The new Waste Law: Challenging opportunity for future landfill operation in Indonesia

Transcription

1 Research Paper The new Waste Law: Challenging opportunity for future landfill operation in Indonesia Waste Management & Research 0(0) 1 10! The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav DOI: / X wmr.sagepub.com Christia Meidiana and Thomas Gamse Abstract The Waste Law No. 18/2008 Article 22 and 44 require the local governments to run environmentally sound landfill. Due to the widespread poor quality of waste management in Indonesia, this study aimed to identify the current situation by evaluating three selected landfills based on the ideal conditions of landfill practices, which are used to appraise the capability of local governments to adapt to the law. The results indicated that the local governments have problems of insufficient budget, inadequate equipment, uncollected waste and unplanned future landfill locations. All of the selected landfills were partially controlled landfills with open dumping practices predominating. In such inferior conditions the implementation of sanitary landfill is not necessarily appropriate. The controlled landfill is a more appropriate solution as it offers lower investment and operational costs, makes the selection of a new landfill site unnecessary and can operate with a minimum standard of infrastructure and equipment. The sustainability of future landfill capacity can be maintained by utilizing the old landfill as a profit-oriented landfill by implementing a landfill gas management or a clean development mechanism project. A collection fee system using the pay-as-you-throw principle could increase the waste income thereby financing municipal solid waste management. Keywords Waste law, landfill, municipal solid waste, waste management, Indonesia Date received: 4 June 2010; accepted: 8 August 2010 Introduction Indonesia is the world s largest archipelagic state having a population of 234 million people inhabiting about 6000 of the total islands. The total area of Indonesia is km 2 and about 60% of the total population lives on Java Island which only occupies an area of km 2 or 7% of the total area (Statistics Indonesia, 2010a, b). The decentralization system has been applied since 1999 and the province is the highest tier of local government and led by a governor. There are currently 33 provinces in Indonesia, seven of which have been created since These provinces consist of regencies and cities. The decentralization system gives the regional governments in the provinces and local governments in the regencies and cities the authority to determine their own policies and manage the local resources for development, including the waste management policies. Some provinces already had policies related to waste before May 2008, when the national new Waste Law No. 18/2008 was enacted (MoE, 2008b). At the national level there was no law regulating waste management before However, many of the local waste policies do not administer the municipal waste management successfully. The absence of waste law at the national level and the lack of laws controlling municipal waste management at regional level are among the reasons for poor landfill conditions. Based on the data for 2006, the total domestic waste generation in Indonesia was 38.5 million tons (MoE, 2008a). Most of this waste ended up in landfill sites that were operated as open dump sites rather than sanitary landfills and only a small fraction of the collected waste was treated by recycling, composting or incinerating. Furthermore, about 60% of total landfills TU Graz, Institut for Chemical Process and Environmental Technology, Graz, Austria. Corresponding author: Christia Meidiana, TU Graz, Institut for Chemical Process and Environmental Technology, Inffeldgasse 25 C, Graz 8020, Austria c_meidiana@yahoo.de

2 2 Waste Management & Research 0(0) (179 sites) operated by local government were close to their closing time (less than 5 years), but in only 47% of them had the decision to close and replace with a new final disposal site been made (MoE, 2008a). Open dumping practices in many Indonesian cities have led to environmental problems such as surface and ground water pollution, emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), and odour nuisance. Therefore, Waste Law No. 18/2008 offers not only an opportunity, but also a challenge for local governments because it gives them a wider role in the administration of waste management and the implementation of environmentally sound waste treatment. It was therefore necessary to measure the preparedness of local governments in Indonesia to fulfill the requirements stated in Waste Law No. 18/2008 due to the generally inferior condition of waste management in Indonesia. For that reason, the study aimed to observe the current situation by evaluating three selected landfills referring to the ideal conditions of landfill operation used to appraise the capability of the local governments to adapt to the law. The Waste Law No. 18/2008 The Waste Law No. 18/2008 was enacted in May 2008 by the Government of Indonesia (GoI) and covers issues related to public service principles, waste management, an incentives and disincentives mechanism, funding scheme, shared responsibilities among waste authorities, private sector participation, community-based waste management and penalties for disobeying the law. The share of responsibility between different levels of government focuses on increasing the role and responsibility of local government in waste management. The central government establishes the national waste policy and strategy, accommodates and develops the waste management cooperation between local government, partnership and network, while the regional government determines the waste policies at the lower level based on national waste policy. The local government has responsibilities to run the city or regency waste management based on the national and the regional waste law, to foster and manage the local waste management implementation, and to control and to evaluate it. The local government has authority in deciding the waste treatment method and final disposal site. These responsibilities give the local government not only an opportunity, but also a challenge to improve local waste management since the Waste Law embraces environmentally sound waste management practices. Article 22 defines this clearly by requiring the implementation of environmentally friendly technology for final waste treatment while Article 44 introduces the requirement for safe landfill practices. It obliges the local governments to have a plan for the closure of the old open dump site no later than 1 year after the Waste Law enactment and to close the final disposal site which uses the open dumping method no later than 5 years after the enactment of the Waste Law. Disobeying the Waste Law can lead to legal sanctions and fines. Closing and upgrading the existing landfills There are basically three methods in disposing municipal solid waste, namely open dumping, controlled landfill and sanitary landfill. Open dumping is not an appropriate method because it can pollute the surroundings and involves activities of littering, illegal dumping and disposal in nonapproved sites (EEA, 2010). As the site is illegal, usually it is not equipped with the standard procedures to reduce the detrimental environmental effects, such as the use of a bottom liner to protect the water table, the presence of a control well to measure possible leachate intrusion, soil covering to avoid GHG emissions and odour nuisance. Moreover, there is no waste segregation to restrict the household hazardous waste (HHW), such as paint, pesticides and batteries (UNEP, 2005). Open dumping causes adverse environmental effects and therefore the practice of waste disposal using this method should be eliminated. Implementation of controlled landfill and sanitary landfill can replace open dumping. In controlled landfill, the basic requirements for adequate infrastructure and equipment are fulfilled since its operation is subject to a permit system and to technical control procedures in compliance with the national legislation in force. This also includes specially engineered landfills (EEA, 2010). However, controlled landfill operation focuses on the operational and management aspect of improvement rather than on facility or structural improvement which would require substantial investment (UNEP, 2005). Meanwhile, safe landfill practices are implemented in a sanitary landfill because it is an engineered method of disposing of solid waste on land in a manner that protects the environment by spreading the waste in thin layers, compacting it to the smallest practical volume and covering it with compacted soil at the end of each working day or at more frequent intervals if necessary (EEA, 2010). In contrast to open dumps and controlled landfills, sanitary landfills are designed and planned thoroughly from site selection up to post-closure management and so they require substantial investment (UNEP, 2005). There are two possibilities to move from open dumping practices to other environmentally sound methods of disposing of waste. The first is closing the open dump site and constructing a new disposal site for a controlled landfill or sanitary landfill and the second is upgrading the open dump site to a controlled landfill. Upgrading the open dump site to a controlled landfill does not require a new site. The disposal site can be the previous open dump site, but levelling and compacting of existing waste as well as construction of drainage canals or ditches are required. If a new site is to be constructed, the open dump site has to be closed. Closing an open dump site necessitates final soil cover provision,

3 Meidiana and Gamse 3 introduction of a vegetation layer, drainage control system, leachate and gas management systems, monitoring systems and site security. Moreover, the cost for constructing a new controlled landfill will be essentially the same as the upgrading from an open dumpsite, only the land acquisition cost has to be considered. Constructing a new landfill requires large investment due to high requirements. Selecting the appropriate method should be adjusted to the local conditions such as available technology, human resources and finance (UNEP, 2005). Material and methods Study area, data collection and assumptions Surveys for primary and secondary data were carried out between January and March Data on municipal solid waste were collected from waste authorities in three selected cities in Java Island namely Surabaya, Yogyakarta and Malang, to identify the waste characteristic and the rate of waste generation, waste collection and waste transportation to landfill (Table 1). Surabaya, which has a population of more than 1 million was selected as a representative of a metropolitan city, and Malang and Yogyakarta with populations between and 1 million represent large cities (MoPW, 2010). Data on waste were mainly sourced from statistics on waste management in , namely Regency/City Profile, Waste Status Report and earlier studies about selected cities. Due to the lack of input data, the following major assumptions were made.. The currency rate is Rp 9500 is equivalent to US$1, which is the average value of the predicted exchange rate of Rupiah from Central Bank ranging between Rp 9000 and Rp in Waste density is assumed to be 400 kg/m 3 based on the typical domestic waste density in Indonesia proposed by Diaz et al. (1993). The assumption was made to convert some waste data which were in volume units to weight units.. The waste generation rate per person is derived from the average amount of waste generation and number of population from 2004 to 2008 Questionnaires were sent out to eight respondents asking them to provide more recent data. The respondents were the Cleansing Department and Composting Centre in Surabaya, the Cleansing Department and Composting Centre in Malang and the Environmental Board in Yogyakarta. There were no interviews and questionnaire for the composting centre operation in Yogyakarta because there was no person in charge who was willing to be a respondent The questionnaire aimed to examine declared waste treatment in the landfill, the level of service (LoS) on waste collection, the performance of the existing landfill and to identify the issues that influence the LoS and landfill s performance. Interviews with the local authorities for municipal waste management in Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta were conducted to obtain in-depth information related to landfill operation and to follow-up the questionnaire answered by the respondents. A standard open-ended interview was selected in which the respondents were asked the same open-ended questions to obtain detailed information that would be easy to analyse and compare. Table 1. Current conditions of MSWM in three selected cities Parameter Unit Metropolitan Big city Surabaya a (Benowo Landfill) Malang b (Supit Urang Landfill) Yogyakarta c (Bendo Landfill) Area (km 2 ) Population (million) Waste generation (tons day 1 ) MSW capita 1 day 1 (kg capita 1 day 1 ) Total MSW costs year 1 Billion Rp year Million $ year Costs capita 1 Rp capita 1 year $ capita 1 year MSW income* billion Rp/year million $ year LoS on waste collection % Waste collection tons/day *Currency conversion: US$1 ¼ Rp a Cleansing Department Surabaya, 2010; b Cleansing Department Malang, 2010; c Environmental Board Yogyakarta, 2009, 2010.

4 4 Waste Management & Research 0(0) Selection of evaluation parameters The field observation was conducted in landfill sites in the three selected cities to evaluate the conditions of the current landfills and the feasibility of the two landfill systems. The parameters were chosen based on the landfill criteria from UNEP (2005). Results and discussion Current conditions of municipal solid waste management in study areas There was no national waste law until 2008, although there were waste-related laws at the national level such as the Environment Management Act No. 23/1999 or Government Regulation No. 18/1999 about Hazardous Waste Management (UNEP, 2004). The national waste law, the Waste Law No. 18/2008 was recently enacted in May 2008 but Malang and Yogyakarta have had regional-related waste laws some years before They are Law No. 4/2003 concerning a waste-collection fee in Malang City and the Law No. 22/2002 about community management in Yogyakarta. However, the low level of law enforcement has led to ineffective municipal solid waste management (MSWM). Meanwhile, Surabaya has had no regional waste law until now and used the environmental law as legal framework for waste management. Low waste generation per capita and waste cost per capita characterizes the MSWM of cities in developing countries such as Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta. The waste generation per capita in the three cities is below 1 kg capita 1 day 1, whereas the cost for waste management per capita is not more than US$2.5 capita 1 year 1. Other big cities such as Jakarta and Bandung also have low waste generation amounts of 0.65 and 0.59 kg capita 1 day 1, respectively (Pasang, 2007; Damanhuri, 2009). The total waste generation is a function of population. Therefore, Surabaya produces more waste than Malang and Yogyakarta because it has a greater population. However, this is not necessarily proportional to the level of service (LoS) of MSWM. The LoS on waste collection in the three cities was between 70 and 85%. Referring to the national standard for LoS on waste collection, this percentage represents an adequate performance as 60% was the minimum LoS on waste collection (MoSRI, 2001). The decentralization in 1999 had implications on local income and expenses in many infrastructure developments including the waste sector. Local government is required to be self-sufficient in planning and managing their budget for MSWM and needs to seek finance for MSWM from local sources. Thus, there was no significant change in national budget to support waste management (Meidiana, 2010). Local government in Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta believes that the lack of budget may be the main reason for their poor MSWM. The budget for waste management is lower than the required budget. The income in waste management mainly comes from the waste collection fee collected from the community. As the income is lower than the existing cost it means that the local government has to look for other sources to finance their waste management. These authorities also own and operate those landfills which are all claimed to be operated as controlled landfills. A high fraction of biodegradable waste and moisture content characterizes the waste composition in the cities although there is some variability within a certain range. This is the nature of typical waste in developing countries which has high organic content ( 70%) and high moisture content (50%) (Diaz, 1993). Most of waste dumped in landfills in Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta comes from households which produce waste with a high organic content ranging between 60 and 80%. There is a lower percentage of plastics and paper followed by other smaller fractions such as glass, metal, textile, rubber, baby napkins, bone/feathers and inert as described in Table 2. Due to differences in the categorizing of the waste Surabaya has no rubber, bone/feathers and baby napkin data, and Malang has no bone/feather and baby napkin data. The collected waste is mainly delivered to the landfill and only a small fraction of the waste is treated using other methods such as recycling and composting. It is important to understand that recycling in this context does not refer to an activity to change substances called waste to other new forms of substances, but to an activity of reusing substances considered as waste either by direct self-reuse or by selling them to scavengers or waste traders. Zurbru gg (2002) found that in developing countries, the process of recycling took place from source to the end destination, landfill. In Indonesia, the involvement of waste pickers in waste recycling also starts at the household level and proceeds to the next level Table 2. Waste composition of three selected cities Cities Waste composition (%) Organics Paper Plastics Glass Metals Textile/leather Rubbers Diapers Bone/feather Inert/other Surabaya a Malang b Yogyakarta c a Cleansing Department Surabaya, 2010; b Cleansing Department Malang, 2010; c Environmental Board Yogyakarta, 2009, 2010.

5 Meidiana and Gamse 5 in the waste recycle chain such as at collection points, involving cleansing workers, and at landfill sites involving waste pickers or traders (Supriyadi, 2000). The same situation occurs also in Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta where the direct self-reuse and waste selling occurs at the household level whereas the waste selling activities practised at higher levels such as at transfer points and landfills involve not only scavengers but also solid waste management workers. The selected waste is finally sold to industries. There are many possibilities in running the composting centre with regard to the local conditions. For example, the composting centre in Cimahi-West, Java is principally operated in two ways. First, local government initiates and controls the composting plant, and second, the community and the local government work together through partnership. The local government facilitates the infrastructure and equipment while the community is responsible for the sustainability of the composting centre (Damanhuri, 2009). The composting centre in Surabaya has been in operation since 2004 and uses both methods, whereas in Yogyakarta the composting activity is a government community partnership. There are 11 composting centres in Malang and all are operated by the local government. Although an increasing amount of waste is composted in these cities, the landfill method is still the preference for the local government in treating the MSW. The local government in the study area owns, manages and operates the landfill. Table 3 describes the current conditions of selected landfills. All of the landfills are claimed to be controlled landfills equipped with heavy equipment for waste treatment and applied zoning systems. The waste delivered to the landfill is mixed waste from household and commercial sources and without any treatments prior to landfill. The daily amount of waste dumped in Bendo Landfill was below the daily waste capacity of landfill. The LoS on waste collection in Yogyakarta is under 100% indicating that not all of the population are served by the waste collection system. In Surabaya, the composting centres have significant role in decreasing the amount of the waste transported to the landfill from about 1500 kg day 1 in 2003 to 1230 kg day 1 in the years However, the collection rate in Yogyakarta and Surabaya needs to be improved to deal with uncollected waste which is disposed of by the community by burning, burying, or dumping in open spaces, river or ditches. The amount of waste transported to Supit Urang Landfill (Malang) exceeds the daily waste capacity of the landfill. The daily waste capacity of the landfill is estimated based on the optimal number of trips per day of dump trucks transporting the waste from municipality to the landfill. Two factors may be the reasons for the excessive amount. It could be that there is a limited landfill capacity for this excessive performance of collection or inaccurate recorded data or irregular waste recording in the landfill. There are no data recording on daily basis, so it can be assumed that the second reason is more reasonable. The first reason is questioned because the LoS of collection in Malang is only 73% indicating that over performance is impossible. The landfills in the selected cities were originally planned to be operatonal for 10 to 20 years. Two landfills have been extended and one will be closed in 2012 and replaced by new final disposal site. Initially, the landfills were constructed in areas which were distant from the settlement but now, the landfills are surrounded by settlements. Furthermore, waste picking is allowed in all landfills, contributing waste separation and reduction. The wastepickers are officially accommodated by the landfill operator. The emission from landfill is managed using drainage and a treatment pond for leachate and passive ventilation for landfill gas. The use of heavy equipment in the landfill is mainly for skipping, levelling and lifting the waste. Evaluation of current conditions In Indonesia, all final disposal sites are state-permitted landfills. However, different results can be found during in-depth field observation. A landfill may have been initially planned as a sanitary landfill, but in practice it may be an open dump site because it satisfies the criteria of open dump site. Benowo Landfill in Surabaya, Supit Urang Landfill in Malang and Bendo Landfill in Yogyakarta were planned as controlled landfills. A comparison of the existing conditions and the landfill criteria was conducted to evaluate the waste treatment in these landfills. The study showed that neither controlled nor sanitary landfill was practiced by all selected landfills (Table 3). Some measurements referring to the controlled landfill criteria from UNEP were implemented in the field, but only partially. Therefore, the existing conditions were not sufficient to be considered as indicators for a controlled landfill. Some basic requirements for a lining system, regular waste records, an access road, or regular soil covering had not been fulfilled. Although a drainage system is available, there was leachate coming out of the waste bulk and forming puddles in the landfill area, including the access road and eliciting odour nuisance. An unpaved access road caused the dirt to stick to the truck tyres and litter the roads that the dump trucks passed over. Some important points which can be identified and which it is essential to analyse further for inappropriate landfill practices solution are considered in the following paragraphs. Misunderstanding about the landfill concept and its criteria leading to inappropriate landfill operation The local governments of Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta define the existing landfills as controlled landfills. From interviews, it was concluded that the landfill operators have different perceptions about the definitions of controlled and sanitary landfills. Based on the evaluation

6 6 Waste Management & Research 0(0) Table 3. Evaluation of the existing landfills Parameter Surabaya a (Benowo Landfill) Malang b (Supit Urang Landfill) Yogyakarta c (Bendo Landfill) Site Type of landfill Partially controlled landfill Partially controlled landfill Partially controlled landfill Type of waste Untreated mixed waste from household and commercial Untreated mixed waste from household and commercial Untreated mixed waste from household and commercial Waste capacity 1500 tons day tons day tons day 1 Operator Local government Local government Local government Opening year Planned closing year 2010, Extended until , Extended for no certain 2012 periods Total area 37 ha (3 zones) 15 ha (5 zones) 12.5 ha (3 zones) Distance to settlement 250 m 1700 m 700 m Future landfill sites No planned new site No planned new site Planned new site, no design Infrastructure and equipment Scavengers 900 scavengers 302 scavengers 400 scavengers Liner No liner No liner Impermeable layer Leachate collection and treatment Drainage canal system 1 physical and chemical treatment pond 1 biological treatment pond vertical well Surface drainage canal system doesn t function 1 treatment pond 1 collection pond Drainage canal system 3 leachate treatment ponds 1 aeration facilities LFG management Passive ventilation Passive ventilation Passive ventilation Access road Limited. Asphalt No paved or hardened access Limited. Asphalt maintenance road Fencing Available Available Available Equipment 1 office 1 weighbridge 7 bulldozers 7 excavators back hoe 3 wheel loaders 1 bulldozer 1 wheel loader 1 office 1 weighbridge 1 warehouse 2 bulldozers 1 excavator 1 wheel loader 1 mini track loader Operational Soil covering Regularly, once in 4 6 months Once in 7 months Regularly but not daily Waste compacting Partially Partially Partially Waste inputs Lack of control, mixed waste Lack of control, mixed waste Lack of control, mixed waste Record keeping Partially basic record Partially basic record Partially basic record Scavengers 900 scavengers 302 scavengers 400 scavengers a Cleansing Department Surabaya, 2010; b Cleansing Department Malang, 2010; c Environmental Board Yogyakarta, 2009; criteria, the selected landfills are partially controlled landfills because the basic requirements for controlled landfills are only partially fulfilled and open dumping practices have been conducted on the sites. The lack of basic records of delivered waste, soil covering and municipal solid waste restrictions are the reasons for such conclusions. In terms of the definition of a controlled landfill from EEA and UNEP it is more appropriate to consider Benowo Landfill in Surabaya and Supit Urang Landfill in Malang as open dump sites rather than controlled landfills, although Bendo Landfill has better management than the other two. Scarce sources of information about landfill criteria and lack of legal frameworks regarding landfill practices lead to misunderstanding of the controlled and sanitary landfill concept. Therefore, the government should formulate national standards, regulations or technical guidance about different waste treatment methods and final waste disposal sites and disseminate them to the waste authority Financial viability MSWM in Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta is managed and operated fully by the local government and there is no private participation. Moreover, the central government has not allocated any budget to the local governments for use in the waste sector. The capital and operational costs have to be covered by the local budget from the regency/city and province.

7 Meidiana and Gamse 7 The waste collection fee is the main source of income, but can not cover the financial need because there is a low collection rate due to following factors. a. Poor payment rate and little effective enforcement. b. The collection fee is standardized according to house type, building function or electric power and do not relate to the waste quantity produced. A household generating more waste may pay a lower collection fee than another one which produces less waste. c. The collection fee does not necessarily reflect the collection and disposal costs. There is no relationship between revenue collected and expenditure for waste since the collection fee is standardized rather than calculated. A deficit in the MSWM budget causes the poor standard of MSWM in the selected cities. Therefore, a better collection fee system such as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) should be applied to encourage the community to recycle waste leading to waste reduction and an increase in the income from waste. The operation of profit-oriented landfill by extracting the landfill gas or by utilizing the landfill for clean development mechanism (CDM) projects is also a suitable solution for financial viability problems. Poor infrastructure and equipment The deficit budget of local governments in waste sector leads to poor conditions of MSWM, especially in landfill operations such as inferior landfill infrastructure, lack of a fleet of vehicles, broken equipment and shortages of maintenance, all of which make the landfill operator incapable of satisfying the basic requirement for a less risky waste disposal method. Many landfill operators can not fulfill the standard requirements of equipment for collection and transportation defined by the Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure (MoSRI, 2001) and for waste disposal in landfill defined by the Ministry of Public Works (MoPW, 1994). They determine the need for equipment based on assumptions resulting from inaccurate data because they do not have comprehensive data on waste. Only those that conduct regular recording of waste volume disposed in the landfill can calculate the equipment demand accurately. Bendo Landfill operator calculated that more heavy equipment of certain types is still required, whereas Benowo Landfill and Supit Urang Landfill operators do not have complete data and so cannot identify the ideal amount of heavy equipment that they need. Moreover, vehicle fleet shortages and failures occur at both sites. The worst conditions probably occur in Supit Urang Landfill because it accepts heavier waste loads and occupies a wider area than that Bendo Landfill but it operates fewer pieces of heavy equipment. In addition, the Supit Urang Landfill operator has no assessment of actual heavy equipment needed, and neither does the Benowo Landfill operator. The conditions demonstrate the unpreparedness of local governments to meet Waste Management 18/2008 Article 22 and Article 44. The estimation of waste volume disposed in landfill can help the waste authority to calculate the amount of heavy equipment required. Therefore, regular waste records should be kept. Once the estimation has been made, the amount of heavy equipment needed can be calculated. However, due to the limited budget for operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, operating a fully engineered disposal site and purchasing new heavy equipment is not the appropriate solution. Treating waste as near as possible to the waste source can decrease the landfill load thereby reducing the O&M costs for infrastructure and equipment. Lack of information system All three landfills have land operator office buildings and weighing scales. However, the regular record of number of trips, arrival times of dump trucks and waste quantity disposed of on a daily basis has only been conducted in Bendo Landfill, where records including disposal time, number of trucks, waste weight and tipping fee are kept. An irregular record of waste quantity delivered to landfill causes difficulties in measuring and evaluating some critical aspects for MSWM planning such as demand of landfill area, amount of equipment, amount of tipping fee, and O&M costs. A basic record on a daily basis (waste quantity, number of trips, waste separation/treatment) should be implemented in order to maintain the data collection on waste in landfill. Unmanaged waste pickers Many landfills in Indonesia involve waste pickers who separate the saleable used material such as metal, plastics and bottles or glass. The involvement of waste pickers in landfill operation is formally accommodated by the local government since they assist in reducing the waste volume disposed in landfill. All the waste pickers at the three selected landfills were registered. Their activities occurred in the daytime, from early morning until afternoon and in the areas where the fresh waste was recently deposited. Weighing and selling the collected waste was conducted inside the landfill area. Some waste pickers also build temporary shelters to stay in. There was no restricted area or waste types for the waste pickers. Heavy vehicle and truck mobility was disturbed and the waste pickers endanger themselves by working near to the vehicles and endanger their health by direct contact with the mixed waste containing hazardous materials such as batteries, electrical equipment, lamp bulbs and possibly contaminated medical utilities such as. knives or needles. As the scavengers can reduce the waste volume disposed of in landfill, the landfill operator should manage them properly by determining the

8 8 Waste Management & Research 0(0) time and the area for waste picking activities, prohibiting the scavengers from doing waste trade activities or building shelters within the landfill site and providing an area for waste separation and trade outside but adjacent to the landfill site. Inadequate plan for future landfill according to the Waste Law Article 44 Only the local government of Yogyakarta has future landfill sites. Surabaya and Malang have not planned new landfill sites. This is a critical situation because the Benowo Landfill is approaching its final year of operation and Supit Urang Landfill has exceeded its operational period. Despite this, Supit Urang Landfill is still practicing open dumping. Hence, neither of these landfills has met the Waste Law Article 44 obligation which requires the local government to plan for environmentally friendly landfill by May Moreover, these local governments have only 3 years to move from open dumping to another environmentally safe waste disposal method, which could be a very challenging effort. The local governments of Surabaya and Yogyakarta need to estimate the waste volume disposed of first before they can assess the remaining time available for using the current landfill. Moving from environmentally unsustainable to sustainable landfill methods The above-described final disposal site conditions of the selected cities represent the common situation in Indonesia. Based on the data from the Ministry of Environment, there are 179 landfill sites in Indonesia operated by the local governments in 2006 and 60% of them was close to their end-year-period (less than 5 years), but 53% of the related local governments had not decided on their new final disposal sites. Most of them were open dump sites (MoE, 2008). Therefore, insisting on the implementation of sanitary landfill in such inferior conditions is likely to be an improper solution. The capability of local government to operate sanitary landfill is questionable due to high initial expenses and resource sustainability such as finance, technology and human resources. Furthermore, many waste pickers are dependent on landfill for their income by separating and selling the waste from landfill. Pursuing the local government to implement high standards of landfill technology which does not allow the presence of waste pickers in the landfill area can be problematic because hundreds of families will lose their income. This should be avoided by accommodating both situations such that the local governments can minimize the adverse environmental effect of impropriate landfill practices while allowing the waste pickers to separate the waste manageably. Komilis (1999) proposed that waste selection prior to landfilling can reduce the landfill gas (LFG) emission. Therefore, involving the waste pickers in landfill can be an advantage for the landfill operator in reducing the waste volume dumped in landfill and contributing to decreased LFG emission emitted from waste degradation process. There are two possible alternative solutions proposed by the authors. The first is constructing a controlled landfill at a new site and the second is upgrading from the current situation (old dump site) to a controlled landfill. Moreover, the authors present the sanitary landfill alternative for comparison. The first alternative is constructing a new controlled landfill. The alternative can be started after some related requirements have been measured (UNEP, 2005). As the local government of Yogyakarta has a future landfill site and the existing landfill is approaching to the-end-year period (2012), the first alternative can be adapted to this situation. Furthermore, many criteria for the first alternative are fulfilled by Bendo Landfill and only two from 13 parameters used to evaluate the current landfill conditions have not been fulfilled indicating the capability of the local government of Yogyakarta to operate a fully controlled landfill (Table 4). Constructing a controlled landfill requires very large expenditure. However, the capital and operational cost of a controlled landfill are lower than those for a sanitary landfill. The private sector can be involved in closure of an old landfill and construction of a new landfill by recruiting them to manage a LFG project or to develop the old landfill as a CDM project. Calculation of the entire cost should be accurately conducted later by using quantitative methods such as cost benefit analyses to evaluate it precisely. Moreover, the waste pickers need to be managed to optimize the waste separation and reduction in landfill without neglecting their own safety and the security aspect of the landfill operation. Considering the old landfill closure budget and new site availability, by comparison the construction of a sanitary landfill is infeasible because it requires a fully engineered site which in turn requires a very high investment and O&M cost. The second alternative is upgrading the old open dump site. This alternative is appropriate for Benowo Landfill and Supit Urang Landfill due to the unavailability of new landfill sites. Upgrading an old dump site to a controlled landfill demands no closure of the old open dump site and can save the cost. Table 5 shows that both Benowo Landfill and Supit Urang Landfill can meet the criteria for the second alternative as only one parameter has to be resolved. The waste pickers presence should be managed properly and some measures such as levelling and frequently waste compacting are required. Similar to Bendo Landfill, the construction of a sanitary landfill is not feasible for either of these landfills because of the high investment and O&M cost. Nevertheless, cost evaluation should be carried out to get the exact required budget for upgrading an old dump site to a controlled landfill.

9 Meidiana and Gamse 9 Table 4. Factors considering in determining the alternative for Yogyakarta New controlled landfill New sanitary landfill Factor Existing Feasibility Factor Feasibility Drains and canal system Available ˇ Fully equipped with bottom liner, drainage, ground and surface water control, wall barrier, etc. Partial leachate management Available ˇ Fully controlled leachate management Partial gas management Available ˇ Complete gas collection and treatment Limited maintenance of access road Available ˇ Entire development and maintenance of access road Frequently & regularly soil covering Regularly ˇ Daily soil covering Partially waste compacting Available ˇ Waste compaction Fencing Available ˇ Fencing with gate ˇ MSW limitation, partial waste quantity control Basic record on daily basis (waste quantity/separation/treatment, number of trips Managed and controlled waste picking activities. Available ˇ Fully controlled waste type and quantity special treatment for special waste (Household Hazardous Waste) Partially available ˇ Complete record of waste volumes, types, sources and site events. Unavailable ˇ No on site waste picking and trading New site Available ˇ New site ˇ Low to moderate initial cost Partially available ˇ High initial cost, increased operational and maintenance costs Cost for closure-post closure old dump site Partially available ˇ Cost for closure-post closure old dump site ˇ Table 5. Factors considered in determining the alternative for Surabaya and Malang Upgrading old dumpsite New sanitary landfill Factor Existing Feasibility Factor Feasibility Drains and canal system Available, ˇ Fully equipped with bottom liner, drainage, ground and surface water con- trol, wall barrier, etc. Partial leachate management Available ˇ Fully controlled leachate management Partial gas management Available ˇ Complete gas collection and treatment Limited maintenance of access road Available ˇ Entire development and maintenance of access road Frequently & regularly soil covering Limited Once in ˇ Daily soil covering 4 7 months Partially waste compacting Available ˇ Waste compaction Fencing Available ˇ Fencing with gate MSW limitation, partial waste quantity control Basic record on daily basis (waste quantity/separation/treatment, number of trips Managed and controlled waste picking activities. Available ˇ Fully controlled waste type and quantity, special treatment for special waste (household hazardous waste) Partially Available ˇ Complete record of waste volumes, types, sources and site events. Unavailable ˇ No on site waste picking and trading New site Not required New site Low to moderate initial cost Partially available ˇ High initial cost, increased operational and maintenance costs Cost for closure-post closure old dump site Not required Cost for closure-post closure old dump site

10 10 Waste Management & Research 0(0) Conclusions The enactment of the Waste Law No. 18/2008 could be a tool to support the local government in seeking solutions for the bad environmental effects caused by open dump sites in many Indonesian cities. However, the full implementation of the law can not be attained in the short term because it requires comprehensive planning of many aspects including MSWM. Good implementation should be based on strong policy and accompanied by law enforcement, good infrastructure, sustainable finance and technology, capable human resources and community awareness. Fulfilment of only one or two of these aspects can not sustain better MSWM and safe landfill practices. Yet, theses conditions can not commonly be found in many Indonesian cities including Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta. Therefore, the implementation of the Waste Law No. 18/2008 Article 44 should be fulfilled by seeking a compromise between local limitations and the requirements for environmentally sound landfill. Based on the local situation, two alternatives have been proposed. The local government of Yogyakarta can construct a new controlled landfill because the local government has a new site, whereas the local governments of Surabaya and Malang will need to upgrade their old dumping sites into controlled landfills since they do not have new sites to change their old dump practices to better waste disposal methods. The shortage of finance is the main reason for the inferior MSWM in Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta. Therefore, appropriate financial schemes should be implemented to improve the MSWM including action to sustain future controlled landfill. The improvement of the collection fee system based on the PAYT principles can be applied to increase the income from the waste sector. Moreover, the local government can involve the private sector in managing the LFG from the old landfills and in developing them as CDM projects. The private sector participation in constructing and operating the upgraded old landfill in Surabaya and Malang and a new controlled landfill in Yogyakarta will help to sustain the landfill operation. The feasibility study of available alternatives for an appropriate financial scheme to support the MSWM in Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta will be considered in a future study. This is important since the financial aspect is the main influence on the current conditions of MSWM in these cities. Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank the Directorate General of Higher Education, Department of National Education of the Republic of Indonesia for their important contributions to the development of this work. The authors are very grateful to the Municipalities of the Cities of Surabaya, Malang and Yogyakarta in facilitating and supporting the observation activities and providing the related valuable data. References Damanhuri E, Wahyu IM, Ramang R and Padmi T (2009) Evaluation of municipal solid waste flow in the Bandung metropolitan area, Indonesia. Journal of Material Cycles Waste Management 11: Diaz LF, Savage GM and Eggerth LL (1993) Composting and Recycling Municipal Solid Waste. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Lewis Publishers. Cleansing Department (2010) Operational Unit of Solid Waste and Waste Water Profile. Year Indonesia: Cleansing Department of Malang City. Cleansing Department (2010) Institution s Profile. Year Indonesia: Cleansing Department of Surabaya City. Environmental Board (2009) Report on Environmental Status of Yogyakarta. Year Indonesia: Environmental Board of City of Yogyakarta. Environmental Board (2010) Yogyakarta Waste Profile Indonesia: Environmental Board of Yogyakarta City. EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2010) Environmental Terminology and Discovery Service Terminology. terminology/concept_html?term¼controlled landfill Accessed 12 April Komilis DP, Ham RK and Stegmann R (1999) The effect of municipal solid waste pretreatment on landfill behavior: a literature review. Waste Management and Research 17: Meidiana C and Gamse T (2010) Development of waste management practices in Indonesia. European Journal for Scientific Research 40: MoE (Ministry of Environment) (2008a) Indonesian Domestic Solid Waste Statistics Year Jakarta, Indonesia: MoE. MoE (Ministry of Environment) (2008b) Waste Management Act No.18/2008. From MoE Publications: dokumen_sampah/wastemanagementactnumber18year2008.pdf Accessed 20 May MoPW (Ministry of Public Works) (2010) The Directorate General of Spatial Planning Government Regulation No. 26/2008. From MoPW Publications. Penjelasan_PP pdf Accessed 1 August MoPW (Ministry of Public Works) (1994) SNI No Procedures of selecting a landfill site, MoPW, Jakarta, Indonesia. MoSRI (Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure) (2001) Ministerial Decree No. 534/KPTS/M/2001. Guidelines for measurement of Minimum Level of Service of Spatial Planning, Housing and Settlement and Public Works. MoSRI, Jakarta, Indonesia. Pasang H, Moore GA and Sitorus G (2007) Neighborhood waste management: a solution for waste management in Jakarta, Indonesia. Waste Management 27: Statistics Indonesia (2010a) 2010 Indonesia Population Census. dds.bps.go.id/eng/aboutus.php?sp¼1 accessed 30 July Statistics Indonesia (2010b) Percentage of distribution of area and population by island. Accessed 30 July Supriyadi S, Kriwoken LK and Birley I (2000) Solid waste management solutions for Semarang, Indonesia. Waste Management and Research 18: UNEP (United Nation for Environmental Program) (2004) State of Waste Management in South East Asia. UNEP Kusatsu City, Japan: UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics International Environmental Technology Centre. UNEP (United Nation for Environmental Program) (2005) Training Modules: Closing of an Open Dumpsite and Shifting from Open Dumping to Controlled Dumping and to Sanitary Landfilling. Japan: UNEP Kusatsu City. Zurbru gg C (2002) Urban Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries of Asia. How to Cope with the Garbage Crisis. Durban, South Africa: Presented for: Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) Urban Solid Waste Management Review Session.