of the local politicians will ensure adherence to the system and success. IDEP should view its role primarily as facilitator and technical analyst, providing the environmental education components, the infrastructural support, and the downstream output network. IDEP could incorporate the concept of replicability into their education curriculum, and try to influence students to become actively engaged in spreading awareness through such methods as public speaking competitions, mural contests, and cleanest school competitions. IDEP could ask for volunteers or the host school could be asked to assign student groups to record and monitor the progress of the program, creating greater participation and quantifiable data for further study. IDEP should likely manage the finances of cost-recovery at the onset, until someone from the community can be trained to do so. This project has the prospect of catching on in nearby schools, and could also be part of an integrated plan to include neighboring communities. In the planning process, meetings with representatives could be supplemented by a wider assembly of community members and students, letting everyone know that a project is going to take place and to let them become involved personally. Implementation and success of the project depends largely on the motivation of community members, and they should be given every opportunity to get involved.

IDEP could have managed the PKK/Bali Journey project more effectively through better sequencing. There are important lessons to be learned from this mistake, about timing the successful withdrawal of the NGO from project implementation and about how to include local power figures. IDEP should have attached some stipulations to the 4 million rupiah donation they provided upon contracting the project out to Bali Journey,

38

such as guidelines for how the money should be spent, and a less abrupt withdrawal that includes some lingering involvement from IDEP, and also a post-withdrawal schedule for occasional monitoring could be used effectively. Bali Journey is run by an important man in the host community, and the PKK women’s group were under his sway. IDEP knew this, and should have been more explicit about their goals in their dealings with him in order for him to play his role more effectively. The PKK women’s group may have benefited from an additional educational supplement about the transition to Bali Journey’s control, in order to define roles properly and ensure clarity. ABC solutions:

ABC Solutions is an interesting case study because, seen from the right angle, it operates as a formal business/collection service to support informal community projects. It would do well to continue to expand both its collection service and community projects, and has plans to do so as finances become available. Leadership in this field entails great responsibility and commitment, and ABC should take this important work seriously. ABC is in a position to expand significantly if it partners with the right organizations, and the benefits from being connected to the Bali Buddha restaurant should be maximized. Some of the funds generated from the collection service could be used to fund marketing, or perhaps to place a waste sorting bins at key locations, such as restaurants and businesses, at which people could recycle their waste under the mild supervision of whoever’s shop the bin is placed at, eventually to be collected by ABC. Instructions for use can be made very simple in such situations, and have worked well at the Bali Buddha restaurant. There is the risk of investing in bins only to have scavengers or other informal opportunists gather the waste from the bins without permission for their own profit, but this is only a mild drawback. The potential success of having a broad network of free recycling points, with occasional central collection and supported by an educational marketing campaign, could greatly benefit communities. Such a project should be assessed for its feasibility. The Nyuh Kuning project should be sustained for as long as possible after the end of the cleanup competition, and expanded if possible. Competitions are good incentives for cleanup, but suffer from a decline in interest after the winners have been selected. It is at this point that imaginative leadership becomes vital, and ABC could champion this cause. An alternative competition, perhaps with an annual or biannual award, could be a useful tool. ABC should hold a meeting with representatives from the community, or the entire community if possible, to engage them in a dialogue about the benefits of their cleaner village. If it is determined that the community is more satisfied with their lifestyle with the recycling project in effect than without, a program for continued implementation would be easy to negotiate. Local political powers could possibly be influenced to support the project through some carrot-and-stick method, perhaps by speaking to them of their growing prestige due to their clean village, but also how this prestige would dissipate if the village did not properly upkeep the program. The current project could easily be expanded to include nearby areas, schools, and even the nearby Monkey Forest tourist attraction. The community could start its own publicity campaign, with ABC’s help, to inform and motivate neighboring communities to follow suit and get involved. If the program is to continue, it may be useful to hold further educational meetings about how to perform effective on-site sorting, and volunteers could be gathered to try and

39

encourage recalcitrant community members to do their share. A composting program could be initiated, with the help and coordination of IDEP (IDEP, ABC Solutions, and Nyuh Kuning Village are all within fifteen minutes walk of each other).

EcoBali:

EcoBali is a unique organization because it arose in response to an existing waste management problem. EcoBali is a solution to the problem of low-value rural waste not being profitable enough to sustain the existing recycling infrastructure. EcoBali plans to continue to seek out high-value waste streams from businesses, hotels, and restaurants in order to supplement the income at the Temesi facility. Hopefully the Temesi facility will one day be able to stand on its own, at which point EcoBali could begin to exercise the plans and long-term goals for expanding the service in the southern areas of the island and beginning community-based programs. The work EcoBali is doing to support the Temesi facility is absolutely essential, and other collection services should be encouraged to seek out more valuable waste streams to contribute to Temesi’s success. It is an unfortunate fact that Bali has an extremely limited supply of waste processing facilities, but the few that do exist must remain active. Most community-based management schemes depend on a reliable downstream input source, and if the Temesi facility were to close, many of the projects identified in the case studies of this paper would not be able to function properly. If the conventional outlets for recyclables, the buyers from Java, were the only agents for outsourcing the waste, the market may become flooded as recycling activity increases and the price of recyclables could drop drastically, negatively impacting the lives of many scavengers and directly affecting the sustainability of community-based waste management schemes dependant on said external buyers. But if more recycling facilities could be opened and maintained, Bali could begin to process its recyclables into second-generation industrial goods that could be sold at much higher value than if they were to be sold as individual parts, much in the same way that Indonesia’s timber industry quickly learned they could profit from domestic processing into pulp and paper. It is for this reason that EcoBali’s contributions to the Temesi plant are so important: they have set a standard for commitment to teamwork. The wide vision and long term planning evinced by this project provide valuable lessons for other organizations on the island.

BaliFokus:

BaliFokus has great potential for increasing the waste management capacity of Bali. With their grant budget secured, BaliFokus can take on engineering projects to create much needed waste processing facilities. The two they have already completed have both met with many challenges, but the fact that they exist at all is a major accomplishment. The recently finished Temesi facility has already become an important hub for many nearby recycling projects, despite its many problems. It is becoming clear that BaliFokus’ design for the Temesi facility was not optimal; because it is situated on a landfill the desirability of the work environment is generally low, and also the western-influenced design of the facility is not fully appropriate for Bali. Much of the collected waste is wet organics, while the conveyor belt picking system is better for handling industrial and commercial byproducts. A more appropriate system could perhaps have been less expensive while processing the same amounts of waste. Also, the garbage

40

trucks acquired to collect and transport waste to the site are at this point too numerous; more waste is collected each day than could be processed even if the facility was working at full capacity.

*conveyer belt in Temesi facility

Future initiatives should be designed more appropriately as well as simplistically, so that the types of waste produced by the target communities are dealt with cost effectively and efficiently, and the community members who are beneficiaries could play a more central role in operating the facility. Rather than requiring specialized technicians to fix frequent technical problems, facilities should be designed to be sturdy, simple, and easy to use and fix by the target community, allowing BaliFokus to withdraw from the project sooner and increasing community participation and ownership. Future research could compare designs commonly used in such facilities, seeking to find an appropriate model for rural communities. BaliFokus’ community education programs seem to be very effective, many of their waste management projects are run mostly by members of host communities. Their successes in this arena could be documented and shared with other active NGOs, as well as made public through strategic media outlets to increase public awareness. Competition between NGOs is a serious obstacle to increasing waste management capacity, and also towards sustaining existing projects. Tensions between BaliFokus, IDEP, and EcoBali have led to BaliFokus’ withdrawal from the project,

41

leaving leadership in the hands of a Rotary Club sponsored engineer and the Temesi village. The lack of cooperation between NGOs is also generally decreasing the potential success of strategic initiatives like EcoBali’s high-value waste collection scheme; competition between a EcoBali’s and BaliFokus’ collection projects in the touristy areas of southern Bali have led to mutual exclusion, subdivision, and community skepticism, while cooperation could have achieved much broader results than any lone project. BaliFokus’ other projects could also benefit from greater interagency collaboration and communication, many of their projects are in communities geographically isolated from the BaliFokus office, sometimes locasted closer to some other NGO. Cooperation between NGOs in this case could lead to reduced travel expenditures, increase staff efficiency, and substantially expand projects and stakeholder participation. Yayasan Wisnu: Yayasan Wisnu’s greatest challenge seems to be financial, but may be due to something else. The foundation has the capabilities to design and implement a variety of environmental education and community-based waste management projects, but cannot afford to do so at this point. This is a recurring problem throughout Balinese NGOs, and Bali generally. The programs that Wisnu is currently involved in do generate some income, but not enough to take on a project at any large scale. The funds generated by their collection scheme are funneled back in to their environmental education projects, and their ecotourism business is still not self-sustaining and consequently does not produce income usable for other projects. It seems that Wisnu could potentially expand its collection service, taking a lesson from EcoBali and targeting industrial and commercial waste streams, but this may be in contradiction with their community oriented mission statement, as demonstrated by their withdrawal from the Jimbaran project that services mostly large businesses. There are contradictions in Wisnu’s approach that seem to be changing the core of the foundations mission, and it seems that they should reevaluate their priorities and plans of action. Stagnation on the waste management front is due to lack of initiative and innovation as much as funding, and if there still is a substantial concern for the cause in the foundation, there are still ways they could become more involved beyond trying to start an eco-tourism project. Bali is a nice place to live, one where it is easy to get comfortable or stuck in a rut, but NGO leadership in this cause is a large responsibility and Wisnu would do well to get back to waste management projects. A renewed relationship with the Jimbaran facility could potentially influence the business to take in rural waste streams as well as industrial, allowing Wisnu to be actively operating waste management projects again. Collaboration with other NGOs is a possibility, EcoBali and BaliFokus both operate in the nearby areas, and Wisnu could become involved in expanding existing service routes and networking. They could also expand their education programs as well, taking a more active approach; rather than waiting for communities to approach them with their needs, instead Wisnu could go to communities and appeal to them to prioritize their waste problems now, and provide them with information on how to become more involved. Unfortunately, it seems that Wisnu’s approach is mostly responsive, but it does not seem impossible for a more active and

42

inspired strategy if the inclination to do so is truly there. One possible strategy could be to use a portion of their recycled paper for awareness-raising publicity campaigns, appealing to communities and tourists alike for donations and involvement. If the drive to improve the waste management situation is strong, there are still many other low-budget possibilities for Wisnu to explore.

*Yayasan Wisnu’s recycled paper

Warung Bambu:

The environmental and waste management programs organized by Warung Bambu are good examples of the success generated by persistence in the face of adversity. When problems arose, solutions were found or alternatives discovered. Intersectoral alliances with businesses, schools, communities, scavengers, and the nearby waste processing facility are major contributors to the successes of this project. With few personnel and limited funds, this project has grown from a failed village cleanup into an expanding waste management program that involves many types of stakeholders, beginning with education and progressing towards community management. Despite the growing success of this project, it is important to note that it is still young. The level of service provided by Warung Bambu has been achieved by a number of NGOs across the island, but not many have made it past this point. The challenge now concerns where to go from here, how to institutionalize community-based waste management, and how to sustain and expand the existing projects until they encompass the whole island.

43

Overview:

Many components of successful community-based waste management projects identified internationally can currently be seen in Bali. With local NGO/CBO leadership providing technical assistance, environmental education, and emphasizing community participation, especially the roles of women and youths, there are many commonalities between international models and the Balinese case studies explored here. Many of the problems that Balinese organizations face in implementing alternative waste-management projects have also occurred internationally, and some practical solutions have been found that may be useful in Bali. Unfortunately, many of the most severe problems are of such large scale that there may be no solution but to go around them, especially the lack of alliances with the municipal government. Bali is an exciting case because, as an island, it is a logical jump to project the localized community-based model over the entire island, and this may eventually be what happens. Current projects are not yet close to this goal, but it is still a useful lens through which to look while planning projects and assessing their strengths and weaknesses. Chapter 4: Review, Conclusions and Recommendations 4.1 Review:

After reviewing the relevant historical and cultural roots of Bali’s waste problem, a foundation for understand current developments in community-based waste management emerged. By analyzing the experiences of various international community-based waste management projects, a framework for assessing the level of success of the current efforts in Bali resulted. Practical solutions to current problems were developed, including recommendations for future projects.

4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations:

The six Balinese waste-management organizations discussed here have met with more problems than success in their efforts to create an effective waste management alternative to that provided by the municipal government. Current activity is still extremely localized, limited to a series of pilot projects in communities and a few projects of greater scale. Community-based schemes have not yet become widely replicable or sustainable, although their potential is undeniable. The movement may be in its very early stages, or just the opposite. The major actors may have begun an ongoing process, laying the foundations for sustainable waste management in the future, or, contrarily, this may be a brief and unsuccessful exercise in futility. The criticism has been raised that, in Indonesia, NGOs will bloom wherever there is room and money, and may disappear as the season changes. Nevertheless, after talking extensively with leaders devoted to this cause, I have been convinced that Bali can here become a success story, setting a positive example for Indonesia as a whole. For it to do so will require macro-level planning and coordination, as well as the persistence to overcome major obstacles. Anything less is a drastic underestimation of the problem.

At the broadest level, the major limitations in transitioning from the status quo to an alternative community-based waste management paradigm are straightforward, and presented here are expansive recommendations that could help facilitate that process. The

44

lack of an encompassing vision and high-profile leadership is an issue that can only be explained by the youth of the movement on the island, as the earliest of the cases here began in the nineties. Future efforts should be aware of the serious need for a champion of this cause, who can reach a larger audience and motivate widespread change, and organizations should strategize to become such leaders.

Financing projects is of central importance to success; many potential projects have been ignored while others are unsustainable and non-replicable due to small and mismanaged budgets. Transparency and accountability must be more firmly established at all levels mitigate this and to encourage a favorable climate change in the grant and aid spheres, and more research should be done into innovative profit generating micro-credit programs that could be applied as solutions to this problem. Environmental education is essential, and has been successful in many cases despite the overwhelming lack of knowledge in environmental issues. Advocacy work should focus on bringing environmental education into the mainstream curriculum; certification courses could be provided for teachers wanting to become trained environmental educators, and the prestige benefits of publicity could be used as an incentive to motivate volunteers.

Networking and collaboration between NGOs has been severely neglected, as has the organization of other stakeholders in the process. A network of organizations could collectively solve problems, monitor outcomes more effectively, and streamline new programs. Competition between NGOs for grants, projects and publicity has limited their effectiveness and legitimacy, while the lack of organization of sellers and buyers of recyclables has created broad transaction costs unfavorable to marginalized groups and the movement as a whole. The prevailing circumstances have forced many NGOs to be broad in their scope of activities, but much could be gained from a focused, on site think-tank NGO acting as an information clearinghouse for other action-oriented NGOs. Political support is another serious constraint to an island-wide vision of community-based waste management, and a strategic publicity campaign to gain widespread support of influential target groups, such as tourists, expatriates and diplomats, for the movement has not yet taken place.

The existing infrastructure to manage the collected waste is also frustratingly inadequate; more waste processing facilities need to be built appropriate for local conditions, and the existing ones made as self-sufficient as possible, while any profits could be reinvested in expanding operations and starting new facilities. More research should be done into how to construct recycling facilities suitable to rural conditions. Scientific and quantifiable studies on the extent and severity of the damage to local communities and environments due to poor waste management would further substantiate calls to action as well as locate areas of key concern, and also help lead to the development and sustainability indicators and hazard threshold monitoring.

The community-based waste management movement in Bali is an integral part of the effort to create a self-sustaining life on the island, and could provide a beneficial reference point for Indonesia as a whole. Given current conditions, it is imperative that this effort succeed. The recommendations provided here can help in the effort, but much more will be required. Leaders in this cause must demand that the Balinese take responsibility for their environment before it is to late.

45

*colorful chicks

46

Bibliograph Books and Publications: 1) Ahmed, Rehan, Shahana Kaukab and Roland Schertenleib, Domestic Refuse Collection in Urban Low Income Areas: Islamabad, Pakistan, 24th WEDC Conference, 1998. 2) Ali, Mansoor, Andrew Cotton and Jo Beall, Micro-enterprise Development for Primary Collection, 24th WEDC Conference, 1998. 3) Ali, Mansoor, and Darren Saywell, Community Initiatives in Solid Waste: Uganda, 21st WEDC Conference, 1995. 4) Ansch, Justin, Community-Based Solid Waste Management and Water Supply Projects: Problems and Solutions Compared, UWEP Working Document 2, WASTE, Netherlands. 5) Appleton, Ali and Cotton, Success and Sustainability Indicators for Primary Collection of Solid Waste, DFID, WEDC, 1998. 6) Boomgaard, Peter, Freek Colombijn and David Henley, Paper Landscapes: Explorations in the Environmental History of Indonesia, KITVL Press, Leiden, 1997. 7) Buckingham-Hatfield, Susan and Susan Percy, Constructing Local Environmental Agendas, Routledge, 1999. 8) Cribb, Robert, The Politics of Pollution in Indonesia, Asian Survey Vol. XXX No.12, The Regents of The University of California, 1990. 9) Economist Intelligence Unit, Indonesia: Country Profile and Country Report, The Economist Intelligence Unit, London, 2005. 10) FWI/GFW, The State of the Forest: Indonesia, Bogor Indonesia: Forest Watch Indonesia, Washington DC: Global Forest Watch, 2002. 11) Grafakos, Baud and van de Klundert, Alliances in Urban Environmental Management, UWEP, WASTE, Amsterdam, 2001. 12) Hadiwinata, Bob, The Politics of NGOs in Indonesia, RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. 13) Hendrawan, Reza, Waste Management in Indonesia, Bali Fokus, ST-Technical Institute, Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali, 2004. 14) Iyer, Anjana, Community Participation in Waste Management: Experiences of a Pilot Project in Bangalore, India, UWEP, WASTE, 2001. 15) Jones, Samantha, and Grace Carswell, Environment, Development, and Rural Livelihoods, Earthscan, 2004. 16) Klundert, Arnold van de, Community and Private (Formal and Informal) Sector Involvement in Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries, WASTE, Netherlands, 1995. 17) McCarthy, Paul, Understanding Slums: The Case of Jakarta, Indonesia, World Bank, 2003. 18) Mohit, Dr. Mohammad A., Community Participation in Solid Waste Management of Dhaka City-A Case of Kalabagan Area, CAP Conference, Belfast, 2000. 19) Moningka, Laura, Community Participation in Solid Waste Management, UWEP Occasional Papers, 2000. 20) Panji Tisna, I Gusti Raka, A Study of Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes of Young People in the City of Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, Griffith University, Australia, 1998.

47

21) Plummer, Janelle and Richard Slater, Just Managing: the Solid Waste Management Partnership in Biratnagar, Nepal, Working Paper 442 02, DFID, UNDP, 2001. 22) Rahman, M.H., and R. Sutradhar, Community Based Solid Waste Management: Bangladesh, 28th WEDC Conference, 2002. 23) Ricklefs, M.C., A History of Modern Indonesia, Third Edition, Stanford University Press, 2001. 24) Rosario, Anselm, Decentralized Solid Waste Management Approach: Bangalore, India, 20th WEDC Conference, Waste Wise, 1994. 25) Sicular, Daniel, Scavengers, Recyclers, And Solutions For Solid Waste Management In Indonesia, Center For Southeast Asia Studies, Regents of the University of California, 1992. 26) Sinaga, Tiromsa, A Good Solution For Indonesia’s Waste Problems, The Jakarta Post, Opinion and Editorial, August 06, 2005. 27) Snel, Marielle, Social Stigmas and the Waste Collection Scheme, 25th WEDC Conference, 1999. 28) Warren, Carol, Adat and Dinas: Balinese Communities in the Indonesian State, Oxford University Press, 1993. 29) WASTE, Community Participation in Solid Waste Management in Patan, Patan Conservation and Development Program, Urban Waste Expertise Programm, Nepal, 1996. 30) Weinberg, Allen, David Pellow and Allan Schnaiberg, Urban Recycling and the Search for Sustainable Community Development, Princeton University Press, 2000. 31) Zurbrugg, Chris, Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries, SANDEC, EAWAG. 32) World Bank, Pilot Project on Solid Waste Management in Khulna City, Water and Sanitation Program, KCC, 2000. 33) World Health Organization, Community Participation in Local Health and Sustainable Development: Approaches and Techniques, European Sustainable Development and Health Series: 4, 2002. 34) Capacity Building for Primary Collection of Solid Waste: A Tool to Assess Primary Collection—Part 1 & 2, KAR, DFID, 2000. Interviews: Panji Tisna, Environmental Acitivist: Repeated interviews between 6/21/05 and 8/19/05 Tiromsa Sinaga, IDEP, Ubud, Bali: Repeated interviews between 6/21/05 and 8/19/05 Brenda Ritchmond, ABC Solutions, Ubud, Bali: 8/4/05 Lakota and Nyuh Kuning Women: 8/5/05 Gede Sugiarto, Yayasan Wisnu: Kerobokan, Bali: 8/6/05 Noka Destalina, Bali Fokus, Seminyak, Bali: 8/7/05 Nyoman Tirtawan, Warung Bambu, Lovina, Bali: 8/8/05 Catherine Wheeler, EcoBali, Legian, Bali: 8/10/05 Tour of Temesi Facility, Temesi Village, Gianyar, Bali: 8/15/05 Other, informal interviews were conducted throughout the two months, but dates were not recorded.

48

The following web pages were accessed repeatedly between September and December, 2005. -CIA World Factbook: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/id.html -BPS Statistics Indonesia: http://www.bps.go.id/index.shtml -Transparancy International: www.transparency.org/ -Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.org