Surabaya waste management system

SURABAYA WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
THROUGH CITY TO CITY COOPERATION
WITH KITAKYUSHU CITY JAPAN
Ofi Sofyan Gumelar (25412010)
Sigit Sapto Wardono (25412012)
A. Hendra Sinata (25412028)
Faisal Jusuf (25412051)
Banar Suharjanto (25412069)
Double Degree Program, Magister of Regional and Urban Planning
School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development
Institute of Technology Bandung
2012

SURABAYA WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THROUGH CITY TO CITY COOPERATION WITH KITAKYUSHU CITY JAPAN Page 1
Final Assignment
PL5104 INSTITUTION AND DEVELOPMENT FINANCE
SURABAYA WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
THROUGH CITY TO CITY COOPERATION WITH
KITAKYUSHU CITY JAPAN
Ofi Sofyan Gumelar (25412010)
Double degree Japan Student in Regional and City Planning Master Program, SAPPK-ITB
Sigit Sapto Wardono (25412012)
Double degree Japan Student in Regional and City Planning Master Program, SAPPK-ITB
A. Hendra Sinata (25412028)
Double degree Netherland Student in Regional and City Planning Master Program, SAPPK-ITB
Faisal Jusuf (25412051)
Banar Suharjanto (25412069)
ABSTRACT
A combination of economic and environmental concerns has set the stage for increased sustainability.
Related to this, Inter-City Cooperation in the Economical Sector is highly beneficial and its potential is
still far from having been realized to the full. Under the condition of globalization, it turns out, that the
difficult task of solving urban problems can no longer be handled by a single city. And since we all seem
to face similar problems, some cities in Indonesia like Jakarta, Surabaya, Palembang, Bandung have taken
steps to cooperate with cities from all over the world through promoting the exchange of information,
experience and expertise. Surabaya is one good example in creating successful city-to-city cooperation.
Through CITYNET framework, Surabaya establishes city-to-city cooperation with Kitakyushu city in
Japan. The cooperation mainly created to solve the waste management and water management problems
in Surabaya. With technical assistance and knowledge sharing from experts and city government of
Kitakyushu, Surabaya relatively, succeed in changing the management system in waste and water from
government management system into governance (community-based) management system.
Keywords
Surabaya, Kitakyushu, City to city cooperation, Waste Management

Introduction
Definition and concept
City to city cooperation can be described as a concept whereby towns or cities in geographically
and politically distinct areas are paired, with the goal of fostering human contact and cultural
links. Different terms are also used with same meaning, such as sister cities, twin cities, city to
city partnership, decentralization cooperation and many others. City to City Cooperation (C2C)
becomes a term to cover all possible forms of relationship between local authorities at any level
in two or more countries which are collaborating together over matters or mutual interest,
whether with or without external support. (UN-Habitat, 2002).
The establishment of this cooperation forms has been started for many decades. UN-Habitat
stated at least since 1913 there was established the first International Association of local
authorities to support the development of each governments through information exchange and
mutual support, where many agreement between cities was signed. However, the fast growing
cooperation was happened in the era of post-world war II. The town-twinning organization was
founded in 1946, following by the Council of European Municipalities and Region (1951), the
Sister Cities International Organization (1956) and many other forms was established
(Tjandradewi & Marcotullio, 2009). Since these organizations established, many cooperation
between cities in different countries and regions was born.
According to UN-Habitat (2002), there are many reasons as the triggers to build city to city
cooperation. First, since industrialization era, urbanization becomes the trend in all developing
countries, contributed to create many problems in the cities. Second, globalization opened
opportunities to sharing experiences, knowledge and natural resources intercities in different
countries. Third, city governments have taken initiatives to assert their place in the world and to
develop international links which will contribute to their future economic and social well-being.
Another reason can be highlighted for decentralization which gives huge chance for cities to
shape their concept for development of their authorities. Therefore, cities were increasingly
responding to their role in combating the issues in poverty and fostering sustainable economic
and social development, as the entities to the needs of their communities. Many cities decided
to make partnerships with others in order to take that purposes.
C2C cooperation usually starts by join decision taken by two or more local governments to
work together and encourage exchanges between their respective communities, such as NGOs,
CSOs, educational institutions, and many others from different aspects. The theme of
cooperation mostly in environment, education, transportation and cultural projects, depend on
what both cities needed.
In term of geographic scope, the definition of C2C cooperation can be derived into three
subjects (Structure dialogue, 2010) :
1. North-North linkages mainly focus on socio-cultural and exchange of people. The cities
generally have clear legal power and the political motivation to build up cooperation.
The example of this form is the cooperation between cities in the Europe countries.
2. North-South Linkages, denoting much more a one way transfer of resources and
expertise to the south. The northern partners gain new ways of looking at issues and

resources, which can widen their horizon. Confidence-building may needed on both
sides, and positive benefits for the northern partner should be recognized.
3. South-South Linkage has proved to be an effective way to transfer skills and technology,
as the partners are geographically, socially and cultural similar. South-South can be
facilitated by international supports, and is needed in view of the limited capacity of
local authority associations and professional network to provide for such interchange.
(UN-Habitat, 2002).
Benefits and Drawbacks
Talking about the benefits of this scheme, there are some points that can be notes. This scheme
gives opportunity to exchange the knowledge and experience in managing some sectors in
urban development. It also can encourage the active participation for local governments,
community and private sectors. Moreover, it also gan access to information and available
resources and enhance strong commitment to make a links in international relationships
(Oetomo). In addition, this scheme can open a chance for business linkages for private sectors in
both cities. (Singh, 2008). City to city scheme also can bring valuable benefits to local
governments including staff capacity development, urban governance, and amicable
relationships with migrant communities (Ishinabe, 2010).
There are also some negative excess from this scheme. This scheme usually makes a burden
budget for local or even central government. The cooperation cannot be implemented without
facilitate from the government, unequal position between one and another city that makes only
one side taking the benefits. (Oetomo). However, many researches have been conducted as a
challenge to tackle these drawbacks.
Key success
Many researches have been doing to investigate the key successes of City to City cooperation in
many countries. Mutual understanding, reciprocity, commitment and leadership (Tjandradewi
& Marcotullio, 2009) are the key success of effective city to city cooperation. Mutual
understanding means that cities must build trust and respect for one another. Reciprocity
implies that benefits should flow in both directions bringing satisfaction to both sides.
Commitment includes both time and money, and leadership indicates local politician and
professional staff must have leadership. It also important to involve a motivate staff to be
engaged in the application of C2C cooperation in their authorities (Ishinabe, 2010).
For local government itself, there are several points for supporting the successful of this
cooperation. Citynet list these points, consisted of: Strong political commitment to link with
other cities, enhance community participation at all stages of the initiative, good understanding
of the benefits and barriers, recognition of the need for reciprocity, achieve concrete results at
the local/community level, continuous flow of information to deepen relations with other,
share costs to pursue activities and support from other levels of government (e.g. provincial,
national).
C2C Cooperation in Indonesia
The implementation of City to City cooperation should be based on Government Regulation PP
No.50 Year 2007, article 2 which stated that the efficiency, effectiveness, synergy and reciprocity

should have benefit for the state. Another regulation, Permendagri No.3/2008 where the
agreement principal of local government with foreign countries which regulate some points
related to state affairs that should be maintain in the cooperation.
Many cities in Indonesia have done this cooperation as their ways to develop their cities. The
first cooperation established in 1960 where Bandung made partnership with Braunschweig,
Germany. However, this scheme skyrocketed since 1993 when The Minister of Domestic Affairs
of Indonesia released the regulation SE Mendagri No.193/1652/PUOD at April 23, 1993 about
the procedure of making Sister City and sister Province inside and outside Indonesia. From the
2010 data, at least 47 cities make agreement with foreign cities. Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya, and
Banjarmasin are the cities who have many partnerships with foreign cities through C2C
cooperation. (Oetomo)
Objective of the Paper
The objective of this paper is to evaluate and analyze the effectiveness of C2C Cooperation in
Indonesia, with a case study of Cooperation between Surabaya Municipality and Kitakyushu
Municipality, Japan. This paper also tries to identify the actors involving in the cooperation
from two cities, theme and the objects of cooperation, and several key factors to make this
cooperation successful. The information gathered in this paper can be used as the lesson
learning what kind of factors that involving in the implementation of C2C Cooperation,
especially in Indonesia.
Surabaya and Kitakyushu Cooperation
Profile of Surabaya and Kitakyushu
Surabaya is the second largest city in Indonesia and as capital of East Java Province. Surabaya is
located in the Northen Coast of East Java Province. Geographically, it is located in 9’-7 ° 7 °
South Latitude and 112 ° 112 ° 36’-57’ East Longitude. Surabaya city borders with Madura strait
in the north and east, Sidoarjo Regency in the south, and Gresik Regency in the west. Surabaya
areas are mainly lowlands, with the height between 3 to 6 ms above sea level except in the
south, there are 2 gently sloping hills altitude between 25 – 50 ms above sea level. In Surabaya,
there is river estuary of Kalimas, one of the two fractions of Brantas River. Administratively,
Surabaya is divided into 163 districts and 31 sub districts with the total population reaches 2.9
Million people at night and it doubles up to 5.6 Million people at day due to many people
coming from the neighboring cities working in Surabaya.
Since early 20th century, Surabaya has been known as the busiest port and largest city in the
Ducth East Indies colony area. Surabaya has grown into one of the important trading port cities
in Asia, equal to Calcutta, Rangoon, Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. The
abundance production of sugar and tobacco from the Brantas Valley which stretches from
Jombang, Kediri, and Madiun has led to the birth of modern economic institution, like banks,
insurance, and export- import companies. The high potential and economic activity in the city
makes more foreign newcomers are interested to start a business or to work, and then settle in
Surabaya.

To date, Surabaya economic growth is always above the East Java Province and even National
economic growth. Real sector manages to encourage economic growth of Surabaya in year 2009
to face the global economic crisis. This can be seen from the achievement of 2008, when the city
economy was growing above 6%, not to mention its position as a commercial storefront in
Eastern Indonesia. In 2009, the city was awarded as the best cost effectiveness city among 133
Asian future cities by Financial Times Magazine.
Kitakyushu is located at the northernmost tip of the island of Kyushu, the westernmost
Kitakyushu is located at the Northwest tip of the island of Kyushu, the Westernmost Island of
the Japanese major islands. Geographically, it is close to East Asian countries, which are
developing at a significant pace. Since the modern period, the city has developed as one of the
major industrial cities and an international trade port. Even now, Kitakyushu boasts one of
western Japan’s highest concentrations of industry and manufacturing, and the city has many
technological advantages. It is also an international logistics base, which enjoys an enhanced sea
port, airport, railway, and highway infrastructure. In the downtown area, public parks and
water recreation spaces are built adjacent to business and commercial areas, so that people can
enjoy both city life and relaxation.
The city is rich in nature as well. It faces the ocean with 210 km stretch of coastline and about
40% of the city’s area is forested. Kitakyushu, which overcame severe pollution in the 1960s, has
a mission to utilize the experience it gained in this process, and to use its environmental
technology for the conservation of the environment of this planet. It has facilitated its
implementation of environmentally focused international cooperation for years. Now, with the
idea of creating a city full of true wealth and prosperity and perpetuating the city for the
coming generations, Kitakyushu aims to be the world capital of sustainable development and to
take on new challenges.
Map of Surabaya Map of Kitakyushu

Collective Problems as the Main Background
The cooperation between Surabaya and Kitakyushu is basically initiated because the two cities
have the similar experience in dealing with the environmental issues especially the waste
management problems. The cooperation is initiated by both city government through CITYNET
framework with facilitate from JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency).
Kitakyushu Striking Recovery from a Smoke-filled Sky and Sea of Death
Kitakyushu, with its heavy and chemical industries, has developed as one of Japan’s four major
industrial areas. Kitakyushu played an important leading role in Japan’s modernization and
rapid postwar economic growth. However, the industrial prosperity brought Kitakyushu severe
pollution. In the 1960s, air pollution in the Kitakyushu area was the nation’s worst, while Dokai
Bay became a “sea of death” with industrial wastewater. It was mothers who firstly stood up
and demanded countermeasures as they became increasingly worried about their children’s
health. A movement by residents, and reports in the media, not only resulted in society’s
recognition of the pollution problem, but also facilitated countermeasures against pollution by
industries and the governmental administrations. This joint effort among residents, companies,
and the local government resulted in a rapid improvement of the environment. In the 1980s,
Kitakyushu was introduced, both inside and outside Japan, as a miracle city that had
accomplished environmental regeneration from heavy pollution.
Surabaya City of Garbage
In the mid-nineties, Surabaya City faced a tremendous challenge in managing solid waste in an
environmentally sustainable manner. The Surabaya City has a population of three million
people, and half of this figure consists of people in the low-income group. In 2011, in an area of
330 sq km 2,400 metric tons of waste was generated a day, from the following sectors:
residential (68%), markets (16%), commercial/industrial (11%), and streets and open spaces
(5%). According to the composition of municipal waste generated in Surabaya City, more than
50% is organic and easy to compost. Since the introduction of the community primary collection
(Copricol) law in 1980, the city’s waste collection and disposal activities are managed by a two-
tiered system. Collection of domestic waste and transportation to transfer depots is a household
Dokai Bay in 1960s Dokai Bay in present day

responsibility. The city government is in principle only responsible for waste at transfer depots,
which is then transported to final disposal areas.
Surabaya, like other cities in Indonesia, is divided into neighborhood units called Kampongs.
Each Kampong is responsible for collecting waste generated within its area. In all Kampongs, a
Rukun Warga (RW), a neighborhood association, organizes the waste collection scheme in the
area; collecting fees from households, hiring waste collectors, providing pushcarts, and paying
salaries to waste collectors for their services in collecting and transporting waste from
household units to transfer stations. The Cleansing and Landscaping Department of the
municipality is in charge of transporting the waste accumulated at transfer depots to the final
disposal site. In addition, they are responsible for collecting waste from commercial and
institutional establishments. However, large waste generators such as industries arrange
collection separately, often contracting out to the private sector.
However, Surabaya City has managed to collect only half of the waste generated in the city,
while the remaining was left in the more than 150 temporary disposal sites located on the
streets, ditches, and open spaces, blocking the drainage system, contaminating water resources
and resulting in increased insect and rodent populations4. This situation was at its worst during
the rainy season, particularly in low-lying areas where most of the urban poor reside.
Furthermore, the city has faced difficulties in finding a new site for final disposal since the
closing down of one of its final disposal sites in Keputih area in 2001. It was also calculated that
the final disposal site at Benowo only has a remaining lifespan of a few more years. The waste
problem in the city deteriorated to such a state that it leads to, in combination with other
political issues, the eventual dismissal of the Mayor and the appointment of the then Vice
Mayor.
Stages in Creating Effective Cooperation
The relationship between the capital city of East Java Province and Kitakyushu actually has
been going on since 1997. At that time, the cooperation began with the signing of the Joint
Declaration of the Kitakyushu Conference on Environmental Cooperation among Cities in the
Asian Region. Over the span of 1998 to 2006, the focus of the cooperation of both sides is focus
on the field of waste management. In 2007, Kitakyushu City Government provides assistance to
Surabaya City Government to support the implementation Kalimas Revitalization Program
which includes two things, water quality improvement and development of public
participation. The field that cooperated was (1).City Management; (2).Port Management;
(3).Environmental Protection; (4).Education; (5).Art and Culture; (6).Acknowledgement and
Technology; (7).Trade Development. However, the real action of cooperation happened in 2002
when Kitakyushu City extended its support to Surabaya City to transform the waste
management system into one which is environmentally sound and economically affordable.
After obtaining the approval from the House of Representatives of Surabaya Municipality in
November 2002, Kitakyushu City dispatched a special team of experts to assess the existing
situation before introducing a new system for solid waste management. This team, in
cooperation with the staff of Surabaya City and the laboratory for Housing and Human
Settlements of the Institute Teknologi Sepuluh (ITS) in Surabaya, has carried out a detailed

study on waste management and citizen’s perception to the problem in two selected districts
out of total 31 districts in the city.
The findings of the study provided important insights for the team in designing the new solid
waste management system for Surabaya City. It was identified that waste collection in middle
income and high-income areas was satisfactory, but not so in low-income areas, as in the
Kampongs. More than 80% of Kampongs have established a RW that was involved in waste
collection activities. Among these RW, some regularly organized neighborhood cleaning
campaigns with the residents to keep their neighborhood clean. In addition, it was identified
that waste pickers were also visiting these communities periodically to collecting recyclable
materials. In response to the question of whether people would support the introduction of an
alternative waste management system, over half of the respondents stated their willingness to
participate, especially women in the Kampongs.
Considering the above findings Kitakyushu City, in consultation with the staff of Surabaya City,
developed a new waste management system. The new system was based on the concept of the
3Rs and introduced a waste separation at the source into wet (organic) and dry (inorganic). The
organic waste is then processed into compost using a household composter or a community
level composting centre. Inorganic waste is given to waste pickers or managed domestically to
be recycled. Information activities were organized to make residents aware of the new waste
management system and the importance of maintaining good hygiene conditions.
Institutional Approaches and Actors in Cooperation
1. The Communities
The communities are linking the improvement of waste management composting activities in
their own living and hygienic environments. The community participations in waste disposal
can be a catalyst in community-development work, because it gives residents a feeling of self-
esteem. It can leads to the possibility of income generation through the recycling system which
will also reduce the quantities of material that have to be transported for disposal. The
community’s participations are essential in the selection of methods, also in the cooperation, in
storage and in decisions about separation and recovery of resources. The community’s members
can participate in the program by showing proper sanitation behavior, by contributions in cash,
by kind or labor, by participation in consultation and by participation in administration and
management of solid waste services (Anschutz, 1996). Beside community’s members, local
leaders in urban communities also play important roles in the program. On a community
organization basis in low-income housing areas, the separation of waste on a household level is
very profitable, easily becomes an economically viable undertaking (Habitat, 1989). Basically,
the local leaders can be divided into traditional, formal and informal leaders. Traditional
leaders derive their authority from hereditary rights and from their status in the local culture.
Formal leaders are appointed by the government or elected as local representatives of the
government. Informal leaders are influential members of a community on the basis of their
personal status or of their activities in community-based organizations such as political parties,
churches, youth and women’s organizations, neighborhood committees, etc. All three types of
local leaders may have different roles in the programs. Usually, formal and informal leaders are
more involved in the program than traditional leaders. Involvement in management of solid

waste services includes participation in the management of solid waste services and keeping in
contact both with the local governments and the communities.
The roles of communities are:
a. Should convince resident/household that composting is best solution to reduce
waste/pollution and as the alternative income, b. Should as fast as they can to improve and
report if there is problem in their area, c. Promoting the sister village system to community and
encouraging the resident to build and maintain this system, and d. Promoting the product and
attracting people to use compost.
2. The NGOs
The NGOs have to develop trust with communities to educate the public who are directly
engaged with waste issues. The NGOs make use of their specialized knowledge to identify
techniques to solve the problem. The NGOs carry out educational and practical activities
directly with community residents in the fields that make use of their own distinctive qualities,
in which the local government is not experienced. The roles of NGOs are:
a) Since the NGOs will be the actors in composting, they should professionally manage this
activity in order to make sure the program can be sustained in the long term. The
composting activity is not only a profit-oriented project but is also included in the
integrated waste management. A competent worker should be hired, so that the control
for compost quality can be done carefully.
b) Linking villages to share all information about compost.
c) Providing system and information and transferring composting technology.
3. Local Governments
In Indonesia, before the decentralization era (before 1998), the SWM was the responsibility of
several departments and ministries such as Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Home Affair,
Ministry of Health, Agency for Technology Assessment and Development, Board of
Environmental Impact Management (BAPEDAL), and Sub Directorate for Solid Waste
Management. After the decentralization, in 1999 there were changes in national and local waste
institution where the central government plays a role as a regulator and the local governments
are the prominent players. The local governments obtained more responsibilities in planning
and implementing SWM and the SVC in their territory. Solutions to waste problems must be
placed as an important local governmental policy and the strong leadership of the local
government actions must be taken, while simultaneously presenting clear techniques and
methods to all stakeholders. The roles of Local Governments are:
a) In terms of institutional aspect, the strengthening of legal aspects such as local
government regulation (peraturan daerah) that regulates commitment of villages to
build composting and the responsibilities among stake holders to improve solid waste
composting.
b) In order to know about potentiality of villages, the local governments should mapping
area/village based on the commodity. The conception of one village - one product will

make the compost products are easier to sell, because the compost products (nutrition
contain, labeling, etc.) are based on characteristic of commodities from specific village.
c) Providing public education (campaign and seminar programs) to inform the public on
solid waste composting. When citizens become interested in the community’s waste
management program, they will frequently demand to be involved not only in the
decision making process but also to contribute actively in the program.
d) Financing is also an important factor in order to reach the goal of the project. Since
composting can be classified as a clean development mechanism project and through
carbon trade mechanisms, the local government can get economic benefits, this revenue
can be used to subsidize compost price to attract farmers to replace chemical fertilizer
and use compost instead. (Ahmad, A. G., & Ahmed, A. 2011)
The actor actively endorsed the program, mainly not only supported by the city government
but also with the involvement and synergetic efforts of various stakeholders, including from
people, NGO, private sector, mass media, etc.
When Surabaya-Kitakyushu city-to-city cooperation began, links were almost always between
town halls. Led by mayors and civic leaders, they tended to be somewhat exclusive, consisting
largely of high-level visits between the twinned towns, supplemented by cultural and sporting
exchanges. Nowadays a link’s objectives are likely to be much broader than traditional
twinning. Community development with a focus on meeting basic needs, municipal capacity-
building, awareness-raising and development education are now the most commonly found
objectives. Matters of governance, strengthening local democratic institutions and encouraging
wider community participation in every aspect of city life are emerging more frequently on
agendas too.
These days, the link itself may be between the respective town halls, or between local
institutions or local groups, or any combination thereof. Though the town mayor and her or his
council, together with the local Member of Parliament, continue to play an important part in
most links and the responsiveness of the town leaders is vital, the management of the link is
usually shared with the community at large, typically through a board of trustees or similar
arrangement. Often a community-based organization will take the lead and manage the link,
with the town council providing its good offices in support. Equally often, the council plays the
lead role and draws community groups and institutions into the link.
At each end of the link there will usually be a "link person" who plays a crucial role. She or he
coordinates the link and is, de facto, the person primarily responsible for making the link a
success. It is usual for a link to have started out by identifying matters of mutual interest and to
be grounded, sooner or later, on a formal partnership agreement.
In the managing and dealing with the waste problems and city to city cooperation in Surabaya,
the government and NGOs give more opportunity to the women as the one that contact a lot
with waste in their homes. The government of Surabaya tries to involve women as the members
of the family welfare improvement association, Pendidikan Kesejahteraan Keluarga (PKK).
Along with these local partners, a series of awareness raising seminars were conducted covering

all 31 districts in the city targeting different sectors, students, communities, businessmen and
institutions. Further, Surabaya City has established a system of environmental facilitators;
selecting citizens who are interested and committed to participate in environmental protection
and neighbourhood improvement. The facilitators are tasked with accelerating the awareness
raising and community mobilisation activities and identifying and training the environmental
carders. With one carder for every ten houses, they are trained to assist residents in their
neighbourhoods to understand the new waste management system, the purpose of waste
segregation, use of household composting, the importance of maintaining hygiene, and also the
follow-up monitoring of household composting and troubleshooting. The action framework
and stakeholders relationship in the C2C between Surabaya and Kitakyushu can be seen in the
figure below.
Surabaya City Government Kitakyushu City Government
NGOs and Community
Women’s Group
NGOs and Communities Group
(Environmental Cadre)
Media Group
Support of the
Campaign
Support of the
Campaign
Support of the
Campaign
Technical Cooperation
TechnicalC
ooperation
Technical Cooperation
City to City
Cooperation
Catalyst Role &
Development of
Composting Method
· Operation of Composting
Method
· Distribution of
household composite
basket
From the institutional approaches, the relationship and framework above can be seen as a social
network that uses the sociological approaches. As Powell (in Hudalah, Winarso and Woltjer,
2010) identified that social network has unique characteristics which are networks emphasize
horizontal, decentralized and imply the moderately flexible relationship. This approach
emerges because the failure of the rational approach that created by the Surabaya Government.
In its first establishment, the C2C tried to engage the community and NGOs as a part of fixed
system. The local government had already provided some rules and regulation to manage the
waste problems. However, in the implementation, the waste management policy (in C2C
framework) faces a great wall. Lack of community participation and the community's
willingness to separate waste at the source, and the length of time (more than three months)
required for this particular composting method to decompose the waste, which also produced a
strong foul odor. The residents in the surrounding areas raised complaints and demanded that
the composting program cease immediately.
After the unpleasant experience, the Surabaya government changes their approach from top
down and centralized mechanism to more flexible and bottom up approach. The Surabaya
government gives more opportunity to the NGO both from Kitakyushu (Kitakyushu
International Techno-cooperative Association/KITA) and from Surabaya (Pusdakota) to have

more roles in the cooperation. KITA provide technical assistance to Pusdakota to improve the
situation by developing a composting technology called the Takakura Method, a simple
composting method introduced by Koji Takakura of J-Power Group, JPec. Co, Ltd. Then,
Pusdakota transfer their knowledge to the Women’s Group (PKK) and environmental
facilitators that created by Surabaya government.
Furthermore, the government also initiated a community based management by gives more
training to the neighborhood organization (RW) to maintain their own waste. In addition, the
media also being engaged in order to promote the program in wider society. After several
times, the network and relationship among those actors run without major intervene from the
government. Women’s group (PKK), NGOs (KITA and Pusdakota), RW administrators and
environment facilitators become the main actors in the cooperation. Meanwhile the city
cooperation between the two cities remains strong renewing the memorandum of
understanding regularly by searching new and complex problem that both cities could learn
each other.
Notable Achievement
Since this program established in 2007, Municipal Solid Waste Management cooperation
program between Kitakyushu and Surabaya, Information from some sources regarding the
impact and result. It has mentioned that in general there are some improvements in many
aspects. Such improvement like Environmental quality, Health impact through the decreasing
number of diseas, social welfare enhancement has been achieved during the program.
Some institutions as a key player in this cooperation program such as Pusdakota (local NGO)
and Local Government of Surabaya has brought about the information regarding the result and
impact of this program in a report. One international institution like IGES ( Institute for Global
Environment Strategies is also considered this kind of cooperation in international action as an
important case to take as a role model and lesson learnt to the world.
In this paper, it is worth pointing out some facts about the positive impact which have been
successfully achieved during the implementation of this program since 2007. Some data are
taken from the presentation of IGES in some international seminars and Goevernment of
Surabaya since it is considerably hard to find the actual data from Pusdakota that act as the
main actors as well in this cooperation program.
Environtmental impact
a. Solid waste Reduction
Form the table provided but IGES, it illustrates the total of solid waste decreasing by 20 % in
four years or by 50% in 5 years of the program implemented. Total of waste shrunk every year
(from 1500 tons per day in 2004 to 2006, and then followed by 1300 tons per day in 2007,
decreasing continued by 1,150 tons per day in 2008 and in 2009 it is noted by 1000 tons per day)

It is also noticed in IGES presentation that waste reduction can be identified as 100 tons per day
reduction achieved by household composting, 50 tons of reduction at composting centers.
b. Escalating number of Open Space In Kota Surabaya
There is an increasing size of green open space in Surabaya since it is integrated with this
program with total of 3,172.81 in 1995 Hectare to 6,678.09 hectare in 2011. It can be seen by the
table the biggest contibution is from protected area with 942 hectare in 1995 to 4,155 hectare in
2011 which is considearbly more than 20 percent of increase. In accordance woth the Law
number 26 / 2007 of Indonesia about Green open space arrangement , it stated that RTH ( green
open spaces) should have a size of minimum 30 % of total area of the city with 20 percent
shared as public green open space. Thus kota Surabaya has succesfully increased the number of
public green open spaces for public needs and meet the demand of State’s law.
In addition, a research conducted by a scholar from Intitute Technology Sepuluh Nopember
(ITS) in Surabaya, they stated in their research about the efficiency of green open spaces in
Surabaya in 2010 in contributing to lessen the level of CO2 in Kota Surabaya. They finally found
that in Northern Surabaya , green open spaces has succesfully contributed in decreasing the
level of CO2 by absorbing CO2 with about 2,456.04 tones per year (0.5%) from total emision of
CO2 which is produced everyday in northern part of Surabaya as equal to 490,859.21 . While in
eastern part of Surabaya, green open spaces contibute to diminish the level of CO2 with about
9,885.48 tones per year (0,83%) of total emision which is produced everyday in this area with
about 1,187,392.08 tones per year. (Pradiptyas,Driananta et all,2010)

Source : Government of Surabaya Report
This program has contibuted in turning Kota Surabaya to clean and green city by promoting
and comsposting waste reduction at various levels. Compost are used to maintan parks and
roadsie trees. Picture below depict the current condition of parks in Surabaya.
Source : Government of Surabaya Report
Further, these composting centers produce about 7,000 tons of composting annually which used
for parks and roadside trees. As a result, the extent of green spaces in housing areas and other
urban spaces has increased by 10% during the last five years.
Health Impact
Particular diseases tend to dicrease in Kota Surabaya . As we can observe from the graph, the
level of ISPA (respiration Infection) took the highest decrease from 6.0 in 2009 to 2.04 in 2010 or
about more than 60 percent of decline in just one year. Skin disease has also dropped similarly
with ISPA with about the level of three to almost no case on this kind of disease found anymore
in the community. However another disease such as Diarrhea and TBC as seen on the table has
no much different in 2009 and 2010.

Social impact
This program has succesfully contributed on Improving community welfare. According to
IGES, it stated that 17, 00 households in the city are actively involved in using the composing
basket at household’s level, promoting home composting activities. This has resulted in a higher
community awareness of the environment of hygiene, improvement of the sanitary conditions
in the household, changing the community behavior towards solid wastes in their community
and provided additional income earning opportunities for low-income families as they are able
to sell their own compost. Average price for composting is US$ 0.07 per kg as well as grow
agricultural products to supplement their income.
Moreover based on information from IGES Currently there are 16 composting centers in
Surabaya City. These composting centers have provided job for about 75 people, who are
mostly low income families
Source: IGES, Improvement of waste storage within the households
About 10 small-and-medium scale recycling businesses. A production of hand-made items have
been promoted by UPF, creating new job opportunities for low-income people, motivating them
to separate waste at the source and gain some extra income by selling recyclable waste.
The results achieved by Surabaya city in the last five years since introducing the new solid waste
management system are encouraging:
· The city has seen a significant reduction of waste to be transported to the final disposal
site, as much as 30% (1,241 tons a day in 2010, compared with 1,819 tons a day in 2005)
(http://www.surabaya.go.id);

No. Area Garbage Volume (M3/Month)
Before After
1. Rungkut Lor RW IV 65 16
2. Kedurus RW II 67.5 58.8
3. Pakis RW III 202.8 147.33
4. Wonorejo RW V 45 33.75
5. Margodadi RW VII 178 60.25
6. Gubeng RW II 75 54
7. Putat Jaya RW III 138 108
8. Dukuh Setro RW II 75 57
9. Jambangan RW II 68 26
10. Banyu Urip RW VI 50 40.8
11. Kedung Baruk RW V 14.4 4.32
12. Margorukun RW X 186.4 65.05
13. Kebonsari RW II 63.16 21.76
Source: The Mayor of Surabaya’s presentation on International Conference in ITB, 2012
· 17,000 households in the city are actively involved in using the composting basket at
household level, promoting home composting activities. This has resulted in a higher
community awareness of the environment and hygiene, improvement of the sanitary
conditions in the household, and provided additional income earning opportunities for
low income families as they are able to sell their own compost (average price for
composting is US$ 0.07 per kg) as well as grow agricultural products to supplement their
income;
· About 10 small-and-medium scale recycling businesses, a production of hand-made
items, such as umbrellas, bags, purses, and lampshades etc., have been promoted by the
UPF, creating new job opportunities for low-income people, motivating them to separate
waste at the source and gain some extra income by selling recyclable waste;
· About 100 active Waste Bank in the city spread out in 28 sub districts. The total amount
of nonorganic garbage that reduced is about 7.14 tons per week and the turnover varied
from Rp. 250,000 to Rp. 2,000,000 per month. In 2012, the government plan to add 65
new waste banks.
· The model, especially the composting component has also been promoted to other cities
in various ways after gaining recognition nationally and internationally, including in the
Philippines, Thailand, Nepal and Malaysia, as well as disseminated to several cities
locally, including Medan, Semarang, Makassar, Central Jakarta, and so on;
· The Surabaya government got several awards in environmental issue including Adipura
(2005 – 2011), Austria energy globe award for environmental quality category in 2006,
Award From UNESCAP (United Nations Economic And Social Commission For Asia
And The Pacific) And IGES (Institute For Global Environmental Strategies) For
Improving Urban Environment Quality (2007), International Green Apple Award (2007),
Smart Environment 2011, Warta Ekonomi, Indonesia Green Region Award 2011, Majalah SWA
& KBR68H, ASEAN Environment Sustainable City (2011), Asian City of the Future
(2009/2010), “Dubai International Award For Best Practices to Improves The Living
Environment 2008” for Green and Clean Initiative Indonesia.

Further Cooperation
Surabaya City and Kitakyushu, Japan, agreed to continue cooperation to a higher level and
more complex. Commitment begins with the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding
titled Kitakyushu – Surabaya Green Sister City signed by Surabaya Mayor Tri Rismaharini and
Kitakyushu Mayor Kenji Kitahashi in 2011. The cooperation between the two cities would be
more comprehensive. If it had only focused on waste management, the focus now will touch on
other aspects such as clean water, energy, sanitation, to the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. Some project that would start in short time including:
· Waste water treatment was found to be the next major environmental challenge in the
city of Surabaya, especially in Kampongs. Kitakyushu City started a new project in 2011
in partnership with KITA and IGES to establish a community-based wastewater
treatment system under the Grassroots Fund of the JICA Kyushu International Centre.
This project is will develop two model pilot systems, at community-level and market
areas and examine the possibility for replication in other problem areas in the city.
· Kitakyushu City, KITA, and two other local companies TORAY and SKK (Suido Kiko
Kaisha Ltd), started another project in Surabaya under the BOP Fund of the JICA,
Kyushu International Centre in 2011. This project aims to study the applicability of the
new technology developed by local companies in Kitakyushu to convert sea water into
drinking water using solar power energy to run the machines. The pilot testing will be
carried out in Surabaya City and will later be expanded to other isolated islands in
Indonesia.
· Since April 2011, IGES and Kitakyushu City along with the private company NTT,
provided their expertise to Surabaya City for the establishment of an institutional
system to monitor greenhouse gas emissions in the city. The project is funded by the
Ministry of Environment of Japan (MOEJ) and aims to build capacity in the relevant
departments of Surabaya in the following key sectors: transport, energy, organic waste,
water supply, waste water treatment, and green area management.
· Under the ASEAN ESC model cities program of the Japan-ASEAN Integration Fund
(JAIF), IGES has supported Surabaya City in the establishment of a pilot model waste
bank project, with plans to disseminate its experience for further replication within the
city.
Conclusion
Using intercity networks for more cooperative forms of exchange and support can potentially
have high pay-offs in terms of raising awareness of issues, formulating innovative approaches
to shared problems, and tapping opportunities to pursue joint policy responses to urban
problems across urban and territorial boundaries. In the era of global and regional cooperation,
there is still a demand for a higher degree of inter-city interdependency and complementarities
among major urban centers to find ways of sustaining our economies without sacrificing the
livability of our cities.
Several cities in Indonesia had already involved in city to city cooperation either through
International organization (CITYNET, UCLG, ANMC21, C40) or by creating bilateral

cooperation with other city (sister city). However, these kinds of cooperation yet give some big
impact on its development and society. Based on my knowledge, the cooperation that had been
initiated only limited on several issues and rarely implemented in real action. Experts exchange,
training, project assistance are some join cooperation that prepared in c2c framework.
Surabaya has a successful experience in creating effective city to city cooperation with
Kitakyushu city in Japan. The cooperation mainly focuses on environmental issues especially in
waste management system. The relationship in the cooperation not only between the two cities
government but also involving the communities, NGOs and media. The network and
relationship among those actors are created in more flexible and decentralized system that gives
more role and opportunities to the community and NGOs to act more in the cooperation.
The success of Surabaya – Kitakyushu cooperation can be used as role model for the other cities
in Indonesia in establishing effective cooperation in bottom up approaches. The city to city
cooperation or sister city concept in Indonesia regarded as one way to lift up the city’s prestige
and position in the world.
References:
Citynet. City to city Cooperation. Accessed November 28, 2012 http://www.citynet-
ap.org/programmes/city-to-city/
Ishinabe, Nagisha. 2010. Analysis of International City-to-city cooperation and intercity networks for
Japanese national & local Governments. IGES Local initiatives Discussion paper.
Oetomo, Andy. Pengelolaan Perkotaan Lewat Skema Sister City. Accessed November 29, 2012.
http://bulletin.penataanruang.net/upload/data_artikel/edisi3i.pdf
Shimohara, Kenichi. 2003. Urban Air Quality Management – Experience of Kitakyushu. Kitakyushu
Initiative Seminar on Urban Air Quality Management. Kitakyushu.
Shobhakar. 2002. Surabaya (Indonesia) : Comprehensive Kampung Improvement as Model of
Community Participation. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.
Silas, Johan. 2002. Waste Management Problem in Surabaya : An Integrated Sustainable Approach.
Kitakyushu. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UNESCAP) and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
Singh, Kulwant. 2008. City to City cooperation for Sustainable Urban Development (Some
Experience). Accessed November 22, 2012. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/
files/Man%20Development%203.pdf
Structure Dialogue. 2010. City to City Partnerships (Twinning). Accesed Noveber 22, 2012.
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/aidco/images/2/25/TF7_-_Twinning_2.pdf

Tjandradewi, BI. & PJ. Marcotullio. 2009 City-to-city networks: Asian perspectives on key elements
and areas for success. Habitat International 33: 165–172.
UN-HABITAT & WACLAC. 2002. City to City Cooperation: Issues Arising from Experience.
Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT and WACLAC.
Ahmad, A. G., & Ahmed, A. 2011. Enlargement And Sustainability Of Municipal Solid Waste
Composting In Megacity - A Case Study For Surabaya City -, 18(2), 7–17.
Indonesia Law number 26 / 2007 regarding green open space arrangement.
Surabaya City Government presentation in Yokohama July 25th 2012 document.
Maeda.Toshizo 2012. A Follow Up Seminar of KitaQ System Composting in Asia. Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Kitakyushu Urbann Center.
Pradiptyas. D, Assomadi.A.F, Boedisantoso.R, (2010). Adquecy Analysis of Green Open Space as
CO2 Emssion Absorber in Ubran by Using Stella Program. Case Study : North and East Of
Surabaya. Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Surabaya.
http://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp. http://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/files/000071565.pdf
http://www.kk-j.org. http://www.kk-j.org/1-environment.html
http://www.kcta.or.jp. http://www.kcta.or.jp/english/
http://www.surabaya.go.id

Surabaya waste management system

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Surabaya waste management system

Similaire à Surabaya waste management system (20)

Plus de Ummi Khairia

Plus de Ummi Khairia (7)

Surabaya waste management system