A Backgound Paper

COMMUNITY-BASED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

20/5/98

The World Bank, Jankarta By: Margaret Mockler

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb350881Typewritten Text53230

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AI)B Asia ()e\"elnpm~"f1t Bank BPS Biro Pusal Statistics BRI ' Bank Republic Indonesia (.'IDA (.'Ilnlldian International Developmcnt Agency (,OPRICIIL Community Involvement in Primary Collection of Solid Waste ('PIS C.:ntre for Policy and Implementation Studies DIP (iovcmml."f11 hudget reeeivl.'ti lilr program impk'lTlentalinn by cneh department DKI I'rm;ncial status lilr Jakarlll DML Dana Mitra Lingkungan DPU Depl. "fPublie Works FKDlJl Forum Komuniki Donh lJlung Indonesia IConununicntion Forum for Ree)"cling GOI (io\'l.'fIlml.'llt of Indonesia UTI. (icnnan Technical Cooperation IMPALA lkatan Mahasiswa Pl.'llccnla Alam 1Association of Stud~'llts for the Em~runml.'llt - Brawijaya UniWTsity IRR Integrated Resource RCCOVl.'l)" System ITB Institute ofTechnology- Bandung JICA Japanese lntemational CooTlI."fation Agcncy

KfI' KmnpulIg Improvl.'ITlI.'llt I'rogmm KIS Industrial Garbage Estate LSI' LI.'ITlbaga Studi I'enmbangunan MEiP Metropolitan Em;ronmenlallmprovementl'rogram PDAM I'cru.>ahaan Dacrah Air Minum 1Water Supply Company 1>1< & pm: ')inas KeI...:r~illhan. 1),,:1'1. ol'l'ICIlnlinl.'Ss and Pcrusahaan lJacrah Kehcrsihan, Clcnnliness Company PKK l'cmbin~an Kescjahtl.'Taan Keluarga (Women, Family J\Jlilir, Education) PLN I'crusahaan Listrik Negara 1Government Electricity Company PPLH Em;ronmental Research Station PUPlJK P~"Tl;umpulan Unluk Pengembangan Usaha Kecill Association for the Advancement of Small Business RT Rukun Tetangga 1Neighbourhood RW Rukuu Warga I Community (lnil RWSliEA' Regional Waler and Sanitation Group lilr East Asia and Pacific SKB Sanggar Kcgiatan I3clajarl Ministry ofEducation Training Centre, Ujung Pandung, "Il'A Tcmpat Sampah Ahir I Final Disposal Sites 1l'S r

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. GENEiRAL OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 INIROIJUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 BACKtiROUND PAPER OBJECTiVES ......................................................................................................... 5

2. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA .......................................................................... 6

2.1 THE S.~RVICE PROVIDERS ...................................................................................................................... 6

"Municipal Solid Wasle Managemenl- The Formal Sector .................................................................... 6

.. Privat~ Sector Involvement ................................................................................................................... 7

"The h;formal Sector Network .................................... · ............................................................................ 8

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY-BASED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN

INDONE.·ilA ............................................................................................................................................. 9

3.1 TilE E\RI.IISJ' KN( JWN INITIATIVES ....................................................................................................... 9

3.2 .................................... ,., .. , ............................................................. , .... , ............................ , ................. 9

3,2 ITB, EA.NDUNG - WHERE IT ALL STARTED, ............................................................................................. 9

3.3 ... , ....................................... , ............................................................................... , ................................ 11

3.3 CPIS. DKIANDf)INASKF.BF.RSlIIANCOLl.ABORATION ........................................................................... 11

3.4 SULID WASTE MANAGEMENT TO

6 3 TI'{..·I iNOLi KilCAI. INN()VATIONS IN SULID Wi\STE MANA

,. GIi:NERAL OVIi:RVIIi:W

I. t Intrflduc1 ion

RRpirl prnnnmir ernwth in rp('ent y~llr!' hils brought with it challenges and problems which Indonesia is struggling to address, among which are the environmental problems resulting from urbanization and industriali~tion. The urban population in Indonesia has grown in real terms from 25 million, or 19% of the populatior I in the early 1 970s to around 64 million, or 33.6% of the population in the early 1990s. It is continuin~ to grow at a rate of 3.6% per annum.

In 1995, current trends and experience in other countries indicated that Indonesia should anticipate over the next 25 years, a four-fold increase in waste volume and an increase in waste management costs from about US$500 nlillion per year to US$15 billion (about half of the current annual US costs)'.

During tIlt: last few decades, attention has focused on the provision of infrastructure. facilities and equipment to deal Wil h the disposal of solid waste. However, as the amount ofwaste continues to escalate new approaches must be explored. Waste minimization initially requires a reduction in consumption of the raw materials that generate waste, involving all the stakeholders in the 4Rs; reduce. re-use, recycle and recovery.

The follo""ing background paper looks at some of the significant initiatives over the last 15 years in Indonesia where the 4Rs, or at least three ofthem, have been applied primarily through the communitybased actions ofthe "the informal sector". The successes and the shortcomings of these activities provide lessons for a much broader inter-sectoral strategy of waste minimization in Indonesia while securing employmelt opportunities for those most in need during the current monetary crisis.

1.2 Back:~round Paper Objectives

The objectives of this background paper are to review past and current experiences in community-based solid wast! management and its integration into the formal government system ofsolid waste management. Many proj

manager'lent or were related to, or integrated into, improvements of the formal sector solid waste manager'lent in Indonesia. The remaining Annexes are listed after the Table of Contents,

2. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

GOl solid waste management services are struggling to keep pace with the volume ofgarbage which continue;; to increase each year. For example, in Jakarta, Bandung and Surabaya, in 1993/942 approximately 80%, probably a conservative figure, of total estimated garbage was collected. At least 58% ofgarbage collected comes from households, 15% from commercial premises, 15% from industry and 8% from markets. Jakarta alone produces approximately 27,600 m3 per dal, which is estimated to be around 74% of the total solid waste produced. Of this, only 10% is managed by the community based primary waste collecti01 system4 . And, an estimated 6% is thrown into the rivers' exacerbating seasonal floods in the poorer a 'eas of the city.

Garbage composition in Jakarta, for example has changed over the last four to five years6. In 1992/93 its

organic (omposition was 75% and 26% inorganic. fn 1996/97 this has changed to 65% organic and 35%

inorgani

In housin;~ areas, the primary waste collection system is facilitated by the keilirahall oftice. Community leaders select, hire and pay IlIkallg sampah or garbage men with pushcarts to collect garbage" door to door" disposing of it at the nearest" Ti'S. In some areas this system does not exist and l::ach household must take its garbage to the neare~t TPS themselves. Each TPS is planned to be suff cient to cover one or two neighborhoods (RWs are approximately 500 - 700 houses). from this point, the municipal government or a contractor transports the garbage to the TPA. for waste produced in public stnets and commercial areas, the municipal government is directly responsiblc. In elite areas. private sector contractors are often employed by the community to collect and dispose olthe garbage directly to the 7PA.

SOIJRCES URBAN SOLLQ WASTE ~ MANAGEMENT

~;-~fi~~~ ~ 1:] ~ COUECOON ~ £lL-r .- --~-4----f-l

I TRANSPORTAnON 1.,1

i '~FER j I 1__ ';'~TS r

I~ l

:~ , I I I '~:"NSPORTAnON I

~ID} '~ d~ OCA __ ORGANII: ~ , $

~;:~ ))

~----.J\.-----=y MARKET

In fast devdoping Indonesian cities the municipal governmen: has difficulty identifying land for the 7PS and th,~ TPA. The TPA is generally on the periphery orthe city, where land is still expensive. This impacts considerably on the availability of

n.....·k:

Government of Japan grant. This focused on activities within the solid waste sector, including identification and assessment of solid waste management activities and privatization methods. Primarily, these initiatives were taken to compensate for Government service shortfalls. As a result, private sector participation in the transport ofsolid wastes in Jakarta lead to an increase in service levels from about 40% in 1987 to about B% in 1993 10. In addition, in 1990/91 the GOl lOitiated the PURSE project through the US Agen:y for International Development (USAID), to increase private sector commercial activity within the water, wastewater treatment and solid waste management sectors.

# The Jnformal Sec/or NehvfJrk

Apart fro'n the existing municipal government solid was e management system, there is a network of people referred to as 'the informal sector', These are waste pickers or pemuhmK, who directly assist in minimizing the city's waste. They sell these materials successfully to rccycling industries through existing community-based networks.

SCAVEI~GER MARKET'S SYSTEM

Co,t Saving. to die Municipal Government from die

Work of die Pnn"IIUtg

According 10 a Dept. Perindustrian and ePls study (1988)11 in Jakurta approximately 25% of inorganic material is recycled by pemuhmg, in Handung approxim8tely 5 - 15%", and in Surabaya 40"/','3, lbese ligures represent savings for Dinas Kebcrsihan orbetween Rp. 113,000,000 - Rp, 240,000 permonlh'·,

These community based networks are well established and hierarchically powerful. The network starts with the waste picker (pemulul1g or peraf,glca,\) who selects and sorts the items to be sold to the waste trader (Iapolc), The waste trader then cleans, sorts and packs each type of material and sells them to the recycling industries through the bigger waste trader (balldor) or a supplier, The role of the lapak is very similar to the bandar but the bandar has a larger scale business and usually collects a specific type of waste, unlike the /apak who collects all types of waste material.

Suppliers (pemasolc) playa mediator role in dealing with recycling industries, Most industries delay their payment for one to three months which makes it difficult for the /apak and bandar to continue their business since they have limited capital. The supplier, buys from the /apak and bandar when they deliver their recyclables to the factory, making a profit by cutting the price normally offered by the industries,

Since the recent monetary crisis in Indonesia, although there has been no formal counts, there has been a reported increase in the number of waste pickers at the IPA at Bantar Gerbang, Tangerang Bekasi 's. Normally, there are seasonal fluctuations of between 1,500 to 5,000 waste pickers at the TPA. Now, given the more difficult economic times it is possible that many more children will also be helping their parents or their fathers instead ofgoing to school.

Rackf!.rr1l1l1d, 'al'

Benerib to Community Members

In 1992 the1C were an estimated 37,()()() penllllllllg in JakartB, 2,700 in B2ndung nnd IO,OO() in Surahaya,16 Their average income \\,0" at that lime, ahout RpA,OOO per day but in Jokarts it W"s pos~ible Cur them to eam up tu Rp, 148,000 per day. The 1"96 study" in Handung estimated thot there were approximate ')' 3,500 penmlulI}1 with an average income or approximate y Rp. IIIO.()OO per month. F()f the middle men ~uch as the larak and n(llldar, had an estimated incume of approximate y Rp, 225,(lOO and Rp. 460,000 respectively.

mentioned above. won national recognition in 1992 and were implemented by local governments in approximately 24 cities throughout Indonesia.

AEROBIC COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGY

Organic ~:aste - Composting

Solid waste in Indonesian cities is very high in organic m,lterial (approx. 60-70%), To recycle it, two research institutions, the Centre for Policy and Implementation Studies, Jakarta (CPIS) and the Reseall;h Agency ofthe Institute of Technolo!!y Bandung (ITB) developed compostinj methods suited to Indonesian conditions Composting pilot sites in Jakarta by CPIS, call,~d Enterprises for Recycling and Compost I'roduction Units «(JJ)PK), found that compostin,; can absorb 25-70% of the total volume of ;;olid waste produced in a sub-district, at the 7P,,' level If, however the (JDPKs are used at the final landfill sire or TPS. they can only absorb app l'oximate1y 25% of the total waste volume. Nonetheless, these options showed the potential f( r significant reductions in the operational cost:' of collection. transportation and landfill reqdrements:&. These UDPK units, as

J. THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY-BASED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

3.1 The E ulie!'t Known Initiatives

Possibly the first GOI effort towards a community-based solid waste management system was as an integrated cJmponent of the first Kampung Improvement Program (KIP) in 1968 known in Jakarta as Mohammad Husoi Thamarin (MilT), and W.R. Supratman in Surabaya. KIP's success drew additional funding fron UNEP and UNICEF between 1974 to 1995. This was disseminated to other cities by GOltwB under Urban II, III, V in Surabaya, Randung, Bogor, Malang and a number ofother cities. In the early 1980's th('f(: were a number of private sector initiatives in Jakarta, Medan and in Central Java. One such effort was s!arted by Probosutejo, a relative of the President, and by Bapindo to produce Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF I9 ), The only remaining one is in Medan and basically mined dumped garbage, A Project list and detailed Pro.'cct Profiles for the following projects can be found in Annex 2,

Rnckf!.rorlIId I't {ler - ( IISI11 ( ill Illdoll(!.tia 9

Potential Benefits to the Community - PPLHITB

In 1991, compost production time estimated by PPLH-ITO was approximately 46 days with 13.3 person-days needed to produce 1,000kg of compost per month. Capital investment was minimal, approximately Rp.2,500,OOO for initial operations, excluding a truck and including compost chopping equipment. This produced compost at Rp. 35lkg for raw compost and Rp.75Ikg. for fine compost. The selling price was approximately triple the production cost.

3.2 ITS, Dandling - Where it all started.

Community level composting in Indonesia was first deyeloped in 1980 by Prof. Hasan Purbo, the head of the Environmental Research Centre (PPLH) al the Institute of Technology, Bandung (ITB) through a study of the urban informal sector with the Institute of Social Studies from the Nethelands. This developed into an integrated project funded by GTZ until about 1986. An.ntegrated participatory approach was used to aS5ess the basic needs of this community, considered at that time. as social outcasts. The resulting r roject was successful in establishing a sense of pide within the community and establishir g an Jntegrated Resource Recovery System 2011RR) which proved to be economically viable21 , o Illy needing a small investment cost to establish a recycling and composting unit. Unfortunately the project was halted when the kampllllg, (village) was removed by the municipal governme ·It.

GARBAGE INDUSTRlAl ESTATE ( GIE) SYSTEM

At this point, another site was identified by PPLH-ITB in Sangkurian, Bandung. Here the IRR system was developed further by PPLH-ITB with a new group of workers in collaboration with PDK, Bandung. It became know as an Garbage Industrial Estate (GIE or KIS) shown above.

As indicated below, this project was not without its problems, primarily involving the municipal government's acceptance of an integrated approach with the informal sector. Specific issues were:

• funds were insufficient for the variety of activities undertaken;

• community paid garbage collection fee to the waste pickers which was not accepted practice by the municipal government; and

• marketing of the compost was difficult since municipal government was a potential user at that time.

The second site was developed on land belonging to ITB. This project finally failed because the land belonged to ITB, in an area where there were ITB staff houses and for this reason had little chance of becoming self-sustaining. When the land was taken back, the project stopped. The site was then shifted to an area outside the city, mostly to provide housing for those who were moved by the municipal government. It became more ofan integrated housing project which included solid waste management as a community activity.

MARKET

BocKgroUlld I 111'er ,"SSII?! ill Indonesia 10

In November 1989, KIS was tried in Ragunan this sector. The study found that these people Zoo in Jakarta in collaboration with PPLH-ITB. have incomes relatively higher than most laborers This project was fully supported by the Zoo and and that they contribute significantly to the the compost was used primarily by the Zoo. This economy through their various activities. These program won the recognition of the Minister of events led to a Presidential acknowledgment and State for the Environment. At this time CPIS did decree, lifting the status of the waste pickers to a study or the informal sector, including waste one of national importance as "Laslwr Malldirt' pickers, IT obile food sellers (kaki limas) and for their significaot role in waste recycling in bicycle ca) (bejak) drivers and examined how the Indonesia. municipal governments can work together with

3.3 CPIS, DKI and IJina.'i Kebersihan Collaboration

Building ( n the results of the Informal Sector Study, CPIS22 from 1989 to 1992, in conjunction with the Harvard I lstitute for International Development, further developed a system based on the Bandung KIS called the Recycling and Compost Production Unit «(lDPK). This was the first serious collaborative project where land and funds from Dillas Kehersihall, DKI Jakarta and Ragunan Zoo were committed to communit ii-based solid waste recycling and composting. The Project23 was called UDPK - All Alternative Way to Se/Fe Solid Waste Prohlems and the sites selected were at Harapan Mulia (private sector site), Petambun~n (community-based site), Kebon Melati (Dinas Keher.'iihan site) and Ragunan Zoo Experimental Station (a recreational area) in Jakarta. Three of these sites received funding from Bappenas and credit from Kupedes flank Republik Indonesia (BRI) Unit Desa with seed capital between Rp.19 million to Rp. 22.5 million. Tliree UlJPKs became sufficiently self reliant to pay back the BRI loans.

Potential Benefits to the Community - UDPK

In a comll1ercial unit designed by CPIS called Unit Daur Ulang dan Produksi Kompos (UDPK), the investmen' cost ranges between Rp.19 - 23 million. The UDPK produces on average 53,000 kg of compost per month at a cost of Rp. 119 per kg. The selling price of compost in 1994 was approximately Rp.170 - 200 per kg24.

The major constraints were reported to be marketing for the following reasons:

• anima '. chicken manure and chemical fertilizers were perceived to be rnore valuable than compost; • the qu ::stionablc quality of compost in the market place acted as a disincentive to potential customers; • the li/WK comJ)Qst is relatively expensive compared to chicken and goat manure; • competitive pricing against other inferior products was difficult; and • funds were not available to promote and develop an adequate market demand for compost.

According to the aut hors of the 1994 report, the success of the UDPK as a commercial venture depends on the balance between not only an increase in the supply of (jlJPK compost, either in terms of productivity per unit or an i!lCreaSe in the number of existing units, but also on an increase in the breadth of market demand for the product. Both Petamburan and Ragunan survived and the idea of composting soon spread to other cities in Indonesia.

Bacicl!Tawm 1l1per. ('RSII'M i1l1nda1lesia II

3.4 Solid Waste Management took on National Significance

In 1992 a National Seminar (I'eninxkatall U!iaho /Jour Ulanx Sampah dall Pemhinaall Pemu/Ilng di Indollesi:l) on the role of waste pickers in solid waste management was organized by the Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program (MEIP), the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Public Works, and l;em.1Jaga Studi I'emhallgullan (LSP). This seminar brought together city mayors, representatives from central government institutions. research institutions and many other agencies such as GTZ, CPlS, Wahalla UlIgkl/ngan Hidl/!, Illdonesia (WALHI) and Dalla Mitra Lingkllllgall (DML), many of whom had already played a role in promoting and implementing solid waste strategies in Indonesia. Project profiles on the most significant such projects by non-governmental organization (NGO) initiated projects such as CARE, DML,YI)PI, TVRI's Peduli '92 project and LSP's Waste picker's Credit Programs are presented in Annex 2. The SLccess of these experiences brought a commitment from national and local governments to integrate the role (lfthe scavenger and the JR's strategy (reduce,.re-use and recycling) into their own solid waste management systems.

3.5 Thf Dissemination of U])PK", Through Local Governments

This natimal commitment also heralded the birth of a Communication Forum for Recycling (FKDUf). Its role was to collect, publish and disseminate information on recycling. The members of the Forum came from eight gm emment agencies. the Ministry of Public Works. the Office of the Minister of State for Environr.lcnt, Hapt?da/, the Department of the Interior. WALHI. SKB Diklusepora, the DPU, Persalll(m Wart(TWQ"llIdollesia and the MEIP. The Forum's role was also to facilitate and consult with city governm ~nts interested in developing UDPK units, to research and improve composting methods and to monitor ;:nd evaluate pilot projects in the selected cities. A list of the Committee's membership is in Annex J.

In J993 f S a follow-on from the national seminar, MEIP and the I'KDUJ planned an expansion to other cities, as well as efforts to expand the market demand for compost in shrimp ponds and with other various agricultu:al products2~. The cities targeted for UDPK's expansion were Jakarta (five units), Tangerang, Bandung Cirebon, Yogyakarta, Surakarta, MaJang, Surabaya, Medan, Padang and Bukittinggi under a project n;lmed "Enterprises for Recycling and Compost Production - UDPKs". The strategy involved the followin£ steps:

• estar lish preliminary contacts with government agencies and NGOs; • prepnre a current baseline on the status of solid waste management and recycling in each city; • preplire promotional materials; • prep.[re funding proposals based on field visit results; • prepl:re the training, and select specific sites for the UJ)I'K units and organize the work strategy with

the 51 akeholders; and • implfment, supervise and evaluate.

Strategies for raising community awareness included short-term initiatives such as leaflets, brochures, lectures. !'lass media spots, competitions and campaign about the importance of recycling. Longer term programs were also developed with school children through the Department ofEducation. Further research was to be continued on improved methods of inorganic waste recycling and marketing.

Hoclqzrmma f'af1l." - ('{:SI/M ill !tuJolle.tia 12

Large am smal) scale (IlJPK units were to be establishe:l at either the TPS or the 77)A dependin!, on tle availability of land, the location of the 'P.I and the volume of household garbage :1Vailllole Kelwalum garhage collector!> and nil/llS KI.','L'/:,ihllll VJere to assist with collection and truck,lic.:k-up of residue. There are two aspects to activities at the (jIJPK unit: processing organic material into compost and sorting the inorganicnatenal and selling those with economic value through the existing network.

THE MAIN SUCCESSES OF UKPK~ - 199~ t;.f'11.-if111 (;'1'1.. Ilaollal, MEW.

the !)In:I{ll'lllc "I' iluman ScHlt..ments nnd Sanitation, Minislf, of Puolic Works. anti the lJirectnTatc General of I'ullic Atfmi!1lstrati"l1 ""d Rcg.innal

3.7 National Renewal or Commitment to UDPK Expansion

In December 1994, a second national I-okakarya (Pel1gemhangall Pellggzmaall dall Pemasarall Kompos & Prodllk. /)allr (ilallg Lailllrya) hosted by the Office of the Minister of State for Environment, MEIP and FK1JUI was held to review the results of studies undertaken in Jakarta, Bandung and Surabaya, other NGO initiatives, and the results from the dissemination of the UDPK units to other cities undertaken by the Ellterpri,~e.~ jor Recyclil1g and Compost Productioll Project (1992 - 93).

The !.okalcarya ratified the role of the !'Kf)(// and laid out a continuing work plan for 1995-96. This included continuing communication and promotion of recycling, provision offunds and guidance for the development of (jIJPKs in Ujung Pandang, Palu, Tabanan, Surabaya, Malang and other cities funded by GTZ and MEtP. The focus of U/JPK entrepreneurial development was to be at the community level since Dinas Kebersihan managed UDPKs, established through the Department ofPublic Works Program for 24 cities, we'e not yet really benefiting and involving the local communities. Supervision was to continue to the cities not reached in the previous project (1992 - 93). Further funding, research to improve composting methods, information disseminated via seminars, and discussions to relevant stakeholders were planned. In 1994 the vtinistry ofPublic Works conducted the first composting course at the MPW's training center assisted b ,' MEIP and CPIS.

In 1995-96, MEIP and UNCHS funded a project called the Execution ajFie!d Demonstration ajSmall Scale Conpostillg Units at household, community, and kelurahan levels in Jabotek (the greater Jakarta area). Thi, project was to study small scale composting at household, community and sub-district level based on waste ieparation at the source. Pejaten Barat is one of the UDPK units still functioning.

Deferred CMt Savinas from One UDPK In Pela.len Balat, 1992

3F roducllon or garbage per day: 10 m 1 his provides cost ss."ings over one year as follows:

Rupiah

1 ransportalion costs: TPS 10 the TPA S l\ing no TI'A size Cperatinnal costs:

: Rp.5,7 15fm3 x 10 x 300 days ; Rp. I ,5051m3 X JO x 300 days : Rp. 3,356fmJ x 10 x 300 days

17,145,000 4,515,000 10,068,000

T "IAI D.,rerred Colis Savings: 31,728,000

S. 'uree: l.apomn: r!P(I}'o {'t'II01lmllallg01I Sampall lkllgml Aft'manfoatKm. {'olt'n.

Currently (1998), there are a number ofdonor agencies preparing projects directly or indirectly related to aspects of solid waste management in Indonesia These agencies are UNDP, UNESCO, ADB, WIt, JleA. GTZ and CIDA

4. THE SCALE OF COMMUNITY-BASED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

4.1 Ovelview

In Indone!;la since the early 1980's communitybased solid waste management initiatives have taken the ;hape of research studies by various institution, and individual researchers, short and long-term pilot projects by Indonesian and internatiOlial institutions, government departmerts, municipal governments, and private companie~ The funds have also come from many sources, iT eluding donor agencies.

The scale lfthese initiatives has also varied from household level waste separation for composting and recycl ng, to small to medium scale neighborhtlod (keillmho/l) UlJFKs near the local 7PS, med um to large scale lIDPK;; in the 17'As, in housing estates or hotels for their own use, in private bw inesses or in recreational areas such as Ragunan 2 ao. Projects and research studies have addressed lOt 011y the technical aspects of compostin;; methodology, management, economic Jeasibility, self-funding mechanisms and marketing )ut also how to link household level actions with the primary and secondary solid waste collection system successfully. These initiatives ue summarized for their successes, their prob1t ms and recommendations by project in Annex-,

4.2 HOIIS('hold Level I"itiatives (Small to Medium S·,ale)

From the early 1980's to date, the focus of most research studies at household level was to understand the attitudes and practices which influence the willingness to collect waste in one receptacle lcady for door-to-door collection as in the initial KIP progmms Other initiatives experimenkd with householders willingness to separate wfste f()r COl11posting and recycling, and

R(II'Kgrmmd r .'f1r.'r - ,,'/1.\",111 illindollf!sia

on identifYing which composing technique was most effective and acceptable for household use.

~ The Kampung Improl·ement Pr()grams (KIP)

Briefly, KIP improved and strengthened primary door-to-door collection, as described earlier in Section 2. I, piloted in Jakarta and Surabaya in 1980-82. Designs for pushcarts, trucks and depots were tested, perceptions of the community and the refuse collection workers were obtained through surveys and community meetings, and the total owning, operating and maintenance costs of each pilot system were calculated. The systems were designed to be internally selfsustaining, The local community RWIRTwas given responsibility for securing community cooperation, user fee collection from householders, hire and payment of the push cart workers. maintenance and replacement ofthe push carts.

15

This primary collection system was then coordinated with the secondary collection system of special refuse collection trucks to provide reliable collection of refuse from the TPS to the TPA. The system proved to be successful and was subsequently incorporated into the GOIIWB Urban Infrastructure Development Project in other cities.

In 1993, this Community Involvement in Primary Collection of Solid Waste (COPRICOL) system was evaluated to assess the evolution of this primary collection system, the key factors for its success and the constraints that it has encountered and how these can be overcome in the future. Further details can be seen in Annex 6. The following successes and problems were identified.

Main Su"cesses

• Flexi Jility and ease of payment combined with incentives to fee collectors and a good network among

the )(Ical formal and informal authorities served to increase the city sanitation fees. Ease of payment

comt ined with a minimal sanctions proved to work effectively in Surabaya;

• Willingness to pay coupled with affordability provided financial sustainability - cross subsidization was used where the rich paid more thus subsidizing the poor in the same neighborhood. This provided reasonable salaries for the garbage collectors and a surplus for operational and social costs;

• Community ownership due to community-based decision making approach; • Comenience (regular and effective) was the main motivation for the community's acceptance of the

syste n;

• A go,)d working relationship with /Jil/as Kehersihal/ was necessary to ensure a good interface with the

secor dary collection service; and • Particularly in Surabaya the local government commitment was high. They consider COPRlCOL service

"a mllst" in the overall city solid waste management. The community participants called Mitra Pasukan Kunillg or the Yellow Troops are considered the front runners in the solid waste business - a clear sign ofstr:mg local government recognition of their role. There is only one lump sum paid for the sanitation fee in Surabaya.

Main Problems

• Low awareness and understanding about the total process and management brought some reluctance in paying the city-sanitation fee which in some cities was additional to the primary collection fee;

• The municipal government (Kola Madya (fjullg Pal/dal/g) sometimes evaluates the success of solid waste management on the success of the sanitation fee collection instead of also considering the community-based contribution to waste minimization and the resulting cost savings to the local govemmenl; and

• In SUlabaya the areas are divided up into much smaller geographical areas. This decreases the possibility of cross-subsidies and therefore the ability to offer reasonably salaries to the COPRICOL garbage colieCiors. This, in lurn, affects service perfonnance since they have to find other income sources.

While many community groups could organize their solid waste collection system there were many problems in financial sustainability due to the low level of fee collection. rn many cases programs required subsidy to cover basic expenses and collectors were paid inadequate salaries. This affected the quality of the work and the reliability of the service. The evaluation also produced a "success criteria" which to a certain extent reflects recommendations for strengthening the system.

Success Criteria

• Degre.~ of need felt by the community - availability ofother altematives not present;

B(JClixr(llmd ,'aper· In-'ll'''' il1ll1dollesia 16

• functional and service oriented instead of social/weH'are oriented;

• organization strong and financially sOllnd (cross-subsidies a necessity);

• innovative fee arrangements; • transparent management; • sense of strong community ownership instead of a single individual initiative; • level of community and managers awareness towards total solid waste management; and • ability to relate to high level solid waste management operatives i.e. 11)8 and the TPA

These are particular pertinent to any community-based approach and. in fact. reflect answers to similar problems leported in an East West Centre research study in Bandung (1993-95).

In 1987-91) Dillas Kehersiltol1 took responsibility for only the secondary collection system from TPS to TPA. Primary collection was now the sole responsibility of the community with support and guidance from the kelurahoo level. This resulted in retribution fees from householders going directly to the Keluraltan office. The Kelllr:lhan office was then to provide a percentage back to the municipal government. This system was unsuccess' ltl in raising sufficient revenue. Currently there are a variety of mechanisms being used by municipal governments in Indonesia to improve revenue collection. In some cities such as Surabaya, revenue collection has been improved through the PlJAM (Municipal Water Company) or PLN (Government Electricity Company) billing system for secondary waste collection.

* Household Level Studies and Project...

A number l.)fsll1dies and projeds have identified some key clements that contribute to the sliccess of communit:, based solid waste management systems.

Linkages tetwee!!Jl~PriIB.1!!}' and Secondary Waste Collection Systems

Two sepante research studies in 198727 and 1989-19952s on household level waste separation in Surabaya and Jakarta, reported that people in the former study believed that the RW was responsible for waste separation and therefore were unwilling to comply with the new routine requirement. In the latter research, the respondents complied only as long as there was motivation and supervision from the research manager. When this:eased they also discontinued their efforts. Their main reason for non-compliance was the lack of separate re~eptacles fbr collection by the secondary waste collection system. Only when these were provided did they again comply with the new waste separation system.

Racligrmll1d J !Jpl'r - '/lS:l'\( ill/I/(lillle.

Empowerment and Leadership

In Bandung one research project funded by the East West Centre, Hawaii in 1993, encouraged community representatives to became more self-reliant through direct contact with PDAM and PD Kehersihan. During the project the relationship with PDAM brought new awareness that there are special services for poorer commu-nities available such as, cheaper house water connections within kampulIgs. Similarly, community members r10W have the courage to request smaller containers at TPS sites closer to their kampung to shorten the distan=e between collection points and disposal from PD Kehersihan. The research project facilitated this initial 'y by identifying the key persons within these government agencies so that when the community representlltives needed to contact these agencies the links would already have been established.

But who tire these. community representatives? These are usually few, according to the opinion of many project irrpiementors. They mayor may not be the Pak RT since he is often selected based on his seniority not on his ability. l\lore often it is the secretary of the Rtwho is more active and well respected. But sometime; in the RW it is the head of the Seksi Lingkullgan. In this particular research project, these are the people wt 0 have become more capable of representing their community. This finding that the leadership ability of c' respected community member is an important factor influencing program success is also supported by the conclusions from the evaluation of the sanitation component ofKIP-JUDP lIe'>.

The Rol~L)fWom~n in Household Waste Separation

In 1995-9·) a project, called the Execution ofField Demonstratioll ofSmall Scale Composting for the Trealmem ofthe Organic {+aclion ofMunicipal Refuse implemented in Jakarta, piloted household waste separation for composting and recycling. Three household level composting techniques were offered to the communit::: vermiculture, the buried drum (tong lanam) and the rolling drum (tong putt/r). The latter was found to be the most popular although only 20010 (II out of 56) of households who agreed to try it continued until the final evaluation a year later. The vermiculture was the only option which became profitable tS a small group business venture although from the 23 households who agreed to try it, only five continued. According to the report, one member of a group could earn Rp.l 0,000 per month depending on how many people were in the group. The household level composting appeared not financiaUy viable only because th ~re was insufficient volume oforganic waste even from a few homes to produce sufficient quantities .)f compost to sell. Although the timing of the evaluations is unclear, at some later date there were only seven households still making compost: three of these using vermiculture as a group activity and the other four Itsing the rolling drum technique at the household level and have not developed this into a small business.

Background P Jper - i~RSWM in IndQneJia 18

Generally women are responsible for garbage disposal. According to the evaluation, they generally are in favor of separation, particularly, if it decreases the amount of money they have to pay for collection or, if they are making compost themselves. The garbage collector also agreed that it makes it easier if the waste is separated in a plastic bag. As long as it does not fallon to the street, it is more efficient, and at the UDPK "we don't have to pay the supervisor Rp.I,OOO per gerohak". However, if the garbage collector himself wants fo sell items this is not so convenient. The waste pickers say they now receive more items from the housewives, even though they had good relations with them before the program started. The waste pickers also commented that the dry garbage still has much they can't use and the price of recycled goods has already started to decline. More information related to the fluctuations in price of recycled materials can be found in Section 5.4,

Community Acceptance Linked with Effective Coordination and Guidance

As mentic ned above, this component of the project generally was well accepted by the community, Thorough consultation and coordination was required between all stakeholders (above and below the kellirahali office) to facilitate the whole process, and to prevent potential conflict between certain stakehold,~rs who are always interested in looking for additional income from waste pickers or RTlRW garbage c)lIectors,

The projed report recommended that garbage separation is only feasible at RTlevel facilitated by Kader who, with the appropriate training and commitment can motivate the households to separate their garbage. This supp.)rts the findings of the research studies (1987 and 1995) reported at the beginning of this subsection, H I) wever, because the Kader are volunteers, an incentive is needed such as a Kelompok Arisan or small tour, with the Ibtl PKK. Some general problems were identified:

• not all the families understood the purpose and so mixed plastic with the organic garbage; • the smell disturbed some community members; and • insuff cient organic garbage was available to make compost within a short time period.

The probkms mentioned above relate more to weaknesses in communicating program information to program wcipients and a failure to assess the purpose for their composting efforts i.e. household use only or as a small Ilcome generating business. Clearly continuity ofguidance is essential not only in terms of assuring C

Pro\'ince

I City No.orUDPK No. UDPK Scale or

Planned Currently UDPK Operational

TPSlTPA TPSlTPA UKI Jakana

Central Jakarta 3 I Petamburan M North Jakarta I - M South Jakarta 4 Peiatan Bar~ M East Jakarta 4 - M Bumi Serpong !)amai (Estate) I I L/C

f-RagunanZoo I M-f-Ilarapan Mulya (Estate) J J M/C UDPK Lestari J 1Ancol IMlC

Vi. Ja\'l1 I Tangerang 0 - -BandWlg 2 1TPA S/M Cirebon 0 .

( entral Jan Surakarta J L Kudus 1 M Purwureio I M

~I Yocakana Yogyakar!a 0 -[.Jan Surnbaya 5 S/M1--.

Sidoatjo (Estate) I I Mf--

Malang 5 Mf--

Brawijuya University I 1 Mf--. ~.Sumalra Medan 2 M

Prastag 1 ? ,""Sci PUdang 5 Sf-C-: matra

Bukitlin~i 1 Sf--. ~ Kalimantan Pupuk Kaltim I L ~SwA,,'esl Ujung I'andang 2 2 S/M J-'!dl Nusa JJua (hotel) I J L

Kcroookan I . Mr-

S - small; M - medIUm; L -large; C - commercIal Table I. Indonesian Cities That Planned UDPKs and Those 1bat Exist Currently (Source:

Woolveridge 1995, ME1P, Jakarta 1993.)

Although t lere was a significant, initial commitment from stakeholders in 1992 shown by the number of UDPKs established, there are currently very few still operational.

~ Neighhorhood Projects

There are s mall scale community level composting projects implemented by NGOs such as Forum Peremptlan dan Lingklll1gan (/

__ _

plastic). There is the waste picker or pemuluf/g, and the middleman or lapak who has a number ofwaste pickers working for him. Then there is often a supplier or bandar who works with a number (·fmiddlemen and who sell directly to the factory: Each of them has a specific role and "power" in making every recycling project a success or failure, In most cases, the factories play an irfluential role, setting the price and intake of product, therefore affecting the income ofevery oandar and /apak.

LAPAKf PEIiAMPtlNG

· "............"'." • SoMIt

PEMUlUNG SAMPAH • p-••p ...."

. 8.,

workers continue to work without pay at times when the compost produced has not yet been sold or payment received. This situation highlights the important role of entrepreneurial management which appears to be a prime reason for the survivaJ of these two UDPKs.

4.4 Di~trict Level Initiatives (Medium to Large Commercial Scale)

In reality, many of the community owned UDPKs are small commercial businesses which continue due to their own entrepreneurial initiatives. However, the two surviving medium and large scale UDPKs in Harapan Mulya and Bumi Serpong Damai Real Estate (BSD) are commerciaJ scale enterprises, The latter, however is supported by the Real Estate's own need for compost, having other sources of income to support this undertaking. The former, Harapan Mulya is run privately as a commercial business in Central Jakarta. It is supported by the local keillrahall. the Jakarta municipal government and it also received funds as a result of the area wnning the ADIPURA "Clean City" award in 1993. It produces only 3 tons per month which has been purd ased for the parks surrounding Monas. The benefits of composting accrue to both initiatives through a\oided waste disposaJ costs, a guaranteed market for its compost and in the case ofBSD, reduced need for fertilizer use.

5. FACTI)RS AFF[CTING TIlE SUSTAINABILllY OF UDPKS

General/y. the factors summarized from reports, evaluations and discussions with government agencies, consultant~ . and as seen in Annex 4, that have affected the sustainability of UDPKs can be grouped into those extelllal to the UDPK and those internal to the organization and management of UDPKs themselves. The table t elow clarifies this division.

Extt"rnal Factors Internal Factors

• source (,' capita I C(",L~ entrepreneurial ability • land sIB u.s management ability • interacti '>n wit!· community • financial accounlllhility • source c rwaste • availability of operational funds • interacti ,n with Dims Keberihan • compost quality • I1llIrket , emaml work efliciency • market wmpcl1tion (local & import) productivity • slBtcgic ;uppor1 and training • marketing efforts

Sourcc: Summan7.ed from Project Documents refer to Annex 10.

The most fiequently mentioned reason for (J/)I'K failure is that market demand was not adequately established, this therefore being the major factor in market failure. In hindsight, however, factors that have lead to this conclusion highlight the importance ofentrepreneurial skills and management capabil.ity to organize and guide workers, manage cash flow, coordinate with lJinas Kebersihan .... secondary collection service. and identifY potential markets for compost.

From the perspective of the project implementors who can significantly influence the success of the (jJ)/'Ks (external factors). the most frequently mentioned constraints were:

• Di"a.~ Kebersihal1 's focus primarily on infrastructure provision and their apparent lack ofexperience in establishing profitable business enterprises where managers with entrepreneurial spirit is an imperative and not just a hy chance choice;

• CPIS/MEIP's focus on policy and implementation strategy only, and • insufficient attention by all project implementors, to the establishment of a sustainable market demand.

Backxrmmd P 'fH" ('BSWA! in 11Idane.~ia 22

http:Summan7.ed

Creating community awareness using the planned "promotional materials" did not address the need to expand the existing market beyond the community to the potential consumers of larger volumes of compost such as, not only government departments but also, plantations, agricultural farms and the critical lands of Java. The';e "external factors" were only within the control of the project implementors.

5.1 UDPK Management Capability

From variJUS field reports it appears that UlJPKs managed by Dillas Kehersihan in Jakarta are not operating. The major reason given is inadequate market development, leading to depletion of the UDPK's operationtil funds and they go out of business. Even if there were to be an adequate market demand for compost t'1ere are other problems which constrain the UDPK's effectiveness. These are reported as:

• low understanding of price fixing in relation to quality; • low u Ilderstanding of financial management and accounting; and

• low \I'ork discipline.

When the management of the UDPK is not optimal, this has effected the work efficiency, which in turn affects the quality of compost and the timing of the expected production volume. If they are late in completing a batch ofcompost they may run out ofoperational money and have to layoff staff before they can sell thdr product. Additionally, payment for compost delivered is not always paid for in cash by the distributor. If the retailer delays payment or post dates a check to the distributor, the solvency of the UDPK is underst2ndably threatened.

An UDPK which is not running smoothly will undoubtedly build up an unpredictable volume ofcompost. In most case~. since their accessibility to the actual market demand is limited, their market may only buy four tons that month. whereas every month the UDPK may be producing in excess or less than their capacity, leaving th< m with unrealized profit. Also, in some cases instead of providing the market with three qualities of compos: for various prices they provide onJy one grade at one price thus decreasing their potential for greater pre ,fits.

5.2 Capital [nvestment Costs and Credit

Capital sta I-Up funds are fairly significant for a commercial UDPK unit. The CPIS's 1994 guidelines, estimated I:.p.) 9 million for a small scale UDPK and Rp.25 million for a large scale one. This covered the capital COSlS of building the shelter, purchasing the necessary equipment and the start-up operational costs. There is uS.lally at least 2-3 months required for preparing the site and building the shelter, then a further 2-3 months until the first batch of compost is available for sale. Provided a ready market is available there should have been 110 problem with the sustainability of the enterprise. However, in reality there have been few successes. The major reason, repeatedly cited. is insufficient marketing promotion to develop effective market demand. However, another critical contributing factor is that the proposed financial model. as shown below, is economically non-viable for the reasons explained below,

Bod:1(1'OIJM P Clper - ('RSWM in Indonesia 23

CategorY

L Ca5h In A Cash, Beginning B. Loan Proceeds C. Sales ReVl:llue Towl (1)

H. Cash Out A Capital Costs

1. Building 2. Start up Materials Tutal

There have been examples of successes with community level loans for composting. In Cipinan& a project was funded by the New Zealand Embassy in 1994". It was designed to cover the variable costs for the first five months. Just two months after commencing composting, the revenue from sales was sufficient to cover their variable costs, without any additional funding. It has been proven in at least the Pejetan, Petamburan and Kehon Melati UDPKs that they can be financial viable businesses but this is conditional firstly on a manager tilat has an entrepreneurial orientation with the associated skills described above who has identified an adequate market demand for compost and I or recycled materials to ensure a satisfactory cash flow.

5.3 Capt uring the Market for Compost

Anaerobic composting is a tradition in Indonesia, long practiced by farmers who bury organic waste under a layer of sclL However, in more recent years aerobic methods of compo sting and venniculture have been also trailed for acceptance, as mentioned above, at community level. From the results it would appear that vermicultl re has been a more accepted option by community groups since the method produces vermicom lost more quickly and generates a viable income. Although piloting ofvermiculture has been limited to ;mall scale business ventures, it appears from existing reports that of the two options vermiculture has the greatest sustainabiJity due to its income potential.

~ Organ i'e Compost

The marhtabililY or compost is influenced by the chemical and physical composition of the compost, which varies con~;iderably depending on the waste source and whether the separation of the organics from the inorganics has been timely enough to reduce contamination. It therefore follows that compost will be of higher qua ity if composted as close as possible to the source ofgarbage, such as at the 1PS as opposed to the TPA. 1 Llso, ! t is possible to produce at least three grades ofcompost which are differentiated only by the size of the particles, from super fine to medium with a comparable retail pricing structure from approximaely Rp. 250lkg to RpAOO/kg'3,

Those proj ects, which were organized in collaboration with CPIS, had in the mid-1990's found a variety of solutions fj)r the marketing of compost. Dinas Kebersihan in Jakarta and PD Kebersihan (PDK) in Bandun& (Ieveloped collaborative agreements with other government agencies such as Dina') Pertamanan and Dinas Pertanial1 to buy UDPK compost and considerable research on agricultural use was aimed to contribute 0 its marketability, A market segmentation analysis at that time is shown in Tabl~ 3,

Market Segment 0/0 Sold Ornamental Gardens 23 Golf Courses 18 Garden Businesses 17 Distributor 12 Landscaper 12 Shrimp farmers 10 Research 7

Table J Pcrccnlagc Sold by Market Segment:M (1993),

A 1995 evaluation report stated J\ that marketing was the most serious constraint to UDPK viability. In 1992, CPIS had provided support through developing a partnership between the UDPK supervisors and a distributor, PT Gumalar Mardya Bumi, but according to the report this was not enough. In 1993 further research concluded that there were significant increases in productive yield, averaging up to 60%:16 with some crops from using compost when growing vegetables, com, rice and in scrimp ponds.

Baclcpound P '!per - i~BSWM il11lldollcsia 25

However, compost was still less popular than chemical fertilizers. This, combined with low awareness of its uses and renefits, suspicions about its quality and its comparative expensive price, provided further disincenthes to buying it According to the report, the involvement of stakeholder agencies and institutions in recycling and composting, and in improving market awareness, was essential.

A new inil iative (1998) by BPPT funded by the WB aims to expand the market demand for compost through a policy orientation clarifying the appropriate uses of compost, fertilizer and animal manure in sustainable agricultun. This will be an interdepartmental study with the Mnistries of Agriculture and Industry. The study will 'llso encourage large scale involvement from the private sector in establishing and funding this sectoral d( velopment

" Interd"partmenta/ Cooperation

InterdepaT"!mental cooperation was strengthened further to include written agreements containing a commitment to purchase specified volumes from specific UDPKs. However, it was reported that even though the commitments were fonnalized, they were not always fulfilled due to prior arrangements with private contractors. One report cited complaints by Dinas Perlanaman about the poor quality and high price ofUDPK'~ compost as possible reasons for unfulfilled quotas.

The Cipimmg project mentioned earlier, employed the same distributor to promote and sell all their compost. However, the Kebon Melati UDPK used a distributor to sell only a portion of their compost. The remainder they independently sold to bulk users such as shrimp farms.

In a recent interview with Dinas Kehersihan, they are still planning support to UDPKs in Jakarta. There has been an agreement with DKI to support five UDPKs, one in each administrative area of Jakarta. DiUllS Kebenihafl will continue to be responsible for training and monitoring. In regard to marketing they still depend on interdepartmental commitment to buy the compost produced by existing UDPKs. However, they

BackKrormd } 'aper. CRSlfAf in Indollesia 26

are proposing that Dinas Kebersihan establish a semi-governmental agency to provide a "buffer" between the UDPKs and the existing market demand. They will therefore take responsibility for marketing the product. But, will this really solve the problem since it is the market demand that needs to be expanded and this is not something within the power ofone department to achieve - hence the dire need for the inclusion of all stakeholders in strategic solid waste management planning.

* PT Gumalar Mardya Bum; - The Only Distributor The distributor used Truhlls. an Indonesian magazine targeted at gardeners to promote compost. Truhus also has at least eight retail outlets in Jakarta where the compost was sold under the brand name Leslar;. At that time, two attractive leaflets were produced (Kompos Mum; Lestari) one directed at amateur gardeners and the other directed at businesses such as shrimp farms, parks and golfcourses. Before these measures, a CPIS mar:ceting study in 199]3' found 84% of the compost produced at the four pilot projects was sold. After the .tppointment of the distributor, 100% of the compost produced was sold. This was also reported in Kebon Mdati where they sold their product to a golfcourse.

The distributor identified a number of problems which she encountered in an effort to assist the UDPKs in selling their compost. She would normally buy directly from them and pay cash. This was not a problem as long as sh ~ had sufficient cash flow to do so. However, often the retailer or purchaser would delay payment or pay wiltl a post-dated check. as mentioned earlier, which meant sooner or later she also had to delay payment t) the UDPKs. She also said that she did not want to become their sole distribution route. This would enc ourage their dependence on her, inhibiting their own self reliance in identitying other markets. But in reality f Jr many she was still their sole distributor.

* Potendal Export Market Demand

In 1993, tlte distributor identified an export market demand (Brunei, and Singapore) for compost produced in Jakarta. However, as time went on, due to low production capacity of the four UDPKs, only totaling approximately 48 tons per month, together with unpredictable production capacity and questionable quality, this marke! has remained unfulfilled. More recently the distributor has had other requests from overseas (Japan ane Australia) which again she has been unwilling to accept for the same reasons. Based on this, there is clearly an untapped export market demand and still an undeveloped market potential within Indonesia· iue to inadequate development of that potential.

5.4 Marl.et Demand for Recycled Products

In the design of UDPKs. recycled products are part of the income options for which there is a ready market. A J995 study11l using data from IJinas Kehersihan, Jakarta, (1995) reports that efforts to minimize waste through recycling ofproducts from the city's garbage appear to have peaked during 9J/92 to 93/94 due to the import of recycled plastic material in 1991 which caused the collapse of the domestic market for recycled plastics. [n the same period, volumes of recycled paper, plastic and metal have also not increased significantly

Table 4. shuws the change in prices recorded at the time of the evaluation. The decline in value may be due 10 imported waste.

Bockground / aper - CBSU'M in Indonesia 27

Item 1982-1991 (TPA)

1991-1997 (TPA)

1998" (TPA)

1998'(Factory)

Rp./kg Rp.1 kg Rp./kg. R..£: I kg. Paper - 350 400 - 500 700 - 800 Carton 300 - 350 70 400·500 800 - 1,000 Plastic (clean) 500 250 200·300 1,500·3,000 Cans 100 50 0 0 Metal (super) 250 100 300 - 500 500 Bottle 200 50 - 100 40·100 100 Bone 50 50 - -

Table 4, Comparative Costs ofRecycled Items

Source: Final Evaluation Report I &"'Pak Mundala (April 1998)

Paper and plastic are the two largest volumes of waste produced in Jakarta, Surabaya and most other large cities of II Idonesia. Data available on industrial input appears to differ substantially from BPS figures. One more recent study39 (1996) indicates that the proportion of imported paper is far below the actual amount imported. The R&D. director of Leces Paper Industry estimated that 80% of secondary paper is imported, while the WS data indicates less than 50010 is imported. Plastic is also under-estimated. Industries surrounding Surabaya alone are producing 240,000 ton per year and the Plastic Recycling Industry Associaticn estimates that in Indonesia the recycling industry produces at least 650,000 ton per year. The BPS figur~ is only 104,000 ton per year. The apparent existence of vested interests in the import of recycled materials, together with the constraints of obtaining accurate data, make it problematic to estimate the actual market pOlentiai for recycled products.

However, it would appear from the increase in the local price ofpaper/carton and plastic shown in Table 4. above, that the import of recycled materials has dropped. This has occurred since the advent of the monetary

I MEIP/UNDI'I\VUIlIABITi\T. IAlpomn Akir 1'f!lIgkaji(DI Peneraptm I'engalahan Kampa.! di I'erkalaan dan./n(egrrui l'engelolaall

Per:wmpahan FKDUI -SK11 DIKLlJSEI'ORA - Y1\ Y.KIRAI - YA Y.INVESTASI KEMANUSIAAN & PPWS - MEIP. April 1997.

Background I

crisis and the extensive fire damage to the forests in Indonesia. This assumption is more than likely due to US dollar cost of importing, which now, effectively places the majority offactories in the position of purchasing again from Indonesian sources.

6. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

This chapter reflects the considerable effort by CPIS and MEIP to stimulating GOI commitment to the concept of lJDPKs through partnerships among stakeholders. It will highlight current innovative solutions and micro-technology as well as the realities of partnerships with the informal sector. Their welfare, bound to the politics of imported solid waste, is balanced against the government's opportunity to provide jobs but at the cost of having to develop a system that more effectively separates solid waste at source. This in tum, would pro',ide adequate volumes of waste paper and plastic easing the need to import these for Indonesian recycling hdustries. It would, as mentioned earlier, effectively decrease budget requirements for collection, transportation and land fill sites. At the same time this would remove the need for the waste collectors to be at the TPA 5 and move them into more small to medium scale composting and recycling businesses.

6.1 Partr erships with Stakeholders

After 18 years of progress, facilitated by CPIS and FKDUI, supported by the GOI and MEIP, partnership has been a critical component which has brought awareness of the role of the informal sector to national level and a ;hieved government commitment to the deVelopment of UDPKs in at least 24 cities in Indonesia. Some of the achievements and funding commitments by local governments are indicated in the box below.

Govemment ContributioM 10 Community Ba.'Ied Solid Wute ~ent

• A Presi, ential Decree acknowledging the waste pickers as "Laskor Mcmdirt' • Provinci II recognition of waste pickers and collectors as "Mitra Pmu1can Kuning" in Sl.UlSbaya • DK]l9' 516 Budget commilment Rp.16 million x II UDPKs infrastructure, training & evaluation • Nationa Budget corrurutment ofRp. 75 milliOll x 24 cities for UDPK development in Indonesia

However, il reality, Ihis effort has lead to limited change in the government's focus on infrastructure and technological solutions proving that it is not an easy or short term task to change an existing bureaucracy. Future pro!;ress requires an understanding of why the composting program was unsuccessful, recognizing the need fo strategic thinking on the part of all stakeholders in partnership. And, where infrastructure and technology managed by a broad group ofgovernment departments is teamed with the entrepreneurial thrust of the priva:e sector and the tenacity of the informal sector, waste minimization so urgently needed in lndonesiafl ;;ities could be achieved. There have been a number of examples of CPIS/GOI collaboration in seeking parnership with the private sector only a few of which are mentioned below.

A Fell' E .... mplH or Partnerohlp Contrlhution.

• PT Omelrhco..:} in 199] prm,;ded a 250 m1 building for waste pickers in Surabaya; • Bumi Serponl! Damai, Bintaro and Citra Land in Jakarta adopted the UDPK unit. The avoided costa totaled approKimately Rp.1.5

billion" in reduced landfill and chemical fertili7.ef requirementa; • A large WH.tc trader in Suro.~utan

It would appear, however, that the Government's program efforts to combine adequate market development with concrete, continuous support in training and monitoring to ensure the sustainable success of the UDPKs have not been succes;ful. Identification of problems and alternative solutions did not bring direct results since the weaknesses are related to structural and behavioral issues. Through discussion with a variety of related agencies it would appear that non-technical constraints are dominant. Failures and stagnation are most likely the result ofweak commitment and lack of innovation and. creativity. There is no incentive to develop and improve t Ie system. Most staff and officials prefer to tlo their routine tasks only. Those who try to be (reative are frowned upon and considerel! "ambitious", a negative trait in a bureaucraic culture where everybody is supposed 10 "conform to the existing framework".

There are also complex issues related to chemical fertilizers. The Penyu/uh Perlanian or the Farmer's Extension Worker is usually instructed to promot ~ the use of chemical fertilizer and they do not dal e to promote the use of compost. Compost is not a substitute for fertilizer, but using com post will improve the soil structure. This mean>; that the farmer will not need to use as much ferti izer as he did without compost. This together ~ ith the current escalating price of fertilizer d Ie to the depreciation of the rupiah can provide an incentive for the private and the informal sector to produce compost. The Governme 'It could also provide incentives to the private sec Lor based on solid waste absorbed.

6.2 Emerging Gender Issues

A World Bank publication~~ cites some important issues in dt~veloping any decentralized strategies and policy guidelines related to community involvement in solid waste minimization. These relate to employment impacts, the relative roles of men and women, health hazards and the use of technology in solid waste management strategies. In relation (0 the informal sector the issues are many as reflected in the following paragraphs.

# Employment Impact OfDislocating Waste Pickers

The employment and social impacts of reducing employment for waste pickers can be considerable. A large proportion of waste pickers are women, in some cases nearly 60"10 . Women represent a significant part of the poorest waste pickers working at landfills.

Unlike scavenging in South Asia, which is castebased and therefore lacks social mobility, scavenging in Indonesia is a profession with fluid and easy entry and exit. However, the working conditions are usually abysmal and the livelihood precarious because the market prices for the commodities they collect fluctuate widely. Working conditions on open landfills expose waste pickers to health risks due to the potential exposure to hazardous waste and the presence of heavy machinery. Prices of commodities. during a field visit in May 1998 were reported not to have changed significantly since the monetary crisis, although the price of basic commodities has

Background I tlper CRSWA/ in Illdollesia 30

tripled. Recent research indicated that some waste pickers earn up to Rp. 125,000 per dayt!, and. that in fact prices of paper/carton and plastic have increased since the monetary crisis as mentioned earlier (Table 4.). However, the waste pickers themselves often do not benefit greatly from these price increases since the middlemen claim the larger proportion for themselves through cleaning and packing the recyclable materials.

During tht· May 1998 fIeld visit to the TPA at Bantar Gerbang. Tangerang Bekasi it was reported that there are children now more often seen helpiJlg their parents in finding materials, washing, sorting and packing them for resale. It was also r.~ported that there are seasonal fluctuatior s of between J,500 to 5,000 waste pickers at he TPA. In the harvest season as many as 68% of them, mostly men, go back to Indramayu. Informal comments indicate that numbers hid increased in the last six months although tllere have been no formal counts.

It should bi~ noted that waste pickers who are dislocated ilre mainly men. This may have a significant employment impact on women. Dislocated men may now be competing for some of the jobs previously held by women. Also if male hous€ hold members lost their employment, there may he more pressure on women to seek work outsile the home. Preliminary studies suggest thft women are less aware than men of the import! nce (If solid waste management, and consequenlly may benefit more from basic awareness raining programs.

~ Inefficiencies Introduced by Waste Pickers

The present scavenging system affords livelihood to waste pickers. but causes inefficiencies which need to be addressed. For example, waste pickers have free access to landfills. Extreme caution is thus needed when operating heavy machinery in the landfills, so as not to injure waste pickers. This slows down operations in the landfill and limits waste impaction. Waste pickers also pay drivers of the machinery to move the waste from one pile to another, but the value of the recovered materials is usually less than the cost of operating the machinery.

Nevertheless, there are some important maintenance and sustainability issues in introducing more modem systems ofwaste management to improve efficiency. Modem waste disposal systems cannot reach all areas of the community. However, residents and waste pickers are less motivated to cooperate in servicing the unreached areas, because they are being displaced by modem technology elsewhere and the unreached areas by themselves do not furnish enough work for earning a livelihood. Moreover. the cost of waste collection is much higher if the drivers are responsible for sweeping. Mechanization also takes away employment through waste separation by the waste pickers. To increase the social acceptability of waste pickers in Indonesia, as mentioned earlier, a Presidential Decree has been issued exhorting citizens to respect them because of the useful function they perform.

6.3 Techllological [nnovations ill Solid Waste Management

~ Market Demand for Recycled Materials

This component of the UDPK has never received specific project support apart from the activity being incorporated as an obvious waste management strategy, employment generator and an input to overall UDPK financial viability. However, from the comments above there are obvious issues which influence the demand for and thus the price of paper and plastic, the two most valuable recycled materials. There are therefore implications for the welfare of the waste pickers and middlemen as well as significant added constraints lor the GOl when imports continue to provide materials that could potentially be recycled nationally with cost savings both to industry as well as to the accelerating costs of solid waste management in Indonesia.

Bnckwound P"per - ('RSWAI ill Indonesia 31

~ Vermiculture Development

Vermicomposting operations emphasize

transforming organic waste into a marketable 'I 'C\~ .,~.,~_._prodllct,vermicompost, through the activity of \-' -; .. composting worms. There are three key

components of commercial vermiculture which r l . ~.,.~-,;:

;iexplain it:; present appeal and future potential. , _.,.

First, red'vorms are capable of transforming huge ! ........~'

amounts .)f organic waste which is ofgrowing

.~

concern t) Indonesia. For those raising worms

for profit. this means the feedstock is generally

plentiful ~ nd free. (Landfill diversion sites charge

"tipping f ~es" for green waste to be brought to

them, ran ~ing from US$15 - to $75 per ton in the

USA4\ "ypical feedstocks also consist of

manure fr Dm a variety of animals. Second, the

worm population can double in two to four

months.

So, after acquiring an initial breeding stock, sales of worms can be realized in a relatively short time,

particular y when comparing their prolific breeding rates to other forms of livestock. Thirdly, the production

ofcasting; (wonn manure) is a highly-prized soil amendment sought by landscapers, gardeners and

horticultu "ists. Studies about the nutrient-rich vermicompost have proven its preferred value over ordinary

compost lnd synthetic fertilizers.

6.4 Sele. tion of Appropriate Delivery Systems

Appropricte delivery systems may require the active participation ofNGOs and women's organizations. In the JUDP III, NGOs facilitated community involvement in 10 out of85 kampullgs. This resulted in significant improvement in reaching the social goals of the project The strategy of women talking to women was found to be most effective, for example in the case ofconsultations with the community over the use and location of public toilets. Two JUDP III evaluation studies46 47point to the need to develop appropriate institution!l fTameworks for ensuring such participation and for the allocation of funds directly to beneficiari ~s. Local governments must be more active in creating partnerships with NGOs, community groups, educational institutions and the private sector involvement of contractors in small scale infTastruct:.lre development and for accessing credit management mechanisms such as those used by Bank IndonesiaPHBK) in the GTZ project in Surabaya.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS:

~ Emphtl.~ize People Empowerment

Government agencies still look upon waste disposal as a technical issue and have a strong preference for modern technology. This is also true where sanitation is concerned. Gender and social issues are seen by many government agencies - and indeed by some professionals in the sector - as "fulls". Even this is not quite the whole story. The failure of the UDPKv is yet another example of a quick fix with technology forgetting that the people needed to do the work require the long-term commitment and investment in skill development and guidance to assure real improvements in their socio-economic welfare.

Roci

Government personnel also need departmental heads who empower their staff to develop more creative solutions to identified problems. through the delegation of appropriate authority. adequate funding. Accountability is a key issue. Departmental heads need to be held responsible for achieving set targets in line with policy commitments. This means bureaucratic change with a new vision, hopefully possible through the new Reformation Government of Indonesia. This new vision gives everyone the right and the opportunity to develop and achieve their own full potential for themselves and for the benefit of their country4 .

Within the existing government framework is a semiofficial organization called BKS-AKSE (Badon Kerja Sarna Amar Kola Seluntah Indollesia) or the Indonesian Inter Municipality Organization (liMO) inaugurat ed by the Minister of Home Affairs in 199449. Its organizational goals are to act as a catalyst to foster more proactive and dynamic city development based on the State Guidelines and the Long-term Developnlent Plans. It strives to encourage improvement in the ability and skill of the regional authorities in administeing the government apparatus and in management development efforts. Potentially this organizat on could be a vehicle for more effective UDPK promotion and marketing efforts in partnership with the r rivate sector.

~ Adopl a Gender Focu ...

From a systems design viewpoint. solid waste management projects must be geared towards identifYing the specific f{ les of both men, women and children, because they all are currently doing the lion's share of solid waste minimization in Indonesia It is important to pay attention to gender issues in solid waste disposal in Indonesia for completely differing reasons:

Womt'n • \·omen pay the bills for waste disposal; • \'Omell take out the garbage; • t le poorest waste pickers are mainly women (possibly single or divorced); • v·omen are most in need of waste management training; and • v'omen should be a target audience for social marketing for waste minimization and family decision

nlaking.

Men • IT ostly men work on open landfills where health and personal injury risk is high; • tl ansient single men and/or men separated from their wives are more susceptible to social problems

alld communicable diseases;

• nen are most often the informal or formal leaders within even a TPA community and therefore • nlen should be a target audience for social marketing for reasons specific to the man's role in waste

rninimi7.alion and family decision making.

Children (male and female) • children are often used as an accessory labour force; • children are at higher risk of malnutrition and disease in this environment; and • children often do not complete SD. this decreases their chances of moving into other work options;

and

• children should be a target audience for social marketing for waste minimization and life decision making

Background }~per. CBSW'A' illlndollcsia 33

Since gender roles are so complex and situation dependent, a gender assessment must be the first phase of any type (If participatory community development program to ensure optimal changes of success.

* Stimulate Compost Market Demand

On a nati(lnal scale, the setting ofIndonesian Quality Standards for compost would assist in consolidating the market demand, Guidelines have been drafted by GOI and the World Bank50 in an effort to facilitate improvements in the production of consistently high quality compost. There are three compost products now for sale in Trubus, /,eslari is produced by the UlJPKs, Fine is from Sukabumi and Sihorli from Solo. The newest one is called Fine. It is cheaper than Leslan that only sells its 5 kg pack at Rp.2,000 (1998) in Trubus. f 'lie has a much more attractive packaging and is available in 40 kg pack (Rp. 12,000) as well as the 5kg pI,ck (Rp.l,500). Sihorlj's 5kg. pack is the same price as ustari's but they also offer a 20kg. pack for Rp. 4,,'00. From 1993, export markets have been identified by PT Gumalar Mardya Bumi in Singapore, Australia; IOd the United States and this demand could be fulfilled with more serious involvement of all stakehold« :rs.

* /)el'eh'P Vermiculture Industry and Market Demand

Vermicultllre is a new market in Indonesia. However, since the chemical and biological qual,ity is superior to organic compost and, there are two products to sell, the worms and the vermicompost, it could have commerci~1 potential if the industry was developed and market demand was to be established. As mentioned earlier, the pilot project at community level appeared to have no problems selling both the worms and the vermicompost, but this small scale production does not give any indication of what the real market potentiaJ or demand is for these products. A proposal for a vermiculture industry3 has already appeared in Indonesia. Such innovations are prime opportunities for private sector partnership involvement to estabJish new nationally-':tased industries that in concert with government composting programs could support informal sector devdopment.

J PT Karlik" I 'mdiplaprisma, l·erl/lik(l.~j Tt'kllologi I;·IP-flL .·I/'raposal. I99!!. This proposal prumol~"S partnership (INTI-PLASMA) development between the government, private sec lor lind the community. It proposes comnunit) le\'l:1 small 10 mediwn scale businesses and diversified large scale induslIy development that will produce or sell worms lind vcrmicomposl Diversified product indu.~tries include EPA oil, lechitin, pharmaceutical products and cosmetics. ('rovernment intervention \\ ouJd support cr~'

* Deveiop Simple Credit Facilities

Since cost recovery fails due to limited market demand, it is highly probable that this is a significant factor in UJ)PK fa,lure. However, from a macro economic level, iJillas Kebersihal1, according to a more recent stud/I. (J 997) are in a position to subsidize UDPKs based on the cost savings they enjoy (Table 5.) from avoided waste transportation, disposal and land acquisition costs.

City Operational Co.ts

(Rp./Ye1I.r)

lnorgank Waste Produced I Month

(103)

Reduction In Waste hy Wute Picken (103 I "I. of total).

Money Saved I Month (Rp.)

Bandung 3,630 BiUiun 55061 10 611 or 19"10 29,178,000 Semal'lU1g 2,940 Billion 30,729 500 or 2% 1,375,000 Surabava 11,200 Billion 41,459 12,666 or 31% 34,830,000

Table 5. Op,rational Cost Savings in Solid Wasle Management due 10 Waste Pickers in Three Cities in Indonesia.

Sow~: PD Kclx--rsihan (City Cleaning Authority) Municipality ofDT II Bandung, Semarang and Surabaya'l.

This optic nal subsidy or "compost" credit proposed by a World Bank Report53 , together with more realistic cost estirr ates for (JDPKs capital set-up costs, operational expenses and adequate entrepreneurial training by the DepaIlment of Trade and Industry and/or the Ministry ofCooperative and Small Enterprises could still make liD IJKs viable commercial ventures but preferably not one owned and run by the government.

---- -_._._.._----1 World Ban ';, Prilale .vclor I'arficipalion in Solid Was Ie ManagemenIIndone.sia. Thc World 13ank, Jakarta. March 1995

I Pemerintat Daerah Kh:.Jsus Ibukota Jakarta Dinas Kebersihan, Study Resources Recovery Pi/ol Projeci Phase IlAporan interim

Februari 19 ;'5. PT Krutrka Pradilptapnsma. pp.lI-4

) Pemerintar Daerah KhllSUS IbuKota Jakarta, PelayaJ/o'll Penanganal1 Kebersihall di DK! Jakarla. Dinas Kebersihan DKI Jakarta.

1998.

, MElPIUN('l IS, i:I'(l/uasi UIJI'K diJakarta Tinjauan TeicJlis, Sosial dmddaJlajemen. FIlial Report, November 1995, pp. 111-14.

~ MEIPIlJ]\ ')P CilOraCleri.stics o/Solid Wmle in Rivers 0/DK! Jaicarta, Final Reporl. P1' Kartika Pradiptaprisma, December 1993.

rr IV-21

6 Pemerintah ])aerah Khusus IbuKota Jakarta, Pelayanan Penanganan Kebersihan di DK! Jakarta. Dinas Kebersihan DK! Jakarta.

1998.

7 World Ban k, Priwle &clor Parlicipalion in Solid /rasle Managemenllndonesia. The World Bank, Jakarta. March 1995, pp.17.

• UNDPIWE, Water & ~anitalion Program I RWSGEAP. Community bwo/vement in Primary Collection o/Solid Wasle in Four

IndonesiaJl ('ilies. ','ayasan Dian Desa, Yogyakarta. December 1993. Annex J. pp.3 (Yogyakarta, Padang, Ujung Pandang, Surabaya)

• GTZ, Bruel 'ne Sh"fy - The Socio-Economic CondilioJl 0/Waste Pickers in Bandung - Execulive Summary. PT Kartika Pradipaprisma,

Bandung, 1916. pp i.

10 World Ran K. Prhale Seclor Parliciration in .

14 MEIPIMlIIIFORI 1M KOMUNIKASI DA[JR LJI,ANG INIX)NESIA. l.okaKarpa Pengelllbangan Penggullaall dOll Pellla.!lJrlJlI

Kompos & I'roduk Door Ulang Lainnya. Jakarta, 6 Desember, 1994. pp.19.

2~ CPIS,I.a{"arall _I'ercohaml PellRJ

REFERENCES

WORLD BANK, JAKARTA

• World Bank, Illdollesia: 1';lll'irollmellf and /)el'elopmelll A World Bank Country Study, 1994 • World Bank, i'ril'ale Seclor Parlicipolion ill Solid WasIl.' Mallogernenllndonesio. The World Bank,

lakan a. March 1995

• LP3ES, A.uessmenl oj Papillar Porlieipation (?fKI/J-JlIIJP 11/ - Final Report. The World Bank, June

1995.

• World Bank, SloifAppraisal lieportillc/o/lesio Thrid Jahotahek Urhan Devleoprnentl'roject (JUDI'

/II) .lune 19. 1990. Asia Country Department V, Infrastructure Division.

RWSGEAP (Regional Water & Sanitation Group for East Asia and Pacific)

• UNO 'IWB, Water & Sanitation Program I R WSGEAP, Commu/lity Invo/Femellt in Primmy Col/eetion ojSmid Waste ill Fourilldonesian Cities. Yayasan Dian Desa, Yogyakarta. December 1993 (Yog:'akana, Padang, Ujung Pandang, Surabaya)

• UNDJIWB, Commllnity Hased Solid Waste Mallagemenl ill FOllr Cilies. Asia Gender Symposium on

'ntras ructure, Energy, Water Supply and Sanitation. RWSGEAP Oct. 1995

• RWSGEAP, £"OIIiOliOlI ojthe Sallitotion Componellf qfKIP JUDI' JII. UNDPIWB Water and

Sanit"tion Program, Haryatiningsih, July 1996

• Work Bank, Indonesia Solid Waste Mallagement: Is there a gender dimension? A review (?fpn?jects

with (/ solid \l'm·te mO/lo/.:emellt component. Infrastructure, Energy, Water Supply and Sanitation

Sessie 1. Asia Gender Symposium November 20, 1996.

• Work Bank, Tile lIse ofCompost ill Indollesia: IJroposed Compost Quality .)"alldord~. Infrastructure

Opera!ions Country DepUII East Asia and Pacific Region, June 1997

MEIF (Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme)

• MEIP Departemen Dalam NegerilSekretariat KabinetlLembaga Studi Pembangunan, Program Semillar Nasiollal PCllillgkatall Ilmha j)ollr (Jlallg Sampah /)an Pembillaan Pemlilllllg di ludollesia. 23 November 1992

• MEIP, Recycling j)el'elopmellt in Illdollesial/ Cities - Fil/al Report Deeemher 1993, ABO! Suryar ingat i, PT Aspac Consult indo, Jakarta, Indonesia, (YogYlkana, Surakarta, Malang, Medan, Padang, Bukitlinggi, Bandung, Semarang, Kudus, Sura kart a, Purwo'ejo)

• MEifI/UNDP, ('//(//"(/ct('l"i.lth:... (}fSlllid Waste ill Ni!'ers ofl )KI.Jakurfa. Filial Neport. PT Kartika Pradip aprism

• MEl P/UNIJP/WDlIIA13JTAT, lopol"£1l1 Akir J>ellgkajialll'ellerapalll'ellgolahan Kompo.'O di I'erkotaall dallilltegrasi I'engelolaall Persampahall. FKDUI -SKB DIKLUSEPORA - Y A Y.KlRAI YAY.lNVESTASI KEMANUSIAAN & PPWS - MEIP. April 1997 (Household. RW/Community and Kelurahan Level- UDPK)

.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

• Pem'~rintah Kotamadya Daerah Tingkat II, Pemhillaall Seklor Illformal di SlIrahaya. Surabaya 199 I • Departemcn Pekerjaan Umum Direktorat Jenderal Cipta Karya, Unit Pengelola Proyek Peningkatan

Kemampuan Tenaga Bidang Air Bersih dan Penyehatan Linkungan Pemukiman. Bllku Palldllan Tekllik Pem/malall Kompos Dad Sampah - Teori J)on Aplikasi. )993

• Depnrtemen Pekerjaan Umum Direktorat Jenderal Cipta Karya, Unit Pengelola Proyek Peningkatan

Kem\mpuan Tenaga Bidang Air Bersih dan Penyehatan Linkungan Pemukiman. Maler; Pelalihall

Um/'a Daur l !Iang Dall Produksi Kompos, 1994

• Pemcrintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta Dinas Kebersihan, Study Resources Recovery Pilot Project Pha,lt! 1 l.apol'OlIIllterim Fehmari 1995, PT Kartika Praditptaprisma.

• Pemcrintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, Dinas Kebersihan, Desaill dall Implemelitasi Pilot Project I'emtfahall & fJaur [llallg Sampah -/Jo/mmell (f.'i1/lan Tekllis. Tropic Konsultan, Bandung. 20th Sept. 1995

• Pemt:rintah Daerah Khusus Ibu Kota Jakarta, Dinas Kebersihan, I.apomll Satgas Pembillaall dall

Pellgqmhall