final full paper tahir - rev · akino tahir, sachihiko harashina ... the research resulted in...

11
Proceedings of 2011 World Congress of International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), October 17-20, 2011, EXCO Daegu, Korea

Upload: vandung

Post on 19-Jul-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Proceedings of 2011 World Congress of International Solid Waste

Association (ISWA), October 17-20, 2011, EXCO Daegu, Korea

839

Community Involvement in Solid Waste Management in Indonesia

Akino Tahir, Sachihiko Harashina, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

Mitsuo Yoshida, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan

CONTACT Akino Tahir

Harashina Lab. Department of Environmental Science and Technology Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and Engineering 4259-G5-9 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama city, Kanagawa 226-8502, Japan Tel: 81-45-924-5550 Fax: 81-45-924-5551 E-mail: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent approach in waste management started to shift to a more integrated system, putting equal attention to management at source as at final disposal. 3R policy is becoming popular, especially in developing countries that are facing difficulties in affording high-cost waste processing technology. Accordingly, it requires the shift in roles of waste management actors. In Indonesia, the shift is reflected in the new Waste Law in 2008 that places more emphasis on the role of general citizen. The Law and supporting regulations translate to government programs that encourage citizens to organize community-based management for their waste, in addition to compliance to the waste rules and regulation. Many neighborhood improvement programs in Indonesia centered at community-based management. Such reflects a human development paradigm that is more people-centered, participatory, empowering, and sustainable; placing emphasis on local autonomy in the decision-making, self-reliance, direct participation, and social learning. This research investigates how the paradigm is reflected in waste management sector in Indonesia. Using document analysis and case studies in Jakarta and Surabaya, several issues identified as potentially having influence in the performance of community-based management. As the shift of emphasis towards greater participation is rather recent in the waste management sector, there is a need to seek or improve ways to enhance participation of general public in the sector. INTRODUCTION Human development paradigm started as a critic to other development approaches that assumed automatic linkage between economic growth and human advance. In the concept of human development, the linkage is established through deliberate policy making by all actors. Its three main components: capability, process freedom, and justice relate closely with capability approach introduced by Amartya Sen in the 1980s (Alkire, 2010). Capability is seen as the true

840

freedom or ability to achieve or enjoy something that people value. Process freedom relates to empowerment and democratic practice, where people are enabled to have choice and participate in the process that affect their lives. Justice relates to constraints that encourage priority setting to be based on plural principles, including poverty reduction, equity, efficiency, participation, sustainability and support for human rights. In short, human development is “a process of enlarging people’s choices and building human capabilities (the range of things people can be and do), enabling them to live a long and healthy life, have access to knowledge, have a decent standard of living and participate in the life of their community and the decisions that affect their lives” (Alkire, 2010). Human development serves as the end goal, while production growth and wealth are the tools to achieve it. The Long-term Development Plan in the 1973-1978 Guideline for National Development of Indonesia stated that the core of national development is human development, and empowerment is one of its strategies. Kampung Improvement Program, a national urban slum upgrading project to provide a basic level of service and improve neighborhood physical infrastructure introduced in 1969, was the first development project based on empowerment, followed by similar programs such as Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development Project (1980s), Kecamatan Development Program (late 1990s), and National Community Empowerment Program (2000s). Empowerment is considered as a way to reduce the gap in society resulted from unequal capability and opportunity in development process, by establishing and allowing the often marginalized people to exercise their capability (Kartasasmita, 1997). Empowerment is ‘the process of enhancing the real possibility that an individual or a group can make and express choices, and transform the choices to desired actions and outcomes’ (Helling et al., 2005). In this regard, empowerment is a manifestation of human development paradigm. Empowerment in Indonesia encloses understanding of community development and community-based development (Kartasasmita, 1997). Christensen (1989) suggested that community development is about improvement (social transformation), growth (economic prosperity) and change (social change). In practice, community development can be found in self-help activities and external assistance to support them. In self-help activities, people learn how to handle their own problem, explore alternatives and organize actions. Whereas, external assistance becomes developmental if it is based on shared decision by community, not when external agency decides value, action, or how people should behave, then provides staff, equipment, programs. Mansuri and Rao (2004)’s view that community-based development is a key mechanism to channel development assistance somewhat reflects external assistance in developmental framework. Community-based development actively includes beneficiaries in the design, management, and decision-making. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT In 1980s, it was realized that the public sector in developing countries faced various difficulties in providing the necessary waste service. Private sector participation through Public-Private Partnership (PPP) became increasingly popular as an alternative for more effective and efficient services (Coad, 2005). As it focuses on waste processing, collection and transportation, PPP requires large investment (Rathi, 2005), making it affordable only by the more privileged class. On the other side, community in poor areas demonstrated that they can take a more active role in dealing with waste problems in their neighborhood (Furedy, 1992; Van de Klundert & Lardinois, 1995). This leads to a change in viewing waste responsibilities, where community became an active player in waste management.

841

The most common form of community participation in waste management is self-help activities for neighborhood clean-up and waste collection and transportation to nearby disposal site (Doan, 1998). Other forms include contribution of cash and labor, consultation, changes in behavior, involvement in administration, management or decision making (Moningka, 2000). Dahiya (2003) looked at participation as a part of community-driven development framework, where control of decisions and resources is given to community groups. The term ‘community-based waste management’ is used by JICA (2005), who observed that almost all activities are conducted or based at community level. The varied ways in understanding participation in waste management basically follows categorization by Muller et al. (2002), where participation either is an instrument or an objective of the waste management activities. The former considers participation as a means to achieve general improvement in waste management, while the latter views participation as an end goal and waste-related activity is one way to attract participation. Community-based Waste Management in Indonesia Community involvement in Indonesia started with the introduction of community primary collection (Copricol) in mid 1980s, where community is responsible for waste collection and transportation from house to waste collection point, while government from waste collection point to final disposal. In 1990s, waste-related activities were initiated by different organizations that can be generally grouped into 1) self-help activities by local community, 2) government pilot project, or 3) programs of non-governmental organization to encourage self-help activities at neighborhood level (Ministry of Public Works, 2007; Wirjoatmodjo and Assegaf, 2004; Mulyana et al., 2007). However, since such activities occurred at small-scale and sporadically located in various areas, they had little impact to the overall waste management. The limited disposal facilities created conflict in major cities in 2000s, forcing local and national governments to reconsider their approach to waste management, including in viewing community participation. Small-scale community activities provided a useful lesson as it can reduce waste volume going to disposal sites. The goal of community participation was then directed towards reducing the volume of waste going to disposal sites. 3R-based Waste Law 2008 encourages community-based waste management with waste reduction as its main goal. Community-based waste management is an integrated approach in waste management that is based on community needs, planned, executed, controlled and evaluated by or with community members (Ministry of Public Works, 2010). The main actor is community, while local government and other organizations act as motivator and facilitator. Motivator encourages community to implement waste management at neighborhood level, while facilitator facilitates the community to achieve the waste management goal. The core lies in directing community capability to solve waste problem themselves. Therefore, the approach is based on empowerment concept, stressing on the availability of opportunity to participate and on community capabilities. IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY-BASED WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA In recent years, several cities started to implement or support initiatives that encourage active participation from community. This section describes efforts in two largest cities in the country, Surabaya and Jakarta, and the result of community-based waste management in the cities. Community-based Waste Management in Surabaya Surabaya is one of the advanced cities in Indonesia in environmental protection, with long history in community empowerment programs. The city received several Adipura Award, the prestigious national environmental award, 1990s, as well as international recognition, such as Honor City Programme by UNCED (1992) and the UNEP Award (1990). Copricol implementation in mid-1980s contributed to city cleanliness, with the increase in waste collection

842

rate from below 50% (mid 1980s) to about 65% (2007). In 1994-2001 however, city leadership was ineffective and the environmental state deteriorated. The only final disposal site reached maximum capacity in 2001 and was forced to close by community. Waste was seen piled in city corners for days, leading to a no-confidence motion to the then- mayor in 2002. The new mayor decided to prioritize waste management and initiate a city-to-city cooperation with Kitakyushu, Japan, to examine the problem. A research showed that households are the main generator of municipal waste, and organic waste accounted for 72% of the total waste (Silas, 2002). In 2002-2004, a pilot project in Rungkut Lor was established to find the appropriate technology for processing organic waste at neighborhood level. The research resulted in Takakura composting method used widely now (Maeda, 2009). At the same time, several non-governmental organizations started community-based projects. One of them is a project from Unilever Peduli Foundation (UPF), a CSR subsidiary of Unilever Indonesia. UPF assisted community in Jambangan Sub-district to start an integrated community-based waste management. In 2005, UPF and local government partnered with a media company and an NGO to widely implement community-based waste management by combining the models established in Rungkut Lor, Jambangan, and other self-help activities (Figure 1). In its later development, community developed the model to include wastewater management, cooperatives, and eco-tourism where community hosts people who want to learn from their experience and provides them with hands-on experience related to waste management activities.

Figure 1. Integrated community-based waste management model introduced in the GC Program The Program, the Green and Clean Program (GC Program), provides opportunity for community to apply in an environmental competition. In the process, participants will be assisted to start waste management activities and to establish a system to facilitate its implementation. Community cadres and facilitators will bridge the community needs with external resources made available under the GC Program structure, such as access to informal recyclers network, and to technical knowledge such as composting or recycling, or non-technical knowledge, such as business management, proposal making, presentation skills, accounting skills, etc. Related to policy, the Mid-term Local Development Plan 2006-2010 includes a general policy on waste management, with reducing waste at source as one of the priorities. Community outreach campaign, incentive through competition and formal recognition, and collaboration with private and third sectors are implemented in the GC Program. As of 2008, the GC Program received full funding from local government budget. Budget allocation to support community participation in waste management is around 148,700 USD from 11.1 million USD in waste management

Household Cadre Facilitator Community groups

Neighborhood clean up

Green plantation

Waste segregation

Composting

Recycling

Residual Eco-tourism

Home-fertilizer Biopore holes

Waste Bank Recycling industry

Wastewater management

CBWM cooperative

Household Communal

Household Communal

Communal Col & Trans

843

budget, which is 4% of total city budget. 3 years after the GC Program started, the volume of waste going to final disposal site in Surabaya decreased 1,600 ton/day (2006) to 1,399 ton/day (2008). Community-based Waste Management in Jakarta Jakarta, despite proper problem identification, infrastructure and organizational planning, and financial support from international donor agencies, is also facing problems in waste management like Surabaya. In 1987, Jakarta adopted a Waste Management Plan that was focusing more on collection, transportation, and disposal infrastructures. Copricol was implemented for household waste, while private sectors were involved for secondary waste collection and transportation in other location and to manage disposal facilities. 2 transfer stations were planned in Central and South Jakarta, with 13 medium transfer stations in North, West, and East Jakarta. Final disposal sites were planned in East (Bantar Gebang) and West Jakarta (Tangerang). However, only one transfer station, two medium transfer stations, and one disposal site were constructed. Financial limitation and conflict with local communities for facility siting hampers the plan realization until now. Waste crisis occurred in 2001, as the available infrastructure could not keep up with the growing waste volume in the capitol city. Community-based waste management initiatives in Jakarta had been started by several communities in 1990s. The first successful initiative was noted in 1996 in Banjarsari, South Jakarta, under a UNESCO project. Banjarsari implemented an integrated waste management initiative consisted of waste segregation, composting, recycling, collection and transportation, resulted in more than 50% waste reduction and a transformed area to a green and clean neighborhood (Wirjoatmodjo and Assegaf, 2004). Other initiatives were found in Rawasari and RW 03 Rawajati with similar results (Ministry of Public Works, 2007). However, such activities received little notice, even from the local government whose support for community participation was limited to awareness campaign and training only without any follow-up program. In 2006, UPF decided to expand their CSR activity to Jakarta considering the positive result in Surabaya in the GC Program. The GC Program in Jakarta started with two pilot projects in Mampang Prapatan and Cempaka Putih. Because the integrated model has been developed in Surabaya, the pilot projects in Jakarta were aimed to adjust the model implementation in Jakarta. In 3 months period, the pilot projects produced positive results. As in Surabaya, UPF established partnership with local government in Jakarta, media companies, and NGO to start the GC Program. The GC Program in Jakarta also includes an environmental competition and assistance to participants to initiate an integrated community-based waste management and establish a facilitation system to support its implementation. Related to policy, Mid-term Local Development Plan 2007-2012 mentioned about community and private sector involvement through 3R projects at RW level. 3R projects include community outreach campaign and support to community-based waste management program, including the GC Program. Unlike Surabaya, funding for the GC Program in Jakarta is not fully provided by local government. Waste management budget is minimal, only about 0.03% from total 1.7 Billion USD in government budget (2009). Budget allocation to support community participation is smaller than Surabaya, only about 46,400 USD. Volume of waste going to final disposal increased steadily, from 26,444 m3/day (2006) to 29,217 m3/day (2008), although decreased in 2009 to 28,286 m3/day. General Results of Community-based Waste Management in Surabaya and Jakarta Program GC is the largest community-based waste management programs in both cities. In 2009, about 30% communities in all 163 sub-districts in Surabaya joined the competition and

844

initiated community-based waste management activities. Program GC in Jakarta has reached 18.3% communities in 164 sub-districts from total 267 sub-districts. In addition, communities in Surabaya established 420 facilitators and more than 30,000 environmental cadres, providing assistance to 37.4% from total 768,932 households. Jakarta has 492 facilitators and more than 50,000 environmental cadres that provide assistance to about 21.8% from total 2.2 million households. This achievement exceeds the results of any community-based waste management initiatives established in Jakarta in previous years. The main strategies in the GC Program are multi-stakeholder partnership, integrated community-based waste management model, the facilitation system (facilitator and cadre), and environmental competition. These strategies are not new in encouraging community participation in waste management. While previous initiatives did not combine the strategies in one program, the GC Program integrates them to support one another. Community-based waste management is approached in various ways according to perspectives and roles of different actors (Table 1) Table 1. Role of actors involved in the GC Program

Actors RolesHousehold Implementing waste-related activities

Cadre Implementing CBWM at communal level, assisting facilitators (in monitoring etc)

Facilitator Community organizing, Bridging information, Monitoring & Evaluation, community representatives to the program

Community organizations Community management functions: planning, organizing, leading and controlling NGO Trainings to community (technical, management, financial, community organizing) UPF Program coordinator, program funding

Gov. Agencies Funding, Campaign, Technical training, Encouraging participation of various government agencies

Media Media coverage, campaign, information dissemination, in-kinds Other partners In-kinds, donation (cash award, facilities)

Waste pickers, supermarket Trading products (in formal & informal markets) In general, participants of the GC Program experienced a change in the physical condition of their neighborhood and decrease of waste volume going to disposal sites (See Figure 2 for example). In Surabaya for example, communities in Jambangan Sub-District reduced their waste volume by as much as 80% (Kamil and Trihadiningrum, 2006), while in RW 10 Gundih, waste volume is reduced from 1.7 L/day/capita to 0.27 L/day/capita in 3 years implementation. Moreover, the winning communities were entitled to develop their local innovation, leading to the development of thematic village’ based on one village one product concept in Surabaya.

845

Figure 2. Neighborhood condition of RW 02 Pasar Minggu, before (left) and after (right) the community participates in the GC Program in Jakarta. The community-based waste management under the GC Program is illustrated by examples of two participating communities as follows:: • RW 03 Sidosermo is located in middle-income residential complex in Surabaya. Total area is

13.6 Ha, with 1,800 inhabitants or 448 households. The community started CBWM by participating in the GC competition in 2008, and continued to join the competition in 2009 and 2010, although never won. Under the program, the community joined district-level training on waste management and community organizing. After establishing cadres and facilitators, participating households segregated waste at their homes. Bio-degradable waste was stored at composter bin, while recyclables were collected by cadres, who sorted and sold the recyclables to waste pickers. Compost was used as home-fertilizer or for communal garden, while income from selling recyclables was shared between households and community. The activity resulted in almost 85% reduction of waste disposed at nearby disposal site (Astari, 2010). A separate organizational structure from existing neighborhood association (RT/RW) for managing CBWM was established. All communication took place in informal forums or in RT/RW meetings. Funding was obtained from household monthly fee and trading the recyclables to waste pickers, although the monthly amount is fluctuating. The community provided most facilities, as assistance from district government is very limited.

• RW 07 Lenteng Agung is located in lower-income neighborhood in Jakarta. Total area is

19.5 Ha, with 4,946 inhabitants or 1,251 households. The community started CBWM by participating in the GC competition in 2006 to 2010, although never won. Similar to RW 03 Sidosermo, the community participated in training on waste management and community organizing, established cadre and facilitator, implemented waste segregation, composting, recycling, and collection and transportation. The volume of waste reduction is also similar to RW 03 Sidosermo. The community did not establish a separate organizational structure to manage their CBWM activity, because the RT/RW was considered enough. Regarding facilities, the community received composter bins from UPF in the beginning, but assistance from sub-district and district government was limited.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN COMMUNITY-BASED WASTE MANAGEMENT In waste management, limitation of service provided by the government is not yet optimal in improving the sanitary condition in neighborhood areas, that active participation from community becomes one of the alternatives to provide the necessary service. What community needed is an opportunity to participate and capability to make meaningful choices and act on them.

Community involvement previously encouraged in waste collection and transportation, in addition to encouragement to segregate waste. Opportunity for active participation is only available on organizational level, since the mandate to implement activities such as hiring workers, collect and manage fee, and monitoring is given to neighborhood association (RT/RW). Households participate passively by paying fee to RT/RW. Households do not see the benefit of active participation (waste segregation, etc) since management of waste at secondary level itself is not segregated according to waste types. Such participation structure is vulnerable, because the opportunity to develop capability is available only to a few chosen people in the neighborhood association (the elites).

846

Community-based program can open the space in which common people (the non-elites) can actively participate, by giving control to a broader range of individuals (Fritzen, 2007). In the GC Program, such space was established through encouraging community members to be cadres or facilitators, whose function is to bridge the interaction and communication between households, community groups, and groups outside the community. This function encourages a more constructive role for cadres and facilitators, who may be a part of the elites in neighborhood association, because they can act in the broader impacts of the communities. At the same time, capacity building workshops and trainings targeting household, cadres, and facilitators build the community capacity in waste management by themselves. Involvement of UPF, mass media, and NGO in the multi-stakeholder partnership monitors how the function is implemented and encourages elite-non elite interaction in collective decision making. They neutralized the dominance of traditional top-down and deep-rootedness of patron–client relation between local government and community that weakens the civic culture and hampers opportunities for true participation (Charuvichaipong and Sajor, 2006). Cadres and facilitators provided households with technical and non-technical supports for community-based waste management in the illustration of two participating communities. However, even though it is expected that cadres and facilitators can support the community to develop their activities as an alternative for neighborhood improvement, the process is not necessarily smooth for every communities. Several issues could influence the performance of community activities, including the availability of waste-related facilities, such as composter bins or recycling tools, and a lack of funding resources even though the competition in GC Program provides monetary incentive for participating community. Involvement of sub-district and district governments is minimum, making it difficult for community to access external resources. In addition, cadres and facilitators were in need for motivational support and more training on waste-related topics, program monitoring and product marketing. This shows to some extent, community still faces common constraints in community-based waste management that includes technical, financial, management, participation aspects (Tahir, 2009). CONCLUSION The human development paradigm includes the process to enlarge choice and to build people capabilities in order to participate in their community and the decisions that affect their lives. In waste management, the choice and capabilities for people to participate can be established through a community-based approach. Surabaya and Jakarta showed that community-based waste management contributed to the reduction of waste volume going to final disposal site. The GC Program as the largest community-based waste management program in both cities showed that the facilitation system through cadres and facilitators, and the multi-stakeholder partnership provides the opportunity for community to participate and build their capabilities to make choice and take actions. However, facilitation and partnership are not enough to help community sustain their activities, if the activity cannot secure cooperation with important actor such as sub-district or district governments. Even though community participation has improved towards mechanism that encouraged facilitation, community organizing, and capacity improvement for better management, it has not yet succeeded in enhancing participation as expected. As the shift of emphasis towards greater participation is rather recent in the waste management sector, there is a need to seek or improve ways to enhance participation of general public in the sector. (ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS) The authors wish to thank Unilever Peduli Foundation, Surabaya City Government, Jakarta City Government, and community leaders and members in Surabaya and Jakarta for their kind

847

cooperation during the field study. Acknowledgement is also due to Arwi Koswara and IDAA Warmadewanthi in Faculty of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November Surabaya, and Dr. Saut Sagala in School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung, for their kind assistance during the field study. This research received financial assistance for fieldwork from Innovative Platform for Education and Research (IPER) Course, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology. REFERENCES Alkire, S. (2010): Human Development: Definitions, Critiques, and Related Concepts. Human Development Research Paper 2010/01. From UNDP (2010): http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/papers/HDRP_2010_01.pdf (Feb. 23, 2011) Astari, S. (2010): Kajian Model Pengelolaan Sampah Berbasis Masyarakat. Unpublished Master Thesis. Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November Surabaya, Indonesia. Charuvichaipong, C., & Sajor, E. (2006): Promoting waste separation for recycling and local governance in Thailand. Habitat International 30, pp. 579 – 594. Christensen, J. (1989): Community Development in Perspective. Iowa State University Press, U.S. Coad, A. (2005): Private Sector Involvement in Solid Waste Management. From GTZ: http://www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/05-0412.pdf (Jul. 25, 2008) Dahiya, B. (2003): Peri-urban environments and community driven development: Chennai, India. Cities 20(5), pp. 341 – 352. Doan, P. (1998): Institutionalizing Household Waste Collection: The Urban Environmental Management Project in Cote d'Ivoire. Habitat International 22(1), pp. 27 – 39. Fritzen, S. (2007): Can the Design of Community-Driven Development Reduce the Risk of Elite Capture? Evidence from Indonesia. World Development 35(8), pp. 1359 – 1375. Furedy, C.(1992): Garbage: Exploring Non-Conventional Options In Asian Cities. Environment And Urbanization 4(2), pp. 42 – 61 Helling, L., Serrano, R., & Warren, D. (2005): Linking Community Empowerment, Decentralized Governance, and Public Service Provision Through a Local Development Framework. SP Discussion Paper No. 0535. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. JICA. (2005): Supporting Capacity Development in Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. From JICA: www.jica.go.jp (Feb. 23, 2010) Kamil, S, & Trihadiningrum, Y. (2006): Kajian Pelaksanaan Sistem Reduksi Sampah Domestik Skala Rumah Tangga dan Komunal Kelurahan Jambangan Kecamatan Jambangan Kota Surabaya. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi III. Surabaya, Indonesia.

848

Kartasasmita, G. (1997): Pemberdayaan Masyarakat: Konsep Pembangunan Yang Berakar Pada Masyarakat. Sarasehan DPD GOLKAR Tk. I Jawa Timur, 14 Maret 1997. Surabaya, Indonesia. Maeda, T. (2009). Reducing waste through the promotion of composting and active involvement of various stakeholders. IGES Policy Brief, No. 9 Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004): Community-based and –driven development: a critical review. The World Bank Research Observer 19(1), pp. 1 – 39. Ministry of Public Works. (2007): Kisah Sukses Pengelolaan Persampahan di Berbagai Wilayah Indonesia. Materi Publikasi Penyehatan Lingkungan Permukiman. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum, Indonesia. Ministry of Public Works. (2010): Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu Berbasis Masyarakat. Materi Publikasi Penyehatan Lingkungan Permukiman. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum, Indonesia. Moningka, L. (2000): Community Participation in Solid Waste Management: Factors Favoring the Sustainability of Community Participation. Urban Waste Expertise Program, NL. Muller, M., Iyer, A., Keita M., Sacko, B., & Dionkounda T. (2002): Differing Interpretations Of Community Participation In Waste Management In Bamako And Bangalore: Some Methodological Considerations. Environment & Urbanization 14(2), pp. 241 – 258. Mulyana, W., Rayanti, S., Soegijoko, S., Anggriani, F., & Ongsakul, R. (2007): Exploring community and informal sector partnership in solid waste management in Kelurahan Rawajati, Jakarta, Indonesia. SEA-UEMA Project Monograph. Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. Rathi, S. (2006): Alternative approaches for better municipal solid waste management in Mumbai, India. Waste Management 26, pp. 1192 – 1200. Silas, J. (2002): Waste Management Problems in Surabaya: An Integrated Sustainable Approach. Proceeding of Seminar in Kitakyushu City 20 September 2002. Japan. Tahir, A. (2009): Sustainable Solid Waste Management Schemes at Neighborhood Level. Unpublished Master Thesis. Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan Taylor, D. (1999): Mobilizing Resources to Collect Municipal Solid Waste: Illustrative East Asian Case Studies. Waste Management and Research, pp. 263 – 274. Van de Klundert, A. & Lardinois, I. (1995): Community and Private (Formal and Informal) Sector Involvement In Municipal Solid Waste Management In Developing Countries. Background paper for the UMP workshop in Ittingen 10-12 April 1995. WASTE, NL. Wirjoatmodjo, N., & Assegaf, F. (2004): Langkah Kecil untuk Lompatan Besar. UNESCO Publication. UNESCO Jakarta Office, Indonesia.