Complete Paper

South East Asian – German Summer School 2005 A Comparison of Conflict Structures and Solutions 16th – 29th October 2005

How essential is Community-based Solid Waste Management in Periurban Indonesia? Study case: Jakarta Periurban Areas Adiyanti Sutandyo-Buchholz Department of Urban and Regional Planning Indonesian Technological Institute, Serpong, Indonesia e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract Solid waste collection in periurban area is often more complex compared to urban area. Beside its own waste the periurban area is burdened by urban waste as it is often used as disposal places. Is there any waste management in planned settlements and unplanned ones; if it exists is there any coordination between them and who organised it? Parties involved in solid waste collection scheme in periurban Jakarta – Indonesia are the communities in neighbourhood units, groups of waste collectors operating waste as microenterprises, and local administrators. In planned settlements disposal is organised by neighbourhood unit, while in unplanned ones usually disposed off into a river, vacant land or burned. Local government agency transports waste from the primary to secondary waste disposals, where groups of waste collectors recycle it. Currently the respective actors mentioned above, execute their own function without any cooperation among them, yet contribute to the process of waste management. The main problems are health and environmental consequences, lack of sanitation in periurban, unplanned settlements and the surroundings areas of waste disposals. Would a community-based SWM (Solid Waste Management) in the Jakarta periurban area be needed, how urgent? Could it improve the solid waste collection system? What kind of partnership is needed between the actors involved in SWM to improve management and environmental problems? The paper objective is to discuss the matter through exchange of experiences on those issues. I Introduction The objective of this paper is to put forward a question for discussing, whether community-based solid waste management in periurban Indonesia is necessary or not. On the one hand community-based waste management is in fact necessary, because such activity is carried out by members of the community itself. They take decisions regarding their own life. It will be more efficient and effective if it is line with local needs and their priorities and capacities. On the other hand in Indonesia’s periurban areas the management of solid waste services is neither carried out by a community unit, nor through partnership between the community, government agency and waste entrepreneur. If there is cooperation, it is at most a best practice project which is accomplished sporadically here and there, and due to lack of maintenance, it is not sustainable either. The more usual practice is that community members pay only waste contribution without being involved in its management. Local government agencies are not yet serious in operating solid waste services in periurban areas, especially in unplanned settlements. Waste as a business activity is undertaken by the informal sector and micro-entrepreneur, respectively, without support from the previous actors.

Southeast Asian – German Summer School 2005, 16th – 29th October 2005

The process of execution by each actor (community – local administration – waste entrepreneur) without any cooperation among them seems to be going well. Yet, how are the physical problems in periurban, especially in unplanned settlements and the surroundings areas of waste disposals? For this issue and related to community-based management, the study is limited to: ∗ physical aspects: − urban and periurban − planned and unplanned settlements − temporary and final waste disposal sites ∗ social and management aspects: − problems: participation, management, operation, and cooperation − actors: community, local administrator, micro-enterprise II Waste Problems in Periurban Areas through physical and social-management aspects Related to solid waste dumping there is no clear administrative responsibilities between urban and rural. This uncertainty concerns especially in periurban. Periurban areas are available open spaces and have good access from urban areas, so that periurban often function as the ‘backyard’ of waste disposal. Besides, solid waste management in periurban is inadequate, causing communities of periurban to suffer from health hazards. Settlements in periurban Indonesia, as is often the case in developing countries, are divided into planned and unplanned ones. Planned settlements give rise to spread of housing estates with appropriate infrastructure and facilities. Most of residents are urban migrant and commuters related to their working places. The dwellings are planned systematically, infrastructure provision and services are similar to in urban areas, and so is the management system of settlements. Residents are charged monthly payment for services, such as water supply and waste collection. Although some locations in planned settlements still have empty plots, they belong to developers or private individuals. In housing complexes there is maintenance that is responsible for looking after the plots. On the contrary, unplanned settlements consist of unsystematically dwellings. There are no formal rules to build and to determine land boundaries. It is dealt with in informal ways and amiable agreements. Lack of infrastructure and facilities is here rather a common condition. Many unplanned settlements are characteristically more rural environment. Most of the residents are still living from agriculture, husbandry and plantations. Solid waste operation system is unclear. People dispose off waste into a river, a vacant land or burn it. Many vacant lands, although maybe already belonging to private individuals or industry, prompt people to dispose away waste there. Related to infrastructure provision and services there is no integrated management between planned and unplanned settlements. It seems that the local administration pays more attention to the planned settlements which is more profitable. As to solid waste management, residents in planned settlements are more able to pay distribution for waste. As mentioned in the abstract periurban areas are burdened by both rural and urban waste. Temporary or primary disposal sites which are provided for the community unit and its surroundings are often overloaded due to waste from other areas also. There are no regulations that, for example, a temporary waste disposal in a certain area is provided just for it. In reality several temporary disposal sites in periurban dumps even waste from urban areas! The problem in the final or secondary disposal sites is more complex and can cause political conflict between two regions, for instance a conflict between Jakarta and Bekasi (neighbour region, east of Jakarta). A final disposal located in Bekasi periurban, officially belongs to government of Jakarta. After years Jakarta dumping off its waste there, gradually a conflict

Adiyanti Sutandyo-Buchholz

2


emerged between the regions because of mismanagement and environmental hazard. Eventually the problems detrimentally affected the people and surrounding environment. In planned settlements community participation is low if there is no necessity with high priority in neighbourhoods for an improved solid waste collection. For example members of a community unit would become aware and feel the need for a community-based solid waste management as a real need, if there were no waste collector to collect garbage from households, while the disposal site is far away. In unplanned settlements community priority for solid waste management is low as well. As long as population density is not high yet, there are still enough spaces for dumping waste. There is no consciousness for keeping public spaces clean. Those living in neighbourhood unit (RT)1 pay a regularly month fee for collecting solid waste, organised by the neighbourhood unit head. It is already operational, but only in planned settlements. Willingness just to pay waste contribution without any other involvements can not be said as ‘a real participation’, because it is only obligatory rather than having a sense of belonging. Unawareness of the community-based solid waste management is also shown by the way of neither putting waste in a (plastic) bag in garbage bin2, nor separating recycled and not recycled waste. For most people waste collection is inconvenient, dirty work and time consuming. Apart of collecting monthly payment, members of neighbourhood committee3 are not motivated for community benefits such as keeping a cleaner environment. In unplanned settlements, where women are the primary motivators of waste collection, they often take the initiative for a community-based solid waste collection system, but their voice is seldom heard. Another problem is that volunteer members of a sanitation committee are often not able to work sustainable if the continuity of the service may not be secured anymore. The young unpaid members prefer more material benefit, rather than better environmental conditions. Compared to water supply service, solid waste management system is a continuous maintenance system. Recycling of solid waste requires extra skills and has uncertain benefits. Besides, water supply has also more concrete benefits than an improved solid waste service, hence many governments put solid waste low on the priority list. Due to a lack of knowledge, local agencies seem to obstruct community-based services like bad coordination between primary and secondary collection or a lack of maintenance of the waste equipments, as well as lack of finances. The government is also unable to adopt a clear solid waste management policy and a strategy to integrate community initiatives into the whole solid waste management system. This is unlikely to occur if there is no communication between community and the government. Waste collectors and waste entrepreneurs as operators have often low status which is caused by the nature of their work and their social background. They are often suspected with illegal activities. Neither in temporary disposals, nor in final disposal sites facilities or infrastructures are provided, such as shelter and water supply. The government neglects the existence of waste entrepreneurs. Low salary for waste collectors and lack of performance control is the main reason for poor services. 1

Neighbourhood unit (RT/Rukun Tetangga) consists of 40-50 households. Five to fifteen neighbourhood units make up a community unit (RW/Rukun Warga). Both the neighbourhood and community unit are the lowest level of the administration hierarchy in Indonesia, yet they do not subordinate to the local government agencies. Heads of both units are unpaid. The head of neighbourhood unit is chosen by the people, while the head of community unit is elected by heads of neighbourhood units (Steinberg, 1992). 2 People in planned settlements put their garbage in garbage bin, usually a square container make of bricks and placed in a convenient place at each household, from where the garbage is picked up by waste collectors. 3 Neighbourhood committee in neighbourhood unit consists of a head of neighbourhood unit, a secretary and a treasurer. Their duties are for example doing neighbourhood administration, monitoring residents’ activities, disseminating government information, and maintaining security. They work for volunteer.


3


The perception of community-based solid waste management activity does not mean that only the community is the central point. Other actors such as local administrators and waste entrepreneurs also influence the sanitation behaviour of the community. Due to the fact that there is no integrated partnership among the actors, community is, according to ‘a ladder of citizen participation’, in the level of ‘informing participation’ instead of the level ‘partnership participation’. The participation of the community is based only on duty. The government through dissemination of information to community units has only one way communication, without feedback from community itself and a discussion approach (see Arnstein, 1969). III Ideas how to organise community-based solid waste management projects These following ideas still need to be discussed. Although the ideas are based on literature studies and daily problems encountered in Jakarta periurban areas, their structure are applied ideas, not theoretical ones. In a community-based solid management, community management is subsequently the highest level of community participation4. Community members or their representatives (in neighbourhood unit is represented by a neighbourhood committee) decide on what to do and how to do it. Talking about community based project means also talking about cooperation with other actors. The management includes also partnerships with governmental agencies as legal services for operational and financial back-up, and micro-enterprises as informal sectors. The proposed partnership is as follows: − Partnership between community and local government agency is accomplished through paying monthly fee to the local government and controlling the operation of waste collection services. These are organised by its representative – a neighbourhood committee. The neighbourhood committee raises awareness of the community to keep waste in a (plastic) bag; recyclable waste is put separately, therefore it is easier to be picked up and sorted by waste collectors. Maybe a law to obligate households to separate their waste and to make garbage ready for collection on certain time could decrease common problems in solid waste collection. Local agency provides waste bins, temporary and final disposal sites. It also controls cleanness in neighbourhood unit through responsibility of micro enterprise related to collecting waste. To motivate community in keeping clean the environment, neighbourhood committee and the municipality5 can organise an annual competition among neighbourhood units for the cleanest environment, for example in the Indonesian Independence Day6. This idea can be implemented in particular in unplanned settlements, where people in neighbourhoods throw their garbage in vacant land. For achieving a change of behaviour, the municipality is also required to provide a bucket for each household.

−

Partnership between neighbourhood committee7 and micro enterprises is carried out through mutual benefit related to income-generating, for example households can 4

Compare to ‘a ladder of citizen participation’ of Arnstein (1969), community as ‘a citizen control’. It is decision-maker and manages itself, while other actors support it. The community is characterised by a united group of community which has access directly to the local government and budget to develop. 5 Municipality in periurban areas is led by a head of village which is paid officially as a local authority. Municipality is the lowest level in the local government hierarchy. Each municipality consists of five to fifteen community units (RW/Rukun Warga). 6 During the Indonesian Independence Day there are many activities, most entertainments, taking place in the society. This day in Indonesia is a holiday. 7 Neighbourhood committee represents the community. Talking about the neighbourhood committee in this paper means talking about community related to a community-based group.


4


sell the recyclable materials, such as papers and bottles, to the neighbourhood committee, and it sells further unprofitable to the waste collectors who are also employees of micro entrepreneur. Micro-enterprise producing compost could sell their composts with reasonable prices to the community, especially those who live from agriculture or farming; usually in unplanned settlements. The price should be cheaper than in the normal market.

−

Partnership between the local agency and micro-enterprise is achieved through an agreement that the local agency in each municipality/village provides box-carts or collection vehicles and a temporary disposal site8. Depending on its budget, the governmental authority shall also provide basic infrastructure and facilities, such as water supply and simple but healthy shelters close to the disposal site. Meanwhile micro-entrepreneurs organise waste collectors for picking and collecting waste from households in neighbourhood units. Microentrepreneurs are responsible to the local authority for their service.

−

Partnerships among micro-enterprises maybe could be realised through a mutual cooperation between temporary disposals and between temporary and final disposals, for example to incorporate ‘a recycle and compost waste cooperative association’. Partnership in community-based solid waste management means also to involve women and young generations. They often perform special roles in community-based solid waste service. According to Anschütz (1996) and also to experiences in Indonesia, there are some kinds of projects that women and youths have carried out. Women usually give improvement of services a higher priority than men, but their participation in community decision-making is minimal. Many projects in many developing countries prove that women are not only interested in solid waste management projects as a provision, but also its employment and income generating aspects. They function for instance as initiators. They carry out education campaigns on sanitation behaviour, involve in the management of the system as the wife of the head community unit. They operate and manage a solid waste service of a microenterprise as waste pickers or street sweeper. They act as watchdogs of the community through controlling households to comply with agreed rules of behaviour. Youths play also a special part in solid waste management. Children often help their mother with her daily tasks such as bringing waste to a garbage bin or a waste disposal. They learn from the early age how to conduct sanitary behaviour in dealing with waste. This habit should be maintained both in their neighbourhoods and social environments. Unemployed adolescents can create income-generating from solid waste service, for example they can operate a waste service through responsibility for fee collection or make handicrafts from waste (paper or plastic). It is essential to take into account, that the engagements of youths should be stimulated with material rewards. A mutual cooperation among actors should be carried out both in planned and unplanned settlements. The best way is if the participants involve from the very beginning of a project process. Willingness of each party is a challenge for a sustainable healthy environment.

8

One municipal village can have one to two temporary disposal sites depending on how big the site is and how many inhabitants are living in this village.


5


IV Conclusion Although planned and unplanned settlements belong to periurban area but the management approach between them is different. Yet willingness and participation of community members in both settlements plays an important role, also supported with partnership with other actors. Despite of partnership, the community has to be functioned as a decision-maker by knowing its strength and weakness. Consequently, unrepresented or minority groups inside the community must be heard as well and take part in solid waste management activities. Besides, the involvement of all parties could take place if they would change their sanitary behaviour about ‘waste as resource’ instead of waste as a useless end-product. This can maybe be carried out through education and awareness campaigns. But, the effectiveness of these campaigns depends on the influence of the persons who carry out education and on the degree of social control within a neighbourhood. In Indonesia such campaigns are carried out sporadically and there is no control after the campaign time, whether the awareness is kept going continually. If solid waste management in periurban area is built into a ‘compact integrated partnership’, maybe through a proper law, they could exercise political pressure on urban waste not to be excessively dumped into periurban areas. Nevertheless there are still some apparent questions in this paper: − How to motivate the willingness and to encourage accountability of a community to participate in solid waste management? − How to maintain the on going activities of operators and managers in order to be sustained? − How to manage the integration of micro-enterprise as an informal sector into community-based solid waste management project? − How to integrate an operation system between primary and secondary collection? − How to develop an integrated partnership with urban governmental agencies related to transporting urban waste to periurban areas? Literatures

−

Allen, Adriana; da Silva, Nilvo L.A.; Corubolo, Enrico. Environmental Problems and Opportunities of the Peri-urban Interface and Their Impact upon the Poor. March 1999. Strategic Environmental Planning and Management for the Peri-urban Interface Research Project. www.ucl.ac.uk/dpuprojects/drivers_urb_change/urb_economy/pdf_Urban_Rural/DPU_PUI_Alten_Corubolo_da Silva_Environmental.pdf − Anschütz, Justine. Community-based Solid Waste Management and Water Supply Projects: Problems and Solutions Compared – a survey of the literature. Urban Waste Expertise Programme (UWEP). May 1996. www.waste.nl/docpdf/WD02.pdf − Arnstein, Sherry. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In: Journal of the American Institute of Planners. July 1969. Vol. xxxv, No.4. − Bulletin BSD No.16/Special Edition BSD 11.Anniversary, January 2000. − Department for International Development (DFID). Urban and Rural Change. www.livelihoods.org/hot_topics/docs/UR_overview.pdf − Heineberg, Heinz. Grundriss Allgemeine Geographie: Stadtgeographie. 2.Edition. Schöningh, UTB, 2001.


6


−

Khulna City Corporation (KCC) and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Community Based Pilot Project on Solid Waste Management in Khulna City: General Project Description. Field Note. 1 Khulna City Series. www.wsp.org/pdfs/sa_pilot_khulna.pdf − McGranahan, Gordon; Satterthwaite, David; Tacoli, Cecilia. Urban-rural Change, Boundary Problems and Environmental Burdens. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). www.livelihoods.org/hot_topics/docs/UR_environment.pdf − Newspapers with the theme about a final disposal site in Bekasi. See: http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/berita/0507/22/jab08.html, http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/berita/0509/05/jab04.html, http://www.kompas.com/kompascetak/0401/28/metro/825264.htm, and http://www.suarapembaruan.com/News/2004/05/06/Jabotabe/jab09.htm − Steinberg, Florian. People’s Participation and Self-Help in the Indonesian Kampung. In: Beyond Self-help Housing. Mathéy, Kosta (Ed.). München, Profil Verlag, 1992. − The Development Planning Unit, Univ. Collage of London. Understanding Change in The Peri-urban Interface.Vol. 1. Living between Urban and Rural Areas: Shaping change for improved livelihoods and a better environment. Guidelines for strategic environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface. www.ucl.ac.uk/dpuprojects/drivers_urb_change/urb_economy/pdf_Urban_Rural/DPU_DFID_Alten_betweenurb anandrural.pdf − The Development Planning Unit, Univ. Collage of London. Environmental Planning and Management Initiatives for the Peri-urban Interface: Learning from experience. Vol. 3. Living between Urban and Rural Areas: Shaping change for improved livelihoods and a better environment. Guidelines for strategic environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface. www.ucl.ac.uk/dpuprojects/drivers_urb_change/urb_economy/pdf_Urban_Rural/DPU_DFID_Alten_betweenurb anandrural.pdf − United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Housing Projects: The Scope for Community Participation. Nairobi, 1989.


7

Complete Paper

Recommend Documents