PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
“WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY IN MALANG CITY”
By:
NOVIYANTI - 116030117011011
BRAWIJAYA UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION - MALANG, 2012
Summary
The development of the world is always followed
by population growth in many parts of the world. So we need development in
every field to supply the needs of the community. The aim of the development is
the effort to meet the basic human needs so that we can improve the quality of
human life. However, the development has an impact on the environmental damage.
One form of environmental degradation is the waste problem. Every day around
the world, the volume of waste is increasing. To solve this problem, we must
rethink again about how we can manage our waste. The government should make the
best policy about waste management to solve this problem.
Keyword: population growth, waste
problem, waste management
Background
An environmental destruction, often happen in cities which are the area
where the population growth is more rapid than villages. The growth of
population will affect to environmental destruction which is a result of
various people activities who use city’s facilities. Therefore, many people’s
activities in cities should depend on environmental preservation principals.
The enhancement of garbage volume is one of environmental destruction
that often happens in cities. Kinds of garbage are various, organic and non
organic. More modern civilization and the height of life standard of people
will increase stocks and kinds of garbage.
Environmental sustainability
is natural and environmental
condition that is guarantee the continuity and improvement of the quality of human life, and become one of
the standards for
healthy living and quality.
It called healthy and quality life, if people's life
are better than before and avoid the disease. Garbage
problem could result in a chain
for environmental pollution, among others: the stench that bothers people around him, speeding and other outbreak
of disease, clogged drains and waterways
resulting flood, and
damage to the comfort and beauty of the city.
Therefore, through the Law no. 18 of 2008 on
Waste Management, the government mandated to manage the upstream level waste
(waste producers such as communities, industrial areas, traditional market /
mall, etc.). Formerly, most forms of waste management held in Indonesia were
centralization, by implementing the system open dumping at the landfill.
However, this law mandates the 3Rs in waste management method that is Reuse,
Reduce, and Recycle waste.
However, until now, the waste management in
Indonesia still has not met expectations. Ministry
of Environment reported that at this time, every day each person in
Indonesia produces 2.5 liters of waste. So
it can be calculated there were
625 million liters of waste per day of the total population of Indonesia[1]. Meanwhile, according to the Director of Housing and Settlements Bappenas, Nugroho, "the
volume of waste in Indonesia about 1 million cubic
meters per day, but only 42% of whom
were transported and
processed properly. So, do not waste transported
each day approximately 348,000 feet or about 300,000 tons a point[2]".
Similarly,
Malang is a city that is predominantly migrants from outside the city of
Malang. Increasing population causes the increasing number of volume of waste
in Malang. It would be a serious problem when it is no longer handled. During these
time, the waste management in
Malang is centralized, the garbage is
transported from the source (household
/ community) are
then extracted and transported
by wagon officers
officers and Sanitation Department (Dinas Kebersihan dan Pertamanan/DKP) to the Final Disposal (Tempat
Pembuangan Akhir/TPA) Supiturang. Big cities in
Indonesia has been widely applied method of 3R
(Reduce / reduce,
reuse / re-use,
Recycle / recycle)
in waste management. However, in Malang, 3R method just does not work
well as the empowerment of
the community waste management in the city of Malang is
low and less.
Until 2007, the amount of
waste in Malang that can be transported to the place of final disposal
(landfill) has increased sharply. Even in 2007, the amount of waste that is not
transported by both private and government is 3,240 cubic meters of the total
volume of waste in that year to reach as much as 259,636 cubic meters.
The role of Malang
Sanitation Department in terms of transporting waste to landfill is very
large. Garbage is transported to the
landfill of Supiturang every day 400 ton. Every year the volume of waste
transported above average 240,000 cubic meters, while the private sector is
still very low on average only reached 20,000 cubic meters/ year. The
centralized through the disposal of waste to landfill did not solve the
problem. It can be seen widely landfill of Supiturang which reached 15 acres, now
it only 25 percent of it to accommodate the waste in Malang.
Based on this
background, the authors want to analyze the waste management policy Malang city
by using the theory of public policy analysis CV Patton & D.S. Sawicki
(1986). The theory is applied to analyze six steps and the author wants to formulate
an alternative policy to address the problem. Here are the six steps used in
analyzing the problem of waste management in Malang city.
1.
Verify, define, detail the problems
As the garbage problem in the big cities in Indonesia, the garbage
problem was also experienced by Malang. The increase in the volume of waste is
not followed by waste management. Formerly, the waste management system
implemented in Malang is open dumping system. Strategy of open dumping is done
by digging vacant land as a garbage dump. If the land is full of garbage, then
it will be closed again, and the government will be looking for vacant land to
be dug. However, the system is not able to answer the problem of waste in
Malang, which the waste is increasing from time to time, so the system was
turned into a Sanitary Landfill in accordance with Law No. 18 of 2008 on Waste
Management.
Waste management is still poor in Malang city is caused by a variety of
fundamental thing. First is the issue of financing. To create a good waste
management can not be separated from the cost.
"Wasto,
Head of the Department of Hygiene and Malang, said the operational costs of
waste management project was immense. Every ton of waste managed in need of
funds Rp75,000 per day, while the volume of waste Malang city, dumped into
landfill Supiturang reach 400 tons per day. Thus, the government needs funds
Rp30 million per day for waste management. "[3]
Based on the
above, it is clear that the governments of Malang city is not have much money
to manage the waste into something useful (recycled or processed as an energy
source).
Second, the government needs to provide trash cans according to its kind
at various public places. Providing trash cans, trucks, wheelie
bins were already implemented but
the numbers are still very small. Third, the availability of the trash can is
not accompanied by public awareness in sorting / trash according to its kind.
If we look at the trash that consists of organic and inorganic waste, should it
according to its kind. But in fact, the contents of the trash can are often
incompatible with the kind that had become mixed waste. This shows that waste
management based on community empowerment and awareness is still very low.
Fourth, the increasing volume of garbage and the buildup of trash due to
the lack of adequate technology to process waste into something useful as in
developed countries. In developed countries, the buildup of trash can be
overcome with good waste management that is turning waste into electrical
energy and recycle so that the cost of production of goods can be minimized by
the waste recycling system. To provide these advanced technologies, it requires
greater funding, but the benefits to be gained too great.
Fifth, the provision of technology as a means of waste management, to be
followed by an increase in the quality of human resources, in this case is the
janitor. The problem is the lack of a janitor and a cadre of environmental
experts in the field. The janitor and the cadres of the environment should be
provided with training and knowledge on how to manage waste properly so there
is no accumulation of waste which could adversely impact the environment and
public health. When officers and cadres of the environment have fostered a
person who is an expert in the field, then they can give socialization and
training people how to manage waste at the upstream / producer (household
waste), recycle waste into useful, and how to sort waste be resold.
As long as this happens, if the waste comes from households / public
places are separated correctly by the community in accordance with the trash
cans provided, then by officers garbage mixed into one another to be brought to
an TPA (The Final processing). Based on this, it is showing that the quality of
human (janitors) is still low.
2.
Establish evaluation criteria
To solve the problem of waste management in Indonesia especially in
Malang, it is making the need for a variety of evaluation that can be viewed
from all sides.
- a. Net Benefit
Net benefit is total benefit
minus total cost.
It is
a systematic process for calculating and comparing benefits and costs of a
project, decision or government
policy. The
benefit of waste management can prosper a range of stakeholder (government,
society, private sector). The net benefit is the benefit earned by the
government and society of the agreement with the investor (the private sector).
Waste management is not only the duty and responsibility of government, but
also society and private sector.
- b. Effectiveness
Effectiveness
is the degree to
which objectives are
achieved and the extent to which targeted problems are
solved. Effectiveness is determined without reference to costs. Effectiveness
of waste management would be achieved if the waste management policy made by
the government to answer the problems of garbage, which have an impact on
environmental degradation, and a decrease in public health. If the garbage in
Malang city has been able to run well, then the environment will be maintained
and public health is assured. So it can be said that the effectiveness of waste
management has been reached.
- c. Efficiency
Efficiency in
general describes the extent to which time or effort is well used for the
intended task or purpose. efficiency is a relationship between ends and means. When we
call a situation inefficient, we are claiming that we could achieve the desired
ends with less means, or that the means employed could produce more of the ends
desired. The efficiency
of the policy will be achieved when all available resources (facilities,
infrastructure, funding, time, technology), can be maximized so that the waste
management problems can be overcome and achieve the expected goals.
- d. Cost
A
cost is
the value of money
that has been used up to produce something, and hence is not available for use
anymore. In business,
the cost may be one of acquisition, in which case the amount of money expended
to acquire it is counted as cost.
So, cost is all the sacrifices that need to be made to a production process,
which is expressed in units of money according to the prevailing market price,
either it already happened or will happen, in order to obtain goods or
services. Costs required to address the issue of waste should be affordable.
Therefore, it needs partnership of community and private sector in financing
waste management.
- e. Administrative
Administrative
is pertaining to activities
related to an organization's
or business'
administration
and management. Administrative procedures relating to waste
management in Malang city is straightforward. The procedure should be simple so
that community participation in waste management is increasing. If the
administrative is simple, it will facilitate the processing of waste, which
started by the community, the janitor, to the processing by using technology.
3.
Identify alternative policies
The alternative
policies to deal with garbage problem in Malang are as follows.
- 1. Sanitary Landfill
To overcome the problem of waste management,
landfills must implement methods 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycling), by applying
technology Sanitary Landfill. It integrates an integrated waste management.
Waste that is recycled, and used the compost, and the rest is dumped into waste
destruction. Sanitary Landfill is a high tech. Sanitary landfills are equipped
with a system that makes it easy to control waste, such as leachate (waste water is extracted from the waste) so it does not
contaminate groundwater; soil cover or overburden and also processing the
methane gas extracted out of the trash can be fired electricity. While most of
the landfill that we have just as landfills that are not managed correctly or
just simply burned or stacked up to form a mountain of trash.
Sanitary Landfill
- 2. Decentralized waste management, involving the private sector
In Kitakyushu (Japan), garbage collection
performed by the government and the contractor. They even arranged the
separation and collection of waste of community. For example, household waste
is collected every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. Glass bottles and
cans are collected every Wednesday of the first, second and fifth, while
plastic bottles are collected every Wednesday of third and fourth. Carton milk
collected in the supermarket and community center, while the fluorescent lights
in the store electrical equipment[4].
In addition, waste management in Kitakyushu
using Takakura basket. It aims to
reduce the volume of waste and recycle garbage. The results will then be
utilized recycled into compost and other things that benefit the community. By
using this method, Kitakyushu City managed to suppress the production of waste
by 20 percent each year. In fact, of the approximately one million people
Kitakyushu produce waste as much as 400 thousand tons per year.[5]
- 3. Waste management into electrical energy
In Monterey (Meksiko), Simeprodeso institution,
successfully managing the waste until it can produce electricity to illuminate
the third street lighting. With an investment of 11 million U.S. dollars, the
profits earned by the government could reach two million dollars per year.[6]
Countries have system in waste incineration technology with digital control
system in a closed location. With combustion, the heat gained to drive a
turbine and generating electricity. Incinerator is only consumes 20% of the
electrical energy generated, and the remaining 80% sold. But before trash is
separated by flammable or not, according to the trash can provided.
- 4. Garbage bank
Garbage bank is a form of cooperation between
three sectors (society, private sector, government). The concept of garbage
bank is receiving the waste collected which will then be replaced in the form
of money to the community in real terms. But society will receive a savings
book containing the recorded amount of money, which later can be used for
various purposes, for example: pay the garbage workers, pay his electricity,
pay school fees (application of waste bank at school), and others. The
amount of waste received by the garbage bank and the money received by the
community is clearly different. Counting the money will be based on the type
and amount of waste. Saving society in the form of waste that is classified
according to its kind. Then the waste will be processed and sold according to
its kind by the garbage bank and private sector.
Garbage Bank
Source: http://greenstudentjournalists.blogspot.com/2011/12/save-earth-bank-sampah-untuk-ibu-rumah.html
4.
Evaluate alternative policies
- a. Sanitary Landfill
·
Net Benefit
Sanitary landfills have the
potential to be utilized lands that were previously inaccessible due to the
buildup of waste. So that the land can be used again and add economic value. In
addition, this system also does not contaminate ground water, the ground water
hygiene is maintained. The government can also utilize electrical energy
generated from methane gas from garbage. Utilization of electrical energy can
reduce the burden of supplying electricity demand has been the responsibility
of the State Electricity Company (PLN).
·
Effectiveness
When viewed from the waste
processing by using this system, the system is able to solve the problem of
waste management because it can meet the expectations and objectives of waste
management is to preserve the environment and ensure public health.
·
Efficiency
This system is efficient because
the facilities in a single system (sanitary landfill) can provide many
benefits. Facilities and infrastructure in one area can be optimized in such a
way to overcome the problem of waste. However, this system requires
sophisticated technology, human resources quality, high cost. And also, this
system does not require public participation in the selection of garbage.
·
Cost
Investment Sanitary Landfill
requires funding of about Rp 100-200 million per ton. While operational cost is
Rp 100-300 thousand per ton per day. The technology does not yet exist in
Indonesia, due to the attention the problem of garbage has not been a
government priority.
·
Administrative
The administration, waste management
is not complicated, of any remaining processes not previously used again, it
will be processed back to the other benefits. This system has a sewage
treatment so it does not contaminate ground water, methane gas treatment
(litter decomposition) can be burned and converted into electrical energy.
- b. Decentralized waste management, involving the private sector
·
Net
Benefit
Appropriate waste collection day
will facilitate the task of the janitor, the waste segregation. Then, the waste
is sold to the private sector. Funds from the sale of waste that will assist
the government in providing funds to provide Takakura baskets in public places
and to give subsidies to the community for purchase Takakura basket. The
benefits of Takakura baskets will also reduce waste from households, and
produce compost that can be used in private. Waste that can be recycled will
benefit investors in lower production costs such as glass bottles or plastic
bottles.
·
Effectiveness
Alternative policy is not very
effective, because it reduces the volume of waste at the household level. And
it only makes use of the rubbish that can be recycled.
·
Efficiency
When viewed in terms of efficiency,
this alternative can be said to be efficient because it involves human
resources are the janitors when they take out the trash by day, and engage
communities to reduce household waste using the Takakura basket. Technology
required the government is also quite simple. Only the private sector need to
recycle waste technologically obtained to minimize production costs.
·
Cost
The government does not need a lot
of money by working with the private sector.
·
Administrative
The administrative quite organized
because of the determination of the day of the garbage collection by the
government.
- c. Waste management into electrical energy
The
result of research by a team of UMM (Malang) with the Netherlands sometime ago,
mentioned that the potential for methane as that is managed through landfill
Supiturang in Malang, an average of
118.3 million cubic meters per year for an
area of 5 hectares. Besides producing methane gas, landfill Supiturang
also capable of generating electricity at least 5.6 million Kwh per year of the
volume of waste disposed to landfill average 700 to 800 cubic meters per day
from 75 disposals in the area.
·
Net
Benefit
Waste collected and processed together and
burned in a furnace that can drive turbines and generate electrical energy. The
electricity energy generated from waste management would relieve the government
budget in the supply of electricity from State Electricity Company.
·
Effectiveness
Alternative policy has not been
effective because it only answers the problem of garbage that can be burned to
be used as electrical energy. The possibility can not be burned waste such as
cans or glass, it can not be optimized for recycling.
·
Efficiency
Incineration technologies require
sophisticated technology with substantial funds. In addition, this alternative
does not involve the public to care and aware of the importance of waste
segregation and management. This alternative also does not need a lot of
workers, whereas the population of Malang is enough.
·
Cost
Cost involved is huge, starting
from providing trash cans in various places according to their kinds, and the
provision of advanced technologies so that policies can be implemented.
·
Administrative
Administration required is simple enough to
implement this policy.
- d. Garbage bank
·
Net
Benefit
People have benefit from the waste collection
and submit it to the garbage bank. Community gets money from the waste/trash.
Government also get benefit, they do not bother to sort garbage from each
household. They just collect the waste obtained from the public and then sold
to a private sector or the waste recycling by the government.
·
Effectiveness
This policy is also not effective
because it only solves the problem of waste that can be recycled. Waste which can
not be recycled and biodegradable still piled up in landfill Supiturang.
·
Efficiency
Alternative policy is quite
efficient because it can empower / utilize existing resources. To run this
alternative, the existing human resources have been given training so that they
can provide to the community socializing. Community empowerment and
participation are key to the implementation of this policy alternative.
Facilities, infrastructure and technology used are simple, by utilizing waste
that can be recycled into economically valuable craft as articulated by the environment
cadres to society.
·
Cost
This policy does not need a lot of
money as long as the government can work together with private sector through
the exchange of waste recycled by providing funding for public savings. In
addition, the costs involved can also be derived from the sale of handicrafts
from waste to the private sector / market.
·
Administrative
Government needs to disseminate to the society
about the existence of the garbage bank so the policy will go smoothly.
5.
Display and select among alternative policies
|
Alternative
Policies
Detail Problem
|
Sanitary
landfill
|
Decentralized
waste management
|
Waste into electrical energy
|
Garbage
Bank
|
|
Fund
(High
cost)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
√
|
|
Infrastructure
|
√
|
-
|
-
|
√
|
|
Community
Empowerment
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
High
Technology
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
|
Good
Quality of Human Resources
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Information:
√ = solve the problem
-
= not
solve the problem
Based on the table above, there are two alternative policies that can be
implemented in Malang, namely:
a. Sanitary Landfill
Alternative policy requires sophisticated
technology, good quality of human resources, and great cost. In addition, this
system does not require public participation in the selection of garbage. So
the alternative policy has not been able to address the basic problems of
garbage in Malang city. However, if the sanitary landfill is applied, it does
not only solve the problem of waste management but also a positive impact and
bring many benefits to Malang city.
b. Garbage bank
This policy is quite simple and has been
running for 1 year in Malang city. This policy does not require large cost,
technologically sophisticated, and diverse infrastructure. This policy is more
emphasis on empowerment and participation for the selection of waste to be used
as crafts, or waste can be deposited into money in exchange it to the garbage
bank. The quality of human resources can also be improved through training
before they actually go into the community, so that they are able to provide
socialization and knowledge of how to make trash into something useful.
However, this policy has not been able to reduce a lot of waste that builds up
in landfill Supiturang. The rubbish that can not be recycled and used as a
hand-crafted, eventually accumulate also at the landfill.
6.
Monitor policies outcomes
Based on the
five steps that have been outlined in a coherent, the authors decided to modify
the existing policy alternative. As we saw earlier, the paradigm of open
dumping waste turned into sanitary landfills. But in practice, sanitary
landfill is still quite difficult to implement, given that the government needs
substantial funds and sophisticated technology. Therefore, garbage bank policy should
be applied while preparing for cooperation with foreign investors to realize a
sanitary landfill. Combination sanitary landfills and garbage bank is an
excellent combination of alternative and ideal to apply.
Garbage bank is
able to empower people and to improve the welfare of society (in this case is
to increase the income of the people), by saving waste and processing waste
into handicrafts. Garbage, which can not be used craft, can be sold to the
private sector / market through garbage bank. Residual waste can still be used,
using methane gas generated by the decomposition of waste through sanitary
landfill technology. Methane gas is utilized as fuel to drive turbines and
generate electricity for Malang city. This will bring a lot of benefits of each
layer.
The agreement between
the government and the investor must be clear from the outset of the net profit
to be gained, in order not to prejudice any party. Moreover, as we know, in
general, foreign investors, who invested in Indonesia, have many advantages
over government and society, and they also influence decision-making (invisible
hand). Community participation in the application of a combination of the two
alternative policies is very important as a supervisor and as the executor of
this policy.
Recommendation
Actually, the root of waste problem in Malang is waste management. Good
waste management can solve the waste problem. Based on the six-step analysis of
the policy on the waste problem in Malang, the author formulates some
suggestions that hopefully will be able to refine the existing alternative
policy, namely:
1. Improving internal sector
Improving internal sector include
the quality of human resources and infrastructure. Quality of human resources
is visible from experts working in the field, and they were able to push and
provide counseling for people to manage waste properly. Improving the quality
of human resources should be followed by the development of infrastructure to
promote the smooth operation of waste management.
2. Improving the community empowerment
Public participation plays an
important role to improve the waste management policy in Malang, because the
population in Malang city continues to grow and it is impact on increasing the
volume of waste. Thus, it requires the empowerment of communities in the
process waste as part of waste management.
3. Build a network with the private sector
Build a network with the private sector to
assist the government in the provision of funds and advanced technology through
investment. The availability of sufficient funds and advanced technology can
assist the government in the implementation of sanitary landfills and it can
overcome the problem of garbage in Malang. However, the agreement between the
government and the investor must be clear at the beginning, ie, the net
benefits to be gained, so it does not harm any party.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Hendrawan, Parliza. April
15th 2012. Indonesia Hasilkan
625 Juta Liter Sampah Sehari. Source: http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2012/04/15/063397147/Indonesia-Hasilkan-625-Juta-Liter-Sampah-Sehari
[2] Suara Pembaharuan. June
26th 2012. Setahun Volume
Sampah di Indonesia Setara Dengan 122 Gelora Bung Karno. Source: http://www.suarapembaruan.com/nasional/setahun-volume-sampah-di-indonesia-setara-dengan-122-gelora-bung-karno/21707
[3] Anam, Choirul. November 6th
2011. Pemkot Malang Tawarkan TPA
Supiturang ke Swasta. Source from http://www.bisnis.com/articles/pemkot-malang-tawarkan-tpa-supiturang-ke-swasta
[4] Ivvaty , Susi. Mei 18th
2005. Belajar dari Luar Negeri, Mestinya Sampah
Jabodetabek Dikelola Badan Khusus. Source:
[5] Berita Jakarta. January
26th 2010. Tangani Sampah,
Jakpus Jajaki Kerjasama dengan Kitakyushu. Source: http://www.beritajakarta.com/2008/id/berita_detail.asp?nNewsId=37234
[6]. Kukuh Prasetyo Pangudi Utomo. October 27th
2008. Sampah. Source: http://kukuhprasetyopangudiutomo.blogspot.com/2008/10/sampah.html
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar