Local Government Roles in Indonesia's Waste Management Framework

Indonesia's waste management system operates on a decentralized framework that assigns specific responsibilities to provincial and district/city governments. This administrative structure reflects the country's commitment to regional autonomy while maintaining national policy coherence through hierarchical planning instruments. Presidential Regulation No. 97 of 2017 (PERPRES 97/2017) and Government Regulation No. 81 of 2012 (PP 81/2012) establish the legal architecture that defines how local governments must approach household and household-like waste management within their jurisdictions.

The regulatory framework distinguishes between strategic planning obligations and operational responsibilities. At the provincial level, governors must translate national waste management strategies into regional action plans that account for local conditions while adhering to national targets. District and city governments bear the primary operational burden, including infrastructure provision, final waste processing, and direct service delivery to communities. This division of labor creates a multi-tiered system where policy cascades downward while implementation authority resides at the most local level.

Understanding local government roles requires examining both the planning instruments they must produce and the concrete services they must deliver. The Jakstrada (Kebijakan dan Strategi Daerah) serves as the primary planning tool that bridges national objectives with local implementation. Beyond planning, local governments must establish physical infrastructure, manage landfills, facilitate waste sorting at the source, and engage with communities and private sector partners. These responsibilities are not optional policy choices but mandatory legal obligations with specific timelines and measurable targets.

The Jakstrada Planning Instrument

PERPRES 97/2017 establishes the Jakstrada as the central planning mechanism for local waste management. Pasal 1 defines Jakstrada as "arah kebijakan dan strategi dalam pengurangan dan penanganan Sampah Rumah Tangga dan Sampah Sejenis Sampah Rumah Tangga tingkat daerah provinsi dan daerah kabupaten/kota yang terpadu dan berkelanjutan" (the policy direction and strategy for the reduction and handling of Household Waste and Household-Like Waste at the provincial and district/city regional levels that is integrated and sustainable). This definition emphasizes three critical elements: integration across jurisdictional levels, sustainability over time, and comprehensive coverage of both waste reduction and handling activities.

The Jakstrada functions as a translation mechanism between national policy and local implementation. Pasal 7 of PERPRES 97/2017 specifies that "Jakstranas... menjadi pedoman bagi: a. menteri dan/atau kepala lembaga pemerintah nonkementerian dalam menetapkan kebijakan sektoral yang terkait dengan pengelolaan Sampah Rumah Tangga dan Sampah Sejenis Sampah Rumah Tangga; b. gubernur dalam menyusun dan menetapkan Jakstrada provinsi; dan c. bupati/wali kota dalam menyusun dan menetapkan Jakstrada kabupaten/kota" (The National Strategy serves as guidance for: a. ministers and/or heads of non-ministerial government agencies in establishing sectoral policies related to Household Waste and Household-Like Waste management; b. governors in formulating and establishing provincial Jakstrada; and c. regents/mayors in formulating and establishing district/city Jakstrada).

This hierarchical guidance structure creates a cascade effect where national targets and strategies inform ministerial sector policies, which in turn guide provincial Jakstrada formulation, which finally shapes district and city action plans. Each level must align with the tier above while adapting general strategies to specific local conditions. The regulation does not permit local governments to deviate from national targets or ignore ministerial guidance; rather, it requires them to operationalize these higher-level directives through context-appropriate measures.

The formalization requirements differ between provincial and district levels. Pasal 7 states that "Jakstrada provinsi... ditetapkan dengan peraturan gubernur" (Provincial Jakstrada is established by gubernatorial regulation) and "Jakstrada kabupaten/kota... ditetapkan dengan peraturan bupati/wali kota" (District/city Jakstrada is established by regent/mayor regulation). This formalization through executive regulation gives the Jakstrada legal force, making its targets and timelines binding on local government agencies and providing a basis for performance evaluation and accountability.

Provincial Government Responsibilities

Provincial governments occupy an intermediate position in Indonesia's waste management hierarchy. Their primary responsibility involves translating national strategies into regional frameworks that account for provincial-level conditions while providing guidance to districts and cities within their territories. The provincial Jakstrada must reflect the broader geographical, economic, and demographic characteristics of the province while ensuring that constituent districts and cities can achieve their collective contribution to national targets.

Gubernatorial regulations establishing provincial Jakstrada must address several substantive elements. These include waste generation projections for the province as a whole, regional reduction targets that aggregate district and city contributions, identification of priority waste streams based on provincial economic activities, and coordination mechanisms for inter-district waste management cooperation. Provincial governments must also establish monitoring systems to track district and city progress toward their Jakstrada commitments and report provincial-level achievements to the national government.

The provincial role extends beyond planning to include coordination and technical assistance. Governors must facilitate cooperation between districts and cities for regional waste management facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions. This coordination function becomes particularly important for final processing sites (TPA) that may be located in one jurisdiction but serve waste from neighboring areas. Provincial governments also provide technical guidance to smaller districts and cities that may lack specialized expertise in waste management planning and operations.

Provincial governments do not typically operate waste collection or final processing facilities directly. Instead, their operational responsibilities focus on enabling district and city governments to fulfill their mandates. This includes channeling national funding programs to local implementers, facilitating public-private partnerships that span multiple jurisdictions, and mediating disputes between districts over waste management infrastructure siting or cost-sharing arrangements.

District and City Government Responsibilities

District and city governments (kabupaten/kota) bear the primary operational burden for waste management service delivery. PERPRES 97/2017 and PP 81/2012 assign these governments direct responsibility for ensuring that household and household-like waste generated within their boundaries receives proper handling from source to final disposal. This operational mandate distinguishes district and city governments from provincial authorities, whose role remains primarily coordinative and strategic.

The district and city Jakstrada must contain concrete operational plans with specific timelines and resource allocations. PP 81/2012 Pasal 5 requires that "program pengurangan dan penanganan sampah... target pengurangan timbulan sampah dan prioritas jenis sampah secara bertahap" (waste reduction and handling programs include waste generation reduction targets and priority waste types in stages) and "target penanganan sampah untuk setiap kurun waktu tertentu" (waste handling targets for each specific period). This requirement for staged targets with defined timeframes prevents vague aspirational planning and demands quantifiable commitments that can be monitored and evaluated.

PERPRES 97/2017 Pasal 5 establishes specific numerical targets that district and city Jakstrada must incorporate: a 30 percent reduction in waste generation by 2025 and a 70 percent handling rate for generated waste by the same year. District and city governments cannot set lower targets or extend these deadlines; the national targets represent minimum mandatory thresholds. Local governments may adopt more ambitious targets but cannot fall short of the national baseline without violating their regulatory obligations.

The operational responsibilities of district and city governments extend across the entire waste management chain. These governments must establish collection systems that reach all households and household-like waste generators within their jurisdiction. They must provide or facilitate waste sorting at the source, intermediate processing facilities, and final disposal sites. They must also establish fee structures, enforcement mechanisms for illegal dumping, and public education programs to promote waste reduction behaviors among residents.

Waste Sorting Obligations

PP 81/2012 Pasal 17 explicitly addresses waste sorting responsibilities, stating that "Pemilahan sampah... dilakukan oleh: a. setiap orang pada sumbernya; b. pengelola kawasan... c. pemerintah kabupaten/kota" (Waste sorting is conducted by: a. every person at the source; b. area managers; c. district/city governments). This provision establishes a multi-actor sorting system where individuals, commercial area operators, and local governments all bear responsibility for separating waste streams.

The assignment of sorting responsibility to "every person at the source" makes household-level separation a legal obligation, not merely a voluntary best practice. However, the inclusion of district and city governments in the sorting responsibility list indicates that local authorities cannot simply mandate household sorting without providing supporting infrastructure and services. District and city governments must establish systems that make source sorting feasible for residents, including differentiated collection schedules for sorted waste streams, public education on sorting methods, and economic incentives or penalties that encourage compliance.

District and city governments must also facilitate sorting by area managers, a category that includes shopping centers, office complexes, industrial estates, and other managed commercial zones. This facilitation may involve regulatory requirements for area managers to implement sorting systems, provision of separate collection services for pre-sorted commercial waste, and monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance. The sorting obligation thus creates a regulatory and operational burden for local governments that extends beyond direct service provision to include oversight and enablement of third-party sorting activities.

The waste sorting mandate connects directly to the broader reduction and handling targets. Effective sorting at the source enables material recovery and recycling that contributes to the 30 percent reduction target. It also improves the efficiency of final processing by preventing contamination of recyclable streams with organic or hazardous materials. District and city governments that fail to establish effective sorting systems will struggle to achieve their mandatory reduction and handling targets regardless of their investment in downstream processing infrastructure.

Final Processing Responsibilities

PP 81/2012 Pasal 22 assigns final waste processing responsibility exclusively to local government, stating that "Pemrosesan akhir sampah... dilakukan oleh pemerintah kabupaten/kota" (Final waste processing is conducted by district/city governments). This provision makes final processing a non-delegable government function that cannot be wholly transferred to private operators, even though operational partnerships remain permissible under other provisions of the regulation.

Final processing encompasses all activities at the terminus of the waste management chain, including landfill operation, waste-to-energy facilities, composting centers for organic residuals, and material recovery facilities for sorted recyclables. The regulation does not prescribe specific processing technologies; rather, it requires that district and city governments ensure final processing occurs through whatever methods are appropriate to local conditions and waste stream characteristics.

The exclusive government responsibility for final processing reflects the public goods nature of waste disposal and the historical failures of fully privatized systems. Final processing facilities often generate negative externalities for surrounding communities, including odors, leachate risks, traffic impacts, and perceived health hazards. Assigning this function to government rather than private operators ensures public accountability and provides affected communities with a clear authority to petition for redress of grievances.

District and city governments may construct and operate final processing facilities themselves or engage private partners to perform operational functions under government oversight. PP 81/2012 Pasal 35 permits "pelaksanaan kegiatan penanganan sampah... dilakukan secara mandiri dan/atau bermitra dengan pemerintah kabupaten/kota" (implementation of waste handling activities conducted independently and/or in partnership with district/city governments). This language allows for public-private partnerships where private entities build or operate facilities while the government retains overall responsibility for ensuring service delivery and environmental compliance.

Compensation Mechanisms for Host Communities

PP 81/2012 Pasal 31 establishes a compensation mechanism for communities hosting final processing facilities, stating that "Pemerintah kabupaten/kota secara sendiri atau secara bersama dapat memberikan kompensasi sebagai akibat dampak negatif yang ditimbulkan oleh kegiatan pemrosesan akhir sampah" (District/city governments individually or jointly may provide compensation as a result of negative impacts caused by final waste processing activities). This provision recognizes that final processing facilities impose localized costs on host communities while providing regional benefits to the entire jurisdiction.

The compensation mechanism operates as an optional policy tool rather than a mandatory requirement. The phrase "dapat memberikan kompensasi" (may provide compensation) indicates discretionary authority rather than obligation. District and city governments must assess whether final processing activities generate negative impacts significant enough to warrant compensation and, if so, design appropriate compensation schemes. This discretion allows for context-specific responses that reflect the actual magnitude of impacts and community concerns.

The regulation permits both individual and joint compensation arrangements. Individual compensation applies when a single district or city government operates a final processing facility that serves only its own jurisdiction. Joint compensation becomes relevant when multiple jurisdictions share a regional facility, with waste arriving from multiple districts or cities. In joint arrangements, the contributing jurisdictions must collectively determine compensation levels and funding shares, typically based on the volume of waste each jurisdiction sends to the facility.

Compensation may take various forms, including direct payments to affected households, infrastructure improvements in host communities, preferential hiring for facility jobs, reduced service fees for host community residents, or funding for community development projects. The regulation does not specify compensation methods or amounts, leaving these determinations to local governments in consultation with affected communities. This flexibility enables locally appropriate solutions but also creates potential for inadequate compensation if local governments prioritize cost minimization over community acceptance.

Partnership and Privatization Provisions

PP 81/2012 recognizes that district and city governments may lack the financial resources, technical expertise, or operational capacity to fulfill all waste management obligations through direct service delivery. Pasal 35 permits "pelaksanaan kegiatan penanganan sampah... dilakukan secara mandiri dan/atau bermitra dengan pemerintah kabupaten/kota" (implementation of waste handling activities conducted independently and/or in partnership with district/city governments). This provision authorizes public-private partnerships while maintaining ultimate government responsibility for service outcomes.

The partnership structure allows private entities to perform specific operational functions under government oversight and accountability. Common partnership arrangements include build-operate-transfer contracts for final processing facilities, service contracts for waste collection and transportation, and joint venture companies where government and private partners share ownership and management responsibilities. These arrangements enable governments to leverage private sector efficiency and capital while retaining policy control and service delivery obligations.

Partnership arrangements must not relieve district and city governments of their regulatory responsibilities. Even when private partners operate collection systems or processing facilities, the government remains accountable for achieving reduction and handling targets, ensuring environmental compliance, and responding to community grievances. The government must establish monitoring systems to verify private partner performance, enforcement mechanisms for contract violations, and contingency plans to resume direct service delivery if partnerships fail.

The discretionary language "dapat bermitra" (may partner) indicates that partnerships represent one option among several implementation approaches rather than a preferred or mandatory method. District and city governments may choose direct service delivery through municipal agencies, full privatization through service contracts, or hybrid models that combine public and private elements. The choice of implementation model should reflect local capacity, private sector availability, political preferences, and cost-effectiveness rather than ideological commitments to particular governance approaches.

Inter-governmental Coordination Requirements

The hierarchical structure of Indonesia's waste management regulations creates natural coordination requirements between national, provincial, and local governments. District and city governments cannot formulate Jakstrada in isolation; they must align their plans with provincial Jakstrada and national strategies while considering the plans of neighboring jurisdictions. This coordination imperative becomes particularly important for regional infrastructure that serves multiple jurisdictions and for addressing waste flows that cross administrative boundaries.

Provincial governments bear primary responsibility for facilitating inter-jurisdictional coordination within their territories. This facilitation may include convening regional planning forums where district and city governments develop compatible Jakstrada commitments, mediating disputes over facility siting or cost-sharing arrangements, and establishing regional monitoring systems that track collective progress toward provincial and national targets. Provincial coordination prevents situations where one district's aggressive waste management efforts become undermined by neighboring jurisdictions that neglect their obligations and export problems across boundaries.

Coordination challenges emerge most acutely around final processing infrastructure. Large-scale facilities like sanitary landfills or waste-to-energy plants require substantial capital investment and generate significant environmental impacts, making them unsuitable for construction in every small district or city. Regional facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions offer economies of scale and more efficient land use but require complex inter-governmental agreements on cost allocation, operational control, and compensation distribution. Provincial governments must facilitate these regional arrangements while respecting the ultimate responsibility of each district and city government to ensure proper final processing of waste generated within its boundaries.

The absence of explicit regional planning mandates in PP 81/2012 and PERPRES 97/2017 creates potential coordination gaps. The regulations assign responsibilities to individual local governments without establishing strong mechanisms for mandatory regional cooperation. This gap may result in duplicative infrastructure investment, missed opportunities for beneficial economies of scale, and coordination failures where waste flows from high-performing to low-performing jurisdictions undermine overall system effectiveness. Future regulatory refinements should consider explicit regional planning requirements and funding incentives for inter-jurisdictional cooperation.

Monitoring and Accountability Mechanisms

The hierarchical planning structure established by PERPRES 97/2017 creates implicit monitoring and accountability relationships. Provincial governments must monitor district and city progress toward Jakstrada targets to assess provincial-level achievement and identify jurisdictions requiring technical assistance or corrective intervention. The national government must similarly monitor provincial performance to evaluate progress toward the 2025 national targets and adjust policies or resource allocations accordingly.

The formalization of Jakstrada through gubernatorial and regent/mayor regulations creates a legal foundation for accountability. Formalized plans with specific targets and timelines enable performance evaluation based on objective criteria rather than subjective assessments. Stakeholders including civil society organizations, media, and affected communities can use formalized Jakstrada as benchmarks to evaluate government performance and demand explanations for shortfalls or delays.

However, the regulations do not establish explicit consequences for local governments that fail to achieve their Jakstrada commitments or neglect mandatory responsibilities like final processing or sorting facilitation. The absence of specified penalties or intervention mechanisms limits the enforceability of local government obligations. National and provincial governments may lack authority to compel non-performing local governments to improve or to assume their functions if they persistently fail to meet minimum standards.

The 2025 deadline for achieving 30 percent reduction and 70 percent handling targets creates a natural accountability checkpoint. As this deadline approaches, the gap between regulatory requirements and actual local government performance will become increasingly visible. Governments that have neglected Jakstrada formulation or implementation will face mounting pressure from environmental degradation, community complaints, and potential legal challenges. This temporal pressure may drive reforms including stronger monitoring systems, capacity-building programs for underperforming jurisdictions, and potentially sanctions for willful non-compliance.

Resource and Capacity Constraints

District and city governments face significant resource and capacity constraints that affect their ability to fulfill waste management obligations. Many local governments, particularly smaller districts and cities, lack specialized technical staff with expertise in waste management planning, facility design, or environmental compliance. Financial constraints limit infrastructure investment, making it difficult to construct sanitary landfills, sorting facilities, or collection systems that meet regulatory standards.

These capacity limitations create tension between the ambitious targets established in PERPRES 97/2017 and the operational realities facing local implementers. The 30 percent reduction and 70 percent handling targets by 2025 require substantial improvements in infrastructure and service delivery across hundreds of district and city governments with vastly different starting points and capabilities. Jurisdictions with minimal existing infrastructure and limited budgets face a far steeper climb than wealthy urban centers that may already approach these targets through existing systems.

The regulatory framework provides limited guidance on how capacity-constrained local governments should prioritize investments or sequence improvements when resources prove insufficient to address all obligations simultaneously. Should governments first establish complete collection coverage, invest in sorting infrastructure, or focus on improved final processing? The regulations mandate all these functions without acknowledging the trade-offs that resource-limited governments must navigate in practice.

National and provincial governments could mitigate local capacity constraints through targeted capacity-building programs, technical assistance, and funding mechanisms that prioritize jurisdictions with the greatest needs. Such support could include training programs for local government staff, standardized facility designs and operational protocols, bulk procurement programs that reduce infrastructure costs, and formula-based grants that account for local fiscal capacity and demographic characteristics. The success of Indonesia's waste management framework ultimately depends not only on the clarity of local government responsibilities but also on adequate support systems that enable capability-limited jurisdictions to fulfill their mandates.

Conclusion

Indonesia's waste management regulations establish a clear division of responsibilities between provincial and district/city governments, with the latter bearing primary operational obligations for service delivery and infrastructure provision. The Jakstrada planning instrument serves as the central mechanism for translating national targets into local action plans, creating a hierarchical alignment from national strategy through provincial coordination to district and city implementation. District and city governments must achieve mandatory reduction and handling targets, establish sorting systems, operate final processing facilities, and engage communities and private partners in service delivery.

The regulatory framework reflects Indonesia's commitment to decentralized governance while maintaining national policy coherence through binding targets and hierarchical planning guidance. Provincial governments occupy an intermediate coordination role, translating national strategies into regional contexts and facilitating inter-jurisdictional cooperation. District and city governments function as primary implementers with direct responsibility for ensuring that waste generated within their boundaries receives proper management from source to final disposal.

Successful implementation of this framework requires adequate resource allocation, capacity-building support for local governments, and robust monitoring systems that enable accountability while identifying jurisdictions requiring assistance. The 2025 targets established in PERPRES 97/2017 create urgency for local governments to formalize Jakstrada, invest in infrastructure, and establish effective operational systems. As this deadline approaches, the effectiveness of Indonesia's decentralized waste management system will become increasingly visible through measurable outcomes in waste reduction, handling rates, and environmental quality improvements across the archipelago.

Primary Sources:
- Presidential Regulation No. 97 of 2017 concerning National Policy and Strategy for Household Waste and Household-Like Waste Management: https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/73225
- Government Regulation No. 81 of 2012 concerning Management of Household Waste and Household-Like Waste: https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/5295

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

• Consult the official regulation text from government sources
• Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
• Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.