Sustainable Waste-to-Energy: Make Communities the Foundation, Not an Afterthought
The rescheduling of the Waste to Energy (WtE) or PSEL project winner announcement by the Indonesian State-Owned Investment Management Body (Danantara) from February to March 2026 should not be viewed merely as a technical matter. This momentum is crucial to ensure that the approximately Rp 91 trillion project is built on the right foundation through active community participation.
WtE does offer a strategic solution within a certain timeframe. It promises to reduce waste volume whilst increasing energy mix through electricity production from waste processing. Data from the National Waste Management Information System (SIPSN) of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry demonstrates the substantial potential of waste raw materials in Indonesia.
For example, Tangerang produces more than 2,000 tonnes of waste daily. Jakarta generates approximately 1.23 million tonnes annually, followed by Bandung, Semarang, Surabaya, Yogyakarta, Bali, and Makassar with hundreds of thousands of tonnes each year.
According to SIPSN data, national waste generation in 2025 reached 56.6 million tonnes. The largest composition comes from household waste, particularly food scraps at 40.79 per cent and plastic at 19.95 per cent.
Meanwhile, a Food Loss and Waste (FLW) assessment in Indonesia for the 2000-2019 period by the Ministry of National Development Planning found waste generation of 115-184 kilograms per capita annually. From the supply chain perspective, the largest waste generation occurs at the consumption stage. When accumulated, total FLW during that period reached 23-48 million tonnes annually. This figure, if converted, could actually feed 61-125 million people in the country.
The same assessment also shows that total emissions from FLW generation in 2000-2019 are estimated to reach 1,702.9 megatonnes of CO₂, equivalent to 23 per cent of total national emissions. The average annual contribution equals 7.29 per cent of Indonesia’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Seventy-seven per cent of total FLW emissions originate from food waste. This also causes economic losses of Rp 213-551 trillion annually, equivalent to 4-5 per cent of Indonesia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
These figures demonstrate the urgency of technology-based solutions. However, WtE is not merely a power generation project. It should touch the complex social ecosystem—from informal recycling workers, scavengers, environmental activists, to residents around the facility.
If the chosen approach relies solely on business logic and technological efficiency, social resistance is virtually certain to emerge. Concerns that WtE will reduce recycling raw materials or trigger emissions issues must be addressed through openness and engagement, not one-way awareness campaigns.
Here, WtE should present and build a circular economic ecosystem from upstream to downstream for all stakeholders involved. WtE must not stand as a solution at the end of the process. The system should start from households through waste sorting education. Without proper sorting, no matter how advanced the technology, it will not be optimal.
Catalyst for Waste Transformation
Strengthening the smallest social units starting from neighbourhood associations, villages, and women’s empowerment groups will be key to controlling and changing behaviour. Waste management transformation is essentially a transformation of behaviour and culture. WtE should serve as a catalyst in this transformation.
The success of the winning contractor will be largely determined by their ability to build a participatory ecosystem. Communities must not only be involved during ceremonial groundbreaking or when conflicts emerge. They must be present from the planning stage, participate in public consultations, and be involved in participatory monitoring mechanisms.
In this way, a sense of ownership of the project develops organically. Strategic partnerships with local partners are another important factor. Danantara, as the programme initiator, has affirmed that foreign companies winning the tender must form a consortium with domestic partners. This is a wise step. At this stage—involvement of state-owned enterprises, regional-owned enterprises, and national private companies—must be interpreted more broadly than merely an administrative requirement for WtE operators.
Partnership must not stop at the business sector alone. Academia and research institutions should be engaged to strengthen the research foundation, particularly regarding environmental and social impacts. Local communities, environmental CSOs/NGOs, and youth movements that have been active in waste issues must be activated.
The Sapa Bumi programme already initiated in Bogor could be an example of activating young people to be actively involved in mitigating and opening participatory spaces for WtE implementation.
Gathering and optimising existing communities is far more efficient than building new movements from scratch. Indonesia’s social capital is actually substantial, yet it is often not integrated into major project design. WtE might later become an example of how infrastructure projects not only build physical generating facilities, but also build strong social networks.
From the technology perspective, partner selection must certainly consider energy efficiency and cooperation schemes with PLN as the electricity offtaker. Interest from countries such as China, Japan, France, Singapore, and Hong Kong demonstrates the project’s appeal. However, the best technology still requires social legitimacy. Without community acceptance, technical efficiency alone will not guarantee sustainability.
Danantara Indonesia has opened broad opportunities for cooperation with local parties to achieve project targets. This commitment should be translated into concrete policies and partnership schemes that genuinely empower communities as the foundation of this sustainable waste-to-energy initiative, rather than treating them as mere complements to the project’s implementation.