East Asia and Pacific Region: MARINE PLASTICS SERIES Plastic Waste Discharges FROM RIVERS AND COASTLINES IN INDONESIA © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Citation: World Bank 2021. Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia. Marine Plastics Series, East Asia and Pacific Region. Washington DC. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: AdobeStock / PhotoSpirit. Further permission required for reuse. Plastic Waste Discharges FROM RIVERS AND COASTLINES IN INDONESIA CONTENTS Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................10 Acronyms and Abbreviations...........................................................................................................................11 Foreword................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................... 14 Section 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 18 1.1 The Challenge of Plastic Pollution in Indonesia ...................................................................................18 1.2 How is Indonesia Responding?.................................................................................................................18 1.3 Rivers as Main Pathways of Plastic Waste .........................................................................................19 1.4 About this Report........................................................................................................................................ 20 1.4.1 Objectives and value added of the study...........................................................................................................20 1.4.2 Scope of the study....................................................................................................................................................20 Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea........................................................................................................................22 2.1 General Approach and Definitions.......................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Modeling Mismanaged Plastic Waste from Land-Based Sources ............................................. 26 2.2.1 Solid waste material flow and estimation of MPW........................................................................................ 27 2.2.2 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................28 2.3 Modeling Wash-off of Plastic Waste into Waterways and Transport in Rivers ..................... 36 2.3.1 Rainfall and rivers in Indonesia.............................................................................................................................36 2.3.2 Hydrology as a driver for transport of plastic waste....................................................................................36 2.3.3 Coastal zones and small islands..........................................................................................................................40 Section 3.Results..................................................................................................43 3.1 Assessment of Mismanaged Plastic Waste from Land-Based Sources ................................... 43 3.1.1 Plastic waste generated...........................................................................................................................................43 3.1.2 Final destination of plastic waste generated...................................................................................................45 3.1.3 MPW available for wash-off................................................................................................................................... 47 3.1.4 Examples: Detailed results for selected kabupaten/kota............................................................................49 3.1.5 Detailed analysis of critical areas contributing to MPW...............................................................................51 3.2 Estimation of Plastic Discharges from Rivers and Coastal Areas ............................................. 56 3.2.1 Wash-off of MPW from land into waterways..................................................................................................56 3.2.2 Transport and fate of MPW in rivers.................................................................................................................. 57 3.2.3 Plastic discharges from rivers into the marine environment..................................................................... 57 3.2.4 Seasonal and daily variations of plastic discharges by rivers...................................................................60 3.2.5 Estimation of MPW leakages from coastal areas and small islands.......................................................63 4 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia 3.2.6 National baseline: Plastic discharges from land-based sources...............................................................63 3.2.7 Examples: Diffuse and point sources of MPW in a catchment in Java....................................................65 3.2.8 Analysis of top catchments in Indonesia.......................................................................................................... 67 3.3 Validation of Results ................................................................................................................................. 79 3.3.1 Data quality and assurance to estimate land-based sources of MPW................................................... 79 3.3.2 Modeling reliability and knowledge gaps affecting plastic waste wash-off, transport and discharge estimates....................................................................................................................................................80 3.3.3 Comparison with previous complementary estimates.................................................................................81 3.3.4 Confidence and validation of results..................................................................................................................83 3.3.5 Appraisal of data and assumptions...................................................................................................................83 Section 4. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................ 88 4.1 Conclusions of the Assessment ..............................................................................................................88 4.2 Recommendations for Policy and Future Investments....................................................................91 4.3 Improving Assessments of Plastic Waste Flow and Leakages from Land-Based Sources ................................................................................................................................................................. 97 4.3.1 Concrete actions to address data limitations and uncertainties.............................................................. 97 4.3.2 Regular monitoring of key plastic waste indicators.....................................................................................99 4.4 Improving Modeling of Plastic Waste Discharges by Rivers and from Coastal Areas ....... 100 4.4.1 Knowledge of plastic behavior and fate in rivers..........................................................................................100 4.4.2 Observation data to improve calibration and validate model results...................................................100 References.............................................................................................................102 Contents | 5 FIGURES Figure 1. Conceptual framework for modeling material flow (green brown); leakages (red); and wash-off/ transport of plastic waste from land-based sources via rivers (blue)............................................................................23 Figure 2. Conceptual framework depicting SWM material flow and data to assess MPW originating land- based sources .................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 3. Simplified solid waste material flow model: Focusing on plastic waste that remains uncollected (“C”), including losses from collection and sorting (“A”, “B”). Green crosses indicate no potential plastic leakage from the recycled fraction of plastic waste (waste bank is assumed to have no sorting loss). ...........................28 Figure 4. Conceptual framework depicting leakages and transport of plastic waste from land-based sources via rivers ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 5. Regional WFLOW hydrological models used in the study .......................................................................................38 Figure 6. Conceptual framework of the fate and transport model (DELWAQ) depicting the MPW pathways (direct disposal in water, leakages from illegal dumping/fly-tipping), various retention processes (degradation, burial and retention) affecting MPW and the transport flow of MPW ...............................................39 Figure 7. Summary of plastic waste collection in urban and rural areas of Indonesia ....................................................45 Figure 8. National summary of final destination of collected plastic waste in urban and rural areas........................45 Figure 9. National summary of final destination of uncollected plastic waste in urban and rural areas...................46 Figure 10. Plastic waste in Indonesia in urban and rural areas: total plastic waste generated; total MPW; total MPW available for wash-off.............................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 11. MPW available for wash-off in urban and rural areas..............................................................................................48 Figure 12. Location of kabupaten/kota provided as examples.................................................................................................49 Figure 13. The two main origins of MPW in top 10 Indonesian locations: uncollected plastic waste and plastic waste disposed of in formal open dumpsites........................................................................................................................52 Figure 14. Fate of MPW available for wash-off from improper disposal in the terrestrial environment (illegal dumping/fly-tipping) and unsanitary landfills (formal dumpsites and controlled landfills) or directly disposed in water for the different regions across Indonesia............................................................................................ 57 Figure 15. Fate of MPW transported in rivers for the different regions across Indonesia................................................58 Figure 16. Dams in Indonesia may prevent MPW from reaching the marine environment. Most are located on Java...............................................................................................................................................................................................58 Figure 17. Top Indonesian rivers in terms of yearly amounts (kton) of plastic waste discharged into the marine environment, indicating the estimated range for the discharge of the river (based on range of SWM only)....59 Figure 18. River discharges (light blue reverse right axis) and modeled 3 months moving average plastic discharges (dark blue) at the river mouth of the Bekasi river............................................................................................61 Figure 19. River discharges (light blue reverse right axis) and modeled plastic discharges (dark blue) at Manggarai Gate in the Ciliwung River in Jakarta.................................................................................................................62 Figure 20. Waste observations from survey at trash-racks in North Jakarta confirm high waste loads associated with high rainfall events..........................................................................................................................................62 Figure 21. Fate of MPW washed-off directly or indirectly into the marine environment in the main islands of Indonesia............................................................................................................................................................................................63 Figure 22. Example of results of plastic discharges into the sea (blue circles) from five catchments in Java (from west to east: Cirarab, Bekasi, Citarum, Cipunagara and Cimanuk); MPW directly discarded into waterways (grey shades, in kg/day); location of landfills (point sources)....................................................................66 Figure 23. Example of results of plastic discharges into the sea (blue circles) from five catchments in Java (from west to east: Cirarab, Bekasi, Citarum, Cipunagara and Cimanuk); MPW from diffuse sources/ fly- tipping (grey-red shades, in gr/day/ha); location of landfills (point sources)...............................................................66 Figure 24. Satellite image of the area around the TPA kabupaten Tangerang (open dumpsite (PUPR)..................... 67 Figure 25. MPW disposed of in water (left) and disposal of in the terrestrial environment through illegal dumping/fly-tipping (right) in DKI Jakarta rivers catchments..........................................................................................71 Figure 26. Musi River catchment with urban and rural areas.................................................................................................. 72 Figure 27. MPW disposed of in the terrestrial environment through illegal dumping/fly-tipping in Musi River catchment......................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 28. MPW disposed in water in Musi catchment............................................................................................................... 73 6 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Figure 29. Bengawan Solo River catchment with urban and rural areas.............................................................................. 74 Figure 30. MPW disposed of in the terrestrial environment through illegal dumping/fly-tipping in Bengawan Solo River catchment.................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 31. MPW disposed in water in Bengawan Solo River catchment................................................................................ 75 Figure 32. Brantas River catchment with urban and rural areas............................................................................................ 76 Figure 33. MPW disposed of in the terrestrial environment through illegal dumping/fly-tipping in Brantas River catchment..............................................................................................................................................................................76 Figure 34. MPW disposed in water in Brantas River catchment ............................................................................................ 77 Figure 35. Comparison of results of studies on MPW in Indonesia discharged to the marine environment............. 81 Figure 36. Plastic waste removed from Manggarai gate converted to ton/day (conversion rate derived from sampling composition – see Appendix III) (orange); daily plastic discharge timeseries derived from model results (thin blue line).....................................................................................................................................................................84 Figure 37. LIPI estimations resulting from Bekasi river mouth observations (green dots), daily discharge timeseries derived from model results (thin dark blue spiky line); 30-day moving average plastic discharge derived from model results (dark blue); daily average river discharge (light blue, reverse right axis).....................................................................................................................................................................................................84 Contents | 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Scope delimitation of the study .........................................................................................................................................23 Table 2. Summary of SWM model data sources, limitations and assumptions.................................................................30 Table 3. Final disposal sites: Types of landfill.................................................................................................................................33 Table 4. SWM behaviors identified by BPS.....................................................................................................................................34 Table 5. Fractions of plastic waste available for wash-off from disposal sites on land....................................................36 Table 6. Overview of scenarios defined to obtain a likely range of total plastic discharges...........................................39 Table 7. Overview of features of data used and assumptions made in modeling MPW wash-off, transport and discharge from land-based sources..........................................................................................................................................40 Table 8. National summary of plastic waste collection..............................................................................................................44 Table 9. National summary of MPW available for wash-off......................................................................................................48 Table 10. Characteristics of five selected kabupaten/kota.......................................................................................................49 Table 11. Summary result of the SMW model from five kabupaten/kota.............................................................................50 Table 12. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota generating MPW (kton/year).........................................................................51 Table 13. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota in terms of higher amounts of plastic waste directly disposed in water waste (kton/year)...............................................................................................................................................................53 Table 14. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota in terms of plastic waste disposed of improperly in the terrestrial environment (illegal dumping/fly-tipping) (kton/year).......................................................................................................54 Table 15. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota in terms of plastic waste available for wash-off from unsanitary final disposal sites (kton/year)...................................................................................................................................................55 Table 16. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota in terms of plastic waste burned (kton/year)..........................................56 Table 17. Top Indonesian rivers in terms of yearly amounts (kton) of plastic waste discharged into the marine environment, indicating range of discharges (low, mid, high) and their contribution (%) to the total amount discharged in Indonesia................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Table 18. Summary of modeling results for main Indonesian islands....................................................................................64 Table 19.Features of catchments provided as example..............................................................................................................65 Table 20. Overview of the topmost polluting rivers in Indonesia, including waste management and handling practices within the catchment’s administrative units. Please note that DKI Jakarta rivers have been clustered............................................................................................................................................................................................68 Table 21. Appraisal of data and assumptions across the study’s components..................................................................85 Table 22. Overview of recommendations: area targeted, type and timeframe of measures..........................................95 8 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia BOXES Box 1. Decentralization and local responsibility for solid waste management – Kabupaten and Kota.......................19 Box 2. Definitions.....................................................................................................................................................................................25 Box 3. WFLOW model............................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Box 4. Solid waste generation (SWG)...............................................................................................................................................44 Box 5. The special case of DKI Jakarta............................................................................................................................................52 Box 6. The Citarum River.......................................................................................................................................................................61 Box 7. Sampling plastic composition at trash-racks in Jakarta..............................................................................................83 Box 8. Health and environmental hazards from burning (plastic) waste...............................................................................91 Contents | 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia is the first national assessment that integrates waste generation and waste management performance data with hydrological condition data, given the importance of surface water in carrying plastic waste into the marine environment. The study was conducted by a core team from Deltares and Royal HaskoningDHV: Joana Mira Veiga, Bastien van Veen, Dhanang Tri Wuriyandoko, Caroline van der Sluys, Lora Buckman and Jos van Gils. Additional support was provided by a wider team from Deltares - Ira Wardani, Riska Akmalia, Semeidi Husrin, Hélène Boisgontier, Christian Liguori, Arnejan van Loenen; and Royal HaskoningDHV – Pranandya Wijayanti and J. Sinarko Wibowo. The work was managed by a World Bank team comprised of Anjali Acharya, Kate Philp, Frank van Woerden, and Kian Siong, under the leadership and guidance of Satu Kristiina Kahkonen, Rodrigo A. Chaves and Ann Jeannette Glauber. Marcus Wishart, Delphine Arri, Andre Aquino, and Katelijn van den Berg also provided valuable inputs to improve the report. Cover and report design were undertaken by creative designer Sarah Hollis. The study team would like to thank all the stakeholders who participated during the study for their support. Special acknowledgement is due to the Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment, Indonesia, for enabling and supporting the study, specifically Ibu Nani Hendiarti (Deputy for Environment and Forestry Management) and Bapak Safri Burhanuddin (Deputy for Maritime Resources). The study team would also like to thank the Ministry for Environment and Forestry for their guidance and support. The study team gratefully acknowledges the dialogue and inputs into this work by the team from the Research Centre for Oceanography at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) – M. Reza Cordova, Dede Falahudin, Rachma Puspitasari, Triyoni Purbonegoro, Ita Wulandari, M. Riza Iskandar, and Ricky Rositasari and the team from Systemiq - Arthur Neeteson, William Handjaja, Ben Dixon, Dian Limbong, Dinda Annisa Nurdiani, Martin Stuchtey, Theo Teja and Wiwik Widyastuti. The report was funded by the Indonesia Oceans Multi-Donor Trust Fund, established in 2017 at the request of the Government of Indonesia with the support of the Governments of Norway and Denmark. The Indonesia Oceans Multi-Donor Trust Fund provides technical assistance to implement oceans policy, reduce marine debris, and strengthen coastal resilience. The study team would like to specifically thank Bjørnar Dahl Hotvedt, Minister Counsellor, Royal Norwegian Embassy, and Morten Holm van Donk, Sector Counsellor, Danish Embassy, for their support. 10 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation BAPPENAS National Development Planning Agency (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional) BPS Indonesian Statistic Bureau (Badan Pusat Statistik) BWS River Basin Authority (Balai Wilaya Sungai) DELWAQ Fate and transport model used in the study DID Local Incentive Fund (Dana Insentif Daerah) DLH Municipal Environment Agency (Dinas Lingkungan Hidup) GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (advisory body for the United Nations) GoI Government of Indonesia (Pemerintahan Indonesia) Hansos Social Survey Module, part of Susenas (Modul Ketahanan Social) IPLH Environmental Care Indicators (Indikator Peduli Lingkungan Hidup) Jakstrada Local Government Policy & Strategy (Kebijakan dan Strategi Daerah) Jakstrana National Government Policy and Strategy (Kebijakan dan Strategi Nasional) KLHK Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan) LIPI Indonesian Institute of Sciences Lembaga (Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia) MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund MKP Health and housing module (part of the BPS socio economic survey) (Modul Kesehatan dan Perumahan) MoF Ministry of Finance MPW Mismanaged plastic waste MSW Municipal solid waste NAWASIS National Water and Sanitation Information Services NGOs Non-governmental Organizations NPAP National Plastic Action Partnership NSWMP National Solid Waste Management Platform (Platform Pengelolaan Sampah Nasional) PAMPD Indonesia’s Plan of Action on Marine Plastics Debris 2017-2025 (Presidential Regulation 83/2018) PerPres Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden) PPSP Indonesian National Sanitation Program (Program Pembangunan Sanitasi Permukiman) PUPR Ministry of Public Works and Housing (Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat) PusAir Research and Development Center for Water Resources (Pusat Penelitian & Pengembangan Sumber Daya Air) PWG Plastic waste generated RPJMD Regional Medium-Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah RPJMN National Medium-Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional) SIPSN National Waste Management Information System (Sistem Informasi Pengelolaan Sampah Nasional) Acronyms and Abbreviations | 11 SNI Indonesian National Standard STBM Community Based Total Sanitation (Sanitasi Total Berbasis Masyarakat) SWG Solid waste generated SWM Solid waste management SWMP Solid Waste Master Plan TPA Formal solid waste final disposal site (Tempat Pemrosesan Akhir) TPPAS Solid waste final processing and disposal facility (Tempat Pengolahan dan Pemrosesan Akhir Sampah) TPS Waste transfer station (Tempat Pembuangan Sementara) TPS3R Official recycling facilities in Indonesia UNEP United Nations Environment Program WFLOW Hydrological modeling framework and models used in the study 12 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia FOREWORD Indonesia is battling one of the greatest environmental challenges of our time—marine plastic debris. As the world’s largest archipelago, our nation’s economy, health and livelihoods are especially susceptible to the harmful plastic waste that accumulates on land, flows into our waterways and, eventually, enters our coastal and marine environments. The amount of plastic waste generated in Indonesia is growing to unsustainable levels. Our cities and municipalities produce an estimated 7.8 million tons of plastic waste annually and more than half of that waste is mismanaged. But as a nation, we are taking action. Indonesia’s National Plan of Action for Combating Marine Debris aims to cut marine plastic leakage by 70% within the next five years. This extraordinary national effort seeks to influence behavior change, enhance policies and invest in programs that promote better solid waste management, and undergo the critical research needed to inform our decision-making along the way. It is with great pleasure that I welcome this new publication by the World Bank, Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia. By integrating local waste data from communities across Indonesia with hydrological conditions, the study presents deeper insights into the ways our behaviors, actions and infrastructure on land contribute to the plastic waste in our oceans. The findings are clear. • Most of Indonesia’s land-based marine plastic waste is transported to the marine environment via rivers. • The amount of mismanaged plastic waste discharged into the ocean increases significantly during rainy seasons. • Rural areas bear the greatest burden of mismanaged plastic waste due to extremely limited waste collection services. We have a lot of work ahead of us. It will not be easy, but with insights from this and other studies, and with the strategies put forth in the National Plan of Action, we can make progress. By improving the awareness of all stakeholders, upgrading waste management across our inland and coastal communities, and enhancing institutional strength and funding supports, we believe a plastic pollution-free Indonesia is not only possible, but achievable. Nani Hendiarti Deputy of Environment and Forestry Management Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment Foreword | 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2015, a global study estimating inputs of plastic waste into the oceans ranked Indonesia as the second largest contributor to plastic marine pollution (Jambeck et al., 2015). In 2017, another study ranked four Indonesian rivers in the world’s most polluting top 20 (Lebreton et al., 2017). The challenge of plastic waste and marine debris requires a robust national response to curb the significant impacts on Indonesian marine biodiversity, its communities and its economy. The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has signaled its leadership on combating plastic waste and marine debris – making strong commitments and setting ambitious targets to reduce plastic pollution and improve waste management. As the GoI implements this agenda, it is imperative we better understand the current state of this challenge. In this study, we provide the first Indonesia-wide assessment integrating local waste data with actual hydrological conditions to tell the story of how local practices contribute to marine plastic pollution. Using a broad range of Indonesian data sources, we assessed the solid waste management practices for all 514 kabupaten/kota in Indonesia. Then, pairing that data with national rainfall, topography and river flow averages, we modeled the movement of plastic waste generated on land, leakages from land into waterways and, eventually, the transport of plastic waste into the marine environment. KEY FINDINGS • Uncollected waste contributes more to plastic ö Direct disposal in water is the main waste discharges than leakages from final pathway of plastic waste reaching disposal sites, and very little plastic is recycled. rivers, often resulting from populations ö Indonesia generates approximately 42 not having access to waste collection million tons of municipal waste and 7.8 services. million tons of plastic waste annually. ö Uncollected waste accumulates and is ö 4.9 million tons of plastic waste is burned to reduce waste volume, with mismanaged — e.g. uncollected, disposed serious implications for air quality and of in open dumpsites or leaked from formal health. unsanitary landfills. • An estimated 346.5 kton/year (estimated • Rural areas generate the largest amounts range of 201.1 – 552.3 kton/year) of of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW) due to plastic waste is discharged into the marine very limited waste collection rates. environment from land-based sources in ö Despite having roughly the same Indonesia, two thirds of which come from population as urban areas, rural areas Java and Sumatra. generate two-thirds (3.5 million tons/ • Rivers carry and discharge 83% of the annual year) of the MPW in Indonesia. plastic waste input from land-based sources, ö 85% of plastic waste in rural areas remains while only 17% is directly discarded or uncollected. washed-off from coastal areas. • Limited collection services and access to • There is a high seasonal variability of MPW disposal infrastructure hinders improvement discharged into the marine environment and in waste handling behaviors. average amounts can be two or three times higher in the rainy season than in the dry season. 14 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS • Periodical removal of accumulated plastic waste from urban drainage systems will prevent plastic While specific recommendations are detailed in the waste from reaching the rivers. report, including for priority areas, we highlight the following mutually reinforcing priority actions for 4. Promote a circular economy to prevent combating plastic waste and marine debris on a plastic pollution. national scale: • Prevention should start at source and even at an earlier life-cycle stage, considering reduction of 1. Strengthen solid waste management critical plastic items and design made for reuse practices, knowledge and incentives in rural and recycling. areas, in addition to ongoing improvements in urban areas. • Cost-effective impactful policy instruments, such as taxes and incentives, should be implemented. • Rural areas account for approximately 50% of the total population, but 67% of total MPW. Improving 5. Systematically monitor and improve waste overall waste collection and providing better data. access to facilities would have the largest impact in preventing plastic waste entering waterways. • National authorities should consider improving the Additional community-level composting initiatives existing national reporting system for communi- could reduce the investments required for collecting ty-based recycling organizations and including a and transporting waste in rural areas. specific solid waste management question in the annual survey undertaken by Statistics Indonesia • Increase national sanitation campaigns at the (BPS). household level, particularly in rural areas, to enhance community understanding of healthy waste • Local authorities should undertake more systematic behaviors and reduce the household practice of sampling of solid waste generation, waste disposing waste directly into waterways. composition and material recovery rates as part of routine activities, with the aim of providing more • Consider expanding Adipura monitoring to rural reliable and accurate estimates at the kabupaten/ areas in the longer term and provide a fiscal incentive kota level. Mapping locations of illegal dumpsites to local governments that meet specific criteria should also be undertaken. and/or achieve Adipura targets. • Arriving waste data should be recorded in a 2. Invest in new well-managed final disposal standardized format that provides useful information sites and upgrade existing sites, including for waste flow modeling at all formal landfill facilities those near waterways. in the country. A simple database for recording landfill information could be developed to be • Prevalent illegal and formal open dumpsites need used across regions. Guidance for plastic waste to be eliminated, sanitary landfills installed and management should be integrated into existing controlled landfills upgraded, prioritizing the key technical guidelines for landfills. contributing areas outlined in this report. • Existing cleanup operations in Indonesian rivers • From a plastic waste discharge prevention should be coupled with monitoring of the amounts perspective, focus downstream from dams. and composition of plastic waste intercepted in the river. 3. Optimize the use of existing structures in waterways and drainage to prevent plastic waste to reach the sea. • Technical measures could be considered to increase the effectiveness of trash-racks or other structures, especially during the rainy season, as well as during rainfall events after long dry period when high discharges of MPW would be expected. Executive Summary | 15 Photo: Wonderful Nature / Shutterstock 16 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE CHALLENGE OF PLASTIC POLLUTION IN INDONESIA I ndonesia, as many countries in the world, is struggling with the issues of plastic waste and marine debris, which pose serious threats to the particularly rich marine biodiversity of this region. In 2015, a global study estimating worldwide inputs of plastic waste into the oceans ranked Indonesia as the second largest contributor to plastic marine pollution (Jambeck et al, 2015). As the fourth most populated country in the world, Indonesian cities and municipalities produce an estimated 105 thousand tons of solid waste per day — a number that is expected to increase to 150 thousand tons by 2025, according to World Bank projections. Despite significant efforts, 40% of the country’s 142 million urban residents still do not have access to basic waste collection services (World Bank, 2019a).  Mismanaged plastic waste (MPW) generates consequences that go well beyond the severe and very visible impacts on marine life and ecosystems, and the services these ecosystems provide. It can significantly impact living conditions and health through increased risk of flooding, as plastic waste blocks drainage and sewer systems, or through air pollution resulting from burning waste (UNEP, 2015). Moreover, toxic substances can be carried by and leach out from plastic waste, while the implications to human health of plastic particles found in seafood, water and air still need to be understood (Kontrick, 2018; Barboza et al, 2018). Plastic pollution in Indonesian rivers and beaches, as covered broadly by the media, is recognized as a threat to international marine and coastal tourism — a sector the country wants to further invest in (World Bank, 2019b). Economic impacts of marine debris on the fishing, shipping and tourism sectors are estimated at US$1.3 billion per year in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) region (McIlgorm et al, 2009). 1.2 HOW IS INDONESIA RESPONDING? Solid waste and plastic pollution are increasingly high on the Government of Indonesia (GoI)’s agenda, which has set ambitious waste management and reduction targets. In 2017, the GoI issued a Presidential Regulation (PerPres),1 committing to 30% of both reduction at source and (community-based) recycling targets by 40% of Indonesia’s 142 million urban residents still do not have access to basic waste collection services. World Bank, 2019a 1 Peraturan President No.97/2017 18 | Market Study for Thailand: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers 2025. Actions taken to achieve these targets are rivers into the sea are limited. At present, there are no also expected to contribute to the 70% reduction national quantifications of inputs of plastic waste from of marine plastic and other marine debris by 2025, land-based sources that consider physical factors such as outlined in Indonesia’s Plan of Action on Marine as hydrology, nor one that considers kabupaten-level Plastics Debris (PAMPD).2 The PAMPD includes five variability (see Box 1) in waste practices. These insights strategies to reduce plastic waste: behavioral change, are necessary to realistically account for and represent reduced land-based leakages, reduced sea-based input, the broad diversity of waste performances across enhanced law enforcement and financial commitments, Indonesian communities, as well as the geo-physical and research and development.3 More recently, the characteristics of the different regions. National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN),4 which establishes the strategic priorities and budget allocations for waste management for the coming 1.3 RIVERS AS MAIN PATHWAYS five years, sets targets of 80% collection rate and 20% OF PLASTIC WASTE reduction of solid waste generated in urban areas by It is generally accepted that 80% of marine debris 2025. originates from land-based sources (UNEP, 2018). These commitments triggered a wave of initiatives MPW generated on land can end up in the marine ranging from hands-on beach cleanups and reduce-re- environment due to the proximity of urban areas to use-recycle activities, to regulatory instruments such as the coast or from more inland communities, via rivers. plastic levees and restrictions on plastic items. At the Hydrology therefore plays a crucial role in washing off same time, both national (e.g. Indonesian Institute of mismanaged solid waste that may be discarded or Sciences - LIPI) and international research initiatives dumped on the terrestrial environment and transporting (such as a World Bank’s hotspot assessment study — it through waterways and rivers, to finally discharge Shuker and Cadman, 2018; and the National Plastic it into the sea. Action Partnership - NPAP) are seeking to improve In recent years, attention has turned to rivers as major knowledge on sources and amounts of plastic pollution, pathways of plastic waste inputs into the sea. However, providing much-needed insights into important aspects the transport mechanisms and behavior of plastic of this complex issue in Indonesia. waste in waterways remain poorly understood. The But there is more work to be done. Assessments on first global study undertaken (Lebreton et al, 2017) plastic waste leakages from land into waterways and from ranked four Indonesian rivers in the most polluting top 20. Studies like this are crucial in contributing to a 2 2017-2025 (PerPres 83/2018) better understanding of the global picture but — given 3 Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs “Indonesia’s Plan of their broad spatial focus — are of limited benefit in Action on Marine Debris 2017-2025” supporting the country’s internal policies. More local 4 PerPres 18/2020 studies (e.g. Cordova & Nurhati, 2019; Emmerik et al, BOX 1. Decentralization and local responsibility for solid waste management – Kabupaten and Kota Administratively, Indonesia is divided solid waste collection, transport, acting as a primary implementer, into autonomous provinces (provinsi), recycling and disposal was the central government is limited districts/regencies (kabupaten), transferred to kabupaten (regencies) to advisory and regulatory roles to municipalities (kota) and villages. and kota (municipalities). This kabupaten/kota. For this reason, Villages in rural areas are called gives kabupaten/kota primary analysis at the kabupaten/kota level desa, while those in urban areas are responsibility for solid waste is required to ensure locally-suited referred to as kelurahan. management, including planning and policy intervention on solid waste budgeting, activity implementation, management improvement can be Following the decentralization and operation and maintenance of developed according to the specific process in the early 2000s, the the solid waste facilities. Rather than needs of kabupaten/kota. institutional responsibility for Section 1. Introduction | 19 2019) focus on plastic waste discharges from a singular Finally, this report will discuss issues related to data catchment. To adequately inform national policies and availability, knowledge gaps, assumptions and validation, help define priorities for intervention, it is necessary and provide recommendations for future improvements to encompass the larger national picture, as well as that can lead to better estimations and useful results. provide correlation with local waste practices that might Applying a similar approach in the future will help generate plastic marine debris. to monitor progress towards the established targets and the effectiveness of national and local measures in preventing new inputs of plastic waste into the sea. 1.4 ABOUT THIS REPORT The Oceans, Marine Debris and Coastal Resources 1.4.2 Scope of the study Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) is a financing mechanism Plastic marine pollution originates from many different established by the World Bank with financing from sources, from land to sea-based activities, mostly related Norway and Denmark to support the GoI in achieving to mishandling of municipal, industrial and agricultural its plastic waste reduction targets. One aim of the solid waste, or even loss of material such as cargo or MDTF is to strengthen the metrics, monitoring and fishing gear. knowledge base of marine debris with a special focus on urban areas, and support the Coordinating Ministry of This study focuses on land-based sources of MPW, Maritime Affairs and Investment (Kemenko Kemaritiman resulting from municipal solid waste (MSW). It therefore dan Investasi RI) to actively monitor, coordinate and excludes plastic waste that originates from maritime streamline the many initiatives and activities currently activities such as fishing and shipping (sea-based underway. This report describes the approach and the sources), as well as any other industries that are not main results of one of the studies funded by the MDTF. accounted for in the MSW data used as inputs for the study’s estimations. 1.4.1 Objectives and value added of the In Indonesia, MSW includes household and study non-household waste. Non-hazardous industrial waste is sometimes collected as non-household MSW or is This study is the first Indonesia-wide assessment otherwise disposed of in landfills by independent that integrates national waste generation and waste collection systems. As such, MPW generated by management performance data with actual hydrological certain industries can be accounted for in the results. conditions, which carry plastic waste from land-based Hazardous waste flows into a special waste handling sources into the marine environment. The study provides and treatment system, distinct from the non-hazardous a methodology and modeling approach that was used waste and is not included in this study. Due to limited to produce a national estimate of MPW carried in and data availability in Indonesia, agricultural solid waste discharged by freshwater systems, with high spatial is also not specifically accounted for. The proportion resolution and using the best available data from national of agricultural solid waste is very low compared to the sources. It contributes towards the establishment of volume of solid waste from other land-based sources. a baseline on marine debris, specifically in relation to inputs of plastic waste from land-based sources, for Finally, while acknowledging that smaller plastic particles one particular period in time. (including microplastics) are of high interest and concern, this study considers only the larger fraction of plastic By incorporating the interdependency between sources, as a starting point. It excludes those sources — such leakage pathways and riverine plastic discharges, this as weathering of textiles, paints and tires, that also integrated approach can pinpoint the most critical generate microplastics — which can reach the marine hotspots of plastic leakages and the specific waste environment not only through waterways but also through handling practices that generate them (e.g. households sewers and even atmospheric deposition. Although disposing of waste in waterways), while quantifying the modeling accounts for processes of degradation, their relative contribution to the plastic problem. These burial and retention as plastic is carried from land into leakages and hotspots can be linked to geographical the sea, the results do not make a distinction between areas (e.g. administrative boundaries of kabupaten/kota) plastic sizes or plastic types, only the total plastic mass and can identify regions that need special attention. that is discharged in the marine environment. Most importantly, these results can help in setting local priorities and defining interventions and investments. 20 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia SECTION 2. APPROACH TO ASSESS PLASTIC POLLUTION FROM SOURCE TO SEA SECTION 2. APPROACH TO ASSESS PLASTIC POLLUTION FROM SOURCE TO SEA 2.1 GENERAL APPROACH AND DEFINITIONS T he general approach for this study is to integrate Indonesian data on solid waste management (SWM)5 with hydrology, and to model the flow of plastic waste generated on land, leakages from different land-based sources into waterways, and transport through and discharge by rivers into the marine environment (Figure 1). Although comprehensive, the study does not consider the issue of plastic pollution in its full extension and relies on a series of assumptions due to limitations in data availability and knowledge development. While Indonesian SWM data is improving and this study incorporates the best data available, there are a number of challenges related to coverage. For example, much of the information is only available for the provincial level and must be extrapolated to kabupaten/kota level. Accuracy is another challenge — there are significant data ‘outliers’ that were filtered out during the data analysis process. The reliance on the Indonesian Statistics Bureau (Badan Pusat Statistik - BPS) household survey data (only available at provincial level at this time and only collected every three years) is another challenge, given the calculations for direct disposal of uncollected plastic waste to water are based on this information. As a result, this study assumes that behavioral practices are similar within different locations of the province, while in reality there may be significant local variations. Table 1 summarizes what has been included and excluded from the scope of the study. Appraisal of data, assumptions made and validity of the results are presented and discussed in Table 2, Table 7 and section 3.3. It can be concluded upfront that the overall uncertainty of the study’s results is mostly affected by data gaps and the uncertainty in the estimates of plastic waste that leaks into the environment. Clear definitions of the different fractions of plastic waste are essential for proper mass balance computation. The key definitions adopted in this study are provided in Box 2. 5 Data sources include: The National Waste Management Information System from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry; landfill information from the Ministry of Public Works and Housing; plastic recovery rates from the National Plastic Action Partnership (NPAP); the most recent Indonesian census and survey information for population and waste household waste handling practices; as well as Solid Waste Master Plans (SWMP) from 40 kabupaten and kota. 22 | Market Study for Thailand: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers FIGURE 1. Conceptual framework for modeling material flow (green brown); leakages (red); and wash-off/transport of plastic waste from land-based sources via rivers (blue) Source: Deltares TABLE 1. Scope delimitation of the study Included in the scope Excluded from the scope Implications in the results Sources of All sources of plastic waste Industrial waste (including MSW is expected to account for most plastic waste that are accounted for under agricultural and sea-based of the plastic waste inputs into the sea. MSW data (households, sources such as fishing However, the exact contribution of offices, markets, etc.). and shipping) that is not non-MSW streams and microplastics is accounted for under MSW; unknown. Therefore, it can be stated that hazardous industrial waste. the results provide an estimate of a large part of the plastic input from land-based Size of All plastic waste (regardless Other sources that may sources into the sea but not all. plastic waste of the size) that is accounted generate plastic particles for under MSW data. The and microplastics (e.g. study follows a total mass weathering of textiles, car flow analysis methodology tires and paints; cosmetics; and applies uniform frag- resin pellets/flakes) are not mentation and leakage to included in the study. the total MPW mass. Types of Overall plastic waste (not Differentiation of plastic Different plastic items behave differently plastic waste differentiated in plastic types (e.g. items, polymers, in terms of retention, fragmentation and types) sizes) buoyancy as they are made of different polymers and have distinct sizes, shapes and density. Differences in composition of plastic waste streams may exist between kabupaten but were unknown at the time of this study and are not considered. Because the study does not differentiate the physical characteristics of plastic explicitly, quantification of the effect of these features on the model results is currently not possible. However, the approach could be refined to include different plastic types once information on the composition and behavior of each are known. Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 23 Included in the scope Excluded from the scope Implications in the results MSW data Mostly official Indonesian The study makes use of the best available used data, e.g. at kabupaten/kota data in Indonesia, with a high spatial or province level, depending resolution. Nevertheless, there are data on the parameters limitations (related to coverage and accuracy) and several assumptions were made, both of which are presented and discussed in detail in Table 2. Leakages Three types of leakages Handling of uncollected plastic waste is from diffuse are considered in the based on household data, which is only sources study: direct disposal available at provincial level (see Table of (uncollected) plastic 2). It is therefore generalized to smaller waste in water; disposal of administrative units within the province (uncollected) plastic waste in (kabupaten/kota) and local specificities the terrestrial environment may not be captured. (illegal dumping/fly-tipping); leakages from unsanitary landfills. Leakages A range of leakage is Individual/site-specific Limited by lack of data, leakage rates are from point defined for three types of leakage rate from landfills based on expert judgement (see Table sources landfills, based on expert and formal open dumpsites 2), although a range has been defined to judgement. If coordinates account for uncertainty (see Table 5 and are available, final disposal section 3.3.1). sites are considered as point For landfills that are beyond their sources. designed capacity but are still According to the data used, operational, it can be expected that 130 landfills have likely plastic leakages are higher than assumed been in operation beyond in the study. their designed capacities. This study assumes that the plastic waste leakage rate does not change, as there is no empirical data or study to substantiate such change. Environmen- Rainfall; run-off; waterways Other forces such as wind The study accounts only for hydrology tal forces flow transport as the carrier of plastic waste from land that can into the sea. It can be assumed that other transport environmental factors can contribute plastic to transport of lightweight plastic into waterways and the marine environment. However, these contributions are assumed to be minor in what concerns MSW. Environmen- Burial and fragmentation on Variable land and catch- A mass flow analysis approach was chosen tal processes land and retention in rivers, ment-specific processes as there is a limitation to the state of all assumed as constant rate (e.g. retention by knowledge about processes affecting and dependent on residence vegetation, exposure to plastic items based on size, shape and time (e.g. size of river) weathering factors, etc.) density in the environment (see section 3.3.2). To avoid over-parameterization and due to the large scale (multiple catchments) of the study, retention and fragmentation processes are aggregated and quantified based on existing literature and expert judgement (see Table 7). The uncertainty of individual processes is thus inherent in the choice of parameters and cannot be further quantified. Nevertheless, the approach could be refined to include these processes once information is available. 24 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Included in the scope Excluded from the scope Implications in the results Man-made Dams are included in the Other artificial water Since only waste retention by dams is structures hydrological models and management infrastruc- accounted for it can be expected that assumed to retain 100% tures are not included in for the rivers where other structures are of the plastic waste that is the model. Due to lack of present the estimates are overestimat- transported in the upstream data, retention of plastic ed. More realistic estimates will depend part of the catchment. waste by trash-racks, on reliable removal/retention data (see sewers and drainage section 3.3.4), which, when available, networks is not accounted could then be incorporated into the for in the study. approach. Recommen- Technical recommendations Consideration of institu- dations based on the results of the tional arrangements and study implications for implemen- tation BOX 2. Definitions Marine debris: Also referred to Mismanaged plastic waste (i.e. that can leak from terrestrial as marine litter, is any processed (MPW): Fraction of plastic waste environment into waterways). or synthetic material or item that that is not adequately collected, Whether this MPW will end up in ends up in the marine environment, treated or contained, and can or waterways will depend on many directly discarded or lost from will end up in the environment. factors, including the permeability of maritime activities (e.g. sea-based Specifically, MPW accounts for all the the soil, the inclination of the terrain fishing and shipping), direct littering uncollected plastic waste; all losses and the distance to waterways. or dumping at the coast or carried from collection and recycling; all From point-sources of MPW (e.g. from land-based activities via runoff plastic waste that ends up in open controlled landfills or official or river outflows (GESAMP, 2019). dumpsites, as well as the plastic dumping sites) an availability rate is Plastic marine debris constitutes waste that leaks from controlled attributed to determine the fraction the plastic fraction of marine debris, landfills (which have some level of of MPW that can be transported by which tends to be the predominant containment but not as rigorous rainfall run-off. material. Note that this study does as sanitary landfills). This definition Leakages: Flow of plastic waste not include plastic marine debris that deviates from what Indonesian into the environment (or from one originates from sea-based sources, regulation currently defines as environmental compartment into unless these are accounted for under managed waste, which considers another), from a particular source, MSW data. the waste that is disposed of in all either by accidental (e.g. loss) or formal disposal sites, including both Sources: The economic sector, purposeful release (e.g. illegal controlled landfills and official open human activity or infrastructure from dumping/fly-tipping, direct disposal dumpsites, from which leakages which waste is released into the in water) or by action of physical of plastic are likely to occur. MPW environment. The means of release factors such as rain and wind. The has a likelihood of ending up in the (leakage) is specified to indicate the pathway is further specified as environment, depending on the mechanism or the way the waste item “leakages into waterways” (i.e. the conditions in which it is handled, leaves the intended cycle (as in Veiga fraction that ends up in rivers either contained and how much is exposed et al, 2016). Examples: direct disposal through direct disposal or because to wash-off (see next definition). in water (leakage) from households of wash-off). All leaked plastic results (source). MPW exposed/available for from MPW, but not all MPW leaks wash-off: Fraction of MPW that into waterways (e.g. can be burned, Uncollected waste: All waste that is can or will end up in waterways buried on land, etc.). left uncollected (by both formal and via transport by rainfall run-off informal collection). Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 25 The study comprises a sequential set of analyses teristics from the communities that live within a specific and uses different types of data and tools, which are river catchment. described in this chapter. The overall approach can To obtain the likely range of plastic waste discharged be summarized as: into the marine environment from land-based sources, 1. Plastic waste material flow: Population and the following scenarios were produced and simulated: solid waste handling and management data (e.g. 5. Using a Monte Carlo analysis, three SWM scenarios6 plastic waste generated, collected, and treated, were developed based on the uncertainties and and plastic waste handling practices) are used to ranges of the SWM input data: a low-scenario (10 assess the plastic waste flow and estimate amounts percentile), a mid-scenario (50 percentile) and a of MPW generated within each administrative unit high-scenario (90 percentile). (desa/kelurahan). Plastic waste that is not properly collected and treated can be directly disposed 6. To account for the natural high variability of rainfall, of in waterways, disposed of on the terrestrial the hydrological variability was assessed for the environment (illegal dumping/fly-tipping) and/or various model domains and the appropriate leak into waterways. modeling period (within a four-year period: 2. Hydrological factors: Run-off, resulting from 2013-2016) adjusted accordingly. rainfall and river flow, is the main driving force that 7. The three SWM scenarios were used as inputs for can wash-off plastic waste from land (e.g. from the models and each scenario simulated for the full open dumpsites) into waterways and transport it four-year period, accounting for the hydrological downstream through rivers. Rainfall run-off and variability, which provided three timeseries of plastic river discharges are simulated using a hydrological waste discharges into the marine environment. model (WFLOW). This is simulated considering the local topographical conditions, soil type, land-use 8. To obtain a national range of plastic waste discharged and spatially and temporally variable meteorological into the marine environment from land-based data, such as rainfall. sources, the minimum 365-day discharge was determined for the low-scenario; the median 365-day 3. Plastic fate and transport: Any plastic waste that is discharge was determined for the mid-scenario; and disposed of improperly in the terrestrial environment the maximum 365-day discharge was determined is exposed to weathering, fragmentation and for the high-scenario. retaining forces that obstruct plastic from washing off. The excess plastic waste is washed off through This resulted in three total values representing the rainfall and transported to a river, stream or lake. national range of plastic waste discharged into the marine Plastic waste that is washed off or disposed of environment: low estimate (minimum of low-scenario directly in waterways will be transported downstream simulation), mid estimate (median of mid-scenario) and towards the marine environment, unless it is retained high estimate (maximum of high-scenario simulation) by natural or artificial obstacles such as vegetation (see sections 2.2 and 2.3 for details). and dams. This is simulated by modeling the wash-off and riverine transport of plastic waste with a fate and transportation model (DELWAQ). 2.2 MODELING MISMANAGED 4. Aggregation of results at national level and river PLASTIC WASTE FROM LAND- basin: Results obtained for each of the administrative BASED SOURCES units are aggregated to obtain figures for different This section presents the approach to assess MPW from spatial scales, such as the whole country, islands and river catchments. land-based sources for 514 kabupaten/kota in Indonesia. The assessment at kabupaten/kota level ensures the For each river catchment, a spatially and temporally integration of kabupaten/kota level variability in waste variable representation of the transport and fate of practices and provides input for SWM policy interventions plastic waste from land-based sources to the marine environment can be constructed as a reflection of 6 A range of low (10%) – mid (50%) – high (90%) estimates was certain waste generation and management charac- obtained for all output parameters at desa/kelurahan level. 26 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia at that level — one of the local government’s primary of household waste9. Just over half of this waste (63%)10 public service responsibilities7. makes it to a final disposal site and a lot of waste in A broad range of data sources were used in this Indonesia remains uncollected. The waste that does assessment. Solid waste infrastructure data (i.e. landfills, make it to final disposal sites is not always treated recycling facilities/TPS3R8 and waste banks) comes from properly — only about one quarter of over 437 final the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry disposal sites in the country are sanitary landfills. Formal (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan - incineration is rare due to strong public opposition. KLHK) and the Ministry of Public Works and Housing The informal sector has traditionally played a significant (Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat, role in collecting and processing recyclable waste for PUPR). Assumptions for waste picker activities are based money and is well-organized11. on NPAP data. The results of BPS 2017 Modul Ketahanan As illustrated in Figure 2, the two main driving forces Social (Hansos) survey was used to describe household behind MPW in Indonesia are inadequate SWM and solid waste practices. Indonesian population data, as human behavior (i.e. how individuals and households directly contributing to solid waste generation (SWG), handle their waste and the significant portion of uses BPS data applied at desa/kelurahan level. Due uncollected waste). to variances in SWM data, three scenarios of low, mid The SWM model applied in this study is based on SWM and high estimates of MPW were produced in this practices at kabupaten/kota level and the established assessment. SWM laws and regulations in Indonesia. The model captures SWM organized by kabupaten/kota as the formal 2.2.1 Solid waste material flow and service provider through collection-transport-disposal estimation of MPW systems, initiatives at community level for solid waste Indonesia generates significant amounts of solid waste. In 2018, the country produced about 66.5 million tons 9 Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018) 10 Ibid 11 The informal ‘pumulung’ are members of the Indonesian 7 According to Law 23/2014 concerning Local Governance. Association of Waste Pickers, and there are over two million 8 Tempat Pengelolaan Sampah, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - TPS3R members: 25,000 in Jakarta alone. FIGURE 2. Conceptual framework depicting SWM material flow and data to assess MPW originating land-based sources Source: Deltares Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 27 reduction through TPS3R and waste bank facilities, by definition, MPW. If not burned or buried, this plastic SWM household behaviors (particularly as it relates to waste will likely be discarded directly into waterways or the portion of uncollected household waste), as well as dumped somewhere on land, where it will be exposed the contribution of the informal sector (waste pickers). to wash-off (see section 2.3). A simplified model of the complex flow of solid waste material (adapted from NPAP, 2019) shows how 2.2.2 Methodology uncollected plastic waste may end up in the environment (Figure 3). Refer to the detailed SWM model schematic In this study, population data from BPS and solid waste in Appendix II for further information. handling and management data (e.g. plastic waste The model SWM shows how plastic waste flows into generated, collected, treated and plastic waste handling three different pathways: formal collection, informal practices) are used to assess the plastic waste material collection and uncollected. All three of these pathways flow and estimate amounts of MPW generated within generate MPW. Waste that is disposed of in formal each administrative unit (desa/kelurahan). Uncertainties open dumpsites is also considered as MPW, as well as in the SWM data sources are considered in the model the fractions of plastic waste from controlled landfills by estimating a range per input parameter to provide (plastic bags and other light plastics) that may leak low (10%) – mid (50%) – high (90%) estimates for all out. Other fractions of MPW, as illustrated in Figure 3, output parameters over the plastic waste flow model12. originate from sorting losses from both formal recycling (to the left of the diagram under formal collection) The mid estimate is used as reference in this analysis and informal collection (the middle pathway), never to obtain low and high estimates. reaching formal disposal sites and instead ending up 12 This analysis is calculated with Descriptive Analysis menu in the in the terrestrial environment or in waterways. Similarly, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version uncollected plastic waste (the right-hand pathway) is, 19 and uses a confidence level of 90%. FIGURE 3. Simplified solid waste material flow model: Focusing on plastic waste that remains uncollected (“C”), including losses from collection and sorting (“A”, “B”). Green crosses indicate no potential plastic leakage from the recycled fraction of plastic waste (waste bank is assumed to have no sorting loss). Source: Adapted from NPAP, 2019 28 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Photo: Mike Workman / Shutterstock MSW consists of household waste and household-like in ‘What a Waste 2.0’ (Kaza et al, 2018) as residential, waste. Household-like waste is defined in Law 18/200813 commercial and institutional waste. The assessment as waste from commercial areas, social facilities, public of MPW is projected on population estimates at desa/ facilities, industrial areas, special areas (i.e. national kelurahan14 level. All the SWM data is computationally parks, cultural conservation areas and national strategic processed with an excel-based SWM model15. development areas for industry and technology), and/or Different SWM data sources have been used in this other facilities. Household-like waste will subsequently be study. Table 2 provides a summary of the different SWM referred to as non-household waste in this document. This model data sources, limitations, and assumptions made. is in line with the definition of municipal waste as stated 14 The Indonesian government is divided into autonomous prov- 13 The Law 18/2008 on waste management differentiates between inces (Provinsi), districts (kabupaten), and municipalities (kota), three types of waste; i) household waste, ii) household-like waste and villages. Villages in rural areas are called desa while in urban and iii) specific waste. Household waste originates from daily areas referred to as kelurahan. In 2018, Indonesia Central Bureau household activities, excluding feces and specific waste. House- of Statistic (Badan Pusat Statistik-BPS) registers 75.436 desa and hold-like waste derives from commercial areas, industrial areas, 8.444 kelurahan. Apart from the administrative arrangement, special areas (i.e. national parks, cultural conservation areas and BPS also identifies spatial planning functionality of villages to national strategic development areas for industry and tech- determine its urban or rural status based on population density, nology), social facilities, public facilities, and/or other facilities. percentage of agricultural households and number of urban Specific waste includes hazardous and toxic materials (in their facilities (BPS Decree 37/2010 on Urban Rural Classification). raw form), waste containing hazardous and toxic waste, waste resulting from disasters, construction and demolition waste, 15 Microsoft Excel was chosen as the spreadsheet processor due any waste that cannot be processed due to lack of available to the familiarity of many people with Excel for data processing. technology, as well as waste that is not periodically generated This familiarity is important for smooth adoption and knowledge (for example, from special events such as fairs, carnivals or music transfer of the SWM model to the GoI for regular updating of the events, etc.). model. Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 29 TABLE 2. Summary of SWM model data sources, limitations and assumptions Indicator / sub-indicators Data source Data limitations Assumptions made (1) Total solid waste generated (population x solid waste generated per capita) Population BPS population data desa/ None None kelurahan Solid waste • Jakstrada • Only 257 (50%) of kabupaten/ • Outliers (10% smallest and generated (SWG) • Solid Waste Master kota covered (32 overlapping) highest %) were excluded /capita Plans (SWMPs) (40 • SWMPs data based on • For the 257 kabupaten/kota kabupaten/kota) sampling of SWG and without data, the average • SIPSN16 database (249 composition, considered to amount of SWG (based on kabupaten/kota) be good quality combined SWMPs and SIPSN • SIPSN is self-reported, no database for households and data validation, not based non-households) is a repre- sentative value. on sampling, therefore lower reliability • Average amount of SWG is differentiated between kabupaten/kota (2) Total plastic waste generated (SWG x plastic content) Plastic content • SWMPs (40 • Only 232 (45%) of kabupaten/ • Outliers (10% lowest and kabupaten/kota) kota covered (28 overlapping) highest) were excluded • SIPSN database (220 • SIPSN same as above • Sampling is undertaken kabupaten/kota) according to established guidelines and is quality-con- trolled • For the 282 kabupaten/kota without data, plastic content based on SWMPs and SIPSN filtered data is a representa- tive value • Average amount of plastic content is differentiated between kabupaten/kota (3) Total plastic waste collected (formally + informally collected) Total plastic • PUPR SWM data • Landfill data compared to waste formally • SIPSN database SWG and BPS Hansos 2017 collected and lowest number selected • Cross-checked with as final figure for formally SWG and Hansos 2017 collected plastic waste. (BPS) Collected by • NPAP (recovery factor • Local kabupaten/kota values • NPAP values for four residential waste of 67%) not available archetypes (mega, pickers • Only NPAP extrapolated medium, rural, and remote) extrapolated to kabupaten/ values available kota (recovery factor of 67%) is a representative value • Based on a study in Jakarta, 2018, and applied nationally Collected by No data available No data therefore not relevant Landfill waste pickers focus on landfill waste recyclable plastic and residues pickers are left in the landfill (resulting in a minor reduction in MPW 16 National Waste Management Information System (Sistem Informasi Pengelolaan Sampah Nasional - SIPSN) 30 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Indicator / sub-indicators Data source Data limitations Assumptions made (4) Total plastic waste uncollected, including losses from collection Handling • BPS Hansos 2017, as • Data only at provincial level • Provincial value is representa- practices for the most recent data • Split into urban and rural tive at kabupaten/kota level uncollected for household solid waste waste practices • Good quality data, although only collected every three years (5) Total recycled plastic waste (recycled from TPS3R + waste banks + informal collection) Recovery from • PUPR TPS3R design • No systematic data available • Total plastic recycled is 78.3% TPS3R capacity of TPS3R design capacity • Based on three studies in kota Medan and Malang (2016, 2017, and 2019) and applied nationally Recovery from • SIPSN database • No systematic data available • Total plastic recycled is waste bank same as Waste Bank design capacity Recovery • See above from informal collection (6) Total plastic waste disposed to final destination (disposal to sanitary landfills + controlled landfills + official dumpsites + total recycled plastic waste) Disposal to • PUPR and SIPSN • Data only available for 351 • 130 landfills have been in sanitary landfills sanitary landfill gate out of 437 landfills operation for more than 10 data or design capacity • Weighbridge measurements years, which is the minimum lifetime design capacity. The limited (exact figure unknown) study assumes that the rate • Estimation based on number of plastic waste available for of trucks x waste density wash-off is not affected by the • Landfill design capacity as fact that these landfills have reported by PUPR already reached their capacity but are still operational. • Use of expert opinion in case of poor data coverage • Landfill is operated according to established guidelines • Total SWG in kabupaten/kota and result of Hansos survey are used to check disposal to sanitary landfill from the landfill gate or design capacity. The lowest number from these three is used. Disposal to • PUPR and SIPSN • Same as above • Same as above controlled controlled landfill gate landfills data or design capacity Disposal to open • PUPR open dumpsites • Same as above • Same as above dumpsites data (7) Total MPW ([total uncollected plastic waste + losses from collection] + total plastic disposed of to open dumpsites + leakages from controlled landfills) • Uses same data as no. • See no. 4 and no. 8 • See no. 4 and no. 8 4 and leakage data from no. 8 Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 31 Indicator / sub-indicators Data source Data limitations Assumptions made (8) Total MPW available for wash-off (from sanitary landfills + controlled landfills + formal dumpsites + uncollected plastic waste) From sanitary • Calculation: % of total • Use of expert opinion • 0% plastics will wash-off due landfills (leakage) plastic waste disposed to effective management (covering minimizes leakages) • Landfill coordinates from PUPR and SIPSN • If landfill coordinates available: considered as point source From controlled • Calculation: % of total • Use of expert opinion • Three ranges of leakage: landfills (leakage) plastic waste disposed low (2%), mid (3%) and high (5%) of plastic waste going to • Landfill coordinates controlled landfill from PUPR and SIPSN • If landfill coordinates available: considered as point source From formal • Calculation: % of total • Use of expert opinion • Three ranges of leakage: dumpsites plastic waste disposed low (5%), mid (10%) and high (20%) of the plastic waste (leakage) • Landfill coordinates going to (open) dumping from PUPR and SIPSN • If landfill coordinates available: considered as point source From uncollected • Calculation: % of • 100% of uncollected waste on plastic waste uncollected waste land and water is available for + losses from disposed on land, wash-off collection water, burned or • Burned or buried waste is not buried available for wash-off The detailed methodology to determine the mid (50%) SWG per capita: SWG per capita is obtained from the estimates for each output parameters in the pathways total amount of household and non-household waste of the simplified solid waste material flow model (Figure at kabupaten/kota level, divided by the population 3). Reference is made in each pathway to data sources, number of the kabupaten/kota. Details of the data assumptions and limitations, which are summarized sources, assumptions and limitations to determine solid in Table 2. waste per capita are presented in Table 2. Plastic content: Plastic content can be obtained A. Plastic waste generated (PWG) through a waste generation and composition sampling. The following formula is used to determine PWG in Indonesian National Standard (SNI)17 provides detailed tons/day. explanation and technical guideline on how to implement the sampling. On waste composition data, the sampling should identify at minimum the following information, PWG = Population x SWG per capita x based on detailed guidance provided by PUPR18: Plastic content • Percentage of organic waste; • Percentage of non-organic waste: plastic, paper, metal, glass, household hazardous waste and other Population: BPS defines population as residents who waste. live for six months or more in a specific geographical area and/or who temporarily live for less than six months 17 SNI 19-3964-1994 on the method to collect and measure sample for municipal waste generation and composition analysist but aim to settle. Population at desa/kelurahan level 18 Minister of Public Works (PUPR) regulation number 03/ is used in this study, with a distinction between urban PRT/M/2013 concerning management of solid waste infra- and rural areas. structures for household waste and household-like waste 32 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Summary of data sources, assumptions and limitations dumpsites. In Table 3 the main differences between to determine plastic content is presented in Table 2. these types of landfills are summarized. As indicated, open dumpsites, even if considered as official formal B. Formal collection disposal sites, do not ensure that waste is adequately Indonesia recognizes solid waste collection and reduction contained (e.g. no compaction nor coverage). For this as part of the SWM system. Solid waste collection reason, this study considers all the plastic waste that consists of waste separation, house-to-house collection ends up in formal dumpsites as “mismanaged” (MPW). and transport, and disposal to landfill. Solid waste In the case of controlled landfills, only the estimated reduction consists of reduction at source, reuse and fraction of plastic waste that is available for wash-off recycling activities. The local government, through the has been accounted for in the total of MPW. Local Environmental Agency (Dinas Lingkungan Hidup The combined data from PUPR and SIPSN identifies (DLH), provides solid waste collection services with 437 landfills of the following types: 113 sanitary landfills, most of the solid waste reduction implemented at 255 controlled landfills and 69 formal open dumpsites. household level or by community-based organizations They serve 329 out of 416 kabupaten and 94 out of at TPS3R facilities and waste banks. These two systems 98 kota. are defined as formal collection. Official recycling facilities (TPS3R) Formal collection in relation to plastic waste is the TPS3R facilities are generally operated by neighbor- total plastic waste processed in landfills, TPS3R and hood-based organizations to further sort waste into waste banks: recyclables, although there are some TPS3R facilities with relatively high design capacity that receive financial Formal collection = disposed waste in and management support from local government. TPS3R facilities are designed with a capacity of about 3-6 landfill + (design capacity x recovery m3/day, can typically serve 1,000-1,600 persons per factor) TPS3R + (design capacity x day19 and have an average recovery factor of 78.3% recovery factor) waste bank (Hardianto et al, 2016). The remaining 21.7% of the incoming waste into these facilities (sorting loss) is either formally collected and disposed of in final disposal A summary of data sources, assumptions and limitations sites or remains uncollected. to determine formal collection from landfills, TPS3R and waste banks is presented in Table 2. In 2018, there were 934 TPS3R facilities distributed in 338 kabupaten/kota registered in the PUPR web-based Formal disposal sites information system (Rakhmawati et al, 2017). Indonesia classifies three types of landfills based on Waste banks (Bank Sampah) design and operational standard: sanitary landfill, controlled landfill and formal open dumpsites. In Waste banks are neighborhood-based facilities where Indonesia, sanitary, controlled landfills and formal residents can sell recyclables as a deposit toward personal open dumpsite are referred to as final disposal sites savings or other benefits. The KLHK provides technical or Tempat Pemrosesan Akhir (TPA). This study uses the 19 Ministry of Public Works and Housing (Kementrian Pekerjaan term ‘sanitary landfill’ and ‘unsanitary landfill’, which Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat, PUPR), “Technical Guidelines of includes both controlled landfills and formal open TPS3R”, 2019 TABLE 3. Final disposal sites: Types of landfill Frequency of soil Leachate Methane capture No. Type of landfill Compaction covering treatment facility 1 Sanitary landfill Daily Daily Yes Yes 2 Controlled landfill Daily Weekly Yes Yes 3 Formal open No No No No dumpsites Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 33 guidance on the implementation of reduce-reuse-recy- Landfill waste picker: These waste pickers target landfills, cle through waste banks20. According to KLHK records collecting recyclables from inbound waste and it is there are 229 kabupaten/kota with registered waste acknowledged that this action may have some impact banks in operation. The recovery factor of a waste on the flow of plastic waste and recycling. As this study bank in this study is assumed to be 100% as they only focuses primarily on pathways and potential leakages of accept recyclable items. It is therefore assumed that MPW into the marine environment, waste flows that may there is no MPW generated at waste banks. redistribute plastic waste between different collection compartments but do not have a significant impact C. Informal collection on MPW, are not further explored and specified. This Waste pickers in Indonesia are called “Pemulung” is the case of the plastic waste informally picked by and waste picking activities are not illegal (Chaerul landfill waste pickers up at landfills and then recycled. et al, 2013). Waste pickers are frequently observed in As a result, there may be a minor underestimation of formal landfills and they are supported by the local the total amount of plastic waste recycled. government with temporary shelters and a special waste picking zone in the landfill site (i.e. kota Bitung D. Uncollected plastic waste in North Sulawesi province and kota Kendari in Southeast Uncollected plastic waste comprises the fraction of Sulawesi province). waste that remains uncollected, as well as the losses Informal collection in this study specifically refers to from collected waste resulting from sorting and recycling waste picker activities at non-landfill (residential areas) activity (Figure 3), which do not end up at a formal and landfill sites, as described below. A summary of disposal site. Summary of data sources, assumptions data sources, assumptions and limitations to determine and limitations to determine MPW uncollected plastic MPW from informal collection has been presented waste is presented in Table 2. in Table 2. These flows are estimated based on national household Non-landfill waste picker: Non-landfill waste pickers survey results conducted by BPS and sorting loss collect high-value recyclables from residential areas from TPS3R and informal collection, which contribute and include street pickers, itinerant buyers, etc. In this proportionally to uncollected waste handling behaviors study, a recovery factor of 67% is applied for the waste (Table 4). picker activity in residential areas, as suggested by BPS21 identifies 10 SWM practices at the household level. NPAP (2019), based on a study by Putri et al (2018).. Of these 10 behaviors, only two (6. Disposal in water and 7. Dumping/fly-tipping) are considered primary 20 Ministerial of Environment and Forestry Regulation number 13/2012 21 BPS, Questionnaire Modul Hansos 2017 TABLE 4. SWM behaviors identified by BPS # Behavior Remark Potential leak? 1. Collected by solid waste Formally collected operator/officer 2. Disposal at a temporary collection Formally collected facility 3. Recycling/reusing No solid waste generated 4. Composted No plastic waste generated 5. Collected for the Waste Bank Formally collected 6. Disposal in water Uncollected Yes 7. Dumping/fly-tipping Uncollected Yes 8. Burned Uncollected No 9. Buried Uncollected No 10. Other practice (i.e. livestock food) No plastic waste generated 34 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia sources of MPW which directly discard plastic waste and respondents can select more than one practice into the environment. Note that two behaviors are not from a total of ten practices (Question 1814). This applicable to plastic (4. Composting and 10. Livestock dataset was not used as it was not possible to define food) and do not result in actual generation of solid the most frequently adopted waste handling practice waste and plastic waste. Note as well that recycling/ by households. Furthermore, the Susenas Hansos 2017 reuse (of plastic) at home does not result in generation provides a more recent dataset. of solid waste and plastic waste. Percentages for these behaviors have been processed E. Mismanaged plastic waste and availability for to reflect only the uncollected fraction of plastic waste. wash-off The following formula is used to obtain the percentage This study considers the following as mismanaged: the of uncollected waste directly disposed to water, based plastic waste that remains uncollected (including losses on the Susenas Hansos 2017 results. The percentage from collection and recycling), together with plastic for other uncollected waste handling practices, as waste that is collected but disposed of in formal sites indicated in the above table, is calculated with the with no containment practices (open dumpsites), as same approach. well as the estimated leakages from controlled landfills. Uncollected waste directly disposed in Mismanaged Plastic Waste (MPW) = water = [6. Disposal in water] / (( [6.] + uncollected plastic waste + losses from [7.] + [8.] + [9.] ) / (1 – ( [3.] + [4.] + [10.] )) collection and recycling + collected plastic waste that is disposed of in Susenas Hansos 2017 is used in this assessment since formal open dumpsites + plastic waste it is the most recent data capturing household SWM that is available for wash-off from practices in Indonesia. There are two questions in the controlled landfills Susenas Hansos 2017 questionnaire related to solid waste practices: • Question 908.a, which addresses the type of solid Depending on the handling practices and where waste is waste practices in the household, where respondents disposed of, plastic waste may become “available” to be can select more than one practice from a total of washed off (leak) by action of runoff into a stream, river ten (10) practices; or lake. For each source of MPW a wash-off availability • Question 908.b, which addresses the most frequent (leakage) parameter is attributed. A summary of data practice in household SWM. sources, assumptions and limitations to determine MPW available for wash-off has been presented in Table 2. The results of the second question are used in this study to calculate the likely destination of uncollected The following wash-off availability parameters are waste. This is in line with BPS that also uses these results applied in this study: as the basis for solid waste practice analysis in their 1. Plastic waste from official disposal sites: The Hansos survey publication on Laporan Indeks Perilaku following estimates are based on SWM expert Ketidakpedulian Lingkungan Hidup. opinion. It is assumed that plastic bags and other Due to its sampling design, the result of the Hansos light plastics are likely to be blown away from landfills survey is only valid at provincial level. The same provincial without daily covering with soil or other covering figures are therefore applied to all kabupaten/kota in materials and this fraction of plastic waste will be each province, with a distinction between urban and available for wash-off. Since in sanitary landfills rural areas. covering of waste is applied daily as standard The other survey organized by BPS related to SWM operational procedures, it is assumed that no was the health and housing module (Modul Kesehatan plastic waste is available for wash-off from a sanitary dan Perumahan - MKP) in 2016. It is a different survey landfill. These assumptions are translated in fractions module implemented by BPS with a question addressing of plastic waste that is available for wash-off, as the type of solid waste practices in the household, summarized in Table 5. Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 35 TABLE 5. Fractions of plastic waste available for wash-off from disposal sites on land Type of disposal site Availability rate for wash-off Sanitary landfill Assumed to be 0% Controlled landfill Estimated at 2% (low), 3% (mid) and 5% (high) of total plastic waste disposed in controlled landfill Official dumpsite (open dumping) Estimated at 5% (low), 10% (mid) and 20% (high) of total plastic waste disposed in official dumpsite 2. MPW improperly disposed of in the terrestrial to determine how much plastic is discharged into the environment (illegal dumping/fly-tipping): This marine environment at a national level. fraction of MPW is assumed to be 100% available To construct an accurate picture of where, when and why for wash-off. MPW is discharged into the marine environment, the 3. MPW directly disposed in water: As this fraction of actual hydrological conditions need to be considered MPW is directly disposed in waterways it is assumed and factored in the modeling approach. to be 100% available for wash-off. 4. MPW that is openly burned or buried: These fractions 2.3.2 Hydrology as a driver for transport of are assumed to be not available for wash-off. plastic waste As portrayed in Figure 4 below, there are three main 2.3 MODELING WASH-OFF pathways through which MPW can be transported from OF PLASTIC WASTE INTO the terrestrial to the marine environment: WATERWAYS AND TRANSPORT 1. Direct disposal in water IN RIVERS 2. Leakages from illegal dumping/fly-tipping 3. Leakages from unsanitary landfills (controlled 2.3.1 Rainfall and rivers in Indonesia landfills and formal open dumpsites) Hydrological conditions vary considerably throughout Hydrology (run-off of excess rainfall and river discharge) Indonesia. Rainfall is largely seasonal, with high rainfall is the main driver that can mobilize MPW and wash it off volumes in the rainy season, although brief showers from the dry terrestrial environment into waterways and also occur in the dry season. transport it downstream into the marine environment. Indonesia has over 4,000 main rivers, and many more Rainfall and run-off modeling: WFLOW small ones, that discharge into the marine environment. The biggest rivers are found on Kalimantan, Sumatra Using existing hydrological models from the and Papua. In Kalimantan and Sumatra large cities lie Indonesian hydrological framework (WFLOW22, Box along some of the major rivers, while on Papua there 3), the hydrological fluxes that carry plastic waste from are only small remote settlements. On Java, where most land can be simulated, considering the topography, Indonesian population is concentrated, large dams soil-type, land-use and spatially and temporally variable with reservoirs have been constructed on some of the meteorological data, such as rainfall. The wash-off main rivers that capture most, if not all, plastic waste and transport of MPW improperly disposed of in the that ends up in the rivers upstream of these dams. terrestrial environment (illegal dumping/fly-tipping) or All these aspects have a significant impact on how much leaked from unsanitary landfills is driven by hydrological plastic waste at any time is washed off to a stream, river processes, which show seasonal patterns of rainfall or lake and how much is transported to and discharged and river discharge. into the marine environment. Existing studies consider uniform assumptions on wash-off rates and general 22 The WFLOW framework is open source and developed by Deltares. All code is available at github (https://github.com/ assumptions based on distance to the sea or a river openstreams/wflow/) and distributed under the GPL version 3.0. 36 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia FIGURE 4. Conceptual framework depicting leakages and transport of plastic waste from land-based sources via rivers Source: Deltares BOX 3. WFLOW model The WFLOW models are based upon the distributed hydrological modeling framework WFLOW23. WFLOW is a hydrological model based on simplified physical relationships capable of simulating both overland flow (run-off) and river discharges. Both are important aspects when it comes to wash-off and transport of plastic waste through the hydrological system into the marine environment. For this study, 7 existing hydrological models (Figure 5) covering the full Indonesian archipelago (i.e. Sumatra, Java, Bali, Nusa Tenggara, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku and Papua) were applied. The seven models applied in this study cover the full Indonesian archipelago (except for part of the coastal zone and some smaller islands) and have a spatial resolution of 500 meter, allowing for local hydrologic effects for the simulation of plastic waste wash-off and transport. WFLOW covers about 90% of the country and larger catchments (see details in Appendix I). The models were developed as core of the Water Availability System (SI-WAMI)24 and further validated by the Indonesian Research Center for Water Resources (PusAir). The models have been calibrated and validated on a model to model basis, where hydrological model parameters derived by calibrating representative basins were applied to the full model extent. The models are forced with TRMM 3B42RT rainfall estimates that are available on a 0.25 x 0.25 degree spatial resolution (approximately 28 x 28 km) for the whole of Indonesia for a 3-year period from January 2013 – December 2016. The estimates are corrected to provide accurate volumes25. Potential evapotranspiration was derived from the CGIAR climatology data26. 23 WFLOW uses a simple bucket model (WFLOW_SBM) concept. This is a conceptual bucket-style hydrological model based on simpli- fied physical relationships. It uses kinematic wave surface and subsurface routing for lateral transport. WFLOW performs hydrological simulations on a spatial grid, with overland flow and subsurface interactions between the grid cells. The main inputs for the model are maps with elevation (NASA, 2015), land-use (BIG, 2007) and soil type (BIG, 2007). Other model parameters (e.g. Infiltration rate, Manning factor, etc.) are estimated based on these national, regional and global data sources and they include anthropogenic struc- tures like dams and reservoirs. 24 Sudono et al, 2016 25 Vernimmen et al., 2012 26 Trabucco and Zomer, 2009 Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 37 FIGURE 5. Regional WFLOW hydrological models used in the study The influence of seasonality is therefore expected to along the way, which may prevent it from reaching affect the transport and fate of MPW leaked into rivers the marine environment. Any other fraction of plastic and waterways. The hydrological fluxes are simulated waste is discharged into the marine environment and for a multi-year period (where the modeling period becomes plastic marine debris. contains at least a wet year and a dry year27,28) to account The material flow analysis method chosen for this study for the seasonal variations in both the rainy and dry considers all plastic mass as one entity. Therefore, seasons. processes based on the size, shape, density and/or An overview of parameters and data used for WFLOW polymer type are not modeled explicitly. To avoid is provided in Table 7. The coverage of Indonesian overparameterization of the model where these catchments by the model is provided in Appendix I. parameters cannot be quantified the model includes three processes: degradation of material on land, burial Wash-off, fate-and-transport modeling of in soils and retention within the surface water network. plastic waste from terrestrial and in riverine Each of these processes are described as first-order environments: DELWAQ removal processes with a constant rate and have been A fate-and-transport model (DELWAQ) is used to estimated based on literature and expert judgement, simulate the various environmental forces on plastic while ensuring a complete mass balance. waste in the environment (Figure 6). Any plastic waste In waterways, plastic waste can be subject to processes that is not properly collected, contained and treated that reduce its in-stream flux, such as entrapment can leak into the terrestrial environment where it is in riparian vegetation or in sediments, as well as exposed to forces that weather or bury it. Depending on the cumulative effect of mechanical, chemical and these, plastic waste can either remain in the terrestrial biochemical weathering and fragmentation processes. environment or it can be mobilized by run-off of excess Data to separate these processes are not available at rainwater and washed-off to a waterway, river or lake. the scale of Indonesia, and therefore these were not In a waterway it is subsequently exposed to forces modeled in a detailed way but as a single process, that can further degenerate it or otherwise transport referred to as “retention”. it downstream through the river. In addition, plastic In addition to natural retention in rivers, the capture of waste can be trapped or retained by natural (lakes and plastics behind dams is an important element of the vegetation) or artificial barriers (e.g. dams, waste traps) Indonesian context. All plastic originating upstream of dams is retained and removed from the model. 27 An analysis of recent historical rainfall (2013 – 2016) indicated that 2016 was a wet year for whole Indonesia. For eastern Indonesia Smaller man-made structures such as trash-racks have (Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku and Papua) 2015 was a dry year; not been incorporated in the models. Trash-racks are eastern Indonesia rainfall is largely influenced by ENSO patterns (El Niño Southern Oscillation in the Pacific Ocean). And for present in some cities in the urban drainage systems and western Indonesia (Sumatra, Java and Bali) 2013 was a dry year; sometimes in smaller rivers and canals. These structures western Indonesia rainfall is largely influenced by IOD patterns (Indian Ocean Dipole). may capture floating MPW before it reaches the marine 28 Nur’utami et al, 2016 environment. However, observations have shown that 38 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia FIGURE 6. Conceptual framework of the fate and transport model (DELWAQ) depicting the MPW pathways (direct disposal in water, leakages from illegal dumping/fly-tipping), various retention processes (degradation, burial and retention) affecting MPW and the transport flow of MPW Source: Deltares their retention efficiency varies between different racks For each of the seven geographically defined hydrological and with the season (e.g. during wet season, grid can models, hydrological conditions (run-off and river be lifted to prevent flooding upstream). This is further discharges) for a multi-year period (where the modeling discussed in sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.4 period contains at least one wet year and one dry year) were determined and used to construct three timeseries An overview of parameters and data used for DELWAQ for the three SWM scenarios (low, mid, high). Each of is provided in Table 7. Further details and discussion the seven models provides timeseries (with a timestep on model parameters are provided in Appendix I. of one day) of discharges of MPW from land-based sources through rivers into the marine environment at Simulation of MPW scenarios to determine the river mouths. For each of the seven models and range of discharges of plastic through rivers into three scenarios, the discharges from all rivermouths marine environment are summarized per day to provide a timeseries of By coupling the fate and transport model with the MPW discharged into the marine environment for the hydrological model it is possible to construct a spatially model area. and temporally variable representation of the transport The following methodology is used to determine a of MPW overland, through the hydrological network range of discharge of MPW into the marine environment and ultimately into the marine environment. and is summarised in Table 6: TABLE 6. Overview of scenarios defined to obtain a likely range of total plastic discharges Result SWM Hydrology Discharge Low 10 percentile Minimum total discharge over moving 01/01/2015 365-day period 01/01/2013 – Mid 50 percentile – 31/12/2016 Median total discharge over moving 31/12/2016 (Sumatra, (Kalimantan, Sulawesi, 365-day period Java and Bali) High 90 percentile Maluku, Papua) Maximum total discharge over moving 365-day period Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 39 • Low estimate: The minimum total discharge of For these areas it is therefore not possible to construct MPW over a moving 365-day period is determined a spatially and temporally variable representation of for the low SWM scenario. transport of MPW to the marine environment. In this case, a slightly different approach is followed to estimate • Mid estimate: The average total discharge of MPW discharges from land-based sources directly into the over a moving 365-day period is determined for marine environment. the mid SWM scenario. • High estimate: The maximum total discharge of In the coastal zones and small islands, it is assumed MPW over a moving 365-day period is determine that all MPW disposed directly into water, is directly for the high SWM scenario. disposed into the marine environment. For wash-off of MPW from the terrestrial environment it is not possible A moving 365-day period is considered to accurately to calculate the exact weathering, fragmentation and account for the durations and intensities of both the retention processes at any given moment in time, as rainy season (roughly from October – March) and the it is not possible to estimate a temporally variable dry season (roughly from April – September). representation of wash-off. Therefore, the average wash-off rate for each of the seven models was used 2.3.3 Coastal zones and small islands to calculate the mass of MPW washed-off from terrestrial Because of the spatial resolution of the models used, areas from illegal dumping/fly-tipping and from controlled in the coastal zone and on small islands, it is not always landfills and dumpsites within these coastal zones and possible to determine a catchment and/or flow direction. small islands. TABLE 7. Overview of features of data used and assumptions made in modeling MPW wash-off, transport and discharge from land-based sources Process (model) / Data Data Data Data Assumptions parameter sources availability quality gaps and validation Water and river flow (WFLOW) WFLOW models PusAir National Average Coastal Validation: PusAir zones and small islands missing Precipitation TRMM Global High None Correction applicable to whole Indonesia Validation: See Vernimmen et al, 2012 Evaporation CGIAR Global High None Historical dataset provides re-analysis representative value Validation: By Trabucco and Zomer, 2009 Discharge 100% Average None Hydrological parameters for calibrated basins can be applied to full model Validation: PusAir Wash-off, transport and discharge of plastic from inland areas (DELWAQ) MPW leaked to Output from National High None Diffuse sources, evenly terrestrial environment SWM model (range spread over entire adminis- (illegal dumping/ provided) trative area; assigned to the fly-tipping - diffuse) dry cells in the model MPW leaked from Output from National High None Point sources at the location unsanitary disposal SWM model (range of the unsanitary disposal sites provided) site 40 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Process (model) / Data Data Data Data Assumptions parameter sources availability quality gaps and validation MPW leaked to surface Output from National High None Diffuse sources; assigned to water SWM model ‘wet cells’ in the model Runoff and discharge Output from National High Coastal areas Follows from WFLOW model generated from WFLOW (range missing permeable, model provided) impermeable, and surface water Dams PUPR National High Removal rate All dams have equal removal rate of 100% of plastic produced in upstream catchment Model parameters Literature National Average No site-spe- First-order removal for weathering/ and expert cific processes, van Wijnen et al, degradation and burial judgement parameters 2019 available Model parameters Literature National Average No site-spe- First-order removal process, for weathering and and expert cific van Wijnen et al, 2019 retention in rivers judgement parameters available Wash-off and discharge of MPW from coastal zone and small islands (DELWAQ) MPW leaked to Output from National High None Follows from SWM model terrestrial environment SWM model (range (illegal dumping/ provided) fly-tipping - diffuse) MPW leaked from Output from National High None Follows from SWM model unsanitary disposal SWM model (range sites provided) MPW leaked to surface Output from National High None Follows from SWM model water SWM model (range provided) Wash-off rate from Analysis National Average None Minimum, average and terrestrial environment DELWAQ (range maximum wash-off rates results determined from the seven provided) DELWAQ models Weathering and Low None Assumed these processes retention parameters have no significant reducing for rivers effect in the coastal zone and small islands Section 2. Approach to Assess Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea | 41 SECTION 3. RESULTS SECTION 3. RESULTS T his chapter presents the key results from the study in what concerns the generation of MPW from land-based sources, the fraction of MPW that ends up in waterways and is discharged into the marine environment via rivers or directly from coastal areas. The national overview for Indonesia is provided and zoomed-in examples of critical kabupaten/kota and catchments are shown to illustrate local differences and how these are translated in their contributions to MPW that is discharged into the marine environment. Results of the detailed analysis of the top kabupaten/kota contributing to MPW and catchments contributing to discharge of MPW to the marine environment are then summarized. Finally, the study’s robustness and validation of the results are discussed. 3.1 ASSESSMENT OF MISMANAGED PLASTIC WASTE FROM LAND-BASED SOURCES In this section the key results from the MPW assessment in the terrestrial environment are presented and discussed. For each result, a table with three estimates (low, mid and high29) is presented. Results from five selected locations30 are presented in section 3.1.4 to highlight observed differences at kabupaten/kota level. A summary of detailed analysis of the critical kabupaten/kota contributing to MPW is presented in section 3.1.5. 3.1.1 Plastic waste generated According to the results of the SWM model, Indonesia generates approximately 42.1 million tons of municipal waste annually (mid-range estimate). Data for solid waste plastic content indicates that plastic content in Indonesia is high, with an average of 18.4%. The available data suggests that non-household waste has a higher plastic content than household waste. The national average figure is considerably higher than the 14.4% rate reported by NPAP (2019). The KLHK has observed an increasing trend on plastic content in recent years, from 14% in 2013 to 16% in 201631. Conclusions from two recent studies in kota Medan (Khair et al, 2019) and kota Manado (Takaendengan et al, 2017) indicated a higher figure of plastic content than the national plastic content figure from KLHK in 2016. The study in kota Medan concluded 17.6% plastic content from household only, while the study in kota Manado reported 20% of plastic content from household and non-household waste. Overall, with an average of 18.4% plastic content, plastic waste generated is nearly 7.8 million tons/year. Most of the plastic waste (58%) remains uncollected. More than one-third of the plastic waste is formally collected, while a small fraction of 29 The three estimates are calculated using a Monte Carlo analysis. These estimates were devel- oped based on the uncertainties and ranges of the SWM input data: a low-scenario (10 percen- tile), a mid-scenario (50 percentile) and a high-scenario (90 percentile). 30 Kota Medan, kota Banjarmasin, kabupaten Balangan, kabupaten Tasikmalaya, and kabupaten Banyu- wangi. General characteristics of these locations are presented in sub-chapter 3.1.4 31 Press release of KLHK Number SP 672/HUMAS/PP/HMS.3/12/2018. Available on http://ppid.menlhk. go.id/siaran_pers/browse/1667 Section 3. Results | 43 the plastic waste is informally collected by residential The higher urban formal collection of plastic waste waste pickers. might be the result of a long-term policy focus that Table 8 shows the plastic waste generated in Indonesia prioritizes municipal waste management in urban and its collection pathways, presented as low-mid-high areas of Indonesia. This policy is reflected in RPJMN estimates. since 2010 and continues under the current RPJMN 2020-2024. Adipura Award33 assessment criteria also BPS32 estimated 65.2 million tons/year MSW generated support this policy since the assessment only focuses in 2016 based on a population of 261 million people. on urban areas. This is higher than this study’s estimate since SWG per capita used by BPS is higher, 0.68 kg/cap/day. Plastic waste generated in urban areas is higher compared to rural areas. BPS reported a consistent trend of a As illustrated in Figure 7 (details in Appendix V), most 1.5-times higher monthly household consumption for plastic waste in rural areas remains uncollected. Formal households in urban areas compared to rural areas and informal plastic waste collection is observed mostly (2015-2019)34. Most likely, there is a correlation between in urban areas. 33 KLHK regulation number P.76/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/10/2019 concerning Adipura 34 Data compilation from 2015-2019 from BPS report titled Laporan 32 Statistik Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia, 2018 Pengeluaran untuk Konsumsi Penduduk Indonesia BOX 4. Solid waste generation (SWG) The analysis of available SWG data sources (SIPSN and Master Plans) smaller cities and 0.75 kg/cap/day indicates that a person on average are similar, except results from the in metropolitan cities). The national generates 0.44 kg/day solid waste Master Plans for the Kota indicate average figure is slightly lower than (range 0.35 – 0.52 kg/cap/day) a slightly higher rate. The figures suggested by NPAP (0.50 kg/cap/ in Indonesia. The available data for Kota are in line with World Bank day) (NPAP, 2019) and what was indicates that in ‘Kota’, average results (0.69 kg/cap/day) (Kaza et used in Jambeck et al (2015) (0.52 SWG is 0.67 kg/cap/day, higher al, 2018), which considered larger kg/cap/day). than in Kabupaten (average SWG cities (Kota), and with Wibisono 0.40 kg/cap/day). The two data et al (2020) (0.64 kg/cap/day for TABLE 8. National summary of plastic waste collection National estimates No. Plastic waste collection Formula Low Medium High Unit Population 262,089,636 People 1 Solid waste per capita 0.349 0.440 0.522 kg/cap/day 2 Total solid waste generated (2)=(0)*(1) 33,364.4 42,123.1 49,925.6 kt/year 3 Plastic content 17.7 18.4 19.0 % 4 Total plastic waste generated (4)=(3)*(2) 5,895.9 7,755.7 9,491.9 kt/year 5 Total plastic waste formally 2,242.6 2,763.7 3,239.1 kt/year collected 6 Total plastic waste informally 642.4 476.7 358.1 kt/year collected 7 Total plastic waste remains (7)=(4)- 3,010.9 4,515.4 5,894.7 kt/year uncollected [(5)+(6)] Source: Author estimates 44 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia plastic waste generated and household consumption 2, it is therefore important to identify the proportion of patterns as indicated by a recent study in China (Liu total PWG that is going to: i) formal disposal sites, ii) et al, 2019). A similar trend was observed by a study recycling and iii) waste that remains uncollected or is conducted in West Java, on the positive relation lost during collection and sorting. Detailed results of between SWG and household consumption (Adlina the SWM model, including the low and high national and Rahardyan, 2013). The study was conducted in estimates, can be found in Appendix V. kabupaten Sukabumi, kabupaten Cianjur, kota Bekasi, Figure 8 presents the estimated amounts of plastic kota Bandung, and kota Cirebon. waste that reach formal disposal sites (sanitary landfills, controlled landfills and formal open dumpsites) and 3.1.2 Final destination of plastic waste that are recycled. Recycled plastic waste is calculated generated from total plastic waste from non-landfill waste pickers This study focuses on determining MPW and its leakages (informal collection) and with total plastic waste recycled into waterways. With reference to Figure 3 in Chapter in TPS3R facilities and waste banks. FIGURE 7. Summary of plastic waste collection in urban and rural areas of Indonesia FIGURE 8. National summary of final destination of collected plastic waste in urban and rural areas Source: Author estimates, details in Appendix V. Section 3. Results | 45 It is estimated that 4.5 million tons/year of plastic waste of uncollected waste. As pointed out in Shuker and remains uncollected (including losses from collection Cadman (2018), the lack of commitment and initiative and sorting, mid-point estimate). With the additional from local leaders to properly manage solid waste and of the estimated amount of plastic waste disposed limited access to waste collection systems in general, of in formal, open dumpsites and the leakages from or specifically the location of the waste transfer station controlled landfills, a total of 4.9 million tons/year of (TPS) far away from residential areas, influences the MPW is obtained. This is 1.5 times higher than the incidence of open burning at the household level. study of Jambeck et al (2015) (3.2 million tons/year), Disposal of plastic waste to landfills in urban areas is which assessed plastic waste generated by population more than five times higher compared to rural areas. living within 50 km of the coast in 2010 (the coastal All kabupaten/kota in Java and Bali Nusa Tenggara population for Indonesia is 187.2 million), while this regions have formal landfills, while Papua has the lowest study calculated plastic waste generated for the entire proportion with only 19 out of 42 kabupaten/kota Indonesian population in 2017. Calculating the MPW registered as having landfills. Distribution of landfills generated per capita, this study indicates an average across Indonesia is in line with the amount of plastic of 18.7 kg/capita/year, with a significant difference waste going to formal disposal sites in the respective between urban and rural inhabitants (13.9 and 23.5 island/region. kg/capita/year, respectively), while with Jambeck et While disposal of waste directly into bodies of water al (2015) figures an average of 13.5 kg/capita/year is is relatively stagnant, disposal on the terrestrial obtained. environment, such as illegal dumping/fly-tipping, has Figure 9 presents the estimated amounts of uncollected reduced significantly since 2013 — especially in urban plastic waste that are handled in different ways (illegally areas. National campaigns, lead by the KLHK since dumped/fly-tipped on land, disposed of in water, openly 2008, on adequate household SWM through Com- burned or buried). munity-based Total Sanitation (Sanitasi Total Berbasis Open burning is the most common waste handling Masyarakat - STBM)36 helped to reduce improper waste practice in Indonesia. Although this practice is strictly disposal on land and improve formal collection. One prohibited by law35, it is estimated that 47% of the of the STBM indicators is proper SWM at household total plastic waste generated in Indonesia — and more than 80% of the uncollected plastic waste — is 36 STBM or abbreviated as Community Based Total Sanitation is an burned. Open burning is practiced by households as approach to improve household sanitation condition adapted from Community Lead Total Sanitation (CLTS). The STBM has an easy and relatively cheap way to reduce volume implemented formally in Indonesia since 2008 with Kepmenkes No.852/Menkes/SK/IX/2008 as the legal basis and replaced by PERMENKES Nomor 3 Tahun 2014 concerning Community Based 35 Law 18/2008 on solid waste management Total Sanitation in 2014. FIGURE 9. National summary of final destination of uncollected plastic waste in urban and rural areas 46 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia level through regular (daily) waste collection by formal landfills and formal open dumpsites. It excludes plastic collection system and implementation of Reduce-Re- waste that is burned or buried. Table 9 presents detailed use-Recycle (3R) principles37. results of the available plastic waste for wash-off. Considering aggregated national figures, and as The SWM model provides a mid-range estimate of depicted in Figure 10, rural areas generate almost as a total of 766.8 kton/year of plastic waste available much plastic waste as urban areas, but generate nearly for wash-off. Of this total, 90% is attributed to direct two thirds of the total MPW in Indonesia as a whole disposal in water and improper disposal on land (e.g. — 1.7 times higher than urban areas. In fact, 87% of fly-tipping/illegal dumping). Disposal in water is the the plastic waste generated in rural areas will result highest contributor with nearly 60%. Leakage from in MPW, mostly because of the low collection rates. controlled landfills and registered dumpsites is only estimated to contribute 5% of the total plastic waste 3.1.3 MPW available for wash-off available for wash-off. Total MPW available for wash-off comes from plastic As depicted in Figure 11, urban areas are the main waste improperly disposed of (directly disposed in water contributors of plastic waste available for wash-off from or dumped/fly-tipped), combined with the fraction of controlled landfills and official dumpsites. This is in plastic waste available for wash-off from controlled line with the fact that formal collection in urban areas is much higher compared to rural areas. Conversely, disposal in water and on land is higher in rural areas 37 The KLHK regulation number 3/2014 concerning STBM as compared to urban areas. FIGURE 10. Plastic waste in Indonesia in urban and rural areas: total plastic waste generated; total MPW; total MPW available for wash-off Source: Author estimates Section 3. Results | 47 TABLE 9. National summary of MPW available for wash-off No. Plastic waste terrestrial Formula National estimates Unit sources Low Medium High Population 262,089,636 People 19b MPW from terrestrial sources 488.9 766.8 1,076.6 kt/year available for wash-off (Hydrology), from: 20 Sanitary landfills (20)=0%*(10) - - - kt/year 21 Controlled landfills (21)=availability 16.3 32.2 64.9 kt/year rate*(11) 22 Official dumpsites (open (22)=availability 14.7 35.9 84.1 kt/year dumping) rate*(12) 23 Recycled (official recycling (23)=0%*(13) - - - kt/year locations (TPS3R), waste banks and through informal collection) 24 Uncollected plastic waste (24)=(25)+(26)+ 457.9 698.7 927.7 kt/year + losses from collection, (27)+(28) comprises of: 25 Disposal on land (dumping/ (25)=100%*(15) 184.1 289.8 388.4 kt/year fly-tipping) 26 Disposal in water (26)=100%*(16) 273.7 408.9 539.2 kt/year 27 Openly burned (27)=0%*(17) - - - - 28 Buried in terrestrial environment (28)=0%*(18) - - - - Source: Author estimates FIGURE 11. MPW available for wash-off in urban and rural areas Source: Author estimates. See Appendix V for details. 48 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia 3.1.4 Examples: Detailed results for selected presented in Table 11. Key observations from these kabupaten/kota five examples are presented below. To better illustrate the differences in the results obtained Kota Medan and kota Banjarmasin (as urban areas) have significantly higher formally collected plastic waste rates through the SWM model at kabupaten/kota level, five compared to the three kabupaten (as mostly rural) with examples were selected (Table 10 and Figure 12). collection rates at 63% and 74% respectively. These Summary results of the MPW assessment in the terrestrial examples exhibit the same trends as the national level environment for the five example kabupaten/kota are of higher urban formal collection compared to rural. FIGURE 12. Location of kabupaten/kota provided as examples TABLE 10. Characteristics of five selected kabupaten/kota Pop Kabu- Commercial/ density Fiscal paten/ Inland/ tourism/ (people/ capacity Name kota Region Province coastal rural38 km2) (2017)39 Balangan kabupaten Kalimantan South Inland Rural 68 Medium Kalimantan Banjarmasin kota Kalimantan South Coastal Commercial 7,033 High Kalimantan Banyuwangi kabupaten Java East Java Coastal Tourism 278 Very high Medan kota Sumatra North Sumatra Inland Commercial 8,478 Very high Tasikmalaya kabupaten Java West Java Inland Rural 244 High 38 Determined based on Gross Domestic Regional Product (GDRP) by industry published by BPS. 39 Ministry of Finance (MoF) Regulation number 119/PMK.07/2017 on Local Fiscal Capacity Map. Fiscal capacity is defined as financial ability of local government to implement activities. The MoF distinguishes categories of fiscal capacity; very high, high, medium, low, very low. The higher fiscal capacity of a local government, the higher its financial capacity to implement development programs. Section 3. Results | 49 TABLE 11. Summary result of the SMW model from five kabupaten/kota Kota Kabupaten Banjar- Tasisk- Banyu- National Medan masin Balangan malaya wangi Unit 0 Population 262,089,636 2,247,427 692,791 127,499 661,402 1,604,899 people 1 Solid waste per capita 0.440 0.650 0.781 0.624 0.358 0.543 cap/day 2 Total Solid Waste Generated 42,123.1 533.5 197.4 29.0 288.6 317.8 kton/yr 3 Plastic content 18.4 16.7 16.2 17.6 15.0 22.3 % 4 Total Plastic Waste Generated 7,755.7 88.9 31.9 5.1 34.2 70.8 kton/yr 5 Total plastic waste formally collected 2,763.7 55.7 23.6 1.6 5.1 0.9 kton/yr 6 Total plastic waste informally 476.7 13.7 2.8 0.0 1.8 2.8 kton/yr collected 7 Total plastic waste remains 4,515.4 19.6 5.5 3.5 27.3 67.1 kton/yr uncollected 8 Total Plastic Waste Generated to Final Destination, of which 7,755.7 88.9 31.9 5.1 34.2 70.8 kton/yr the Amount is... 9 Going to formal disposal site 2,749.6 59.5 23.8 1.5 5.1 0.8 kton/yr 10 Going to sanitary landfills 1,316.2 - 4.6 - - - kton/yr 11 Going to controlled landfills 1,074.0 59.5 19.2 1.5 - 0.8 kton/yr SWM Model 12 Going to formal (open) 359.3 - - - 5.1 - kton/yr dumpsites 13 Recycled (official recycling locations/ TPS3R, waste banks and through 484.7 8.8 2.4 0.1 2.0 3.6 kton/yr information collection) 14 Uncollected plastic waste, comprises 4,521.4 20.6 5.7 3.5 27.1 66.3 kton/yr of: 15 Disposal on land (illegal 289.8 1.7 0.4 0.1 1.0 1.9 kton/yr dumping/fly-tipping) 16 Disposal to water 408.9 1.6 1.5 0.6 2.4 3.4 kton/yr 17 Open burning 3,676.6 16.9 3.5 2.5 23.1 58.6 kton/yr 18 Burial in terrestrial environment 146.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 2.4 kton/yr 19a Mismanaged Plastic Waste from kton/yr 4,913.0 22.4 6.3 3.5 32.2 66.4 Terrestrial Sources 19 Plastic Waste from Terrestrial Sources Available for Wash-Off 766.8 5.0 2.6 0.7 3.9 5.3 kton/yr (Hydrology): 20 From sanitary landfills - - - - - - kton/yr 21 From controlled landfills 32.2 1.8 0.6 0.0 - 0.0 kton/yr 22 From formal (open) dumping 35.9 - - - 0.5 - kton/yr 23 From recycling (official recycling locations/TPS3R, waste banks and - - - - - - kton/yr through information collection) Kota Kabupaten Banjar- Tasisk- Banyu- National Medan masin Balangan malaya wangi Unit 24 From uncollected plastic waste 698.7 3.3 2.0 0.7 3.4 5.3 kton/yr 25 From disposal on land SWM Model (fly-tipping or terrestrial 289.8 1.7 0.4 0.1 1.0 1.9 kton/yr dumping) 26 From disposal to water 408.9 1.6 1.5 0.6 2.4 3.4 kton/yr 27 From open burning - - - - - - kton/yr 28 From burial in terrestrial - - - - - - kton/yr environment Source: Author estimates 50 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Although all five kabupaten/kota examples are registered 3.1.5 Detailed analysis of critical areas as having formal disposal sites, the total plastic waste contributing to MPW to disposal sites varied significantly between kota and To develop a better understanding of the origin of the kabupaten, from 24% - 60% in kota and 1% - 14% in 4.9 million tons/year of MPW, and which areas of the kabupaten. In kabupaten Balangan and Banyuwangi, country contribute most significantly to MPW entering contribution of controlled landfills to available plastic the waterways and eventually the marine environment, waste for wash-off is very low. The low plastic waste a more detailed analysis of the SWM model results disposed to landfills in the kabupaten could be due to was undertaken. This included identifying the top 10 high transport costs as a result of a larger administrative kabupaten/kota for each of the following categories: (1) area with low population density (except for kabupaten total MPW generated; (2) total MPW directly disposed Banyuwangi). Across collection and disposal operations, in water; (3) total MPW available for wash-off from waste collection typically accounts for 60 - 70% of total improper disposal in the terrestrial environment (illegal costs (Kaza et al, 2018). As a result, SWM in kabupaten dumping/fly-tipping); (4) total MPW available for wash-off is prioritized in urban areas. from unsanitary landfills; and (5) total MPW burned. Similar trends to those identified at the national level More complete data tables are presented in Appendix are also seen for uncollected plastic waste in the three VI. Table 12 presents the top 10 locations for MPW in kabupaten: Balangan, Tasikmalaya, and Banyuwangi. Indonesia, representing 16% of the total mismanaged Given that a significant amount of waste remains plastic waste generated in the country. Nine out of the uncollected, the major proportion of plastic waste 10 locations are on Java island; kota Palembang in available for wash-off also originates from uncollected South Sumatra province is the exception. Data for DKI plastic waste (roughly between 65% and 100%). Jakarta is aggregated at provincial level and, although The percentage of MPW from terrestrial sources from presented alongside other critical locations, should total plastic waste generated in kota Medan (25.2%) be interpreted with caution (see Box 5). and kota Banjarmasin (19.7%) are significantly lower As illustrated in Figure 13, the main contributor to total compared to the three kabupaten (in the range of MPW in seven out of the 10 locations (six kabupaten 70% - 90%). This indicates, as expected, that the SWM and the province of DKI Jakarta) is uncollected waste. collection system in kota is better than in kabupaten. The second major source of MPW comes from plastic waste disposed of in formal, open dumpsites. In general, uncollected waste from rural areas is higher compared to urban areas, consistent with the national trend. TABLE 12. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota generating MPW (kton/year) Total Mismanaged Plastic Waste Generated Kabupaten/ Total Urban Rural Kota Name Province Region Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Tangerang Banten Java 123.0 146.0 167.9 100.2 119.7 138.2 22.8 26.3 29.7 Bogor West Java Java 82.6 94.9 05.5 59.3 68.4 76.3 23.3 26.5 29.2 Garut West Java Java 76.3 80.9 82.6 33.2 35.2 37.6 43.2 45.7 48.6 Bandung West Java Java 73.1 80.8 87,4 58.1 64.3 69.6 15.0 16.6 17.8 DKI Jakarta DKI Jakarta Java 72.8 76.8 81.6 72.8 76.8 81.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Banyuwangi East Java Java 60.9 66.4 71.5 31.9 34.7 37.4 29.1 31.6 34.1 Kota South Sumatra 56.5 61.8 67.0 56.1 61.1 66.1 0.4 0.6 0.9 Palembang Sumatra Subang West Java Java 51.7 59.0 65.3 16.4 18.8 20.8 35.3 40.2 44.5 Sukabumi West Java Java 49.8 57.6 63.8 19.7 22.7 25.2 30.1 24.9 38.5 Jember East Java Java 46.3 51.7 56.1 20.4 22.5 24.4 25.9 29.2 31.7 Source: Author estimates Section 3. Results | 51 FIGURE 13. The two main origins of MPW in top 10 Indonesian locations: uncollected plastic waste and plastic waste disposed of in formal open dumpsites Source: Author estimates BOX 5. The special case of DKI Jakarta As the national capital, DKI Jakarta for the SWM development and it is not possible to determine has the special status of local operation. Therefore, in terms of the amount of waste from each government arrangement (Law SWM, DKI Jakarta is comparable to kabupaten/kota in DKI Jakarta if 29/2007). The five cities (Kodya other kabupaten/kota in Indonesia. the independent SWM systems are Jakarta Selatan, Kodya Jakarta considered. The approach to disaggregate the Barat, Kodya Jakarta Pusat, Kodya data to kabupaten/kota level for DKI Due to the special status and to Jakarta Timur and Kodya Jakarta Jakarta would result, most likely, in better reflect the SWM situation Utara) and one regency (kabupaten an underestimation of the provincial in DKI Jakarta, the results of this Kepulauan Seribu) in DKI Jakarta are collection rate. This underestimate study, in what concerns DKI Jakarta, not autonomous local governments. possibly comes from the incoming have also been produced as an Instead, they are administratively waste data at TPA Bantar Gebang. aggregation of five kota and one under the provincial government TPA Bantar Gebang serves all six kabupaten at provincial level in with the head of kodya (Walikota) kabupaten/kota in DKI Jakarta and Jakarta. Although results of DKI and the head of kabupaten (Bupati) more than 260 independent SWM Jakarta are presented alongside selected by the Governor. The systems. Although the incoming critical kabupaten/kota (in sections SWM arrangement also follows waste into the TPA Bantar Gebang 3.1.5, 3.2.3 and 3.2.8), the difference this structure — the provincial has been classified per its kabupaten/ between administrative levels should government of DKI Jakarta (through kota, this is not applied for the be kept in mind. DLH) is the responsible institution independent SMW system. Therefore, The two hinterland40 kabupaten of Bogor and Bandung the necessary improved waste collection and landfill have higher levels of uncollected waste in urban areas capacity to reflect this growth. Population data from compared to rural areas. This can be explained by their BPS confirms this argument. The low collection rates hinterland status; they are urbanizing rapidly (although in Bogor (29.4% in urban and 0% in rural) and Bandung they still have the status as ‘rural’ kabupaten) without (25.7% in urban and 0% in rural) might also be related to the size of the administrative area. Kabupaten Bogor and Bandung have large areas, 2,664 km2 and 1,768 40 Kabupaten Bogor and kabupaten Bandung are hinterlands to the cities of Jakarta and Bandung respectively. km2 respectively. With only one registered landfill to 52 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia serve each location, waste collection becomes very is collected but not adequately managed. Although costly and it is challenging to increase the collection Tangerang has the same hinterland status as Bogor coverage. This observation on limited collection rates and Bandung, it has a higher collection rate (77.7% in due to the size of administrative area is applicable to urban and 0% in rural) because the administrative area many other kabupaten in Indonesia. of Tangerang is much smaller (960 km2) compared to Bogor and Bandung. Kota Palembang, as the capital city DKI Jakarta, with 83.7%, presents a high collection rate of South Sumatra province, follows the national trend compared to other kabupaten/kota in Indonesia. This of urban areas and kota having more formal collection figure results from the waste collection system managed than rural areas. As a provincial capital, and co-hosting by DLH DKI Jakarta and independent SWM systems41. the Asian Games 2018 with Jakarta, kota Palembang has Nevertheless, a large amount of solid waste remains put a lot of effort into solid waste collection. Jember uncollected and in DKI Jakarta, the main contributor is an outlier not following any trends. Located in the to total MPW is uncollected plastic waste. With 115 out southern part of East Java, Jember has a high collection of 261 kelurahan considered as urban slums42, these rate (80.5%) with an administrative area of 3,293 km2. areas are likely to be hotspots for uncollected plastic Improvements in landfill operations to more sanitary waste. However, it is not possible to point to specific practices will contribute significantly to reducing the areas where collection rates are likely low due to data total MPW generated for these three locations. limitations. The registration of waste origin in TPA Bantar Gebang is applied only to the waste transported by Table 13 presents the top 10 locations for plastic waste disposed in water, representing over 17% of the total DLH DKI Jakarta and lacks information on the actual plastic waste directly disposed in water in the country. physical origin of the waste collected. Not surprisingly, there are nine kabupaten on the list In Tangerang, kota Palembang, and Jember, disposal and DKI Jakarta. Although DKI Jakarta is included in of plastic waste in formal open dumpsites is the main the list, this does not represent the full province DKI contributor to total MPW, indicating that more waste Jakarta, since there are likely urban pockets with low collection rates, such as in urban slums43. Plastic waste 41 Dinas Lingkungan Hidup DKI Jakarta. Available online on https:// upst.dlh.jakarta.go.id/wastemanagement/data. Accessed on directly disposed in water has an indirect relation with August 12, 2020 42 http://kotaku.pu.go.id:8081/pustaka/files/PROFIL_DKI_JAKAR- 43 http://kotaku.pu.go.id:8081/pustaka/files/PROFIL_DKI_JAKAR- TA_2017.pdf, accessed on July 10, 2020. TA_2017.pdf, accessed on July 10, 2020. TABLE 13. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota in terms of higher amounts of plastic waste directly disposed in water waste (kton/year) Plastic Waste Directly Disposed in Water Kabupaten/ Total Urban Rural Kota Name Province Region Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High DKI Jakarta DKI Jakarta Java 28.2 29.7 31.5 28.2 29.7 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bogor West Java Java 5.8 6.6 7.4 3.7 4.2 4.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 Garut West Java Java 5.9 6.3 6.7 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.9 4.1 4.4 Bandung West Java Java 5.0 5.5 6.0 3.6 4.0 4.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Lombok West Nusa Bali Nusa 2.0 4.8 7.4 0.4 1.6 2.8 1.6 3.3 4.6 Timur Tenggara Tenggara Sukabumi West Java Java 3.9 4.5 5.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.7 3.1 3.5 South Banyu Asin Sumatra 2.3 4.3 6.2 0.3 0.7 1.0 2.0 3.6 5.1 Sumatra Subang West Java Java 3.6 4.1 4.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 3.2 3.6 4.0 South Muara Enim Sumatra 3.7 3.9 4.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 Sumatra Cianjur West Java Java 1.4 3.6 5.7 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.4 3.4 4.9 Source: Author estimates Section 3. Results | 53 the collection rate and locations with higher collection Lombok Timur, the 5th ranked in the list, is the largest rates will probably have smaller amounts of plastic kabupaten on Lombok island, West Nusa Tenggara. It waste directly disposed in water. Nationally, rural areas only has collection in urban areas with a 41.5% urban have lower collection rates compared to urban areas collection rate. There is no rural collection system, and kabupaten generally have the characteristics of following the general trend of other kabupaten in terms rural areas. of waste collection rate. The list of the top 10 kabupaten/kota distributes the Table 14 presents the top 10 locations for plastic waste locations over three regions. There are seven locations disposed of improperly in the terrestrial environment in Java (six in West Java and DKI Jakarta), two locations (illegally dumped/fly-tipped), representing 10% of the in Sumatra, and one in Bali Nusa Tenggara region. The total plastic waste disposed of improperly in this way six locations in West Java are among the top eight in Indonesia. Like the earlier description, plastic waste largest administrative areas of the 27 kabupaten/kota in disposed of in the terrestrial environment is also indirectly West Java. This confirms the finding that administrative related to the collection rate. With rural areas having area has a relation with the waste collection rates and lower collection rates compared to urban areas it makes is also consistent with what was previously described sense to have nine kabupaten out of ten locations in for the total MPW figure. Bogor, Bandung and DKI this top 10 list. Jakarta are the exception from the general trend, and These ten locations are distributed across five provinces: urban areas in these locations are the main contributors five in West Java, one in Banten, two in North Sumatra, of the plastic waste that is directly disposed in water. one in Bali and one in West Nusa Tenggara. Although this Similar to West Java, Banyuasin and Muara Enim are list covers more provinces compared to other practices, two of the three largest administrative areas among 17 it is still confined to three regions: Java, Sumatra and kabupaten/kota in South Sumatra province. Banyuasin Bali Nusa Tenggara. Kota Bekasi is an exception in the and Muara Enim have low collection rates in urban list, with its ‘kota’ status. BPS records no rural areas areas of 18.2% and 50.0%, respectively, without any in kota Bekasi. Low collection rate (50.6%) is the main collection in rural areas. Without adequate waste reason that kota Bekasi is included in this list. collection systems, people will find other waste disposal Table 15 presents the top 10 locations for plastic practices, including direct disposal in water. waste available for wash-off from unsanitary disposal TABLE 14. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota in terms of plastic waste disposed of improperly in the terrestrial environment (illegal dumping/fly-tipping) (kton/year) Plastic Waste Disposed in the Environment (Fly-tipping) Kabupaten/ Total Urban Rural Kota Name Province Region Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Bogo West Java Java 4.9 5.6 6.4 3.6 4.2 4.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 Bandung West Java Java 4.3 4.8 5.4 3.5 3.9 4.4 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tangerang Banten Java 2.8 3.6 4.4 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.2 2.6 2.9 Ciberon West Java Java 1.4 3.4 5.1 1.0 2.5 3.8 0.5 0.9 1.3 Garut West Java Java 2.9 3.2 3.6 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.8 North Langkat Sumatra 2.5 2.7 2.9 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 Sumatra Bali Nusa Tabanan Bali 2.2 2.5 2.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 2.3 2.5 Tenggara North Simalungun Sumatra 1.3 2.3 3.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.1 2.0 2.8 Sumatra Lombok West Nusa Bali Nusa 1.0 2.3 2.5 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.8 2.7 Timur Tenggara Tenggara Kota Bekasi West Java Java 1.9 2.3 2.6 1.9 2.3 2,6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: Author estimates 54 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia TABLE 15. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota in terms of plastic waste available for wash-off from unsanitary final disposal sites (kton/year) Plastic Waste Available for Wash-off from Unsanitary Disposal Sites Kabupaten/ Total Urban Rural Kota Name Province Region Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High 4.7 Tangerang Banten Java 11.0 24.7 4.7 11.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kota South Sumatra 2.4 5.1 10.9 2.4 5.1 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Palembang Sumatra Jember East Java Java 20 4.3 9.2 0.9 2.0 4.3 1.1 2.3 4.9 North Kota Medan Sumatra 0.8 1.8 3.1 0.8 1.8 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sumatra Kota Jambi Jambi Sumatra 0.8 1.7 3.6 0.8 1.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sukoharjo Central Java Java 0.7 1.6 4.0 0.7 1.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 Kota South Sulawesi 0.9 1.5 2,7 0.9 1.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Makassar Sulawesi Sidoarjo East Java Java 0.8 1.2 2.1 0.8 1.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rembang Central Java Java 0.5 1.1 2.6 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.7 1.5 Subang West Java Java 0.5 1.1 2.3 0.5 1.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: Author estimates sites (formal open dumpsites and controlled landfills), million people), resulting in large volumes of waste representing 45% of the total plastic waste available for transported to landfills. wash-off from unsanitary disposal sites in the country. This Four kota in the list (kota Palembang, kota Medan, form of plastic waste is directly related to the collection kota Jambi, and kota Makassar) are provincial capitals. rate (higher collection rates mean more plastic waste in This highlights that the improvement of SWM outside landfills) and operational status of the landfill (sanitary the Java region still focuses on urban and ‘strategic’ landfills, controlled landfills or formal open dumpsites). locations, with a focus on improving collection rates The locations span three regions: Java, Sumatra and but not necessarily on improved SWM facilities (i.e. Sulawesi. Six locations in Java are all kabupaten, while sanitary landfills). Attaining an equal distribution of SWM four locations outside Java are all kota. improvements in both collection rates and disposal facilities, over all regions in Indonesia, is still a major The combined SIPSN and PU landfill dataset shows challenge. that the Java region registers more landfills (of any type) than other regions in Indonesia. In Java, most Table 16 presents the top 10 locations for plastic waste burned. All 10 locations are in the Java region, distributed kota already operate their landfills in a more sanitary across four provinces: West Java (six locations), East way (controlled and sanitary landfills). The remaining Java (two locations), DKI Jakarta and Central Java (one challenge related to landfill operation lies with the location each). Nine locations are kabupaten, with only kabupaten, such as Tangerang, Jember, Sukoharjo, DKI Jakarta having the status of non-kabupaten. Since Sidoarjo, Rembang and Subang. open burning is also part of uncollected waste, it is Seven out of ten locations in the list (five in the Java indirectly related to collection rate. Lower collection region) are registered to operate landfills with an open rates will increase total uncollected waste, of which dumping system (open dumpsite). Three landfills — in one of the ‘treatment’ practices is open burning. kota Medan, kota Makassar and Sidoarjo —operate on Rural areas contribute to the highest percentage of controlled landfill procedures. These landfills contribute open burning in six kabupaten. This is in line with the to high amounts of plastic waste available for wash-off general trend observed for Indonesia. In contrast, urban from unsanitary disposal sites because they have high areas in Bogor, Bandung and DKI Jakarta contribute waste collection rates and large populations (1.5 – 2.3 to higher percentage of open burning compared to Section 3. Results | 55 TABLE 16. Top 10 Indonesian kabupaten/kota in terms of plastic waste burned (kton/year) Plastic Waste Available for Wash-off from Unsanitary Disposal Sites Kabupaten/ Total Urban Rural Kota Name Province Region Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Bogor West Java Java 69.6 80.0 88.8 50.2 58.0 64.5 19.4 22.1 24.3 Garut West Java Java 65.5 69.2 73.6 28.6 30.4 32.4 36.8 38.9 41.3 Bandung West Java Java 61.8 68.3 73,6 49.3 54.5 58.8 12.5 13.8 14.8 Banyuwangi East Java Java 53.9 58.6 62.9 28.3 30.7 33.0 25.7 27.9 30.0 Sukabumi West Java Java 42.6 49.3 54.3 17.0 19.6 31.7 25.6 29.7 32.7 DKI Jakarta DKI Jakarta Kava 44.6 47.1 49.8 44.6 47.1 49.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kebumen Central Java Java 37.9 41.8 45.5 6.3 7.1 7.8 31.6 34.8 37.8 Subang West Java Java 36.2 41.3 45.6 6.2 7.0 7.8 30.1 34.2 37.8 Sumenep East Java Java 30.0 39.5 47.1 3.3 4.9 6.1 26.7 34.5 41.0 Sianjur West Java Java 13.4 36.3 57.2 0.6 3.7 10.8 12.9 32.6 46.3 Source: Author estimates rural areas (recall the hinterland status for Bogor and environment (e.g. buried by natural processes), while Bandung and the urban slums of DKI Jakarta described 48% of MPW) washes off to a stream, river or lake. earlier). However, large variations between catchments exist Based on this observation, efforts to reduce open burning and in some regions the amount that washes off may need to be specifically targeted to local conditions. be on average as high as 74%, while in other regions Bogor and Bandung cannot have the same interventions it may be as low as 14% (Figure 14). This variation may as Garut, Subang and Cianjur to achieve reduction reflect the differences in topography, land-use and of open burning practices, even though these five especially the differences of paved/unpaved areas. It locations are in the same province and have the same is more likely for MPW disposed of in a paved urban kabupaten status. area to wash-off than it is for MPW disposed of in an agricultural or forested area. This is the reason why in 3.2 ESTIMATION OF PLASTIC Java, for example, the wash-off rates are higher than in Sulawesi. DISCHARGES FROM RIVERS AND Incorporating MPW that is directly disposed in water, and COASTAL AREAS therefore does not remain in the terrestrial environment 3.2.1 Wash-off of MPW from land into at all, increases the average percentage of plastic waste waterways that ends up in a waterway to 70% of the total MPW that is both available for wash-off and directly disposed MPW that is disposed of improperly on the dry terrestrial in water. environment may take some time before being mobilized by rainfall runoff and washed off into a stream, river Most MPW that ends up in rivers results from being or lake. During this time, MPW is exposed to natural disposed directly in the water (on average about 70% processes that may bury or fragment plastics and prevent of MPW) (Figure 14). Although half of MPW that ends a fraction of MPW from being washed off. This section up in the environment is improperly disposed of in addresses the leakages of MPW from land-based sources the terrestrial environment (through illegal dumping/ into waterways as a result of wash-off. fly-tipping), only about half of this washes off into a The SWM and transport models suggest that in Indonesia waterway. Therefore, MPW disposed directly in water is about 52% of MPW that is available for wash-off (resulting estimated to have the most significant contribution to from illegal dumping/fly-tipping and leakages from the total amount of MPW discharged into the marine unsanitary final disposal sites) remains in the terrestrial environment. 56 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia FIGURE 14. Fate of MPW available for wash-off from improper disposal in the terrestrial environment (illegal dumping/ fly-tipping) and unsanitary landfills (formal dumpsites and controlled landfills) or directly disposed in water for the different regions across Indonesia 3.2.2 Transport and fate of MPW in rivers they can potentially prevent MPW from reaching the marine environment. Existing dams have been included MPW that ends up in a stream, river or lake is transported in the model and are assumed to retain 100% of plastic downstream and may end up in the marine environment, waste coming from the upstream riverine environment, unless prevented by natural processes or anthropogenic infrastructures. as described in section 2.3. As such, the results indicate that across Indonesia 4% of total MPW in the riverine The longer MPW remains in a river, with long travel environment is captured behind dams. Most dams are times associated with larger catchments and inland located on Java, where they are estimated to retain communities, the more MPW is weathered and approximately 8% of total MPW that ends up in rivers fragmented by natural processes and the more these across Java (Figure 15). fragments will be retained (e.g. in river sediments). Overall, across Indonesia 55% of MPW that ends up in a river ends up being discharged into the marine 3.2.3 Plastic discharges from rivers into the environment. The remaining MPW is retained in the marine environment riverine system (41% across Indonesia) or captured Time series of plastic discharges into the marine behind dams (across Indonesia 4%). In Java, Sumatra, environment were generated for river outlets of over Kalimantan and Papua, where rivers are relatively long, 4,000 river catchments. Ranking these to their relative overall 39% - 47% of MPW may remain in rivers. In contribution to plastic waste discharge shows that the contrast, Sulawesi, Bali – Nusa Tenggara are regions most polluted rivers can be found in Java, Sumatra with mostly short rivers and 30% - 40% of MPW may and Kalimantan (Table 17 and Figure 17). The most be retained in the riverine system (Figure 15). polluted rivers are mostly large and densely populated MPW that ends up in waterways can also be captured catchments, as is the case for the Bengawan Solo and by existing artificial structures, such as dams. Dams have Brantas rivers. The major source of plastic waste in been constructed throughout Indonesia (Figure 16) and the Musi river are leakages from the landfill of kota Section 3. Results | 57 FIGURE 15. Fate of MPW transported in rivers for the different regions across Indonesia FIGURE 16. Dams in Indonesia may prevent MPW from reaching the marine environment. Most are located on Java. 58 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Plastic waste discharges by rivers show large seasonal variations and are higher during wet season. Rainfall events after a long dry period mobilize relatively high amounts of plastic waste that has been improperly disposed of on land. Palembang (TPA Sukawinatan) that is still operated Jakarta, a significant volume of debris (combination as an open dumpsite. Nevertheless, the list of highly of household waste and various other debris, polluted rivers does include smaller catchments (e.g. such as branches and other vegetation material the Cirarab river) where unsanitary disposal facilities that is washed off from land) is retrieved45 are located at close distance to a waterway. Section from the urban drainage system through trash-racks that 3.2.8 provides a more detailed analysis of the top 10 are positioned across small rivers and even the larger catchments in Indonesia. Ciliwung and Krukut rivers. Total volumes of debris The estimated range for discharge of MPW into the are often recorded, but the composition of plastic marine environment for the most polluted catchments waste retained seems to vary widely (see section 3.3.4 (Figure 17) shows that uncertainty regarding wash-off and Appendix III) and amounts of plastic removed rates from unsanitary landfills (and especially formal from rivers via trash-racks at any given period are not open dumpsites) has a significant influence on the range. available. In addition, during certain periods (e.g. wet season and likely at other times of high river discharges) The modeled discharge estimates for rivers that trash-racks are opened to prevent flooding upstream run through DKI Jakarta44 were not corrected for and all waste that is carried in the river runs through. plastic waste that is retained and removed (e.g. Therefore, although a significant amount of waste may through trash-racks and cleanup operations). In be retrieved from drains, canals and rivers via trash-racks, this may only be the tip of the ‘waste-berg’. 44 The rivers running through DKI Jakarta have been lumped to- gether and represented as one figure in Figure 17. The WFLOW model is not able to capture the large number of manmade adjustments to the hydrological system and because solid waste management is organized at DKI provincial level, the de-aggre- gated SWM figures at kodya level are not representative at this 45 DLH has reportedly retrieved in total about 11,000 m3 of waste level. See section 3.2.9. from the Jakarta rivers in 2018 (DLH, 2019). FIGURE 17. Top Indonesian rivers in terms of yearly amounts (kton) of plastic waste discharged into the marine environment, indicating the estimated range for the discharge of the river (based on range of SWM only) Section 3. Results | 59 TABLE 17. Top Indonesian rivers in terms of yearly amounts (kton) of plastic waste discharged into the marine environment, indicating range of discharges (low, mid, high) and their contribution (%) to the total amount discharged in Indonesia Catch- Popu- Unsani- ment lation tary Contri- size Dens- Land- Catchments Regions Low Mid High bution City (km2) ity fills Remark Jakarta/ Likely overestimated as DKI Rivers Java 28.76 31.69 34.94 8.90% Depok/ High No recovery from waste racks 1,529.70 Bogor not considered Multiple open dumpsites in Musi Sumatra 10.73 15.88 20.81 4.7% Palembang Medium Yes 55,447.10 catchment Bengawan Large densely populated Java 3.86 6.28 8.73 1.9% Solo Medium Yes Solo 15,538.40 catchment Large densely populated Brantas Java 3.65 5.6 7.68 1.7% Surabaya High Yes 12,139.80 catchment Open dumpsite adjacent to Cirarab Java 2.47 5.4 11.72 1.6% Tangerang High Yes 180.80 river and close to coast Large catchment with Batanghari Sumatra 2.37 4.35 7.04 1.3% Jambi Medium Yes 44,802.40 multiple unsanitary landfills Densely populated Purbalingga/ Serayu Java 2.86 4.32 5.84 1.3% Medium Yes catchment, with low Banyumas 3,794.00 collection rates Kapuas Palangka Kalimantan 2.57 3.85 5.25 1.1% Medium No Large catchment (KalTeng) Raya 17,758.90 Multiple controlled landfills Barito Kalimantan 2.86 3.7 4.6 1.1% Banjarmasin Medium Yes 61,094.70 at close distance to river Densely populated Citanduy Java 2.24 3.61 4.9 1.1% Tasikmalaya Medium Yes catchment, with low 3,701.70 collection rates Kapuas Open dumpsite adjacent Kalimantan 1.72 3.31 4.94 1.0% Kubu Raya Medium Yes (KalBar) 99,791.20 to river Densely populated Bekasi Java 1.6 3.01 3.88 0.9% Baekasi High No catchment, with low 1,465.10 collection rates Densely populated Yogyakarta/ Progo Java 2.33 2.9 3.52 0.9% High Yes catchment, with low Magelang 2,497.70 collection rates Densely populated Ci Tarik Java 2.34 2.82 3.29 0.8% Sukabumi Medium Yes catchment, with low 1,838.40 collection rates Densely populated Cimanuk Java 2 2.73 3.46 0.8% Indramayu Medium No catchment, with low 3,785.10 collection rates Big city with low collection Landak Kalimantan 1.26 2.45 3.55 0.7% Pontianak Medium Yes rates at close distance to (Kapuas) 99,791.20 coast Multiple controlled landfills Barito/Malaku Kalimantan 1.84 2.31 2.93 0.7% Banjarmasin Medium Yes 931.60 at close distance to river Big city and multiple Sekampung Sumatra 1.29 2.19 3.11 0.7% Lampung Medium Yes 4,979.00 unsanitary landfills Note: For DKI Jakarta, combined results for several rivers that flow through the region are presented. 3.2.4 Seasonal and daily variations of However, even during the dry season, high discharges plastic discharges by rivers of MPW may be expected after brief rainfall events Model results show strong seasonal variations with (for example, the early August peak modeled at higher average discharges of MPW associated with Manggarai Gate in Figure 19). The model results reflect the rainy season and lower average discharges with the observations (Jakarta trash-rack sampling in early the dry season (example of the Bekasi River in Figure December as shown on Figure 20) that a short rainfall 18). Typically, in Java, the rainy season starts around event after a long dry spell, may mobilize the available October and lasts until April. MPW within the catchment (early August, early October 60 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia and early November in Figure 19). This is then washed peak, 12.5 kton, is considerably lower compared to the off and discharged into the marine environment. As also plastic waste load at the first peak, 40.9 kton). confirmed in observations (Figure 20), a rainfall event In addition, model results of individual rivers show that causes a similar river discharge a few days later large daily variations in MPW discharge should be (in the dry or wet season), may result in a significantly expected in both the dry and wet seasons, although lower discharge of MPW into the marine environment the discharge in the dry season is generally lower and (second peaks in early October and early November in more stable. These large daily variations are confirmed Figure 19, where the river discharge is about the same by field survey observations (Figure 20). while the plastic waste load at the second discharge BOX 6. The Citarum River While the Citarum River is regarded as very polluted, this study does not rank it among the highest in terms of plastic waste discharges. The annual MPW discharge from the Citarum river basin into the Java Sea is estimated at 1.4 kton/ year (0.67 - 1.78 kton/year). Note however, that the range is rather wide; the high estimate would put the Citarum river closer to the top (in terms of plastic waste specifically). Such wide range of MPW discharge results mainly from the SWG calculation for kabupaten Bekasi, which are based on data from SIPSN and PUPR, in the absence of Master Plan data for SWG for this kabupaten (considered as the most valid data in this study). In the Citarum River Action Plan46 it is estimated that 3,500 tons of solid waste is generated daily in the Citarum catchment, from eight kabupaten/kota. 78% of this amount is generated in the metropolitan area of Bandung, in the upper Citarum River (kota Bandung, kabupaten Bandung Barat, kabupaten Bandung and kota Cimahi). These are located upstream of the existing dams, which likely retain most of the plastic waste carried from upstream. The remaining 22% is generated in four kabupaten/kota in lower Citarum River and downstream of the dams (kabupaten Kerawang, kabupaten Bekasi, kabupaten Purwakarta and kabupaten Cianjur). 46 Satuan Tugas Pengendalian Pencemaran dan Kerusakan DAS Citarum Provinsi Jawa Barat. (2019, June). Rencana Aksi Pengendalian Pence- maran dan Kerusakan DAS Citarum 2019-2025. Retrieved June 2, 2020, from https://citarumharum.jabarprov.go.id/eusina/uploads/docs/ renaksi_ppk_das.pdf FIGURE 18. River discharges (light blue reverse right axis) and modeled 3 months moving average plastic discharges (dark blue) at the river mouth of the Bekasi river Section 3. Results | 61 FIGURE 19. River discharges (light blue reverse right axis) and modeled plastic discharges (dark blue) at Manggarai Gate in the Ciliwung River in Jakarta FIGURE 20. Waste observations from survey at trash-racks in North Jakarta confirm high waste loads associated with high rainfall events 62 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia It is estimated that roughly 60 kton/ also incorporated and the result is a range accounting year of plastic waste ends up in the for uncertainties in SWM parameters and hydrological marine environment from waste variability. disposed of in the coastal zone and Of the total amount of MPW generated, only 10% small islands. (766.8 kton/year) is available for wash-off or is directly disposed into waterways. From the total amount of MPW leaked into the dry terrestrial environment across Indonesia (322.5 kton/year), approximately 48% washes 3.2.5 Estimation of MPW leakages from off to a river, stream or lake. From the total amount coastal areas and small islands of MPW that ends up in a waterway across Indonesia A total of approximately 78.4 kton/year of MPW is (520.6 kton/year) approximately 55% (287.7 kton/year) disposed of in the coastal zone or on small islands is discharged into the marine environment. (45.7 kton/year – 114.1 kton/year). It is estimated that Of the total amount of MPW generated in Indonesia, in total 58.9 kton/year (26.7 kton/year – 99.3 kton/year) only about 9.4 – 10.6% of MPW is disposed in the ends up in the marine environment from sources in the coastal zone or on small islands (37.3 kton/year in the coastal zone or on small islands (Figure 21). dry terrestrial environment and 41.1 kton/year directly into the marine environment). The existing models do 3.2.6 National baseline: Plastic discharges not cover the coastal zone and some of the smaller from land-based sources islands. The contribution of this area to the total amount The physical modeling of MPW flow through the of plastic discharged into the marine environment environment builds on the results of the assessment was estimated from the riverine results, which show of MPW generated from different anthropogenic that between 60 and 87% of MPW disposed of in the processes (SWM and handling) which resulted in three coastal zone and on small islands will reach the marine scenarios (a low estimate, a mid-range estimate and a environment. Although this is a wide range, it only high estimate) for MPW available for wash-off. Through accounts for 13 - 18% of the total amount of MPW hydrological modeling, the hydrological variability is discharged into the marine environment. FIGURE 21. Fate of MPW washed-off directly or indirectly into the marine environment in the main islands of Indonesia Section 3. Results | 63 where most urban areas are located, about 45% has In total, 346.5 kton/year (201.1 an urban origin and about 55% has a rural origin. In Sumatra, Bali and Kalimantan, about 70-75% of MPW kton/year – 552.3 kton/year) of discharged into the marine environment comes from plastic waste is discharged into the rural sources and in East Indonesia (Sulawesi, Maluku marine environment from land-based and Papua) it ascends to 80-90%. sources in Indonesia. The range of total discharges of plastic waste into the marine environment from land-based sources in Indonesia is estimated between 201.1 and 552.3 kton/ Most MPW is discharged into the marine environment year, with a midpoint of 346.5 kton/year. These estimates from Java (129.3 kton/year) and Sumatra (99.1 kton/ suggest that 4.5% of the total plastic waste generated year) (Table 18). At the national level, about two in Indonesia ends up in the marine environment — thirds (66.6%) of the MPW discharged into the marine equal to a per capita contribution to plastic marine environment originate from rural sources. On Java, debris of 1.32 kg/year. TABLE 18. Summary of modeling results for main Indonesian islands Bali & Nusa Indonesia Sumatra Java Tenggara Kalimantan Sulawesi Maluku Papua Urban Population 131,129,774 22,492,162 88,138,336 5,693,960 6,704,096 6,229,888 832,169 1,039,163 Rural Population 130,959,862 34,616,835 60,034,882 8,795,488 9,289,130 12,905,476 2,092,559 3,225,474 29 Mismanaged 766.8 202.1 318.4 52.1 67.7 81.7 21.8 23.1 plastic waste from terrestrial sources that may be washed-off 30 To dry terrestrial 357.9 98.5 144.6 30.3 18.9 41.7 9.3 14.6 SWM Model environment 31 As point sources 68.2 21.2 34.9 2.7 3.5 4.2 1.2 0.5 32 As diffuse 289.8 77.2 109.7 27.6 15.4 37.6 8.1 14.1 sources 33 To wet terrestrial 408.9 103.6 173.8 21.8 48.9 39.9 12.4 8.5 environment 34 As point sources - - - - - - - - 35 As diffuse 408.9 103.6 173.8 21.8 48.9 39.9 12.4 8.5 sources 36 Total disposed 322.5 89.9 139.1 24.8 18.9 33 3.7 13 in the dry environment 37 Retained in soils 168.8 23.6 78.4 21.4 10.3 22.5 3.3 9.4 38 Washed-off reivers 153.6 66.4 60.7 3.4 8.7 10.5 0.4 3.6 39 Final destination 520.6 159.3 228.4 21.9 53.5 42.3 4.8 10.4 (riverine DelWAQ Model environment) 40 Captured behind 20.6 0.3 19.2 1.0 - 0.2 - - dams 41 Buried or stored in 212.3 74.1 88.6 5.4 23.2 14.2 2.0 4.8 river 42 Total discharged 287.7 84.9 120.6 15.6 30.3 37.9 2.8 5.6 into marine environment 43 Total discharged 287.7 84.9 120.6 15.6 30.3 37.9 2.8 5.6 into marine environment from rivers 64 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Bali & Nusa Indonesia Sumatra Java Tenggara Kalimantan Sulawesi Maluku Papua 44 Coastal zone 78.4 18.6 11.6 8.8 5.3 16.9 13.6 3.5 45 To dry environment 37.3 8.5 5.6 5.5 1.5 8.7 5.6 2.0 (coastal zone) 46 Washed-off 17.8 4.1 2.6 2.6 0.7 4.2 2.7 0.9 Coastal Zone directly to marine environment 47 Disposed directly 41.1 10 6.1 3.4 3.9 8.2 8.0 1.5 into marine environment 48 Total into marine 58.9 14.1 8.7 6.0 4.6 12.3 10.7 2.5 environment from coastal area 49 Total discharged 287.7 84.9 120.6 15.6 30.3 27.9 2.8 5.6 into marine environment from rivers Result 50 Total leaked into 58.9 14.1 8.7 6 4.6 12.3 10.7 2.5 marine environment from coastal areas 51 Total leaked 346.5 99.1 129.3 21.5 34.9 40.2 13.5 8.1 into the marine environment MPW disposed into 0.73 0.97 0.62 0.74 1.29 0.85 0.44 0.8 marine environment per capita (Urban) [kg/cap/year] MPW disposed into 1.46 1.82 1.09 1.29 2.33 1.75 1.18 1.47 marine environment per capita (Rural) [kg/cap/year] 3.2.7 Examples: Diffuse and point sources of showing similar MPW profiles (seen from the MPW MPW in a catchment in Java amount disposed directly in water (Figure 22) and on land (Figure 23). Figure 22 and Figure 23 illustrate the study’s high resolution and high level of detail of MPW sources Moreover, a river that runs through a very densely and pathways of plastic waste discharges into the populated area, such as Bekasi, shows a high discharge marine environment. The figures show five different of MPW into the marine environment. On the other catchments in Java (Table 19). hand, for the Citarum, where the densely populated The results clearly indicate that catchment size matters: city of Bandung is situated in the upstream region, the estimated amount of MPW discharged into the most MPW is retained behind the three large dams marine environment from the catchment of the Cimanuk (Saguling, Cirata and Jatiluhur) and does not reach is much higher than from the Cipunagara, despite the marine environment. TABLE 19. Features of catchments provided as example Name river catchment Main city Catchment area (km2) Special feature Cirarab Tangerang 180.8 Large open dumpsite Bekasi river Bekasi 1,465.1 Very densely populated Citarum Bandung 6,678.7 Multiple dams in the main river downstream of Bandung Cipunagara - 1,295.5 - Cimanuk Indramayu 3,785.1 - Source: Author estimates Section 3. Results | 65 FIGURE 22. Example of results of plastic discharges into the sea (blue circles) from five catchments in Java (from west to east: Cirarab, Bekasi, Citarum, Cipunagara and Cimanuk); MPW directly discarded into waterways (grey shades, in kg/day); location of landfills (point sources). FIGURE 23. Example of results of plastic discharges into the sea (blue circles) from five catchments in Java (from west to east: Cirarab, Bekasi, Citarum, Cipunagara and Cimanuk); MPW from diffuse sources/ fly-tipping (grey-red shades, in gr/day/ha); location of landfills (point sources). 66 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Nevertheless, even a small river catchment can still be noted that the handling practices of uncollected discharge large amounts of plastic waste into the marine waste between kabupaten and even between desa/ environment. This is the case of the Cirarab, where a kelurahan may differ significantly. formal open dumpsite is located at close distance from Most of the catchment areas are in Java, and there are the main river, as seen in a satellite image in Figure 24. two in both Sumatra and Kalimantan. This is consistent The image also shows what seems an accumulation with the national results of the SWM model, which of MPW in the river (with a likely source being the indicate that Java produces more MPW compared TPS), which would likely be discharged into the marine to other regions in Indonesia. Results for DKI Jakarta environment during upcoming rainfall event. rivers47 are presented alongside other catchments but should be interpreted with caution. 3.2.8 Analysis of top catchments in The river catchment areas vary significantly in their char- Indonesia acteristics. The smallest catchment is 181 km2 (Cirarab), To better understand the influence of SWM behavior while the largest is over 350 times bigger at 61.095 and handling practices on plastic discharges from km2 (the Barito). The shortest river is only 14 km long catchments, a more detailed analysis of the top (the Cirarab), while the longest stretch 800 and 900 km catchments was undertaken. The analysis examines across Sumatra (the Batanghari) and Kalimantan (the results of the SWM model and includes the total MPW Barito). Several of the top rivers are primarily ‘urban‘ per catchment and the main sources of MPW, plastic rivers, traversing major urban centers and kabupaten available for wash-off from disposal sites, and handling with higher population densities. The longer rivers practices of uncollected waste (directly disposed in traverse up to four provinces and 25 kabupaten and water, illegal dumping/fly-tipping and open burning). The handling practices of uncollected waste are based 47 The rivers running through DKI Jakarta have been lumped to- gether and represented as one figure in Figure 17. The WFLOW on BPS results (Susenas Hansos 2017) that are only model is not able to capture the large number of man-made adjustments to the hydrological system and because SWM is or- provided at provincial level. Data at kabupaten/kota ganized at DKI provincial level, the de-aggregated SWM figures are distributed based on the provincial figure. It should at kota level are not representative at this level. FIGURE 24. Satellite image of the area around the TPA kabupaten Tangerang (open dumpsite (PUPR) Source: Google Section 3. Results | 67 kota, and waste collection rates, treatment facilities observations based on the SWM model data analysis, and handling practices can vary significantly within a covering amounts and sources of MPW, plastic available catchment and certainly across this set of catchments. for wash-off from unsanitary landfills, and handling The top rivers and some of their key characteristics practices for uncollected waste. More detailed are already presented in Table 17. Table 20 provides information on critical locations for each catchment additional information for each catchment, including is provided in Appendix VII. collection rates, TPA and dumpsite status, and main TABLE 20. Overview of the topmost polluting rivers in Indonesia, including waste management and handling practices within the catchment’s administrative units. Please note that DKI Jakarta rivers have been clustered. Catchment Population Length Catchment character- character- Collection TPA Main locations and Handling practices for River (km) area (km2) istics istics rates status sources of MPW uncollected waste DKI Up to 1,530 Flows High den- Generally Four TPA Total MPW 144.3 • 88% of plastic waste Jakarta 117 km through sity urban high but sanitary kton/year of which disposed to water rivers three popula- low rates landfills 31.7 kton/year (22% originates from DKI (i.e. Ci- provinces tion, 16 in parts of (Ci- of MPW) may end Jakarta, with minimal liwung, (West Java million DKI Jakarta, payung, up as PW marine inputs from other Krukut, and DKI living in Depok and two in discharge (8.9% of areas in top 10 list Angke, Jakarta), catchment Bogor Galuga, country total). • Illegal dumping/ Sunter, all urban area Bantar 80 % of total MPW fly-tipping very low etc.) areas Gebang) in catchment areas • 46% of waste burned comes from DKI comes from DKI Jakarta, kota Depok Jakarta, with smaller and Bogor, main fractions from kota source is uncollect- Depok (17%) and ed plastic waste, no Bogor (14%) losses from landfills. Musi 750 55,447 Flows Medium High for TPA Su- Total MPW 184.3 • 83% of plastic waste through 25 density, 3 kota Palem- kawinatan kton/year of which available for wash- kabupat- million bang but formal 15.9 kton/year off from unsanitary en/kota generally open (8.6% of MPW) ends landfill comes from in four low for oth- dumpsite up as PW marine kota Palembang due provinces er areas in kota discharge (5.3% of to open dumpsite on Sumatra Palem- country total). • Plastic waste dis- (SumSel bang and Top 10 contributors posed in water, ille- [includ- Ogan Ilir all in downstream gal dumping/fly-tip- ing kota catchment area, ping and burning Palem- 34% MPW from dominated by Muara bang], kota Palembang Enim, predominantly Bengkulu, mainly from dump- rural for all three Jambi, site, other areas practices Lampung) contribute with uncollected plastic waste due to low collection rates (such as Muara Enim, contributing 10% of total). 68 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Catchment Population Length Catchment character- character- Collection TPA Main locations and Handling practices for River (km) area (km2) istics istics rates status sources of MPW uncollected waste Ben- 600 15,538 Flows Medium Generally Most Total catchment • 100% of plastic waste gawan through population low due areas MPW 237 kton/year available for wash-off Solo eight ka- density, 4.7 to larger operate of which 6.3 kton/ from dumpsite from bupaten/ million number of controlled year (2.6% of MPW) Sukoharjo, other one kota rural areas in landfills, ends up as PW ma- areas contribute in Central catchment formal rine discharge (2.1% small amounts from Java; nine open of country total). unsanitary landfill kabupat- dumpsite losses Total MPW fairly en/two in Suko- evenly distributed • Magetan, Boyolali kota in harjo across top 10 (all) and Karanganyar East Java kabupaten, four consistently in top main contributors five contributors in upstream area, for plastic waste main source is disposed in water, uncollected plastic illegal dumping/ waste and the fly-tipping, and formal open dump- burning, due to site in Sukoharjo low collection rates (contributing 7% of about 75% rural for total MPW). all three practices Brantas 320 12,140 Flows High Generally Nine Total catchment • 64% of plastic through population low due controlled MPW 231.9 kton/ available for wash- nine ka- density, to limited landfills year of which 5.6 off from unsanitary bupaten/ almost 11 solid waste and one kton/year (0.4% disposal sites comes six kota in million collection in sanitary of MPW) ends from Sidoarjo and East Java rural areas landfill up as PW marine kota Malang (Suraba- discharge (1.9% of • Kediri, kota Surabaya ya) country total). and Mojokerto con- Uncollected plastic sistently in top five waste main con- ranking for plastic tributor to MPW, waste deposited in fairly evenly spread water, illegal dump- across top 10, top ing/fly-tipping and four areas produce burned, most dis- 48% of total (Kediri, posal to water from Mojokerto, Malang, urban areas, illegal kota Surabaya), dumping/fly-tipping rural areas major from rural areas contributors with • Similar trend for exception of Jom- burning, evenly dis- bang and Sidoarjo tributed urban/rural with higher urban population, and • Kota Surabaya kota Surabaya. inclusion surprising given reputation as clean city (Adipura Kencana award) Cirarab 14 181 Flows High Generally One Total catchment • 100% of plastic waste through population high sanitary MPW 114.7 kton/ available for wash- kabupaten density, I landfill, year of which 5.4 off from unsanitary and Kota million TPA kton/year (4.7% disposal sites comes Tangerang Cipeu- of MPW) ends from the dumpsite in in Banten cang (with up as PW marine kabupaten Tan- province limited discharge (1.8% of gerang remaining country total). • Tangerang is also lifetime) Almost 100% of consistently the main and one total MPW comes contributor for plas- formal from kabupaten tic waste disposed open Tangerang from to water (even across dumpsite dumpsite. the urban/rural (Jatiwar- division) and illegal ingin) dumping/fly-tipping and burning (more in urban areas) Section 3. Results | 69 Catchment Population Length Catchment character- character- Collection TPA Main locations and Handling practices for River (km) area (km2) istics istics rates status sources of MPW uncollected waste Batang- 800 44,802 Flows Medium Low to Three Total catchment • 61% of plastic hari through 10 population medium controlled MPW 83.6 kton/year available for wash-off kabupat- density, 1 collection landfills, of which 4.4 kton/ from unsanitary land- en/kota in million rates four for- year (5.2% of MPW) fills comes from kota Jambi; four mal open ends up as PW ma- Jambi, with contribu- kabupaten dump- rine discharge (1.4% tions from Dharmas in West sites and of country total). Raya, Kerinci and Sumatra three smaller amounts for 30% of total MPW kabupat- other locations with comes from kota en/kota controlled landfills Jambi (70% of this without is from a formal • Tebo, kota Jambi, formal open dumpsite) Soralangun, Muaro disposal but other areas also Jambi and Batang- sites contribute through hari consistently uncollected waste. contribute to plastic Apart from kota waste disposed Jambi, contribu- to water, illegal tions are from rural dumping/fly-tipping areas. and burning, but there are fairly even contributions across top 10, primarily rural with exception of kota Jambi Kapuas 600 17,759 Flows Medium, Low collec- Con- Total catchment • Kapuas contributes (Kal through population tion rates trolled MPW 5.8 kton/year all of the plastic Teng) two of 75 thou- landfill for of which 3.8 kton/ waste available kabupaten sand Kapuas year (66% of MPW) for wash-off from in Central ends up as PW ma- controlled landfill Kalimantan rine discharge (1.3% (although this is a (Kapuas of country total). small amount) and Barito 96% of total MPW • Kapuas also contrib- Kuala) comes from uncol- utes almost 100% lected plastic waste of plastic waste from Kapuas (78% disposed to water, rural source), very illegal dumping/ small amount from fly-tipping, and burn- unsanitary landfill. ing, mostly rural Barito 900 61,095 Flows Medium Medium to Con- Total catchment • Kota Banjarmasin through 18 population high collec- trolled MPW 57.9 kton/year contributes most kabupat- density, 1.3 tion rate landfills, of which 3.7 kton / plastic waste avail- en/kota million some for- year (6.3% of MPW) able from wash-off in Central mal open ends up as PW ma- from controlled Kalimantan dump- rine discharge (1.2% landfill, remaining and South sites of country total). eight demonstrate Kalimantan fairly even contribu- There is a fairly provinces tions (these are all even distribution controlled landfills) of contribution to MPW from kabu- • Kota Banjarmasin, paten from South Banjar, Tabalong, Kalimantan (8) Hulu Sungai Tengah, coming mainly from and Barito Utara con- uncollected plastic sistently in top 5 for waste (80% rural contribution to plas- source), since most tic waste disposed disposal sites are to water, illegal controlled landfills. dumping/fly-tipping, and burning, with rural contribution most significant 70 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia As seen in Table 17 and Figure 17, the cluster of rivers midpoint uncertainty and additional maps in Appendix that run through DKI Jakarta are, combined, the most VIII). Bogor, kota Depok and kota Bogor also contribute polluting catchments in Indonesia for plastic waste to MPW but in smaller amounts. Uncollected waste discharged into the marine environment. These rivers is the only factor contributing to total MPW in the are primarily ‘urban’ rivers; they do not traverse any catchment, since there is, at least according to the rural areas and are heavily influenced by practices in SWM model, limited leakages from sanitary landfills. the large urban areas of West Java and DKI Jakarta48. Both DKI Jakarta and kota Depok, the top two MPW Unlike many other parts of the country, it is well served contributors, have low collection rates, and DKI Jakarta by sanitary landfills ¾ there are four in the catchment in particular has a high SWG per capita and a high area. The main source of MPW comes from DKI Jakarta plastic content, thus generating a significant amount (53% of the total) and a large portion of that (about of uncollected plastic waste that can end up in rivers. 38.7%) ends up in the water. The rest is burnt. The administrative areas traversed by the rivers running Figure 25 illustrates the MPW disposed of directly in through DKI Jakarta produce a total of 144.3 kton/year water and MPW illegally dumped/fly-tipped in the DKI of MPW, of which 39.6 kton/year or about 27% ends Jakarta rivers catchments, respectively (corresponding up in the marine environment. It is important to note that the water management system 48 Note that urban drainage infrastructure is not included in the model. Urban drainage infrastructure may impact the wash-off in DKI Jakarta is significantly altered and, except for and transport of plastic from the terrestrial environment to the dams, the hydrological model does not include artificial riverine environment and may therefore impact the final dis- charge into the marine environment. water management infrastructure. In addition, as part FIGURE 25. MPW disposed of in water (left) and disposal of in the terrestrial environment through illegal dumping/fly- tipping (right) in DKI Jakarta rivers catchments Section 3. Results | 71 of these artificial structures, there are 27 permanent plastic waste (Muara Enim, Banyuasin, Ogan Ilir and trash-racks and 332 floating waste barriers installed Musi Rawas) and about 20% of this ends up in water. in DKI Jakarta49. Through solid waste sampling from Most of the uncollected plastic waste (over 81%) is river trash-racks (a validation activity of this study, see from rural areas. This catchment provides a good Appendix III), regular waste removal and disposal from example, relevant for some other areas as well, where trash-racks and floating waste barriers to TPA Bantar an improved collection rate (as in kota Palembang) is Gebang by DLH DKI Jakarta was observed. However, not beneficial if effective treatment facilities are not in as further discussed in section 3.3.4, the quantitative place for the waste collected. Given the lack of other data on the volume and composition of the removed options, disposal to water, illegal dumping/fly-tipping waste are very limited or unavailable. Because of this and waste burning are common rural practices in this data limitation, the effect of these trash-racks and waste catchment. The administrative areas traversed by the floating barrier infrastructures is not accounted for in Musi produce a total of 184.3 kton/year of MPW, of this study, which could result in an overestimation of which 15.9 kton/year or about 9% ends up in the marine MPW discharged in DKI Jakarta river outlets. environment. The Musi River, the most polluted of the top individual Figure 26-28 illustrate the Musi River catchment area rivers, is also the third longest river, crossing many and the main sources for MPW disposal in water and administrative boundaries of largely rural character ¾ through illegal dumping/fly-tipping. The levels of with the exception of kota Palembang. Unlike in the uncertainty with respect to the latter two are illustrated DKI Jakarta region, waste collection rates are generally in Appendix VIII. low and the waste that is collected is not properly The Bengawan Solo, the second ranked most polluted treated ¾ the TPA in kota Palembang is a formal open individual river, flows through the rural kabupaten and dumpsite. The main source of MPW is kota Palembang urban areas of Central Java and East Java. It has a (28%, coming from the dumpsite). Kota Palembang relatively high population density, but collection rates has a good collection rate, but other areas along the are generally low due to the rural nature of many of the river contribute to MPW primarily from uncollected kabupaten it traverses. It is not well-served by sanitary landfills; most of the areas operate controlled landfills 49 Data obtained from DLH DKI Jakarta, 2019 and there is a formal open dumpsite in Sukoharjo. FIGURE 26. Musi River catchment with urban and rural areas 72 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia FIGURE 27. MPW disposed of in the terrestrial environment through illegal dumping/fly-tipping in Musi River catchment FIGURE 28. MPW disposed in water in Musi catchment Section 3. Results | 73 The main source of MPW is uncollected waste, with 32). Most areas operate controlled landfills and these the main contributors in the upstream catchment, and continue to leak plastic waste to the environment, with the formal open dumpsite in Sukoharjo (contributing significant contributions from Sidoarjo and kota Malang. about 7% of the total MPW). Many of the landfills are Uncollected plastic waste is the major contributor to located in the region known as ‘Solo Raya’ that comprises total MPW, evenly divided between the rural yet densely Boyolali, Klaten, Sukoharjo, Karanganyar, Sragen and populated kabupaten and the more urbanized areas kota Surakarta, all of which slowly but consistently leak such as Jombang, Sidoarjo and Pasuruan and, of course, plastic waste to the environment and ultimately, to the kota Surabaya. As in the other catchments, an increased marine environment. A regional solution for common collection rate does not lead to less plastic waste available waste handling could be a viable option to manage solid for wash-off, given the prevalence of controlled landfills waste more effectively in the Solo Raya area. Disposal in water, illegal dumping/fly-tipping and burning are evenly as the main treatment option. Plastic waste disposal distributed but consistently dominated by Magetan, in water, illegal dumping/fly-tipping and burning are Boyolali and Karanganyar. Burning is by far the most fairly evenly distributed between urban and rural areas significant with up to 80% of MPW burned every year. (Figure 33 and Figure 34, corresponding uncertainties The administrative areas traversed by the Bengawan in Appendix VIII). Open burning of waste is, as in many Solo river produce a total of 237 kton/year of MPW, other areas, the primary handling practice for MPW: out of which an estimated 6.3 kton/year (about 2.6%) about 86% of MPW is still burned. The inclusion of kota ends up in the marine environment. Surabaya in the list of top 10 is somewhat surprising given Figure 29-31 illustrate the Bengawan Solo River catchment in 2019, this city received the highest level of Adipura, area and the main sources for MPW disposal in water the Adipura Kencana, and has the reputation of being and through illegal dumping/fly-tipping. a very clean city. Data limitations may partially explain The Brantas River, third in rank, is 320 km long and this, as Susenas Hansos 2017 data is only provided at has a relatively small catchment area. The river flows provincial level. The administrative areas traversed by through some fairly urbanized and highly populated the Brantas River produce a total of 231.9 kton/year of areas in East Java, and it is served by a sanitary landfill MPW, out of which an estimated 5.6 kton/year (about in the largest urban center of kota Surabaya (Figure 2.5%) ends up in the marine environment. FIGURE 29. Bengawan Solo River catchment with urban and rural areas 74 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia FIGURE 30. MPW disposed of in the terrestrial environment through illegal dumping/fly-tipping in Bengawan Solo River catchment FIGURE 31. MPW disposed in water in Bengawan Solo River catchment Section 3. Results | 75 FIGURE 32. Brantas River catchment with urban and rural areas FIGURE 33. MPW disposed of in the terrestrial environment through illegal dumping/fly-tipping in Brantas River catchment 76 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia FIGURE 34. MPW disposed in water in Brantas River catchment The Cirarab River, forth in rank, is the shortest of the as an open dumpsite), its small size and its location in top individual rivers and has a small catchment area. the hinterlands of Jakarta could make it an interesting It traverses kabupaten and kota Tangerang, urbanized candidate to pilot an effective and integrated SWM areas in the hinterland regions of Jakarta, with high solution as a learning experience for other areas. As population densities. The areas are served by two TPAs, with the Bengawan Solo, a regional landfill facility could although only one operates as a sanitary landfill (TPA also be part of the solution. Rawa Kucing in kota Tangerang). The second TPA is The Batanghari River, ranking fifth, is the second longest operated as an open dumpsite (TPA Jatiwaringin). Almost river of the top rivers (surpassed only by the Barito). It 96% of the MPW in the catchment comes from the flows through the largely rural kabupaten of Jambi and dumpsite in kabupaten Tangerang, which is also where West Sumatra (14 in total) and is characterized by low the small portion of uncollected waste contributing to to medium SWM collection rates. There are no sanitary MPW is generated. Consequently, a major part of the landfills in the catchment area and waste is disposed plastic waste available for wash-off comes from the of in controlled landfills and formal open dumpsites. Tangerang dumpsite (about 10% of the total MPW in the This influences the contribution to total MPW: 31% of catchment) with small contributions of MPW disposed the total MPW comes from formal dumpsites, mainly in water and through illegal dumping/fly-tipping. In from the kota Jambi dumpsite, which contributes contrast to other areas, only a small proportion of MPW almost 20% of the total MPW produced by all 14 is burned (less than 4%). The two administrative areas kabupaten and kota. Two other areas, Dharmas Raya traversed by the Cirarab River produce a total of 114.7 and Kerinci, also contribute more to MPW from formal kton/year of MPW according to the SMW model results, open dumpsites than from uncollected waste, although out of which an estimated 5.4 kton/year (about 5%) the latter is also a major contributor with the top three ends up in the marine environment. Maps illustrating areas of kota Jambi, Tebo and Sarolangun contributing the diffuse and point sources for the Cirarab catchment almost 30% to total MPW. The presence of controlled are provided in Appendix VIII. landfills leads to 3% of the MPW produced becomes The Cirarab River presents a unique situation in terms available for wash-off. Disposal to water and illegal of SWM. Its combination of good treatment (the one dumping/fly-tipping (respectively contributing about sanitary landfill) and poor treatment (the TPA operating 7% and 3% to total MPW) are rural practices (with the Section 3. Results | 77 exception of kota Jambi), dominated consistently by large proportion of this plastic waste, an estimated five locations, Tebo, kota Jambi, Sarolangun, Muaro 3.8 kton/year or about 65%, ending up in the marine Jambi and Batanghari. Well over half (58%) of MPW environment. is burned. The administrative areas traversed by the Maps illustrating the diffuse and point sources for the Batanghari River produce a total of 83.6 kton/year of Kapuas catchment are provided in Appendix VIII. MPW according to the SMW model results, out of The Barito River, ranked eighth, is the longest river, which an estimated 4.4 kton/year (about 5%) ends up flowing through 18 kabupaten and kota in Central in the marine environment. Kalimantan and Selatan. It is also the largest catchment Maps illustrating the diffuse and point sources for the area. It has low collection rates, only controlled landfills Batanghari catchment are provided in Appendix VIII. and some formal open dumpsites. About 78% of total The Serayu River, sixth in rank, traverses Central Java MPW comes from uncollected rural waste, fairly evenly and is characterized by relatively good SW collection distributed across the top 10 locations. The main urban although, consistent with many of the other catchments, area in the catchment is kota Banjarmasin, whose it is poorly served by sanitary landfills, with the only controlled landfill, along with three others, contributes one in Cilacap, near the southern coast. All other areas to the roughly 2% of MPW that is available for wash-off operate controlled landfills. Most of the MPW generated from unsanitary landfills. About 20% of uncollected waste comes from uncollected waste between the top four is directly disposed in water, primarily in rural areas and regions ¾ Banyumas, Purbalingga, Banjarnegara and evenly divided across the top 10 administrative areas. Wonosobo, with small amounts from unsanitary landfills A lower 4% is illegally dumped/fly-tipped and almost available for wash-off, primarily from Banyumas. This 66 % is burned. The administrative areas traversed catchment area demonstrates the same trend as many by the Barito River produce a total of 57.9 kton/year others: as the collection rates increase without the of MPW according to the SMW model results and an concomitant investment in sanitary landfill infrastructure, estimated 3.8 kton/year (6.3%) ends up in the marine the solid waste collected is increasingly concentrated in environment. controlled landfills (in this case about 32% of the total Maps illustrating the diffuse and point sources for the MPW). While this is preferable to not being collected at Barito catchment are provided in Appendix VIII. all, it highlights the need for a comprehensive solution Summary of main conclusions from the catchment to the many scattered unsanitary landfills across the assessment country. Consistent with trends in other catchments, a significant proportion (18% of MPW) is deposited in Top 10 rivers vary significantly in their characteristics, water and a large proportion (almost 80%) is burned. ranging from very short with small catchments (Cirarab, The administrative areas traversed by the Serayu River 14 km and 181 km2) to extremely long, stretching across produce a total of 80.1 kton/year of MPW according to many primarily rural administrative regions (Barito, 900 the SMW model results, out of which an estimated 4.3 km in length and over 61,000 km2). They are a mix kton/year (about 5%) ends up in the marine environment. of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ rivers. Observations include the following: Maps illustrating the diffuse and point sources for the Serayu catchment are provided in Appendix VIII. 1. The presented top catchments together are responsible for about 30% of the total plastic waste The Kapuas River, seventh in rank, flows through the discharged to the marine environment annually, largely rural areas of Central Kalimantan, and has the with the rivers running through DKI Jakarta in top lowest population density of the 10 catchments. It position. has low collection rates, no sanitary landfills, and not surprisingly, almost all of the MPW originates from 2. Only five out of these catchments ¾ the DKI Jakarta uncollected plastic waste, most of which is generated rivers catchments cluster, Musi, Brantas, Cirarab, in Kapuas. Almost a third of all MPW generated is Serayu ¾ have one or more sanitary landfills, and deposited directly in water, also mostly in Kapuas (which where these exist, almost all MPW in the catchment also has the higher population) and 61% of uncollected is generated by uncollected waste and any remaining waste is burned. The administrative areas traversed unsanitary landfills. by the Kapuas River produce a total of 5.8 kton/year 3. Although collection rates may increase in some of MPW according to the SMW model results, with a administrative regions, a continued reliance on 78 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia controlled landfills and formal open dumpsites simply 3.3 VALIDATION OF RESULTS shifts the problem without providing a sustainable solution. In a number of catchments, the primary This study produced a national baseline of plastic source of MPW comes from formal open dumpsites discharges from land-based sources that incorporates that could be improved through simple and quick insight into local solid waste handling practices, using investments in upgrades (examples include kota best available MSW data at the local scale, with physical Palembang in the Musi catchment, Sukoharjo in hydrological parameters modeling. It assessed the Bengawan Solo, Tangerang on the Cirarab, kota flow of MPW generated from different anthropogenic Jambi and others in the Batanghari catchment). processes (SWM and handling) and across different environmental compartments. The estimate is therefore 4. A high concentration of landfills/open dumpsites shaped by the availability and quality of input data, as regions with kabupaten/kota in close proximity well as the current scientific knowledge on fate and (such as in the Bengawan Solo catchment) provide transport of plastic waste in terrestrial and riverine good opportunities for regional, cross-boundary environments, which includes processes that are still solutions. poorly described and understood and that have been 5. In the urban catchments with high levels of pinpointed in section 2.2 and 2.3. uncollected waste, the higher SWG per capita and This section addresses issues of robustness and validity of the relatively higher plastic content of waste means the results and summarizes the key aspects of data quality that more plastic is generated that can (eventually) and assurance, procedures to determine confidence end up in the sea (the rivers running through DKI intervals and validation of results obtained, in each of Jakarta are examples of this). Improving collection the study’s components. rates in the urban ‘pockets’ where collection rates remain low (disadvantaged areas in DKI Jakarta and kabupaten Bogor are two examples) is critical. 3.3.1 Data quality and assurance to estimate land-based sources of MPW 6. Plastic waste disposal in water is a particular problem in rural catchments, but also in urban catchments MODELING OF WASTE FLOW with significant levels of uncollected waste (the highest disposal to water is noted in the Musi, • Mostly based on raw local data sources; (inter) Kapuas and Barito catchments). national figures are only used when no other data sources are available. The results are therefore 7. Illegal dumping/fly-tipping is also largely a rural heavily based on official local data, including phenomenon and is generally quite low. population data. 8. Burning continues to be the major practice to reduce • Based on various sources where outliers have been uncollected waste in all catchments. filtered out (<10 percentile or >90 percentile), unless 9. A quick comparison between total MPW generated specifically reviewed and approved. in the administrative regions traversed by the rivers • Averages from SIPSN and Master Plans are in line. and the plastic waste discharged to the marine environment shows that in four catchments, a • Cross-checking input datasets across parameters significant proportion of the MPW ends up in the (e.g. solid waste generated, plastic content), showed sea. This is true for the Musi (9%), the rivers running similar differences between kabupaten/kota. This through DKI Jakarta (20%) and the Kapuas (65%). reflects consistency and indicates some level of reliability in the parameters used. Modeling handling of uncollected waste and losses from collection • Results compared with previous national surveys from BPS show trends of increasing waste collection rates and decreasing improper disposal in water and terrestrial environment across urban and rural areas (Appendix IV). Section 3. Results | 79 • Comparison with results from Riskesdas (Ministry Modeling transport and fate of plastic in rivers of Health) and IPLH50 (BPS) confirm such trends • Data and knowledge gaps on transport of plastic (Appendix IV). Note that Susenas distinguishes in waterways: little is known about the behavior of between Collected by Officer and TPS; neither different types of plastic in rivers and how plastic Riskesdas nor IPLH distinguish it. For a fair waste characteristics (including density, shape and comparison of total collected waste, the TPS size) affect its transport, weathering and interaction numbers from Susenas should be added to the with the environment e.g. with riverine sediment. “Collected by Officer” numbers. • Processes that reduce the in-stream flux of plastic Modeling plastic leakages from land-based point waste were modeled as a single process for several sources reasons: • Data and knowledge gaps: little is known about ö Data are not available for the whole of Indonesia average leakage rates from point or diffuse to enable a detailed geospatial representation land-based sources. It is expected that these will of the stream channel morphology, including vary greatly and depend on several factors such riparian zones (wetlands, floodplains, etc.). as location of disposal, amount and type of waste disposed, how waste is handled, etc. For this study, ö Separating the processes would lead to over-pa- leakage fraction is based on assumptions/expert rameterization, when defining representative judgement and is assumed constant for each type in-stream mass fluxes is already a challenge (van of source. Calcar and van Emmerik, 2019; van Emmerik et al., 2019), and determining retention of plastic by vegetation or sediment over larger areas is 3.3.2 Modeling reliability and knowledge much more complex and has not been reported gaps affecting plastic waste wash-off, in the literature. transport and discharge estimates ö There was no methodological necessity to MODELING WATER FLOW AND HYDROLOGY separately quantify fragmentation as this study does not segregate size ranges and • WFLOW national models are validated for main microplastics stemming from fragmentation. Indonesian rivers by PusAir and therefore the hydrological modeling is considered reliable. • The processes above are reflected in the “first-order removal processes,” where parameters have been MODELING WASH-OFF FROM “AVAILABLE” MPW defined based on assumptions (expert judgement and literature e.g. van Wijnen et al, 2019) and at a • Data and knowledge gaps on transport of plastic constant rate. For this study, the removal processes from land to waterways: little is known about are therefore dependent on the residence time of how physical factors such as weathering, rainfall, plastic waste in the water (e.g. associated to size runoff, wind, etc. affect the fate and movement of river). These rates can be adjusted in the future of plastic waste on land and across environmental as better knowledge becomes available. compartments. It is expected that these are also very locally specific (e.g. type and amount of • The set of parameters was kept as compact vegetation and other obstacles that may retain as possible to avoid over-parameterization. plastic waste on land). For this study, the processes Nevertheless, the model still has more parameters of degradation and burial of plastic waste that than could be unambiguously calibrated based are available for wash-off on land were defined at on available data. No information was found constant rates. The removal processes are therefore to independently underpin the selected model dependent on the residence time of plastic waste parameters (e.g. studies that quantify the on the land (e.g. associated to the frequency of degradation and burial of relevant plastic types rainfall). These rates can be adjusted once new in the terrestrial environment or the retention in information becomes available. waterways under realistic conditions). • Despite this, the model offers a detailed representation of the variability in time and in space of the balance between plastic generated, 50 BPS published the Indikator Peduli Lingkungan Hidup (IPLH) in 2014 based on the result of Susenas Hansos 2014. plastic washed off and plastic discharged into the 80 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia marine environment. This is the result of the detailed available MSW data and the hydrological variabilities, spatial schematization and the process-based, a range was estimated. time-dependent hydrology model. Thus, the In general, most previous global studies tend to be approach accounts for all key factors determining biased towards European and North American rivers, discharge to sea, such as the location of cities and the available studies on riverine plastic debris focus and dams and the variability of rainfall and river mainly on plastic in rivers with large basins, although discharge, including flood events (van Calcar & such basins are not necessarily the largest contributors to van Emmerik, 2019). the ocean plastic pollution. In addition, plastic transport and composition are often not measured consistently over time and space, with numbers averaged instead. 3.3.3 Comparison with previous So far, the existing national studies have not included complementary estimates hydrology as a driver for plastic wash-off and transport The results of this study are on the lower end of previous and do not use actual disaggregated local SWM data. studies (Figure 35). The existing studies have their own The NPAP study (2019) re-assessed available SWM caveats, which are discussed further in this section. data over four archetypes that were used to classify all kabupaten/kota in Indonesia. The study also does not This study uses local data from individual kabupaten/ differentiate between urban and rural desa/kelurahan. kota, when available. To fill data gaps, the available The LIPI study was based on beach monitoring data and local data were assessed to obtain best estimates. therefore did not incorporate SWM data or hydrological Handling practices of households were based on drivers. national surveys. Hydrology was incorporated from source to river mouth to construct a temporally and JAMBECK ET AL (2015) spatially differentiated estimate for MPW discharge This study was the first study that explored and quantified into the marine environment. This means that run-off the marine debris problem at the global scale. The was used to calculate wash-off. And MPW transport in study relied on global and publicly available data; for rivers was calculated based on modeled estimates for Indonesia that meant estimates on SWG and formal river discharges. To account for the uncertainties in the collection were taken for the year 2010. FIGURE 35. Comparison of results of studies on MPW in Indonesia discharged to the marine environment *NPAP estimate of total plastic leaked to waterways (rivers, lakes, ocean etc.) Section 3. Results | 81 Also, the study considered that only populations within data set that contains only marginal data from Asia, so 50km distance from the coast would contribute to validity for Indonesian conditions is uncertain. plastic marine debris and considered all MPW could be transported to the marine environment, and so in SHUKER AND CADMAN (2018): WORLD BANK effect did not consider open burning nor burial as an HOTSPOT RAPID ASSESSMENT alternative method to handle (plastic) waste. The World Bank Hotspot Assessment study focused The study did not consider hydrology, and therefore on in total 15 target cities in Western and Central waterways, as a main driver for transport of plastics Indonesia. The assessment involved a series of rapid from land-based sources to the marine environment. field surveys to understand the marine debris leakage profile of cities in Indonesia. LEBRETON ET AL (2017) NPAP (2019) Lebreton et al (2017) study was the first global study that looked at the contribution of hydrology to discharge The NPAP study assessed at national level the state of of MPW through rivers into the marine environment. SWM to estimate what investments in SWM are required to meet the targets set in Presidential Regulation 83/2018 The study used a measured plastic export dataset to and Presidential Regulation 97/2019. build the model. This dataset contains only limited data from Asia (1 data point out of 30). Lebreton et In addition, the study uses the Susenas Hansos 2014 al quantified plastics export as a function of MPW national survey data. The study uses the results on (downstream of dams) and catchment characteristics. the question related to the waste handling practices Any uncertainty in the MPW input data will be reflected used by households. This question provides insight in the apparent dependency of the export on catchment in all handling practices used within a household but characteristics and can be expected to add uncertainty does not provide insight in how often these practices to spatial extrapolations (as for Indonesia). are used. For the study NPAP had assumed that each handling practice is used equally. The only catchment property accounted for is the area-specific runoff. The size of the catchment is only The study does not consider hydrology and assumes implicitly and imperfectly represented by the quantity standard wash-off rates throughout Indonesia. It provides of MPW (as MPW is not in reality evenly distributed over an estimate of MPW leaked into waterways. The result a catchment). The fraction of MPW exported appears is not a range, but a best estimate ‘mid-point’, and to increase with the absolute MPW51. It is not clear why therefore does not consider uncertainties in third party this relationship would exist and the paper does not data. discuss the reason why this particular type of correlation was considered, and not others. LIPI (2019): WASTE DEPOSITED ON BEACHES The local data used in the current study for the production In the LIPI study in total 18 sandy beaches across and leakages of MPW at a much higher resolution leads Indonesia were monitored for a period of 13 months. to the conclusion that the estimates presented here The monitoring was executed by local universities. are likely more representative of the true contribution Beaches (stretches of 150m length) were observed of MPW to the marine environment from Indonesian during the same tidal conditions (low spring tide) land-based sources and via waterways. This is further and the international methodologies (NOAA, UNEP) supported by comparison with measurements as were used to categorize plastic observations. Results described in Section 3.3.4. of these observations were then extrapolated to the whole Indonesian coastline (total coastline of over A comparison of the current results to the stochastic 100,000 km). global model by Lebreton et al. (2017) was not considered meaningful. Firstly, the present estimates for MPW deviate from those by Lebreton et al. and are expected to be 3.3.4 Confidence and validation of results more accurate. This makes the two studies incomparable. Secondly, the Lebreton et al model was built on a field CONFIDENCE OF INPUT DATA AND RESULTS To address uncertainty, the study produced a confidence interval for the source data through Monte Carlo analysis 51 When the formulation used by LeBreton et al (2017) is rewritten as export/MPW = k1 Ra MPW(a-1) over the waste flow model, which resulted in a range 82 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia of low (10%) – mid (50%) – high (90%) estimates for all • Nevertheless, at least for Manggarai gate and output parameters at desa/kelurahan level. These ranges during dry season, the trend in modeling results were then aggregated to kabupaten/kota, province is in line with the trend of DLH reported volumes or National level to obtain a range for (mis)managed (Figure 36), whereas for higher river discharges (plastic) waste and potential leakages. As described in (wet season) data on waste volumes in Manggarai section 2.1, these three scenarios of input data were then waste-rack show minimum values indicating that simulated by the transport and hydrological models, gates are often open to prevent risk of flooding. daily discharges obtained and three levels of discharge Field data from surveys at river mouth (minimum, median and maximum), to account for the • LIPI has monitored Bekasi river mouth (East wide variability of precipitation in Indonesia. Jakarta) between June 2015 and June 2016, with VALIDATION OF DISCHARGES OF PLASTIC WASTE monthly surveys and composition analysis of waste discharged. Although this concerns single Field data from trash-racks monthly observations, these data points show good • As previously indicated, the results did not correlation with the plastic discharges obtained account for plastic waste retained and removed by the model for this period in time (Figure 37). It by trash-racks and cleanup operations. The study should be noted that the Bekasi river has very few has conducted sampling of waste captured in the anthropogenic changes to the hydrological system. trash-racks, as an attempt to establish conversion In conclusion, the overall uncertainty in the current of volumes of total debris (available through the results is dominated by the uncertainty in the estimates local agency DLH) to estimated plastic content. of MPW leaked to the terrestrial environment and/or the However, this was not successful due to the high waterways. By incorporating hydrology and actual data variability found in the plastic composition (see on rainfall, this study has made considerable progress Box 7). and has produced results that can be considered realistic, • Considering, however, that existing trash-racks do albeit conservative, considering that results do not capture plastic waste, this study takes a conservative account for waste retrieved at existing trash-racks in approach by assuming no retention. Therefore, it can Indonesia. be expected that for rivers where these structures are functional (such as in the rivers and canals in DKI 3.3.5 Appraisal of data and assumptions Jakarta), the amount of plastic waste discharged downstream is lower than the model estimations. As discussed in Chapter 2 and above, the results of Accounting for this removal in the future will require this study reflect the data and assumptions made in detailed long-term monitoring of the quantities each step of the exercise, in which quality and level of plastic waste retained at trash-racks. of uncertainty vary considerably. Table 21 provides and appraisal of the different components of the study’s approach in what concerns data quality, data availability, data gaps and assumptions. BOX 7. The colors are assigned taking into account what was Sampling plastic composition at trash-racks in presented in Chapter 2 and in particular in Table 2 and Jakarta Table 7. This appraisal can serve as a basis to pinpoint where improvements are expected to lead to more Sampling of waste collected at several trash-racks reliable estimations in the future. Specific recommen- in Jakarta and analysis of composition was done dations are then provided in sections 4.3 and 4.4. during a few days in the dry (Sep. 2019) and wet season (March 2020). Sampling and analysis of plastic content (in mass) showed a wide spatial and temporal variation in the different locations sampled (47-97% in dry season and 31-83% in wet season). These sampling efforts hold valuable information, such as documenting the dominance of plastic bags, plastic bottles and sachets (see Appendix III for details of these surveys). Section 3. Results | 83 FIGURE 36. Plastic waste removed from Manggarai gate converted to ton/day (conversion rate derived from sampling composition – see Appendix III) (orange); daily plastic discharge timeseries derived from model results (thin blue line) FIGURE 37. LIPI estimations resulting from Bekasi river mouth observations (green dots), daily discharge timeseries derived from model results (thin dark blue spiky line); 30-day moving average plastic discharge derived from model results (dark blue); daily average river discharge (light blue, reverse right axis). 84 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Poor / low Limited / average TABLE 21. Appraisal of data and assumptions across the study’s components Good / high Indicator / Data Data Data # Modeling Parameter (data) availability quality gaps Assumptions Validation 1 Total solid waste Population (desa/ generated (SWG) kelurahan) SWG/capita 2 Total plastic waste Plastic content generated (PWG) 3 Total plastic waste Total plastic waste collected formally collected (comparison various data sources: PUPR, SIPSN, BPS Hansos) Informally collected (residential waste picker recovery factor) Informally collected (landfill waste picker recovery factor) 4 Total plastic BPS Hansos survey waste uncollected data 2017 (on waste + losses from disposal practices to collection land, water, burned or buried) 5 Total plastic waste From TPS3R and waste recycled banks (TPS3R/waste bank design capacity) From TPS3R and waste banks (TPS3R/waste bank recovery factor) From informal collection (landfill waste picker recovery factor) 6 Total plastic waste Disposal to sanitary disposed to formal landfill (sanitary landfill disposal sites gate data/design capacity) Disposal to controlled landfill (controlled landfill gate data/ design capacity) Disposal to official dumpsites (official dumpsite data) 7 Total mismanaged BPS Hansos survey plastic waste data, expert opinion (MPW) on leakages from formal disposal, leakages from recycling Section 3. Results | 85 Indicator / Data Data Data # Modeling Parameter (data) availability quality gaps Assumptions Validation 8 Total MPW Same as above plus available for expert opinion on wash-off losses from plastic waste not formally collected Hydrology (WFLOW) Precipitation Evaporation Discharge Retention of MPW in dams Wash-off, transport and Model parameters discharge (DELWAQ) for weathering/ degradation and burial Model parameters for weathering and retention in rivers Discharge of MPW into the marine environment 86 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia SECTION 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS T his study has built a national picture of plastic waste generation and handling practices across Indonesia and how these translate into plastic waste leakages and discharges into the marine environment. The high spatial resolution resulting from the SWM model based on local data has provided important insights that can direct policies, measures and investments, in view of progressing towards the reduction targets in the most effective way. Indonesia generates annually 7.8 million tons of plastic waste and 58% is uncollected. The innovative approach developed and presented here makes considerable progress in assessing plastic pollution from land-based sources in Indonesia in a reliable way, by integrating the best available data and incorporating realistic hydrological processes and state-of-the-art transport modeling. The value of this methodology to inform policy includes: • Establishing a baseline of plastic waste discharges against which progress can be measured; • Helping to set differentiated priorities between regions by providing local insight into the contribution of those regions and specific waste handling practices to the plastic waste pollution; • Exploring different scenarios of investment and policy interventions through assessing potential impact of measures on the reduction of plastic discharges. There are, nevertheless, scope and opportunities for further improvement. The production of better solid waste dataflows, long timeseries of field observations, as well as new emerging knowledge on waste leakages and riverine transport processes will enable this approach to be further refined and validated, while reducing the range of uncertainty. This Chapter presents the key conclusions of the assessment that can help inform decision-making and provides recommendations on how this approach can be improved for future assessments and use in the Indonesian context. 4.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT Uncollected waste contributes more to plastic waste discharges than leakages from final disposal sites and very little plastic is recycled. Indonesia generates a mid-range estimate of almost 7.8 million tons of plastic waste annually, with a slightly larger proportion (54%) coming from urban areas. Much of this plastic waste remains uncollected (58%), with slightly more than a third of the plastic waste is formally collected. Collection rates vary significantly between urban 88 | Market Study for Thailand: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers for 67% of the plastic waste discharge into the marine 3.5 million tons/year of MPW is environment). generated in rural areas, which The assessment at kabupaten/kota level indicates represents two thirds of the annual that the SWM collection system in kota is better than in kabupaten. With more than 80% of 514 local MPW produced in the country. governments in Indonesia administratively in the form of kabupaten, it is important to put more attention on SWM improvement in kabupaten to reduce MPW that areas (with a national average of 56%) and rural areas will/may enter waterways. (where almost 85% of waste remains uncollected). Only a small fraction (6%) of the plastic waste is informally Direct disposal in water is the main pathway of plastic collected by residential waste pickers and recycled in waste reaching rivers. TPS3R and waste banks. As a result, a total of 4.9 million tons/year (mid-range) Results from the Indonesian-wide assessment showed of MPW is estimated to be produced annually, mostly that direct disposal of plastic waste in water is the main because 4.5 million tons/year of plastic waste remains source of MPW in rivers (71%), which in turn results uncollected and never makes it to a final disposal site. from populations not having access to waste collection Roughly 0.4 million tons/year of plastic waste is disposed services. Some of the critical provinces that show high of in formal dumpsites with a relatively small fraction incidence of direct disposal in waterways are: South leaking from controlled landfills. Sumatra, Bengkulu, NTT, Kalimantan (especially Central Kalimantan) and Maluku. Nevertheless, there are large The long and consistent policy focus on improving differences between regions in terms of the prevalence urban SWM has clearly had important impacts, as of this practice. evidenced in the higher solid waste collection rates in urban areas (56%, mid estimate)52. Nevertheless, the Indonesian household surveys indicate that improper RPJMN 2020-2024 targets of 80% collection and 20% disposal of plastic waste on land has high incidence in reduction in urban areas are ambitious, and significant the provinces of North Sumatra, South Sumatra, West efforts will be needed to achieve these targets. Java, Central Java, East Java and Banten. However, in relation to direct disposal in water, this represents a less significant source of MPW in rivers. Rural areas generate largest amounts of MPW as a result of very limited waste collection rates. Limited coverage of collection services and access to One of the striking conclusions of this study was the disposal infrastructure hinders improvement in waste role of rural areas in contributing to marine plastic handling behaviors. pollution. There is a marked difference in MPW generation between urban and rural areas, with roughly two thirds While the total amount of MPW comprises between of the total MPW (3.0 million tons/year) and roughly 56% and 67% of the total PWG, only a small fraction 66.6% of plastic waste discharges originating from rural (roughly 8 – 11% of total PWG) is available for wash-off communities. On average, 87% of the plastic waste or disposed directly in water. This is largely attributed generated in rural areas will result in MPW, primarily to the strong preference by individuals and households because it is uncollected in the first place and, as to openly burn waste. such, ends up being burned or directly discarded in waterways. Papua, Lampung and West Kalimantan are among the provinces with lowest waste collection rates. 85% of plastic waste in rural areas In absolute amounts, the critical islands in terms of total remains uncollected and is handled MPW generated are Java and Sumatra (responsible inadequately. An Indonesian rural inhabitant generates 23.5 kg MPW/ year, against 13.9 kg MPW/year by 52 BAPPENAS analysis in 2019 from Riskesdas data (2007-2013) and Susenas MKP 2016 for the background study of RPJM shows an urban inhabitant. SWM collection access in urban areas as follows over the last 12 years: 35.5% (2007), 42.9% (2010), 46.0% (2013) and 59.8% (2016). Section 4. Conclusions and Recommendations | 89 This study showed that on average, approximately this figure cannot be generalized. In addition, since 81% of uncollected waste is openly burned, while aesthetic impacts of plastic pollution tend to be more large differences exist between the various regions conspicuous in coastal areas, where it affects coastal and provinces in Indonesia. Data observations of disposal ecosystems and important economic sectors such as practices for uncollected waste from 2013 to 201753 tourism, these areas should not be neglected. indicate an increasing trend for open burning. This highlights the challenges in enforcing the prohibition of The top plastic polluting rivers are in Java and Sumatra burning solid waste,54 but also the lack of alternatives and are those flowing through densely populated urban to these harmful waste handling practices in rural areas but not all plastic waste that ends up in rivers communities. is discharged into the sea. Limited access to waste collection and recycling are the As reflected in simulations for major rivers such as Solo, main drivers behind these numbers. Without access Brantas and Musi, larger, densely populated catchments to these services, uncollected waste accumulates and generally carry and discharge larger amounts of MPW is eventually burned to reduce waste volume, with into the marine environment. On the other hand, the serious implications for air quality and health. results for Bekasi or Cirarab rivers indicate that smaller Indonesian catchments can also be large contributors of The study estimates that between 201.1 and 552.3 kton/ plastic waste, given the proximity of densely populated year of plastic waste is discharged from land-based areas and/or point sources such as landfills to their sources in Indonesia, two thirds of which come from river mouths. Java and Sumatra. Nevertheless, not all plastic waste that ends up in rivers It is concluded that the total amount of MPW that is will be discharged into the marine environment. In fact, being discharged into the marine environment from the study estimated that, on average, approximately all the rivers and from the coastal zones and small half of the MPW is retained or trapped on land or in islands, is likely between 201.1 and 552.3 kton/year waterways (e.g. dams) and does not become plastic with a midpoint estimate of 346.5 kton/year. Java marine debris. The further upstream and the larger the and Sumatra are responsible for about 67% of the catchment, the most likely it is for the MPW to avoid plastic waste discharged into the marine environment the marine environment. from land-based sources (via rivers or directly in the coastal zone). Seasonality drives plastic discharges by rivers, but initial rain events after dry period can wash-off large In Indonesia, land-based sources of plastic marine debris amounts of plastic waste. have higher contribution via rivers than through direct input from coastal areas. There is clearly a high seasonal variability of MPW discharged into the marine environment and average This study clearly indicated the contribution of more amounts can be 2 or 3 times higher in the rainy season inland communities to plastic marine pollution. It than in the dry season. These model trends are confirmed provided evidence that, in Indonesia, the contribution in reported observations (e.g. in Bekasi river by LIPI/ of rivers as pathways of plastic waste into the marine Reza et al, 2019). environment is, at the national level, considerably more However, high MPW discharges can also be expected significant than the overall input of plastic waste directly during the dry season and very much depend on rainfall washed off from coastal areas. Rivers discharge 83% history. Even a brief shower after a long dry period can of the annual plastic waste input from land-based mobilize and wash-off large amounts of accumulated sources, while inputs from coastal areas represent 17% MPW and transport it downstream into the marine of the total. However, the relative contributions vary environment. As confirmed by this study’s observations considerably between islands and regions and thus in Jakarta, a rainfall event resulting in a similar or higher run-off and river discharge a few days later is likely to 53 Observation based on data of BPS MPK 2013, BPS MKP 2016, and BPS Hansos 2017 result in a lower amount of MPW discharged into the 54 Law 18/2008 on waste management marine environment. 90 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia BOX 8. Health and environmental hazards from burning (plastic) waste It is generally known that burning plastic is a major source of air pollution. Openly burning plastics releases large amounts of toxic gasses that are harmful to humans, vegetation and animals and are a source of environmental pollution in general (Verma et al, 2016). The released toxics can cause a wide variety of serious health issues in humans including aggravated respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19 (Zhu et al, 2020). 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS • Improving collection rates in the rural areas of Bogor, Garut, Banyuwangi, Subang, and Sukabumi, FOR POLICY AND FUTURE all of which contribute significantly to total MPW INVESTMENTS in the top 10 categories. This focus on improved collection would need to be matched by concomitant The following recommendations are based on the results investments in adequate waste treatment facilities, of the detailed analysis of the top ten MPW-producing which could, where feasible, be cross-boundary kabupaten/kota and catchment areas, as well as the shared facilities. overall study conclusions. Table 22 provides an overview of these recommendations in relation to the area Based on the in-depth analysis of the top 10 most targeted, as well as the timeframe and type of measure critical catchment areas contributing to plastic waste associated. In Appendix IX the recommendations are discharged into the marine environment, the following disaggregated according to (i) kabupaten/kota, (ii) rural rural areas have a special priority for interventions: areas vs urban areas and (iii) by catchment. • Rural areas of the Musi, Kapuas, Barito and Serayu catchment areas, where significant proportions of the uncollected rural MPW is deposited directly 1. In addition to ongoing improvement of in water. SWM in urban areas, focus on rural areas, particularly in terms of waste collection, to achieve the national action plan target on 2. Consider focusing on waste composting in marine plastic reduction by 2025. rural areas as an immediate and cheaper interim solution for solid waste treatment. This study clearly indicates that if the marine plastic reduction targets of the national action plan are to Improving collection and treatment in rural areas requires be met by 2025, in addition to ongoing improvement significant capital and operational expenditures due to of SWM practices in urban areas, it will be important the large administrative areas. Promoting the practice to address waste prevention and waste management of composting of the organic fraction (which is a major in rural areas. These areas account for approximately fraction of municipal waste) would significantly reduce the 50% of the total population but 67% of total MPW. investments required for the transport and treatment of Improving overall waste collection and providing better the non-organic fraction. Community-level composting access to facilities (e.g. waste banks and TPS3R) would initiatives already exist in Indonesia. For example, TPS3R have the largest impact in preventing plastic waste is a community-based composting (alongside plastic entering waterways. separation) program adopted by the government, Based on the more in-depth analysis of the 10 areas especially by PUPR, to reduce overall waste volumes. contributing to MPW in Indonesia, the following rural While there are challenges to successful community areas have a specific priority for short to medium term level compositing — sustainability is always a challenge interventions: — further targeted support to such initiatives in priority Section 4. Conclusions and Recommendations | 91 rural areas, particularly with respect to operation and government behavior would be an important step towards maintenance of composting facilities, could make a improved SWM. However, with the increased resources difference. There are also household level composting required at KLHK to implement this recommendation, initiatives that could be further expanded upon55. it would be necessary increase provincial government’s involvement in implementing the Adipura monitoring. Since adding more resources at KLHK and increasing 3. Strengthen sanitation campaigns, improve involvement of the provincial government will take time, infrastructure in rural areas to enhance expanding the Adipura monitoring to rural areas could community-based recycling and adequate only reasonably to be implemented in the longer term waste handling practices and strengthen the enabling environment for STBM. 5. Fiscal incentive to local government that The consistent trends in household practices of receives the Adipura Award. disposing waste (including plastic) directly to water and in the terrestrial environment suggests that an The Local Incentive Fund (Dana Insentif Daerah - DID) important aspect in reducing plastic waste may be are fiscal transfers from the central government to found in behavioral change, alongside appropriate local government that meet specific criteria related alternatives to deal with waste. National sanitation to the achievement of targets. In 2019, SWM is part campaigns at the household level (STBM) already of the criteria for DID selection. To strengthen local exist, but these will need to be strengthened in the government incentive to achieve the Adipura Award, rural areas, with a particular focus on the SWM pillar. this could be added as criteria for the DID selection. More SWM infrastructures are needed in rural areas, with adequate central government financial support to improve formal collection and disposal rates and 6. In the longer term, integrate a focus on increased emphasis on existing programs such as the SWM of rural areas into the RPJMN and development of TPS3R and waste banks. eventually into the RPJMDs.57 One of the STBM pillars is strengthening the enabling As the formal national medium-term planning and environment. In order to sustain the behavioral change budgeting policy, the RPJMN should address the related to household SWM practice, it is important to issue of uncollected and mismanaged waste in the strengthen the enabling environment by working towards country. The current plan considers only urban areas in the development of a formal regulatory framework (e.g. the 2024 targets, and this study illustrates clearly that local regulation, Mayor (Bupati) decree and village this is insufficient to address the problem of plastic regulation) and also non-formal regulation (i.e. social discharge to the marine environment. norms at village level). 7. Invest in well-managed final disposal sites 4. Linked to the previous recommendation, and upgrade TPAs, including those nearby consider expanding the Adipura monitoring waterways. to rural areas in long-term. Prevalent illegal and formal open dumpsites need to The current Adipura monitoring56 only applies to urban be eliminated, sanitary landfills installed and controlled areas and given the significant contribution of rural landfills upgraded. Papua and West Papua, for example, areas to MPW, influencing both individual and local presents the lowest proportion of landfills: only 19 out of 42 kabupaten/kota are served by any type of 55 For example in Manado, North Sulawesi, there is an initiative landfill. On the other hand, upgrading from controlled from the local government on the use of HH composters (de- to sanitary landfills in Sumatra will significantly reduce komposer) for the organic fraction. (http://nawasis.org/portal/ berita/read/gencarkan-kebiasaan-kelola-sampah-sendiri-mana- overall leakages from landfills in this region. do-bagikan-1-930-dekomposer/51471) 56 Adipura monitoring mechanism is regulated by the Ministerial Regulation of Environment and Forestry Number P.76/MENLHK/ SETJEN/KUM.1/10/2019 clause 14 point 2 and targets urban 57 Regional Medium-Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangu- infrastructures. nan Jangka Menengah Daerah – RPJMD) 92 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Even if the study currently indicates the relatively low illustrated by the TPA in kabupaten Tangerang, along contribution of plastic leakages from formal disposal the Cirarab river, unsanitary landfills (especially formal sites, when compared with other land-based sources (e.g. open dumpsites) at close distance to waterways can be handling of uncollected plastic waste), these leakages a major source of MPW leaking into rivers and eventually are expected to gain importance as collection improves discharged into the sea. and higher amounts of collected plastic waste need to be treated/disposed of. The study also brings attention to the importance of the specific location of point sources in Indonesia: as Based on the in-depth analysis of the top 10 contributing regions to MPW and the top 10 catchments to plastic waste discharges, consider the following specific recommendations for immediate and medium-term actions to reduce MPW discharges to the marine environment (see also Appendix IX): 8. As a guiding principle, when making im- TPPAS58 Nambo in kabupaten Bogor as a provements to SWM, employ a full chain regional landfill to serve kabupaten Bogor, management approach. Improvements of kota Bogor and kota Depok. These areas the collection chain without improvements are currently served by one sanitary landfill at disposal sites will only increase MPW in each and this will not be sufficient if collec- the short to medium-term. tion is significantly increased. In the short to medium term: 11. Invest in improving and upgrading fi- nal disposal sites in the following areas, 9. Urgently improve solid waste collection where dumpsites contribute to significant and upgrade the existing open dumpsite in amounts of MPW: kota Palembang (TPA kabupaten Tangerang, which contributes Sukawinatan) and Sukoharjo. the most to MPW in the country. Linked to this, consider the feasibility of developing a regional sanitary landfill for the Tangerang Raya region in the Cirarab catchment 12. Investigate real collection rates in DKI Ja- areas, serving numerous areas within the karta, including from private independent same catchment. collection systems, and consider immediate actions to address high levels of uncollect- ed waste. Prioritize actions in urban slums, which are likely hotspots for MPW. 10. Improve solid waste collection in the hinter- land regions of kabupaten Bogor and kabu- paten Bandung, where collection rates have failed to keep up with the rapidly increasing 13. Further investigate, and as relevant, invest urban population. Simultaneously, invest in in improving and upgrading final disposal additional sanitary landfills in kabupaten Bandung and accelerate the operation of 58 Tempat Pengolahan dan Pemrosesan Akhir Sampah (TPPAS) - solid waste final processing and disposal facility Section 4. Conclusions and Recommendations | 93 sites in the following areas, where con- 14. Evaluate the feasibility of a regional sanitary trolled landfills contribute to MPW: Musi landfill development to serve the kabupat- Rawas, Ogan Komering Ulu, Empat Lawang, en and kota within the same catchment Ogan Komering Ilir, Musi Banyuasin, Ngawi, for the Solo Raya region of the Bengawan Boyolali, Karanganyar, Wonogiri, Ponorogo, Solo catchment areas, comprising Boyolali, Sidoarjo, Mojokerto, Blitar, Jombang, Wono- Klaten, Sukoharjo, Karanganyar, Sragen and sobo, Banyumas, Purbalingga, Banjarnegara, kota Surakarta. kota Banjarmasin, Tapin, Tabalong, Hulu Sungai Selatan. contributing factor in the high pluvial flood risks 15. Consider piloting an effective and integrat- experienced in most urban areas in Indonesia. ed SWM solution in Cirarab catchment area. The Cirarab River presents a unique situation in terms of SWM. Its combination of good (the one sanitary 17. From a plastic waste discharge prevention landfill) and poor treatment (the TPA operating as a perspective, focus downstream from dams. formal open dumpsite), its small size, and its location in The example of Citarum River in Java illustrates how the hinterlands of Jakarta could make it an interesting dams retain MPW that is generated and leaks from candidate to pilot an effective and integrated SWM upstream sources (in this case in the metropolitan solution as a learning exercise for other areas. As with area of Bandung). In such cases, when specifically the Bengawan Solo, a regional landfill facility could aiming to reduce plastic discharges to the marine also be part of the solution. environment, the focus should be placed on preventing or interceding plastic waste in waterways downstream of these structures. 16. Optimize the use of existing structures in waterways and drainage to prevent plastic waste to reach the sea. 18. Adopt a life-cycle approach and promote a In Indonesia, most plastic is discharged by rivers during circular economy to prevent plastic pollu- the rainy season. As seen from data from Jakarta, during tion. this period trash-racks tend to be let open to allow water This study’s results indicate the need for a holistic to flow and reduce risk of flooding upstream. Although approach to prevent plastic pollution in Indonesia, as justified, this significantly reduces the potential of these already reflected in the prevention targets put forward by structures to retain plastic waste. Technical measures the GoI. Given the challenge in implementing effective could be considered to increase the effectiveness of collection systems and enhancing the sanitary character of trash-racks or other structures, especially during the final disposal sites, it is crucial to promote the reduction rainy season, as well as during rainfall events after of volumes of plastic waste generated and the recovery long dry period when high discharges of MPW would and recycling of the plastic waste, which have also many be expected. other social, economic and environmental benefits. In addition, periodical removal of accumulated plastic Observations in trash-racks in Jakarta, for example, waste from urban drainage systems will prevent plastic indicate that single-use plastics (e.g. sachets, plastic waste from reaching the rivers. Moreover, this practice bags) but also drink bottles, which usually have a high will also reduce flood hazards, since accumulation of recycling value, are among the top items carried by plastic waste in urban drainage systems is a significant waterways that run through Jakarta. Similar patterns 94 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia are found on beaches (e.g. in LIPI’s beach surveys already in place through waste banks, can yield higher results). Prevention should start at source and even recovery rates of materials that would otherwise be at an earlier life-cycle stage, considering reduction of disposed of improperly into the environment. critical plastic items and design made for reuse (instead of single-use) and recyclability potential. Legal and economic instruments, such as the type of incentives LEGEND/Type of Measures: Infrastructure Services TABLE 22. Policy Campaigns/ Overview of recommendations: area targeted, Awareness type and timeframe of measures Short- Medium- Long- Recommendation Area/Location term term term 1. Focus on rural areas, particularly in terms of waste col- Rural areas of Bogor, lection, in order to achieve the national action plan target Garut, Banyuwangi, C/A C/A Infra on marine plastic reduction by 2025. Subang, Sukabumi Pol Pol Rural areas in the Musi, Kapuas and Barito Serv Serv catchment areas Infra Infra 2. Consider focusing on waste composting in rural areas as Rural areas included an immediate and cheaper interim solution for solid waste under # 1 in the short- C/A C/A Serv treatment. term Pol Pol Serv Serv 3. Strengthen sanitation campaigns and improve infra- All rural areas, with a structure in rural areas to enhance community-based focus on areas included C/A Infra Infra recycling and adequate waste handling practices. under # 1 in the short- term C/A Serv Serv 4. Consider expanding the Adipura monitoring to rural All rural areas, with a areas in long-term. focus on areas included C/A C/A under # 1 in the short- term, as a possible pilot Pol 5. Fiscal incentive to local government that receives the All kabupaten/kota that Adipura Award. receive Adipura Award Pol 6. Integrate a focus on SWM of rural areas into the RPJMN All rural areas, with a and, eventually, the RPJMDs. focus on RPJMDs in- Pol Pol cluded under # 1 in the medium-term 7. Invest in well-managed final disposal sites (sanitary Nation-wide, for any landfills) and upgrade TPAs (controlled landfills), including new investments; for Pol Infra Infra those nearby waterways. specific locations see #8 8. When making improvements to SWM, employ a full Nation-wide chain management approach. Improvements of the collec- Pol Pol tion chain without improvements at disposal sites will only increase MPW in the short to medium-term. Section 4. Conclusions and Recommendations | 95 Short- Medium- Long- Recommendation Area/Location term term term 9. Urgently improve solid waste collection and upgrade Tangerang (Banten, the existing dumpsite in Tangerang, which contributes JAVA), Infra Infra the most to MPW in the country. Linked to this, consider Cirarab catchment, Serv Serv the feasibility of developing a regional sanitary landfill for (Banten, JAVA) the Tangerang Raya region in the Cirarab catchment area, serving numerous areas within the same catchment. 10. Improve solid waste collection in the hinterland Bogor, Bandung (West regions of kabupaten Bogor and kabupaten Bandung, Java, JAVA) Infra Infra where collection rates have failed to keep up with the rapidly increasing urban population. Simultaneously, invest Serv Serv in additional sanitary landfills in kabupaten Bandung and accelerate the operation of TPPAS Nambo in kabupaten Bogor as a regional landfill to serve kabupaten Bogor, kota Bogor and kota Depok. These areas are currently served by one sanitary landfill each and this will not be sufficient if collection is significantly increased. 11. Invest in improving and upgrading final disposal sites Kota Palembang (South in the following areas, where dumpsites contribute to Sumatra, Sumatra) Infra Infra significant amounts of MPW: kota Palembang, Sukoharjo Sukoharjo (Central Java, and kota Jambi. JAVA) kota Jambi (Central Sumatra, Sumatra) 12. Investigate real collection rates in DKI Jakarta, in- DKI Jakarta cluding from private independent collection systems, Pol and consider immediate actions to address high levels of uncollected waste. Prioritize actions in urban slums, which Serv are likely hotspots for MPW. 13. Further investigate, and as relevant, invest in improv- Musi Rawas, Ogan ing and upgrading final disposal sites in critical areas, Komering Ulu, Empat Infra Infra where controlled landfills contribute to MPW. Lawang, Ogan Kom- ering Ilir, Musi Banyu- asin (South Sumatra, Sumatra) Ngawi, Ponorogo, Sido- arjo, Mojokerto, Blitar, Infra Infra Jombang (East Java, JAVA) Boyolali, Karanganyar, Wonogiri, Wonosobo, Banyumas, Purbalingga, Banjarnegara (Central Java, JAVA) kota Banjarmasin, Tapin, Tabalong, Hulu Sungai Infra Infra Selatan (South Kaliman- tan, KALIMANTAN) 14. Evaluate the feasibility of a regional sanitary landfill Solo Raya region of the development to serve the kabupaten and kota within the Bengawan Solo catch- Pol Infra Infra same catchment for the Solo Raya region of the Bengawan ment (Central Java, Solo catchment areas comprising Boyolali, Klaten, Suko- JAVA) harjo, Karanganyar, Sragen and kota Surakarta. 96 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Short- Medium- Long- Recommendation Area/Location term term term 15. Consider piloting an effective and integrated SWM Cirarab catchment area solution in the Cirarab catchment area. (Banten, JAVA) Infra Infra Serv Serv Pol Pol C/A C/A 16. Optimize the use of existing structures in waterways Waterways and drainage to prevent plastic waste to reach the sea. Serv Serv Serv 17. From a plastic waste discharge prevention perspective, Areas downstream dams focus downstream from dams. Pol Pol 18. Adopt a life-cycle approach and promote a circular Nation-wide economy to prevent plastic pollution. Pol Pol 4.3 IMPROVING ASSESSMENTS 4.3.1 Concrete actions to address data OF PLASTIC WASTE FLOW AND limitations and uncertainties LEAKAGES FROM LAND-BASED SOURCES Indicator 1: Total solid waste generated (population x solid waste / capita) The SWM model applied in this study uses readily available Indonesian MSW data sources to estimate Indicator 2: Total plastic waste plastic waste flow and leakages from land. The use of generated (SWG x plastic content) kabupaten/kota MSW data ensures the integration of local level variability in waste handling practices into the modeling results. An important objective has been Accurate measurements of solid waste/capita and plastic to provide a model and inputs designed to facilitate content of waste are crucial to accurate assessment of baseline replication and application in future progress plastic waste generated. The Solid Waste Master Plans monitoring towards achievement of Indonesian plastic are a reliable data sources for both these parameters, waste reduction targets, as well as facilitate more as they are based on field sampling of both waste informed decision-making vis-à-vis plastic waste by generation and composition. Coverage, however, is local authorities. limited to 40 kabupaten/kota. The SIPSN data, while This SWM model applies 8 key indicators and 11 more broadly available, is less reliable. sub-indicators to measure solid waste (and plastic Recommended action: Increased systematic sampling of waste) flow in kabupaten and kota, using the MSW data SWG and waste composition as part of routine activities sources (as described in Table 2). Improving the plastic (annually) of local SWM authorities at kabupaten/kota waste flow assessments and leakages will depend on level. This would contribute to more reliable, locally addressing the limitations of the data used to measure relevant information for both the SWMPs as well as these indicators. This includes improving data quality, improving the SIPSN database information. reliability and data coverage (i.e. filling the data gaps) and generating new data (where feasible). Better data reduces the need for assumptions and improves results accuracy and reliability. Summary comments on key data limitations and recommended actions are described below. Section 4. Conclusions and Recommendations | 97 Indicator 3: Total plastic waste Indicator 5: Total recycled plastic waste collected (formal + informal collection) (recovery from TPS3R, waste banks and informal collection) In Indonesia, waste pickers are widespread, and they are the key drivers of informal waste collection in While data on incoming and processed waste is available urban areas. Despite this significant role, little is known at individual TPS3R facilities, this information is not about the actual recovery factor for both residential available in the national database at PUPR and KLHK. (non-landfill) and landfill waste pickers and how it varies This study used an estimate for recycled plastic as across regions. This study relied on NPAP recovery a percentage of facility design, based on a limited estimates, which were based on results from a single number of studies, as no data was available on actual study in Jakarta. recovery rates. Recommended action: Local SWM authorities, possibly Recommended action: A national study on the recovery assisted by Universities, local NGOs or other relevant factor of TPS3R facilities and waste banks facilities would organizations, should undertake field studies to assess contribute to a much better understanding of the role the material recovery factor for residential waste pickers. and significance of recycling facilities in preventing plastic This could be implemented across a range of ‘typical’ waste in the environment. Simultaneously, assessing and kabupaten/kota to increase the overall understanding improving the existing national reporting system from of the role of ‘pemulung’ in reducing plastic waste. community-based organizations at local level to central government would help to ensure better operational data monitoring. Such a study could be organized by Indicator 4: Uncollected plastic waste PUPR and KLHK as part of the national TPS3R /waste and losses from collection (uncollected bank program (responsibility is split between PUPR plastic waste that is disposed on land, (TPS3R) and KLHK (waste banks). Alternately, this could water, burned or buried) be managed by the National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) as part of the National Solid Waste Management Platform (NSWMP - Pengelolaan Sampah The BPS survey on household practices used to calculate Nasional) (see further details in following section). this indicator is only available at provincial level. Accurate estimates of MPW require a more in-depth understanding of and information on household practices at kabupaten/ Indicator 6: Total plastic waste disposed kota level. to formal disposal sites (disposal to Recommended action: While the BPS data source is formal disposal sites [sanitary and good, it is not produced annually. BPS also implements controlled landfills and controlled open an annual survey (the KOR module) that provides annual dumping] + recycled plastic waste) data at kabupaten/kota. Including a specific SWM question in the larger BPS annual survey module59, for example, one that targets the frequency of waste Systematically recorded and reliable data on waste handling practices (similar to Question 908.b in Susenas deposited to landfills is only partially available in Hansos 2017), would be an important step in improving Indonesia. Many landfill operators do not properly household practice data accuracy and relevance. implement existing landfill operational standards, so they do not regularly record waste arrival. They also An additional action, particularly relevant for regions frequently lack the infrastructure needed (weighbridges) contributing significantly to uncollected plastic waste, to record the mass of incoming waste. This study used would be to further specify and map the location of illegal design capacity or expert opinion in the absence of dumpsites, with the aim of providing more detailed more reliable waste mass information. information on waste accumulation and leakages in these areas. 59 This has been successfully implemented for the wastewater. 98 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Recommended action: Local SWM authorities should 4.3.2 Regular monitoring of key plastic ensure proper implementation of landfill standard waste indicators operational procedures including the recording of The responsibility for monitoring and evaluation of disposed waste data in a standardized format. To facilitate MSW flow, which is the starting point for estimating this process, a simple database for recording landfill plastic waste in Indonesia, is currently divided between information could be developed for use across regions, several different ministries and administrative levels. coordinated nationally by KLHK and implemented Systematic monitoring of the SWM indicators used to by the local environmental agency within the overall assess plastic waste flow is therefore seen as a multi-step framework of the SIPSN. process of firstly, achieving consensus among key parties on the utility and applicability of this model and the proposed indicators; secondly, agreeing on how to Indicator 7: Mismanaged plastic waste proceed with the formal implementation of such a ([uncollected plastic waste + losses from monitoring process; and subsequently, assigning roles, collection] + collected plastic waste responsibilities, budgets and strategies to implement disposed of in formal open dumpsites + a national monitoring system for monitoring plastic fractions of plastic waste leaked from waste flow. Recommendations on this process are other formal disposal sites) included below. Step 1: As an initial step, investigate how the lessons learned from this study (on data coverage, quality, etc.) The data used to calculate this indictor is the same as related to solid waste can be effectively integrated for Indicator 4 and Indicator 8 and the same recom- into on-going government efforts to improve SWM mendations apply. monitoring. For example, monitoring of MSW flow is an integral component of the developing NSWMP. This is a national initiative under BAPPENAS that aims at better Indicator 8: Mismanaged plastic waste controlling and managing MSW through the entire waste (from sanitary landfills, controlled chain from source to final disposal, including material landfills, open dumping and fractions of recovery and losses, and supports the achievement mismanaged plastic waste) of national solid waste reduction and management targets. The Platform includes Key Performance Indicators (Indikator Kinerja) to measure progress on national SWM This study applied three ranges of plastic loss from targets, and data and information will be managed via formal disposal sites (with different values for the three the National Water and Sanitation Information Services disposal site types), based on expert opinion. A key (NAWASIS). Local SWM authorities are expected to assumption was that plastic bags and light plastic are provide information to this national database. This the main sources of leakage from landfills. From the platform could be a good anchor for discussions on uncollected portion, an important assumption was how to operationalize the systematic measurement of that no plastic from buried waste would be available plastic waste flow available for wash-off to the marine for wash-off. environment. Recommended action: Integrate guidance on plastic Step 2: Consider the development of formal, national waste management in landfills specifically into existing key performance indicators (such as the those used technical guidelines. Although plastic leakage is in this model) on uncollected and MPW. Having KPIs prevalent in landfills, the current Indonesian technical for plastic waste that are integrated into the local guidelines do not address this. Concurrently, further development planning process would be a strong studies designed to test the assumptions of the model incentive to local governments to allocate budgets on plastic loss from unsanitary landfills would help in and start taking action, as well as report to the national substantiating these. level. These indicators could be included in the NSWMP Section 4. Conclusions and Recommendations | 99 and managed via NAWASIS and/or in other relevant realistic parameters of retention could be defined. government indicator sets. The Indonesian National These are, nevertheless, research questions that need Sanitation Program (Program Pembangunan Sanitasi to be addressed through scientific investigation and Permukiman - PPSP) requests regular sanitation data the larger scientific community. As new knowledge on reporting through NAWASIS from kabupaten/kota. New riverine transport and fate becomes available, it can indicators can be discussed with the national Water be incorporated in the calibration of the transport and Sanitation Working Group (Pokja Pembangunan modeling parameters. Permukiman Air Minum dan Sanitasi). Step 3: Assess and confirm, through dialogue with 4.4.2 Observation data to improve all relevant national ministries and local government calibration and validate model results authorities, on the most appropriate party responsible There is lack of a long timeseries of observational for collating and reporting each of the indicators in data of plastic waste amounts being transported and this model. This assessment should include an analysis discharged by rivers. This is necessary to build evidence of capacity, budgets and other relevant information on the high spatial and temporal variability and to needed to implement an effective national plastic flow help define the factors that affect it, which will be a monitoring program. combination of anthropogenic (e.g. waste handling practices) and environmental conditions (rainfall, typology 4.4 IMPROVING MODELING OF of catchments, etc.). Actual measurements data will help to validate model results and improve modeling PLASTIC WASTE DISCHARGES simulations, aligning the simulated estimations that BY RIVERS AND FROM COASTAL result from using SWM data (upstream processes), with AREAS real measurements of plastic fluxes and discharges (downstream results). The modeling of the fate and transport of plastics in rivers is still in its infancy and presents a great number To build a solid picture of such complex and dynamic of challenges. Apart from relying on SWM and MPW issue, it is necessary to collect and integrate different data input data, plastic waste discharge modeling limitations sources using different analytical and modeling tools, are primarily related to model parameters of wash-off, as well as covering the various environmental domains transport and fate, and the validation of the model where plastic waste flows through and accumulates. results with field measurements. While the latter is Recommended action: Readily available opportunities related to lack of observation data that could be used may exist to couple continuous and ongoing cleanup to validate the model outputs, the first corresponds operations in certain Indonesian rivers (e.g. trash-racks, to a current knowledge gap in the scientific domain, cleanup initiatives developed at the river mouth) with for which several assumptions needed to be made. monitoring the amounts and composition of plastic waste intercepted in the river. 4.4.1 Knowledge of plastic behavior and Specifically, regular samplings of waste removed should fate in rivers be analyzed in terms of: Processes of weathering/fragmentation, interaction • Volume, dry and wet mass of plastic waste, in view with the sediment and vegetation in rivers is poorly of establishing a robust index of plastic content described and documented. It is expected that these will that can be used to extrapolate for larger volumes depend on the particular features of each catchment, of plastic waste removed in a certain area. as well as the characteristics of the predominant plastic • Analysis of the composition of plastic waste, waste (i.e. polymer/density, shape, size). following a detailed categorization of items, Investigating plastic waste distribution in riverbanks, using a harmonized items list for Indonesia and/ water column and riverine sediment could help to or for the region, to enable comparison with other better understand how different riverine features environmental compartments (e.g. plastic debris (e.g. size, meandering, vegetation, soil) can affect surveys on beaches), as well as with waste streams the transport and retention of plastic waste. More data and discharges estimates. 100 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia The frequency of sampling will depend on the purpose Interestingly, the detection of plastic pollution using of the sampling: remote sensing technologies (drones, satellites) is an • Higher frequency of sampling in a short period of emerging field of research (e.g. Biermann et al, 2020; time, in different seasons and covering different Martínez-Vicente et al, 2019) that has the potential to years, to assess the influence of the daily, seasonal generate high frequency/broad coverage data on plastic and yearly hydrological variability and help calibrate waste floating in rivers and coastal waters (possibly even discharge models. accumulated on coastlines and on land), which would be very valuable for a large country such as Indonesia. • Lower frequency but more detailed sampling for continuous periods throughout the year(s), to monitor the downstream impact of preventive measures on the volume of plastic waste leaked, as well as the impact of policies that target specific plastic waste items (e.g. plastic bags). Section 4. Conclusions and Recommendations | 101 REFERENCES Adlina, A., Rahardyan, B. (2013) Identifikasi Pengaruh Faktor-Faktor Sosioekonomi Dan Kependudukan Terhadap Timbulan Sampah Di Jawa Barat. FTSL. ITB. Bandung, Indonesia. Barboza, L. G. A., Vethaak, D., Lavorante, B. R.B.O., Lundebye, A. K., Guilherminoet, L. (2018) Marine microplastic debris: An emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 133, 336-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2018.05.047 Biermann, L., Clewley, D., Martinez-Vicente, V., Topouzelis, K. (2020) Finding Plastic Patches in Coastal Waters using Optical Satellite Data. Scientific Reports, 10, 5364. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62298-z BPS (2017). Questionnaire Modul Hansos 2017. https://sirusa.bps.go.id/webadmin/kuesioner/2017_3252_ques_VSEN17.HANSOS.pdf Chaerul, M., Fahruroji, A. R., Fujiwara, T. (2013) Recycling of plastic packaging waste in Bandung City, Indonesia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 16, 509-518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-013-0201-2 . Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs, Indonesia’s Plan of Action on Marine Debris 2017-2025. Marine Litter Network. http:// marinelitternetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/NAP-Marine-Plastic-Debris-Indonesia_Summary.pdf Cordova, M. R., Nurhati, I. S. (2019) Major sources and monthly variations in the release of land-derived marine debris from the Greater Jakarta area, Indonesia. Scientific Reports, 9, 18730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55065-2 Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018) Strategic Sector Cooperation Circular Economy and Solid Waste Management background study. Directorate General for Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste, and Hazardous Substance Management (2018) Indonesia’s policy on plastic waste. Workshop of the Asian Network, Akita (Japan), 6 November 2018. http://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/asian_net/Annual_ Workshops/2018_PDF/Day2_Session2/29Day2_S2_06_UpdatedIndonesia_ANWS2018.pdf Fotopoulou, K., Karapanagioti, H. (2017) Degradation of Various Plastics in the Environment. In: Takada and H.K. Karapanagioti (eds.), Hazardous Chemicals Associated with Plastics in the Marine Environment, Hdb Env Chem. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2017_11 GESAMP (2019) Guidelines or the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter and microplastics in the ocean (Kershaw P.J., Turra A. and Galgani F. editors), (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 99, 130p. https://environmentlive.unep.org/ media/docs/marine_plastics/une_science_dvision_gesamp_reports.pdf Hardianto, Trihadiningrum Y., Ciptomulyono, U. (2016) Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Facilities in Malang Raya, Indonesia. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11, 9, 5886-5893. http://www.arpnjournals.org/jeas/research_papers/rp_2016/ jeas_0516_4200.pdf Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., Lavender Law, K. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347, 6223, 768-771, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352 Kaza, S., Yao, L. C., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F. (2018) What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. Khair, H., Rachman, I., Matsumoto, T. (2019) Analyzing household waste generation and its composition to expand the solid waste bank program in Indonesia: a case study of Medan City. Journal of Mater Cycles Waste Management, 21, 1027–1037. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00840-6 Kontrick, A. (2018) Microplastics and Human Health: Our Great Future to Think About Now. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 14, 117-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-018-0661-9 Lebreton, L., van der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J.W., Slat, B., Andrady, A., Reisser, J. (2017) River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nature Communications, 8, 15611. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611 Lebreton, L., Andrady, A. (2019) Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Communications 5, 6. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7 Liu, J., Li, Q., Gu, W., Wang, C. (2019) The Impact of Consumption Patterns on the Generation of Municipal Solid Waste in China: Evidences from Provincial Data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 1717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph16101717 Martínez-Vicente, V. et al. (2019) Measuring marine plastic debris from space: Initial assessment of observation requirements. Remote Sensing 11, 2443. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11202443 McIlgorm, A., Campbell, H. F., Rule, M. J. (2009) Understanding the economic benefits and costs of controlling marine debris in the APEC region (MRC 02/2007). Report to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Marine Resource Conservation Working Group. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4323.9042 Ministry of Public Works and Housing (Kementrian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat, PUPR) (2019). Technical Guidelines of TPS3R: Reduce-Reuse-Recycle Facility. Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Public Works and Housing. Nur’utami, M., Ngestu, M., Hidayat, R (2016) Influences of IOD and ENSO to Indonesian rainfall variability: role of atmosphere-ocean interaction in the Indo-pacific sector.” Procedia Environmental Sciences, 33: 196-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.070 Packaging and Recycling Association for Indonesia Sustainable Environment (PRAISE) Indonesia (2018). Annual Report 2018. Jakarta, Indonesia: PRAISE Indonesia. Putri, A. R., Fujimori, T., Takaoka, M. (2018) Plastic waste management waste in Jakarta, Indonesia: evaluation of material flow and recycling scheme. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0753-2 Rakhmawati, A. P., Soemitro, R. A. A., Warmadewanthi, I. D. A. A. (2017) Waste Management Analysis at Tps 3R Mandiri Sejahtera Singosari Malang. IPTEK Journal of Proceedings Series, 3, 1, 65-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.12962/j23546026.y2017i1.2194 102 | Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia Sasaki, S., Araki, T., Tambunan, A. H., Prasadia, H. (2014) Household income, living and working conditions of dumpsite waste pickers in Bantar Gebang: Toward integrated waste management in Indonesia. Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 89, 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.05.006 Shuker, I. G., Cadman, C. A. (2018) Indonesia - Marine Debris Hotspot Rapid Assessment: Synthesis Report. Marine Debris Hotspot Rapid Assessment (Synthesis Report). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/983771527663689822/Indonesia-Marine-debris-hotspot-rapid-assessment-synthesis-report Sudono I., Tollenaar D., Heeringen, K-J et al (2016) SI-WAMI: FEWS as data-integrator: analysing water availability in Indonesia. Presentation in Deltares Software Days. Netherlands. Takaendengan, T., Padmi, T., Sembiring, E., Damanhuri, E. (2017) Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Composition, and Management: Manado City. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education, Science, and Technology (ICEST 2017). https:// doi.org/10.2991/icest-17.2017.73 Trabucco, A. and Zomer, R. (2009) Global aridity index (global-aridity) and global potential evapo-transpiration (global-PET) geospatial database. CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information. Huber, W.C. (1986) Deterministic modeling of urban runoff quality. In: Torno, H.C., Marsalek, J., Desbordes, M. (Eds.), Urban Runoff Pollution. NATO ASI Series Vol. 10. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg: Germany, pp. 167–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70889-3_8 Unice K.M., Weeber, M.P., Abramson, M.M., Reid, R.C.D., van Gils, J.A.G., Markus, A.A., Vethaak, A.D., Panko, J.M. (2019) Characterizing export of land-based microplastics to the estuary - Part I: Application of integrated geospatial microplastic transport models to assess tire and road wear particles in the Seine watershed, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 646, 2019, Pages 1639-1649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.368 United Nations Environment Program (2015) Global Waste Management Outlook. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/hand- le/20.500.11822/9672/-Global_Waste_Management_Outlook-2015Global_Waste_Management_Outlook.pdf.pdf?sequen- ce=3&%3BisAllowed=y United Nations Environment Program (2018) Addressing marine plastics: A systemic approach - Stocktaking report. https://wedocs. unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26746/marine_plastics.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y van Calcar, C. J., van Emmerik, T. H. M. (2019) Abundance of plastic debris across European and Asian rivers. Environmental Research Letters, 14, 12, 4051. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5468 van Emmerik, T., Loozen, M., van Oeveren, K., Buschman, F., Prinsen, G. (2019) Riverine plastic emission from Jakarta into the ocean. Environmental Research Letters, 14, 8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab30e8 van Wijnen, J., Ragas, A., Kroeze, C., 2019. Modeling global river export of microplastics to the marine environment: Sources and future trends. Science of The Total Environment, 673, 392-401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.078 Veiga, J., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Nilsson, P., Vlachogianni, T., Werner, S., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., Dagevos, J., Gago, J., Sobral, P., Cronin, R. (2016) Identification of Sources of Marine Litter. MSFD GES TG Marine Litter – Thematic Report. Joint Research Centre, 37pp. doi:10.2788/018068 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/identifying-sources-marine-litter Verma, R., Vinoda, K., Papireddy, M., Gowda, A. (2016) Toxic Pollutants from Plastic Waste- A Review. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 701-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.069 Vernimmen, R. Hooijer, A., Mamenun, Aldrin, E. (2012) Evaluation and bias correction of satellite rainfall data for drought monitoring in Indonesia. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 8. 5969-5997. https://doi:10.5194/hessd-8-5969-2011 Wibisono, H., Firdausi, F., Kusuma, M. E. (2020) Municipal solid waste management in small and metropolitan cities in Indonesia: A review of Surabaya and Mojokerto. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 447. doi.org/10.1088/1755- 1315/447/1/012050 World Bank Press Release (2019a) no. 2020/088/EAP. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/12/05/cleaning-up-in- donesias-urban-solid-waste World Bank (2019b). Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Oceans of Opportunity. Indonesia Economic Quarterly. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/179221561731871205/Indonesia-Economic-Quarterly-Oceans-of-Op- portunity Zhu, Y., Xie, J., Huang, F., Cao, L. (2020) Association between short-term exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 infection: Evidence from China. Science of The Total Environment, 727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138704 References | 103 May 2021