Developing a Sustainable Supply Chain for Waste Management

INOM EXAMENSARBETE , GRUNDNIVÅ, 15 HP

STOCKHOLM SVERIGE 2020,

Developing a Sustainable Supply Chain for Waste Management

- A Case Study of Lombok

ANTON ÖSTBLOM OSCAR WIBERG

KTH

SKOLAN FÖR INDUSTRIELL TEKNIK OCH MANAGEMENT

Abstract

Lombok is an island in Indonesia located next to, and slightly smaller than Bali. The tropical island has the potential to become “the next Bali” in terms of tourism and is like many other developing countries, suffering from inadequate solid waste management, as of 2020 only managing 20% of its waste. The aim of this report is to map the current situation regarding the solid waste management system, present business opportunities within plastic recycling, present challenges and recommend future steps. A literature review is conducted to give a better understanding of waste treatment methods, waste management in developing countries, the demand of recycled plastics, and foreign direct investments in Indonesia.

To map the current waste management situation, a field study is conducted with multiple visits to waste management facilities, and interviews with members of Lombok’s Zero Waste Program. The different aspects of Lombok’s waste management supply chain are explained and other important factors regarding the situation. The mapping is sufficient to serve as an overview and background information for organizations within the field, potential investors, further research, and for our recommendations. The report also contains a case study of a recycling business and a case study of Lombok’s largest landfill.

Plastic recycling businesses are in need of expansion and financing from both the public and private sectors. An important finding is that profitable plastic recycling businesses already exist on Lombok, plastic recycling is otherwise often seen as a cost burden. Business and investment opportunities in plastic recycling on Lombok are therefore presented to highlight the fact that plastic recycling can be profitable and economically sustainable. Recommendations to increase the efficiency of current recycling procedures are also presented.

If Lombok is going to be able to manage all of its waste, it needs more facilities, and there are many choices of waste treatment methods. Our recommendations for the near future are the following: build a new landfill with proper treatment techniques and an incineration plant to reduce the amount of waste being dumped on landfills, and continue to develop infrastructure for composting and plastic recycling. Composting and plastic recycling are the most sustainable alternatives in the long term, with the aim to reduce the amount of waste being dumped on the landfill or incinerated.

Awareness about waste management and financing are two of the major challenges to achieve the short and long term recommendations.

Keywords:

Sammanfattning

Lombok är en ö i Indonesien belägen bredvid och något mindre än Bali. Den tropiska ön har potential att bli “nästa Bali” när det gäller turism och lider av otillräcklig avfallshantering likt många andra utvecklingsländer. I dagsläget, år 2020, hanterar man endast 20% av mängden avfall. Syftet med denna rapport är att kartlägga den nuvarande avfallshanteringen, rekommendera framtida steg och presentera affärsmöjligheter inom plaståtervinning. En litteraturstudie genomförs för att ge förståelse för de vanligaste avfallshanterings-metoderna, avfallshantering i utvecklingsländer, efterfrågan på återvunnen plast och utländska direktinvesteringar i Indonesien.

För att kartlägga avfallshanteringen genomförs en fältstudie med besök på flera avfallshanteringsanläggningar och intervjuer med medlemmarna i Lomboks Zero Waste Program. De olika delarna av Lomboks avfallshantering presenteras samt andra relevanta faktorer. Kartläggningen är tillräcklig för att användas av organisationer inom avfallshantering, potentiella investerare, vidare forskning samt för rapportens rekommendationer. Rapporten innehåller också en fallstudie av ett återvinningsföretag och en fallstudie av Lomboks största soptipp.

Det finns ett behov och marknad för plaståtervinning på ön, där det krävs ytterligare finansiering från offentlig och privat sektor. En viktigt upptäckt är att det redan finns lönsamma företag inom plaståtervinning på Lombok, i kontrast till att plaståtervinning annars ofta ses som en kostnad. Därför presenteras affärs- och investeringsmöjligheter inom plaståtervinning på Lombok för att lyfta fram att det kan vara lönsamt och ekonomiskt hållbart. Rekommendationer för att öka effektiviteten i den nuvarande återvinningen presenteras också.

För att Lombok ska kunna hantera allt producerat avfall behövs fler avfallsanläggningar, där det finns olika tekniker att välja mellan. Våra rekommendationer på kort sikt är följande: byggnation av en ny soptipp med ordentligt reningssystem för lakvatten och gasinsamling, en förbränningsanläggning för att minska mängden avfall som deponeras på soptippen och att fortsätta utveckla infrastruktur för kompostering och plaståtervinning. Kompostering och plaståtervinning är de mest hållbara alternativen på lång sikt, med målet att minska avfallsvolymen på soptippar eller det avfall som förbränns. Medvetenhet om avfall och finansiering är två stora utmaningar för att nå de kort- och långsiktiga rekommendationerna.

Nyckelord:

Preface

This report was performed as a bachelor thesis within Industrial Management and Engineering at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in the spring semester of 2020, and was carried out as a Minor Field Study funded by SIDA, Swedish International Development Cooperation.

To start with, we would like to thank Syamsuriansyah Sadakah, director at Medica Farma Husada Polytechnic Mataram who was our first contact in Indonesia and introduced us to the Zero Waste Acceleration Team. Without your help, we would have never been able to do this project.

We would like to thank all of the members of the Zero Waste Acceleration Team and especially Noor Alamsyah, for welcoming us in Mataram and guiding us around waste management facilities on Lombok, Ida Bagus Adnyana and Gendewa Tunas Ranca for all their expertise and partaking in our long interviews. Your help was priceless.

We would also like to thank Syawaludin Khairunnisa, Febriarti Khairunnisa and the staff at Bintang Sejahtera. We are very grateful for all the connections with Politeknik Medica Farma and Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Nusa Tenggara.

We would like to list your names as well, but the list would be too long.

Lastly, a special thanks to SIDA for funding this project and our supervisor Lars Wingård at KTH. It has been an enriching experience to work with this project, thank you for the support.

Anton Östblom & Oscar Wiberg, Stockholm, June 2020

Table Of Contents

1. Introduction 5

1.1 Background 5

1.2 Purpose 5

1.3 Research Topics 5

1.4 Methodology 5

1.5 Scope/Delimitations 5

2 Literature Review 6

2.1 Waste Treatment Methods 6

2.2 MSW Management in Developing Countries 7

2.3 Barriers or Incentives to Recycling 7

2.4 Public Health 8

2.5 The Demand for Petrochemicals and Plastics Worldwide 8

2.6 Foreign Direct Investments and Its History in Indonesia 8

3. Lombok Waste Management Mapping 9

3.1 Current Waste Situation on Lombok 9

3.2 Policies, NTB Zero Waste Program & Zero Waste Acceleration Team 9

3.3 Waste Banks, BSI/BSI/BSIR 10

3.4 Landfills, TPS/TPST/Landfill 1 1

3.5 Private/Public Ownership 1 1

3.6 MSW Supply Chain Before Policy 1 1

3.7 MSW Supply Chain After Policy 1 1

3.8 Waste Bank Supply Chain Case Study, Bintang Sejahtera 1 2

3.9 Lomboks MSW Supply Chain in Reality 2020 1 2

3.10 West Lombok Landfill Case Study 1 3

3.11 Lombok Waste Management Data Collection 1 3

4. Improvements for Waste Banks 1 4

5. Business Opportunities in Plastic Recycling on Lombok 1 6

5.1 Immense Supply of Raw Materials 1 6

5.2 Rising Demand of Plastics and Recyclable Materials 1 6

5.3 Strategic Location & Connections to Plastics Industries in Indonesia and Southeast Asia 1 6

5.4 The Government Supports Private Initiatives 1 6

5.5 Profitable Business Models Exist 1 6

5.6 Low Investment Costs for BSU-BSI-BSIR 1 6

5.7 The Market Is Within Its Emerging/Growth Phase With a Few Number of Competitors 1 6

5.8 Large Plastic Recycling Industries in the Future 1 6

6. Six Sustainable Alternatives for Lombok 1 7

7. Discussion About the Six Sustainable Alternatives 1 7

7.1 Economic Perspective 1 7

7.2 Challenges 1 8

7.3 Recommendations for Lombok’s Future Waste Management 1 8

8. Conclusions 19

Developing a Sustainable Supply Chain for Waste Management - A Case Study of Lombok

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

he consumption of products and waste generation grow rapidly as a result of the industrialization in more and more countries [1]. The increase of solid waste pollution is one of the most urgent environmental issues at hand today [1,3], being a large contributor to the greenhouse gas methane and to plastics ending up in the oceans [2]. Most of the ocean’s plastics derives from land and rivers, once at sea it breaks down into microplastics [3]. The microplastics are difficult or almost impossible to retrieve, thus possessing a threat to animal and human life [4]. The solution to prevent this issue is to develop improved waste management systems, recycling and to prolong the product life-cycle [3].

Most countries suffer difficulties in adequately managing and processing their waste. The lack of waste management in western countries have caused them to send large amounts of waste to Southeast Asia, making it the dumping ground of the world for the last 25 years [5,6]. In developing Asian and African countries, the plastic pollution is most visible since waste management systems are inadequate [3]. The waste management in developing countries is often neglected due to lack of administrative and financial resources [7]. Unmanaged waste do not only affect the environment and public health, but also the social and economic situation in societies. The resulting down-stream costs of poorly managed waste are often greater than what it would have cost to manage it correctly from the start [2]. The need for government support or financial incentives for businesses in waste management is then crucial.

Lombok is an up-and-coming tourist island in Indonesia located next to Bali, with the size of one and a half times that of the Swedish island Gotland, and with 3.3 million inhabitants [8].

Lombok suffer from poor waste management, only managing and collecting approximately 20% of its generated waste as of 2020, according to the regional government. Indonesia itself is the world’s second-largest contributor of plastics in the ocean [9] . The demand for plastics is forecasted to be one of the main drivers for oil demand by 2050 [10], and the demand for recycled plastic materials is expected to grow and to be a financial opportunity [11].

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to investigate the waste management on Lombok where the findings could be applied in waste management organizations, potential expansions and further research on Lombok. The field study was funded by SIDA with the aim to contribute towards UN's Sustainable

Development Goals and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development [11], where focus has been made on UN's goal 8, decent work and economic growth, goal 9, build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation and goal 12.5, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.

1.3 Research Topics

The aim of this report is to discuss and answer the following;

1. Mapping of the current municipal solid waste, MSW, management on Lombok.

2. Discuss potential development and improvements of the MSW management in terms of sustainability and efficiency.

3. Economical perspectives and investment opportunities within MSW management on Lombok.

4. What challenges exists to develop the MSW management.

1.4 Methodology

A field study was conducted on Lombok to answer the above-mentioned questions. Official data or studies about the waste management situation on Lombok was not found prior to writing this report. Relevant data were therefore mainly collected by observations, and formal and informal interviews. We worked closely with the Zero Waste Acceleration Team, ZWAT, in Mataram. Information about the current waste management system was gathered from multiple long informal interviews with ZWAT member Gendewa Tunas Rancak, lecturer in Waste Management among other subjects at Nahdlatul Ulama University NTB. More in-depth interviews and observations were conducted thanks to the ZWAT’s broad network within waste management, especially with the help from ZWAT member Noor Alamsyah, Head of Information System Department, at Medica Farma Husada Polytechnic Mataram. Data was also collected by visiting different places on Lombok while having informal interviews with taxi drivers, hotel owners, local people and foreign investors.

A literature study was performed to research the current methods used in waste management today, and relevant topics about the economic, environmental and health perspectives of waste management in Indonesia and the world.

Analysis and discussions were then performed from these different sources of data.

1.5 Scope/Delimitations

This field study was conducted during a limited time period of five weeks, several limitations were made for that reason. The

five weeks of field study were not enough time to make a 100%

correct mapping of Lombok’s waste management due to the lack of existing data and a lack of a widespread standardized waste management system. The conducted mapping is however sufficient to serve as an overview and background information for further work and the presented recommendations.

This report is mainly focused on the supply chain for MSW from households. Transportation between stations have been taken into consideration but is not included in this report.

This report does not take a stand on how the expansion of the waste management best should be funded or managed. However, it highlights important factors to take into consideration when expanding and what the opportunities are, as well as providing recommendations. Further research could discuss raising capital in developing countries, in particular on Lombok, how local entrepreneurs can seek investors, capital funding in Indonesia, etc.

This thesis is within the field of Industrial Engineering and Management, with a focus on resource efficient production. The report is not based on social science even though brief discussions were made to highlight important aspects of the waste management situation. Further research could also be politics, education and psychology about the waste problem on Lombok and in Indonesia.

2 Literature Review

The waste hierarchy which consists of the five levels, with the most desirable outcome starting at reduce, reuse, recycle, recover and disposal, is a part of the European Union's waste legislation [12]. This report, and the first part of the literature review, will focus on the latter three parts in the hierarchy: recycling, energy recovery and landfill disposal. The concept is very similar to the NTB Zero Waste Program, which will be described in chapter 3.

2.1 Waste TreatmentMmethods 2.1.1 Landfill

Landfills are the most common and cheapest method for waste disposal of MSW in the world [13,14]. Gas is produced in the landfill, mainly by the decomposition of organics. The most dominant gases are methane and carbon dioxide which varies in concentrations between 40-60% [15,16]. Methane emissions from biomass in landfills contribute to the greenhouse gas effect to a larger extent than if the waste were to be incinerated and release carbon dioxide. The landfill gas can be collected and turned into electricity by feeding gas engines [17], with landfills in Brazil as a major successful example [18]. Depending on the composition and extent of decomposition of the waste, leachate

may become highly contaminated and pollute the groundwater as well as nearby rivers [19]. Landfill leachate, especially old Landfill leachate, is very difficult to treat using conventional biological processes [20,21]. Making it even more difficult when designing a leachate treatment method, is the possibility that treatment techniques which works for a young landfill may become insufficient as the landfill ages [22]. Using a membrane bioreactor as the main step in a landfill leachate treatment chain or as single post-treatment step has shown to be a crucial part of the purification process [20,21]. Studies have shown promising results where a membrane bioreactor is combined with biogas production [20].

Landfill of waste usually implies making the resources and land irrecoverable and it is not considered a sustainable waste management solution in the medium or long term [23].

2.1.2 Incineration

Waste incineration is used for disposal of waste with the goals of hygienisation, volume reduction, environmental protection, mineralization and immobilization of hazardous substances, resource conservation, affordable costs and public acceptance.

Modern incineration facilities, waste-to-energy facilities, can transform the chemically bound energy of the waste into heat and/or electricity [24]. However the residues of the incinerator must be regulated because they may expose the environment to toxic heavy metal elements [25]. Technology for air pollution control exists, which ensure that emissions are environmentally safe [26]. The remaining incineration ash which remains after combustion on the grate, bottom ash, can be used as secondary construction material if it meets the environmental regulations in an individual country [27]. The residues from the incineration, bottom ash and air pollution control, can be used as sources for secondary metals. Hence incineration facilities now having the possibility to being a recycling facility [28]. The cost or benefit from incineration depends on the alternatives, the existing power generation and the occurrence of open-air burning or landfill fires [29].

2.1.3 Plastic Recycling

Recycled plastic applications is a growing market according to Nkwachukwu O.I, Chima C.H, Ikenna A.O. et al. [25] and the plastics industry has developed economically and environmentally viable technologies for recovering and recycling plastic. Sorting is the most important step in the recycling supply chain, including removal of paint and coating from the plastics [27]. The treatment and recycling processes can be divided into four categories [28]:

1. Re-extrusion - producing the same or similar products, typically from manufacturing scrap.

2. Mechanical - the process of recovering plastic solid waste for the re-use in manufacturing plastic products. The first step often being size reduction via milling, grinding or shredding.

3. Chemical - advanced technology process which convert plastic materials into smaller molecules.

4. Energy recovery - waste-to-energy in the form of heat, steam and electricity. Also reduces volume by 90-99%.

Mechanical recycling can only be performed on single polymer plastics, though contaminated plastics can be difficult to recycle.

It can be a profitable recycling process if there is a customer ready to purchase, especially for rigid and foam plastics [27].

However, the demand of the recycled plastics depends on the price of virgin material and its quality. One constraint is the large quantities and strict specifications required by plastic processors at a competitive price in comparison to virgin plastics [26].

Mechanical recycling is the most viable option for recycling consumer plastics, due to re-extrusion being mostly used for manufacturing scrap and chemical and energy recovery, though promising, requires more research [27].

When setting up a small-scale recycling business it is important to research which types of plastics are available for collection, which plastics manufacturers are willing to buy the reclaimed material and its profitability. Much of the future success of plastic recycling depends on developing effective collection and sorting systems together with incentives towards the manufacturers and consumers [26].

2.1.4 Organic Waste Recycling

The organic waste portion of the MSW is suitable for recycling through composting. Ideally it should be stored separately for this purpose but usually it is collected together with other kinds of wastes. Multiple processing methods are required to separate the organic waste for composting purposes. The quality and nutrients of the compost may vary greatly, causing the result to be unpredictable. Due to that reason and fertilizer’s relatively low cost, most farmers still prefer fertilizers. If the chemical fertilizer is cheap, subsidized or has been used for a long time, farmers are reluctant to use compost. The product value of compost is affected by proximity to processing facility, transport costs, public acceptance and product quality. The organic matter portion of the compost has proved to increase the soil’s physical properties [29].

Biogas production is another form of organic waste recycling which is viewed as a promising energy source and has been implemented successfully in Brazil [30]. Anaerobic decomposition of organic waste is a source of biogas consisting of mainly methane and carbon dioxide. The biogas can be used

as fuel for electricity or heat generation. During biogas production, the organic portion of the compost is reduced and instead produces a stabilized sludge which can be used as fertilizer. The sludge makes nutrients more available to plants and improves physical soil properties [31].

2.2 MSW Management in Developing Countries

In developing countries, a large portion of the citizens do not receive waste collection services and most disposal sites are poorly operated by the local government [32,33]. As a country develops, its waste generation rate increases due to increased income and consumption patterns [34], sometimes resulting in environmental problems [35]. MSW in developing countries are comprised of at least 55% organic waste, making composting considered in many parts of the world as a method to reduce the amount of MSW dumped in landfills. MSW incineration as waste-to-energy can be an expensive investment for communities in the developing world [36]. Sustainable MSW management would not impair economic opportunities or worsen social conditions in developing countries [37].

2.2.1 Scavengers

Mihelcic JR et al. present the role of the informal sector known as scavengers in developing countries which collect and sort waste for recycling either scattered throughout the city or at dumpsites. The scavengers then sell these materials to recycling shops or exporters [37]. The scavengers are vulnerable to health risks due to their exposure at landfills and often get displaced as a result of landfill closure [39]. If the scavengers were supported in the MSW management, they could be the solution to sustainable development in developing countries since jobs are created, resources are conserved, and pollution is reduced [40]. If they are not involved however, they may resist the new MSW management and possibly try sabotaging it because they are removed from the revenue stream [41]. Hence studies recommend the scavengers to be included in the MSW management programs at an early stage [42].

2.3 Barriers or Incentives to Recycling

A qualitative analysis of 23 case studies, conducted by Alexis M.

Troschinetz & James R. Mihelcic, identified the following barriers or incentives to recycling [38]: “Factors influencing recycling of MSW in developing countries are: government policy, government finances, waste characterization, waste collection and segregation, household education, household economics, MSWM (municipal solid waste management) administration, MSWM personnel education, MSWM plan, local recycled-material market, technological and human resources, and land availability.”

2.4 Public Health

There are only a few studies on health issues and their link to waste management, mostly in high-income countries but also some more anecdotal reports from developing countries. All of the health issues reported from high-income countries are directly applicable to developing countries, but less protective measures in the latter causes increased risk levels. These studies provide evidence of, inter alia, higher disease levels of waste pickers, increased risk for women living close to landfills having birth defects, waste collectors increased risk of lung related diseases and higher concentrations of bacteria than recommended in composting plants [43].

2.5 The Demand for Petrochemicals and Plastics Worldwide 2.5.1 Petrochemicals Demand

The two most common classes of petrochemicals are olefins and aromatics, where olefins are the basis for production of plastics and fibers [46].

The International Energy Agency, IEA, forecasts that petrochemicals will be the largest driver of global oil demand and will account for more than a third of the growth in oil demand by 2030, and by 2050, close to 50 percent. IEA expect growth of about 5 million barrels per day to 2040 [47] and OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, expect the growth to be a bit less, with 3,8 million barrels per day up to 2040, but still accounting for the next largest driver in oil demand after transportation purposes, such as road, aviation and rail [46]. Needless to say, the demand for petrochemicals will be a major driver in oil demand in the coming years.

High-income countries, compared to developing countries like Indonesia and India, presently use as far as 20 times as much plastics and 10 times as much fertilizers on a per capita basis [47]. When the population increases its living standards, it consumes more plastics [48]. This highlights the immense potential growth in plastics worldwide [47].

2.5.2 How plastic waste recycling could transform the petrochemical industry

In a study and model [49], which McKinsey uses to analyze the investment opportunities and market of recycling plastics is based on the assumption that 50 percent of the plastics worldwide could be reused or recycled by 2030. It also assumes that if the demand for plastics follows the current rate, it will grow from 260 million tons of plastics per year in 2016 to 460 million tons of plastics per year in 2030. The model is also based on the assumption low-density polyethylene, LDPE and high-density polyethylene, HDPE generates the highest amount in this profit. LDPE and HDPE are the most commonly used plastics [50].

Profit

McKinsey claims there already are many profitable mechanical recycling industries and argues that the common view of recycling only being a cost, is not true. The model estimates that the whole market of recyclable plastics would generate a $60 billion profit-pool growth between 2018 and 2030. Asia, apart from China, is projected to be the second-biggest profit pool by 2030. The mechanical recycling industry has a major advantage compared to the production from oil, since it doesn't require as much investments in advanced technology and chemicals to create petrochemical building blocks according to McKinsey.

Investment need

It would require $15 billion to $20 billion in investments per year to reuse or recycle 50% of the plastic flow globally according to McKinsey. The global petrochemical and plastics industry invest on average, $80 billion to $100 billion per year, to give a comparison.

2.6 Foreign Direct Investments and Its History in Indonesia Foreign Direct Investments, FDI, and economic growth have a strong correlation according to economic policymakers and in FDI literature [51]. FDI transfer knowledge and expertise from the multinational firms to the country that they invest in, and in particular this applies for developing countries. The knowledge transfer can often be applicable to other industries, and therefore has an impact on a wider level than the industry that the FDI were established in. Fredrik Sjöholm’s study about FDI in Indonesia [53] indicates that productivity growth is seen from inter-industry knowledge transfer. The establishments of FDI in regions with a diversified industry structure also show high productivity growth.

During the past 20 years, the development of FDI has been a struggle in Indonesia. Ever since the Asian financial crisis in 1998, the FDI ranking and reputation of Indonesia among foreign investors has been low. Indonesia has performed poorly and is far behind in comparison to its neighboring countries in Southeast Asia, like Thailand and Vietnam. Indonesia's history of social disorder, political instability, fluctuating currency, corruption, education, and Islamic Radicalism gave it the status of being a high-risk investment country for a long time.

Like most countries in Southeast Asia, Indonesia managed the global financial crisis 2008 quite well, in comparison to the rest of the world. From then on, Indonesia's reputation finally started to take a turn, though still slower than its neighboring countries.

For long, American companies chose only to locate their labor-intensive production in Indonesia when they had no other alternative. By the year 2012, it had taken Indonesia 15 years to recover to the same level as its 1997 FDI to GDP ratio.

Singapore, followed by Japan, have for long been the largest investors in Indonesia [51]. China has increased its investments and is right behind Japan in 2019 [52].

3. Lombok Waste Management Mapping

This chapter explains the current situation regarding waste management on Lombok. Waste can be found almost anywhere, on the streets, open fields and beaches etc. Currently, the waste either gets burned/thrown in the nature, or gets handled through the landfill supply chain or the plastic recycling supply chain.

Both supply chains have three stations where the waste is handled and treated. See Figure 1 for a quick figurative overview of the situation.

3.1 Current Waste Situation on Lombok

Figure 1 - Simplified map of Lombok’s waste management 3.1.1 Data

According to the Zero Waste Acceleration Team, ZWAT, the government estimates that only 20% of the waste gets managed on Lombok. No data exists on what happens with the rest of the 80% of the waste. From our observations, the waste is either thrown in the river/sea/nature/streets or burned. 20% of the waste being managed is an estimation, barely any data or tracking has been made to validate this. Our observations conclude that the 20% mark can also be lower than what happens in reality.

About 20% of the villages provide some infrastructure for recycling or waste disposal through for example local waste banks, BSUs, or temporary landfills, TPSs. BSU and TPS are explained in 3.3 and 3.4. The current waste management systems are under- dimensioned to handle a population of 3.3 million.

Many TPSs have full containers of waste not being picked up frequently enough, causing an unpleasant smell and rat infestation. Thus, causing people to lose faith in waste management on Lombok. There are also many interviewees who don't know that they have waste management possibilities.

3.1.2 Backyard Burning

According to our observations and interviews, a high percentage of households burn their waste weekly or daily and have done so for generations. This waste disposal practice has been used before plastics were introduced on Lombok and is still a common practice due to lack of alternatives and awareness. This causes fires and smoke from organic and non-organic materials to be a common sight on Lombok. We found plastics on the BBQ in the local fish restaurant and our observations are that many are unaware of the dangers of burning plastics. See Figure 2 . Some households burn organic and non-organic waste separately and use the organic ashes for soil.

Figure 2 - Disposal of plastics by burning on a BBQ in Sekotong 3.1.3 Awareness

The representatives of the ZWAT believe that one of the core reasons that only 20% of the waste gets managed is the lack of awareness about the waste problem. One of the representatives believes that people are aware but do not care, or that they do not have any other option. Other interviewees also believe lack of awareness is the root cause to waste not being managed and processed, and that the main solution lies in the educational system.

3.2 Policies, NTB Zero Waste Program & Zero Waste Acceleration Team

In 2017, the Indonesian government released a National Strategy Policy (Jakstranas) to reduce the waste generation by 30%, manage and process (avoid it from being dumped on the landfill) at least 70% of the country’s waste by 2025, which is stated in the Indonesian President Regulation No.97/2017. The President Regulation needs to be achieved and followed by every region.

The regions are expected to create their own plans (Regional Strategy Policy – Jakstrada) in order to achieve the 2025 policy.

The provincial government of West Nusa Tenggara, NTB, where the most inhabitants are on Lombok, has developed a plan called the Zero Waste Program to help reach this goal by 2023. To reach the goal of managing and processing the waste, the plan

consists of having one BSU (waste bank unit) in each village, one BSI (waste bank collection point) in every district and to establish four new BSIRs (recycling centers) in NTB where the plastics then gets sold to industries outside the region. In 2020, approximately 200 out of the 995 villages on Lombok have a BSU. The Zero Waste program has an acceleration team of approximately ten people with various expertises who are to plan and implement the policy. The first ZWAT was established in February 2019 and worked part-time for one year. In March 2020 a new ZWAT was formed.

3.3 Waste Banks, BSI/BSI/BSIR

The plan for recycling through waste banks on three levels/categories (as seen in Figure 3 );

Figure 3 - ZWAT plan for waste banks

Level 1. BSU - Village waste bank. Collects waste in each village, either sorted or unsorted. Some BSUs provide a financial incentive for people to hand in their waste and sort it, mainly an incentive for sorted plastics. The long term goal is to handle all sorts of waste. BSUs usually operate for collection once per week, and people walk to the waste bank to hand in their waste.

Figure 4 - BSU during collection and weighing of waste

Level 2. BSI - District waste bank. Either collects waste from multiple BSUs or gets it delivered to them. The waste is either sorted or unsorted or somewhat sorted. Sorting also takes place at the BSI. The sorted waste then gets sold to industries mainly close to Surabaya on Java. Some BSIs have the technology for mechanical recycling with size reduction of plastics via shredding. Some melt the plastics into blocks and have technology for composting and biogas production, though only on a small scale.

Figure 5 - BSI, in Mataram

Level 3. BSIR - Regional recycling center. The long-term goal of the BSIR is to recycle materials into new products and composting. In the short term, they will be able to reduce the size of some materials via shredding.

There exists no official BSIR at the moment but there are some BSIs that function similarly to a BSIR with size reduction, such as the BSI near the Lombok International Airport, (BSU/BSI/BSIR case in 3.8) . There are 4 BSIRs under construction, planned to start operating in the end of 2020 according to the ZWAT.

Figure 6 - Shredding at BSI, similar functions as intended BSIR Since the Zero Waste Program is quite recent and the BSUs, BSIs, BSIRs are all privately owned, some waste banks differ a lot from each other in terms of collecting, sorting, financial incentives and technologies. BSUs differ a lot, some only focus on household waste, school waste, medical waste, waste from a specific area or act more as a social benefit program where they produce handicraft products from plastic waste.

3.4 Landfills, TPS/TPST/Landfill

Figure 7 - ZWAT plan for Landfill

The ZWAT plan for waste to be disposed on landfills, with three levels/categories, already exists on a smaller scale. There are two different types of temporary landfills, one on village level, TPS, and one on district level, TPST. TPS basically collects all types of waste in containers or on the roadside, without any sorting procedures. It then gets transported to a TPST on district level, where in most cases no sorting takes place either, and then to the final destination at one of the regional landfills. Sometimes the waste gets transported directly from TPS to landfill.

Figure 8 - A full TPS in Mataram

Figure 9 - Drone Shot of West Lombok Landfill

According to one representative from the ZWAT, there exists 2-3 TPST on Lombok as of 2020. Some TPST separate the trash, i.e plastics, metal, non-organic and use appropriate methods to create compost from the fruit with the usage of black soldier flies. There are some problems with the compost, the technology to measure the substances in compost that could be used as fertilizer does not exist on the island and is very expensive according to the ZWAT. The compost is therefore hard to sell since they can not prove that it achieves the appropriate amounts of substances required.

3.5 Private/Public Ownership

Landfills, TPS, TPST are owned by the government, the BSUs, BSIs and BSIRs are privately owned. Entrepreneurs can receive support by the government to finance the facilities and machines needed to start a BSU, BSI, BSIR, if they own a piece of land and apply to become a waste bank. A BSU can receive funding of 10 million IDR (approximately 600 USD) and BSI/BSIR receive around 150 million IDR (approximately 9500 USD) to start according to the ZWAT. The funding covers almost all of the costs to start a BSU and it partially covers the costs for BSI and BSIR.

3.6 MSW Supply Chain Before Policy

Figure 10 - Before Zero Waste Program plan for waste management

Figure 10 shows the intended plan for waste management before the policy, though the rules to follow the flowchart were not that strict. The waste has three different origins;

1. Specific Waste - Construction waste, such as concrete, larger size of the waste in general.

2. Waste from businesses - Contents similar to household waste, usually unsorted.

3. Waste from households. Some households sort their waste in non-organic (plastics and others) and organics, most don’t sort at all.

3.7 MSW Supply Chain After Policy

Figure 11 - Zero Waste Programs plan for waste management Figure 11 shows the intended plan for waste management after the policy. Since it has only been one year since the policy was developed, it has only gotten implemented in some areas. Some parts of the supply chain are non existent as of March 2020.

What the new policy changed was the following;