Managing Municipal Solid Waste Through Acceleration Program in
IndonesiaIndonesia
A Presentation at The International Training Workshop for National Policy Framework on Municipal Waste
Management in Indonesia
Presented by:Maraita Listyasari, ST, MM
National Planning Agency, Bappenas
242 million of Population as of 2009, 49% live in urban areas.242 million of Population as of 2009, 49% live in urban areas.
Typical Urban Solid Waste Management in Indonesia (2007)in Indonesia (2007)
Collected only by 40% household in urban
area
98% of final disposal site are open dumping
Difficult to find available space for TPA
area
3R initiatives have been i l t d b t tIn sufficient LG’s budget
allocation
implemented, but not integrated and still
sporadic
Future Vision
Year 2007:d f l d l bWaste transported to final disposal site= 40% HH in urban areas
Year 2015
A t 80% h h ld i b• Access to 80% household in urban areas;
• Reduction of 20% wastes
• Final Disposal Area revitalization into sanitary landfill system
4
Current Status
Evaluation said that:
Th i lli t
Ways to achieve the target:
Pl i t •There are some mis‐allignment from national to provincial and district level
•Planning system:• Document: Long term, mid
term and short term district level•Musrenbang considered not so effective to run bottom up
term and short term • Level: National, provincial,
districtplanning •Many stakeholders do the same ti b t t di t d
• Mechanism: Musrenbang from village level to ti l l l actions but not coordinated
•There are some opportunities to use many funding resources but
national level•Stakeholders: Government, NGO university donor private use many funding resources but
somehow didn’t work•Monev: not linked with
NGO, university, donor, private, etc•Funding: heavily rely on
5
budgeting mechanismgovernment budget•Monev: LT, MT, ST
Strategies (1)Strategies (1)
• Strengthen coordination among stakeholders;Strengthen coordination among stakeholders; to strength the planning and implementation of the programsof the programs – Among ministries/dinas/projects in national/provincial/district level Pokja AMPLnational/provincial/district level Pokja AMPL(WSES Working Group)
– Among donors Sanitation Donor GroupsAmong donors Sanitation Donor Groups
– Among all stakeholders (governments, NGO, private media universities etc) Jejaring AMPLprivate, media, universities, etc) Jejaring AMPL (WSES Network)
WSES Working Group
STEERING COMMITTEE
HEAD OF POKJAPOKJA AMPL
Division of
AdDivision
f
Division of
Coordi‐Division of Commu‐
Division f
Division of
M itDivisio
fAdvocacy and Policy Dissemi‐nation
of Water Supply
nation and Netorking
nity Empowerment
of Budge‐ting
Monito‐ring and Evalua‐tion
n of Sanita‐tion
working
Strategies (2)Strategies (2)• Prepare the road maph hi hhow to achieve the target• Indentified Sanitation
Air Limbah Persampahan
• Indentified Sanitation Problem::
Wastewater 226 citiesSolid waste 240 cities
63 80
57
87
Solid waste 240 citiesDrainage 100 cities
• Setting the priority and program staging accordingly
19 16
8program staging accordingly• Target 2014:
330 Cities complete CSS160 Ci i l d h
8Drainase
160 Cities already have implemented significant sanitation investment
Jumlah kota dengan permasalahan sanitasi
The ResultsThe Results: Sectoral (APBN) & Decentralized BudgetThe ResultsThe Results: Sectoral (APBN) & Decentralized Budget (DAK) for sanitation have increased significantly.
Strategies (3)• Revitalize planning mechanism (comprehensive; combining top down and bottom up; based on reliable data done by the community and thereliable data; done by the community and the government itself)– Start from advocacy to Provincial Government then– Start from advocacy to Provincial Government, then District Government
– Followed by taking some assessment on sanitation y gcondition as baseline data and set priorities based on degree of riskiness Develop City Sanitation Strategy (CSS) which– Develop City Sanitation Strategy (CSS), which contained vision, mission, policy, program and strategy how to achieve the target not only result b l b l b d f lin better planning but also can be used as portfolio to
get new funding – Implement the CSS by physical and/or non‐physicalImplement the CSS by physical and/or non‐physical investment
PPSP t t (2010 PPSP t t (2010 2014)2014)PPSP targets (2010 PPSP targets (2010 –– 2014)2014)
1Open Deficaton Free (ODF)
(70 millon people 10% offsites)(70 millon people, 10% offsites)
223R practices (20%) &
sanitary landfills (242 sites)
3Reduced inundation
(100 strategic sites, 22.500 Ha)
PPSP: Staging and Targetting the CitiesPPSP: Staging and Targetting the Cities
City Target
PPSP: Staging and Targetting the CitiesPPSP: Staging and Targetting the Cities
StagingCity Target
Responsibility2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
C i d ti CG P i i lCampaign, education, advocacy, and assistance 41 49 62 72 82 (100)
CG, Provincial Government, Donors
Institutional and R l ti D l t 41 49 62 72 82 (100)
CG, Provincial G tRegulation Development 41 49 62 72 82 (100) Government
Formulation of City Sanitation Strategis (CSS) 24 41 49 62 72 82 Local Government
Formulation of Program Memorandum 3 21 35 45 56 65 CG
CG ProvincialImplementation 3 24 59 104 160
CG, Provincial Government, LGs
Monitoring, Assistance, 27 65 108 166 232 307
CG, Provincial o to g, ss sta ce,and Evaluation 27 65 108 166 232 307
CG, o c aGovernment
Cities/District with CSS in 2010
ISSDP 1’st Phase• Banjarmasin
ISSDP 2’nd Phase• Batu
WES UNICEF• Ambon
MSMHP• Yogyakarta
Other Cities•Banda Aceh
PPSP 2010 •41 Implementing Citiesj
• Blitar• Denpasar • Jambi• Payakumbuh • Surakarta
Batu• Bukit Tinggi• Kediri• Padang • Pekalongan • Tegal
Ambon• Jayapura (Dist.)• Jayapura• Makassar
Yogyakarta• Medan• Makassar
ESP USAID• Medan
•Manado•Pekanbaru•Malang•Semarang
p g
g Medan• Malang (Dist.)
Location of PPSP
Districts which are ready to do the investment by 2011
Districts which still preparing CSS in 2011
Sedang Menyusun SSK : Kota/Kabupaten PPSP 2010
1. Aceh Timur (Dist.) 15. Bekasi 28 Brebes (Dist )( )2. Aceh Barat (Dist.)3. Lhokseumawe4. Langsa5 T b S i (Di t )
15. Bekasi16. Cirebon17. Purworejo (Dist.)18. Cilacap (Dist.)
( )
28. Brebes (Dist.)29. Bantul (Dist.)30. Gn Kidul (Dist.)31. Samarinda
5. Toba Samosir (Dist.)6. Tebing Tinggi7. Deli Serdang (Dist.)8. Muara Enim (Dist.)
19. Jepara (Dist.)20. Rembang (Dist.)21. Semarang
22 Kebumen (Dist )
32. Balikpapan33. Purbalingga (Dist.)34. Banjar (Dist.)35. Sanggau (Dist.)( )
9. Palembang10. Prabumulih11. Serang12 Solok
22. Kebumen (Dist.)23. Brebes (Dist.)24. Jombang (Dist.)25. Surabaya
gg ( )36. Singkawang37. Tabanan (Dist.)38. Buleleng (Dist.)49 M t12. Solok
13. Bandung14. Bogor
26. Probolinggo (Dist.)27. Malang 28. Sleman
49. Mataram40. Purworejo (Dist.)41. Tanah Datar (Dist.)
Siap Berkomitmen Melakukan Penyusunan SSK dalam PPSP 2011
1.Kab. Aceh Tenggara2 Kab Aceh Besar
43. Kab. Lombok Timur44 Kab Lombok Utara
22. Kota Tasikmalaya23 Kota Banjar2.Kab. Aceh Besar
3.Kab. Bireun4.Kab. Pidie5.Kab. Aceh Tamiang
44. Kab. Lombok Utara45. Kab. Bima46. Kab. Sumbawa Besar47. Kab. Sumbawa Barat
23. Kota Banjar24. Kab. Banyumas25. Kab. Banjarnegara26. Kab. Klaten
6.Kab. Karo7.Kota Tanjung Balai 8.Kota Binjai9 Kab Pesisir Selatan
48. Kab. Lombok Barat49. Kab. Ketapang50. Kab. Kubu Raya51 Kab Barito Kuala
27. Kab. Sukoharjo28. Kab. Sragen29. Kab. Blora30 Kab Kudus9.Kab. Pesisir Selatan
10.Kab. Sijunjung11.Kab. Pasaman12.Kota Sawahlunto
51. Kab. Barito Kuala52. Kab. Tanah Tumbu53. Kota Banjar Baru54. Kab. Kota Baru
30. Kab. Kudus31. Kota Magelang32. Kab. Blitar33. Kab. Probolinggo
13.Kota Pariaman14.Kab. Agam15.Kota Pagaralam16 Kab Musi Rawas
55. Kab. Pasir56. Kab. Kutai Timur57. Kota Tarakan58 Kota Bontang
34. Kab. Pasuruan35. Kab. Sidoarjo36. Kab. Madiun37 Kab Bojonegoro16.Kab. Musi Rawas
17.Kab. Bangka18.Kab. Pandeglang19.Kota Serang
58. Kota Bontang59. Kab. Berau60. Kab. Penajam Paser Utara61. Kab. Kutai Barat
37. Kab. Bojonegoro38. Kab. Lamongan39. Kota Pasuruan40. Kab. Gresik
20.Kota Depok21.Kota Cimahi
62. Kota Pare‐Pare63. Kota Tangerang Selatan
41. Kab. Gianyar42. Kab. Karangasem
Strategies (4)Strategies (4) • Mobilize alternative of Advocacy Material
funding– Advocacy to parliament ( h i h
Books & Magazines:PERCIK & PERCIK YUNIOR(together with
Provincial/District WSES Working Group)
PERCIK & PERCIK YUNIORIts Not a Private Matter Anymore!g p)
– CSS as basis for LG to get matching programf C t l
Anymore!The Sanitation Business: 100 million Costumers A it Yfrom Central
Government or donor agencies
Await You
E‐Market:– Link up between private and sanitation issues CSR for sanitation
E Market: List of Potential CSR funded programs and activities ( f CSS)CSR for sanitation (excerts from CSS)
The ResultsThe Results: LG's sanitation budgets increased by 300%
APBD = Local Budget
Strategies (5) & (6)Strategies (5) & (6)
• Monitoring and EvaluationMonitoring and Evaluation
– Not only project base, but WSES program
Li k ith b d t h i f– Link up with budget mechanism performance based budgeting
• Knowledge management
– Collecting of modules, best practices and lesson Co ect g o odu es, bes p ac ces a d essolearned from all projects/stakeholders
– Disseminate and offer to other LG’s which areDisseminate and offer to other LG s which are interested in implementing the program/activities
Conclusions and RecommendationsConclusions and Recommendations
• “Its not your business anymore!!”
• Comprehensive planning and implementationComprehensive planning and implementationare keys for target achievement
Thank You Very MuchThank You Very Muchyy
