Jakarta in need of long-term waste solution<\/p>\n
Alex Wilson, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Last week's signing of an agreement between the Jakarta city
\nadministration and the Bekasi mayoralty means the city's rubbish
\ndisposal headaches are temporarily under control.<\/p>\n
And so far, the massive Bantar Gebang dump site will continue
\nto absorb most of Jakarta's waste so long as the terms of the new
\nagreement are met.<\/p>\n
The closure of the site late last year sent the city
\nadministration scrambling for ways to dispose of the 6,000 tons
\nof rubbish Jakarta produces every day.<\/p>\n
Arrangements for alternative dump sites looked shaky, and
\nplans to ship processed waste to Bangka or purchase huge
\nincinerators failed to address short-term problems.<\/p>\n
The situation has focused minds on long-term solutions for a
\nproblem with serious health and safety implications.<\/p>\n
An environmental scientist with 20 years of research
\nexperience, Sri Bebasari, of the Agency for the Assessment and
\nApplication of Technology (BPPT), has a simple mantra -- reduce,
\nreuse and recycle -- to deal with the problem.<\/p>\n
\"We have to change our paradigm to recycle, not just to
\ncollect and dump,\" said the woman who reluctantly describes
\nherself as \"the queen of the rubbish heap.\"<\/p>\n
While the challenges of recycling in Jakarta are huge, she
\nsaid, a long-term approach must be taken.<\/p>\n
\"In Singapore, they took 30 years to reach their current
\nsituation. It's not just a matter of logistics, but a cultural
\nmatter, and one of education.\"<\/p>\n
She sees integrated waste treatment as the solution -- a
\ncombination of recycling, composting, incineration, and sanitary
\nlandfills.<\/p>\n
Waste would be separated at the source in homes and markets,
\nand be treated on site.<\/p>\n
The remaining waste would go into the sanitary landfill.<\/p>\n
The landfill would have layers of sand to keep disease-
\ncarrying insects away, and pipes to expel water, along with
\nmethane gasses given off by solid wastes breaking down.<\/p>\n
The methane gasses, which make normal landfills unsafe to
\nrebuild on, could be used as alternative energy sources.
\nRemaining residue from recycling and composting, meantime, would
\nbe burnt in a huge incinerator.<\/p>\n
The obstacles to such a system being implemented in Jakarta
\nare enormous, as is the price tag. Researchers estimate that just
\nto design a 20-hectare sanitary landfill would cost Rp 2 billion.
\nAnd this would be only 1.3 percent of the total cost of the
\ndevelopment.<\/p>\n
The massive incinerators, designed to minimize pollution,
\nwould have to be imported at great expense. One incinerator,
\ncapable of burning 1,000 tons per day, would cost Rp 1.2
\ntrillion.<\/p>\n
Expenditure of this scale would put a serious dent in the city
\nadministration's budget, Rp 8.1 trillion in 2001.<\/p>\n
Puput Ahmad Safrudin, chairman of the Indonesian Environmental
\nForum (WALHI)'s Jakarta chapter, agreed that a sanitary landfill
\nwould be the best solution in the long term, but said that
\nincinerators were not part of the solution.<\/p>\n
\"Incinerators are dangerous for respiratory disease, and
\nresearch has shown they cause cancer,\" he said.<\/p>\n
Recycling schemes at the neighborhood level were needed to
\nreduce the volume of rubbish produced, but there was little
\nsupport available.<\/p>\n
\"There is no political will from the local governments to
\noperate these recycling and composting schemes,\" he said.<\/p>\n
Some NGOs in Jakarta have initiated pilot recycling and
\ncomposting schemes at the neighborhood level. These are based on
\nthe idea that Jakarta's waste problem should be solved at its
\nhead -- home, markets, and industries - rather than at its tail,
\nlandfills and incinerators.<\/p>\n
Proof positive that these schemes can have an impact comes
\nfrom the Philippines. Manila, which produces roughly the same
\namount of rubbish per day as Jakarta, experienced a serious waste
\ndisposal crisis early in 2001.<\/p>\n
The San Mateo dump, receptacle for most of Manila's 6,000 tons
\nper day of refuse, closed down and the planned alternative fell
\nthrough.<\/p>\n
As rubbish piled up in the streets, desperate local
\ngovernments began to promote waste reduction and composting. The
\nrubbish piles were greatly reduced; the Metropolitan Manila
\nDevelopment Authority (MMDA) attributed the containment of the
\ncrisis to community level recycling.<\/p>\n
The crisis in Manila and pressure from NGOs hastened the
\npassing of the Integrated Ecological Solid Waste Management Act.<\/p>\n
The act mandates waste segregation at its source and requires
\nlocal governments to divert 25 percent of their waste away from
\ndisposal sites through resource recovery activities within the
\nnext five years.<\/p>\n
Eugene Bennagen, a researcher with the Economic and
\nEnvironment Program for South East Asia (EEPSA) in the
\nPhilippines, said that the improvement did not last long.<\/p>\n
\"While there are some success stories of recycling and
\ncomposting, the impact of these activities is far from being
\nfelt,\" she told The Jakarta Post by e-mail.<\/p>\n
\"The promotion of waste segregation at the source with the
\nidea of encouraging household recycling and composition has been
\nunsuccessful -- even with threats of fines for garbage trucks who
\ncollect unsegregated wastes,\" she continued.<\/p>\n
While Jakarta and Manila continue to grapple with problems of
\nsimilar dimensions, officials in the Philippines at least have
\nlegislation in place for recycling and are encouraging grassroots
\noperations.<\/p>\n
With large scale centralized solutions coming at a high price,
\nsmall community based programs may be the long-term answer to
\nJakarta's rubbish dilemma.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jakarta-in-need-of-long-term-waste-solution-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}