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) Double degree Netherland Student in Regional and City Planning Master Program, SAPPK-ITB

Banar Suharjanto (25412069) Double degree Netherland Student in Regional and City Planning Master Program, SAPPK-ITB

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



Technical Cooperation

Technical CooperationTechnical 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);

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

http://www.citynet-ap.org/programmes/city-to-city/

http://www.citynet-ap.org/programmes/city-to-city/

http://bulletin.penataanruang.net/upload/data_artikel/edisi3i.pdf

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/


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

http://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/

http://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/files/000071565.pdf

http://www.kk-j.org/

http://www.kcta.or.jp/

http://www.surabaya.go.id/

surabaya waste management system

Documents