Insight Report

Radically Reducing Plastic

Pollution in Indonesia:
A Multistakeholder Action Plan
National Plastic Action
Partnership
April 2020
Global Plastic Action Partnership in
collaboration with the Indonesia National
Plastic Action Partnership

World Economic Forum

91-93 route de la Capite
CH-1223 Cologny/Geneva
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0)22 869 1212
Fax: +41 (0)22 786 2744
Email: [email protected]
www.weforum.org

© 2020 World Economic Forum. All rights

reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, including photocopying and recording, or
by any information storage and retrieval system.
Content

Foreword 4

Executive Summary 5

Chapter 1 8
From concern to crisis – plastics in Indonesia now and
in the future

Chapter 2 17
Waking up to the challenge – case studies and
examples of emergent action in Indonesia

Chapter 3 19
Fast and purposeful – a System Change Scenario

Chapter 4 30
Five action points – a comprehensive policy and
industry action roadmap for Indonesia

Appendix 34
Key analytical assumptions and limitations

Acknowledgements 37

Endnotes 39

3
 Foreword

How Indonesia plans to tackle its plastic

pollution challenge1

What will it take to end plastic pollution within a generation? For Indonesia, it all began with a radical vision.

Our beautiful nation is grappling with a serious plastic pollution challenge. We are home to the world’s
Luhut Binsar largest archipelago – more than 17,000 islands, 81,000 kilometres of coastlines and a rich abundance
Pandjaitan, of biodiverse marine ecosystems. Our pristine natural environment is a gift that we have treasured for
Coordinating thousands of years and one that we must pass down to future generations.
Minister for
Maritime Affairs At the same time, the amount of plastic waste generated in Indonesia each year is growing at
and Investment, unsustainable levels. In our cities, our waterways and our coastlines, the accumulation of toxic plastic
Republic of waste is harming our food systems and the health of our people. Our booming fishing industry, the
Indonesia second largest in the world, is under threat from rising levels of marine plastic debris. By 2025, the
plastic waste leaking into our oceans could increase to 780,000 tonnes per year – if no action is taken.

I’m proud to announce that Indonesia will be choosing not what is easy, but what is right. Rather than
staying with a “business as usual” approach, we will be embracing a sweeping, full-system-change
approach to combatting plastic waste and pollution, one that we hope will spark greater collaboration
and commitment from others on the global stage.

At the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos earlier this year, we presented to the world a
first look at Indonesia’s new plan for tackling plastic pollution, which aims to cut marine plastic leakage
by 70% within the next five years. This report, developed for the National Plastic Action Partnership,
forms the basis of that plan.

The vision goes even further: by 2040, we aim to achieve a plastic pollution-free Indonesia – one that
embodies the principle of the circular economy, in which plastics will no longer end up in our oceans,
waterways and landfills, but will go on to have a new life.

Indonesia’s unprecedented national effort to take on plastic pollution is crossing a new frontier in what is
possible. Working from the basis of a radical idea, we have created a platform – the Indonesia National
Plastic Action Partnership – to mobilize willpower from all sectors and identify a clear path towards our
goal to show that plastic pollution is not too complex or too enormous a challenge to overcome.

As we move from incubation to implementation in the months to come, I invite all to join us on this
journey. As Indonesia puts this plan into action, we look forward to sharing our knowledge and to
learning from others on bringing solutions and successes to scale. Together, we will demonstrate how
we can work together to end plastic pollution and build a healthier, more sustainable future for our
children and grandchildren.
4
Executive Summary

Indonesia faces a mounting plastic pollution crisis. The actions presented are deeply rooted in
Plastics are valued materials with a key role in the Indonesia’s first comprehensive and fully costed
economy, and the nation generates around 6.8 analysis of the topic. This analysis is adapted
million tonnes of plastic waste per year, a figure from global research by the Pew Charitable Trusts
that is growing by 5% annually. Despite major and SYSTEMIQ4 and was carried out with the
commitments from government, industry and civil NPAP Indonesia Expert Panel, NPAP Indonesia
society, the flow of plastic waste into the country’s Steering Board, Indonesian Government and
water bodies is projected to grow by 30% other stakeholders.
between 2017 and 2025, from 620,000 tonnes
per year to an estimated 780,000 tonnes per year.2 Key insights

National Plastic Action Partnership Urgent action is needed to turn the tide of
plastic waste and pollution in Indonesia
Recognizing the urgent need to take bold,
unprecedented action on plastic pollution, Seventy percent of Indonesia’s plastic waste,
the Government of Indonesia collaborated an estimated 4.8 million tonnes per year, is
with the Global Plastic Action Partnership – a considered mismanaged in ways such as being
multistakeholder initiative set up by the World openly burned (48%), dumped on land or in
Economic Forum – to launch the Indonesia poorly managed official dumpsites (13%), or
National Plastic Action Partnership (NPAP) in early leaking into waterways and the ocean (9%, or
2019. This initiative complements many actions 620,000 tonnes of plastic waste).
and initiatives currently underway in Indonesia to
reduce plastic pollution, led by national and sub- Despite a sharp growth in foreign waste imports
national governments, businesses, academia, in 2018, more than 95% of plastic pollution
non-governmental organizations, community and comes from waste generated within Indonesia.5
religious groups – outlined further in Chapter 2. Mismanaged plastic waste pollutes the
The NPAP supports Indonesia’s National Action ecosystems and harms tourism and fisheries.6
Plan on Marine Debris, the Indonesian National Open burning of plastic waste releases harmful
Waste Management Policy and Strategy (Jakstranas substances to the air. It is even in the food we
and its subnational equivalent Jakstrada) and other eat: plastic debris was found in 55% of sampled
efforts towards achieving a 70% reduction in the fish species in the market of the city of Makassar.7
nation’s marine plastic debris by 2025.3
The situation is expected to worsen in the next years.
Near-zero plastic pollution by 2040

This report presents an ambitious set of actions

for Indonesia to deliver on this ambitious goal and This report includes a business-as-usual scenario
ultimately achieve near-zero plastic pollution by that estimates plastic pollution will increase by one-
2040. It envisions a sweeping System Change third to 6.1 million tonnes in 2025 and will more than
Scenario that encompasses priority actions double in 2040 – even if plastic waste collection rates
needed across the plastics ecosystem, including keep pace with growing waste generation.
reduction in avoidable plastic use, materials
innovation, waste recovery, recycling and disposal.
5
Solutions must be differentiated by geography – Double current recycling capacity by
and type of plastic building or expanding plastic sorting and
recycling facilities to process an additional
Around 72% of plastic pollution originates
975,000 tonnes per year of plastics by
in rural regions and small- to medium-sized
2025. To achieve this, large-scale recycling
cities. The mismanagement of plastic waste
hubs need to be strengthened in Java and
is a domestic challenge – one that requires
developed in urban centres outside Java.
substantial action and policy change from the
local level to fuel momentum nationally. There is
– Build or expand controlled waste-disposal
also a notable difference among different types
facilities to safely manage an additional
of plastic. Rigid plastics, such as polyethylene
3.3 million tonnes of plastic waste per year
terephthalate (PET) bottles, have a higher value
by 20259 for the disposal of non-recyclable
for recyclers and cause less pollution, particularly
plastics, and plastic waste generated in
in more urban areas. However, some flexible
locations without recycling facilities. A step up
plastics, particularly those made of multiple
in enforcement of illegal waste burning and
layers of different materials, cannot be recycled
dumping is required to limit pollution in areas
economically; they form about three-quarters of
that have collection.
the plastic waste leaking into nature.

Delivering this 70% ocean leakage reduction

Action and investments are needed across
scenario from 2017 to 2025 requires a total
the entire plastic system
capital investment of $5.1 billion and an
The System Change Scenario (SCS) combines operational funding budget of $1.1 billion/year
five system changes that would together reduce in 2025, in order to run an effective waste-
ocean leakage in Indonesia by 70% by 2025. management and recycling system.10

– Reduce or substitute plastic usage to A circular and pollution-free plastics system

prevent the consumption of more than a by 2040 can lower waste-system costs and
million tonnes of plastics per year by 2025 by maximize environmental and social benefits
switching to reuse and new delivery models,
For 2017 to 2025, the SCS includes a projected
changing behaviours and replacing plastics
acceleration of recycling, more than doubling
with alternative materials that yield improved
current capacity. In this scenario, collection rates
environmental outcomes.
grow even faster than recycling and there is a
large growth in controlled disposal of plastic
– Redesign plastic products and packaging
waste, a so-called “linear economy” solution.
for reuse or high-value recycling with the
ultimate goal of making all plastic waste a
The 2025 to 2040 period sees the acceleration
valuable commodity for reuse or recycling.
of a second ambitious programme of action
– achieving “near-zero” pollution of plastics
– Double plastic waste collection from 39%
into nature and transitioning from a linear to
to more than 80% by 2025 by boosting
a circular economy. This transformation will
state-funded and informal or private sector
decouple economic growth from plastic use
collection systems. This implies expanding
through reduction and substitution and spur a
plastic waste collection to four million new
radical increase in plastic-recycling rates through
households each year until 2025.8 Give priority
better product design and system changes (from
to medium and small cities as these represent
around a 10% recycling rate today to more than
three quarters of plastic pollution.
40% in 2040, measured as the share of plastics
actually recycled into new materials).

6
In addition to preventing an additional Delivering this scenario that eliminates ocean
16 million tonnes of plastic leakage into leakage within a generation requires a total
waterways and the ocean by 2040, the SCS capital investment of $13.3 billion between 2025
presented in this report is also expected and 2040 and an operational funding budget
to accelerate progress towards a number reaching $1.8 billion/year in 2040.
of targets set out in the UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), including: Critical system changes can be unlocked
and enabled through a combination of policy
– Curbing 20 million tonnes of greenhouse- changes, financial investments, industry
gas emissions per year (27% less than 2017 leadership and public engagement
emissions) through reduced waste burning
Indonesia is increasingly recognized globally for
and increased recycling
its leadership in addressing plastic pollution.
– Creating more than 150,000 direct jobs
Chapter 4 provides a ten-point action plan for the
– Improving public health outcomes by
ambitious and coordinated multistakeholder effort
reducing air pollution, improving solid waste
that is urgently needed to enable system change,
management and mitigating the risk of
end plastic pollution and establish a best-in-class
flooding due to blocked drains
model for other countries to follow.
– Advancing gender equality and social justice
for women, migrants and poor communities
who are at higher risk for harm and
exploitation
– Yielding economic benefits for local
communities that derive livelihoods from
fisheries or tourism

7
Chapter 1
From concern to crisis – plastics
in Indonesia now and in the future

This report covers plastics found in municipal Not included in the above definitions is plastic
solid waste (MSW), which represents around 50- waste generated at sea, such as discarded
70% of total plastics consumption in Indonesia.11 fishing nets and waste from ships. Maritime
Plastic packaging, carrier bags, cigarette butts, sources of waste contribute significantly to ocean
diapers, toys and durable household goods plastics (estimated at 10-30% worldwide).17
are examples of products containing plastics Due to data limitations, the NPAP was not able
that become MSW after use.12 Plastic MSW to model maritime waste for Indonesia. This
makes up the bulk of plastic waste generation was also the case for plastic particles that are
and is over-represented in plastic pollution. The generated by abrasion of tyres, washing of
remaining 30-50% of plastics has a longer use synthetic textiles or discharge of micro-beads
period and consists of plastics used in cars and in personal care products (known as primary
motorcycles, tyres, electronic appliances, textiles, microplastics). When this report addresses
industrial processes, agriculture, fishing and these topics, it does so based on research done
aquaculture and construction. For convenience of elsewhere.
communication, we will refer to plastic MSW as
“plastic waste” from now on. What is the baseline situation for plastic
pollution in Indonesia?
Around 6.8 million tonnes of plastics became
plastic waste (MSW) in 2017. The NPAP has The NPAP system model estimates that 620,000
calculated this using a so-called system model, tonnes of plastic entered Indonesia’s waters
an analytical tool that estimates all the plastic in 2017.18 Most plastics are not collected
flows in Indonesia, mostly using mass estimates into a managed waste system after use (4.2
based on measurements in the waste system, million tonnes, or 61% of plastic waste). This
reported by local governments.13 In contrast, the leaves households and small businesses with
plastics industry reports a figure of 5.8 million no other option than to dispose of them in an
tonnes of plastics as produced or imported environmentally harmful way: 78% of uncollected
into Indonesia.14 Unfortunately, statistical plastic waste is burned by households, often
discrepancies are still common and can only be close to homes, 12% of it is discarded into
solved by improving reporting and monitoring bodies of water and 10% is dumped on land or
waste statistics. buried and can then end up in bodies of water
through rainwater runoffs. Much larger volumes
Plastic consumption grew by 5% per year are burned by households, often close to homes
between 2012-2016, at a rate similar to (about 78% of uncollected plastic waste).
Indonesia’s gross domestic product (GDP)
growth.15 Since 2018, Indonesia has also
become a net importer of plastic waste, which
adds some 220,000 tonnes from abroad (3%) to
plastic waste.16

8
Figure 1: Where Indonesia’s plastic waste ends up today (percentage of total plastic waste generated)

6.8Mt 6.8Mt
recovery

Informal collection 7%
Informal

10% Recycling
Landfill recovery 8%
collection

20% Managed disposal

Formal

Formal collection 24%

9% Dumpsites
Managed waste 2.0 million tonnes

Other plastic pollution 4.2 million tonnes

47% Open burning
No collection 61%
Leakage into sea, lakes
620,000 tonnes
and rivers

5% Dumping on land
Leakage into
9% sea, lakes and rivers
Collection Destination

Source: NPAP analysis

Of the plastic waste that is collected, most The huge contribution of the informal sector
is handled by local governments (2.1 million to preventing plastic pollution has largely
tonnes, or 32% of total plastic waste). Nearly all gone unrecognized and waste pickers often
of this waste is combined with other household work for low pay in unsafe conditions.
waste streams and goes directly to landfills or
official dumpsites19 without sorting of waste Of the 1 million tonnes of plastic waste that the
at households or in the collection system. We informal sector collects for recycling, around
estimate that government-run sorting centres 700,000 tonnes are transformed into recycled
(TPS3R) process around 1% of waste collected. plastic; the remaining 300,000 tonnes are
Approximately 8% of plastic waste that is eventually disposed of due to yield losses in
collected by local governments is brought to the sorting and recycling process, such as after
uncontrolled official dumpsites from where it can contamination with organic material.
leak into the environment, including into water
bodies. As of early 2020, Indonesia does not This puts Indonesia’s plastic recycling rate
have commercial-scale incineration or waste-to- at around 10% of the total 6.8 million tonnes
energy facilities, but several are planned. of plastic waste generated (measured as a
percentage of plastic waste that is actually
The informal sector (including waste pickers, junk recycled into new plastic). Of recycled plastics,
shops and aggregators) plays a critical role in around 85% are processed in a way that makes it
collection. This sector collects around 500,000 difficult to recycle the product again. An example
tonnes of plastic waste (7% of total plastic waste) of this are PET bottles recycled into textiles, or
directly from residential areas and 560,000 mixed plastics.
tonnes of plastics (8% of the total) from collected
waste that is in transit to landfill and from landfills
themselves.20 Nearly all waste collected by the
informal sector ends up at a recycling facility.

9
Box A: Regional diversity and analysis of sources of mismanaged waste in Indonesia

With 17,000 islands spread over more than 5,000km, Indonesia’s regional diversity is among the highest in the world.
To capture some of this diversity, the NPAP system model splits Indonesia’s regencies and cities into four groups or
archetypes and runs all analyses separately for each archetype.

Figure 2: Geographic archetypes used in the NPAP system model and System Change Scenario

Archetypes
>1m inhabitants, population density >2,500
1: Mega Potential to grow into recycling hubs
Population density >1,500 cap/km2
2: Medium Ideal to aggregate larger waste volumes from neighbouring cities
Adjacent to archetype 1 and 2
3: Rural Close enough to be economically shipped to neighbouring hubs
Not properly connected to larger cities
4: Remote Too small/far to be economically shipped to aggregating hubs

Source: NPAP analysis

The archetypes have large differences among them. We highlight three main differences:

1. Waste-generation volumes per person are highest in wealthier archetypes, particularly Mega-cities such as Jakarta,
where consumption is 1.5 times higher than in Rural and Remote areas.21
2. Average plastic waste-collection rates are dramatically higher in Mega-cities: 74% compared to 20% and 16% in
Rural and Remote areas respectively.
3. Informal sector workers (waste pickers and aggregators) are most active in and around large cities, as this is where
recycling plants are concentrated and population density is highest. In contrast, in Remote areas of Indonesia, they
play a very limited role in waste management.
4. Overall, this combination of factors means that an estimated 72% of mismanaged plastic waste comes from
Medium and Rural archetypes in Indonesia (Figure 3). 64% of mismanaged plastic waste comes from Java, which is
the most populous island (56% of Indonesians live in Java).

10
Figure 3: The fate of all Indonesia’s plastic waste, in each archetype (million tonnes per year, 2017)

Medium & Rural:

~72% of
24% 26% 37% 13% mismanaged waste
1.6Mt 1.8Mt 2.5Mt 0.9Mt 6.8Mt
0%
5% 10% Recycling
12% 15%
20%
14%
20% Managed disposal
29%
9% Official dumpsites

3%
51% 64%
61%

48% Open burning

45%
3%

21% 8% 8%
5% Dumping on land
3%
12% 13% Leakage into sea, lakes and rivers
1% 7% 9%
4%
Mega Medium Rural Remote All Indonesia

Source: NPAP analysis

Figure 4: Total plastic waste generation in each City or Regency of Indonesia22

Highest

Lowest

Source: NPAP Indonesia analysis

The System Change Scenario (SCS) that is presented in Chapter 3 models different plastic flows for each of the four
archetypes. One insight is that improving waste management only in the two urban archetypes, Mega and Medium, is
not enough to achieve the targeted 70% reduction in ocean plastic leakage by 2025. Solutions must also be extended
to Rural and Remote parts of Indonesia.

11
What are the effects of mismanaged Waste burning releases harmful substances
plastic waste on Indonesia’s people into the atmosphere. Around 5,600 tonnes of
and environment? particulates were emitted from burning plastics
in 201732 and are often emitted close to where
Ocean leakage affects more than 800 animal people live. Plastic burning also emits several
species in marine ecosystems around the tonnes of heavy metals (like lead, nickel,
world.23 A study in Makassar, the largest chromium and zinc) each year from the inks and
city in Eastern Indonesia, found that 55% of additives. These substances are carcinogenic
fish species in the market are contaminated and prolonged exposure increases the risk of
with microplastics.24 Through ingestion or cardiovascular diseases.33
entanglement, macroplastics can cause
mortality,25 injury and sub-lethal impacts26 Burning of polyvinylchloride (PVC) in particular is
and degrade into microplastics that are easily problematic because it releases dioxin emissions,
ingested by species throughout the food to which long-term exposure increases the risk
chain. At high concentrations (above current of hormonal disruptions, reproductive issues
environmental levels), microplastics can cause and immunotoxicity.34 Open burning of plastic
negative impacts on growth, health, fertility, waste is a source of greenhouse emissions that
survival and feeding in a range of invertebrate generated around 9.4 million tonnes of CO2-
and fish species.27 equivalent emissions in 2017 – the same as 2
million cars driven over a period of one year.35
Marine plastic pollution has a direct negative
impact on the 3.7 million Indonesians who
depend on wild fisheries for their livelihoods,
as well as more than a hundred million who
depend on them for protein.28 Plastics in coastal
waters and on beaches are a major concern for
the tourism industry, which employs 13 million
Indonesians.29 On land, poor management of
plastic waste exacerbates flooding in big cities
by clogging drainage systems30 and may have
contributed to major floods that struck the capital
Jakarta in January 2020.31

12
Box B: Plastics, gender and marginalized groups

A gender perspective is critical for understanding the plastic pollution

challenge in Indonesia, and for designing effective solutions. Indonesian
women play a greater role in making household purchasing decisions
and in day-to-day management of waste in most households.36 They
are also more exposed to the negative effects of plastic pollution,
such as through direct exposure to emissions from waste burning or
dumping. Safe exposure levels to chemicals are often lower, since
women have a higher proportion of body fat, which provides a greater
reservoir for materials that can accumulate in the body.37

Jobs in government-run waste management are predominantly held by

men, even though waste sorting is often handled by women workers.38
Female workers in the informal sector waste system are exposed to
health and safety risks, workplace violence and discrimination.39

The critical role of women in designing and implementing solutions

is increasingly being recognized by society. Women are playing a
larger role as volunteers in community waste banks, and mobilization
campaigns activated through women’s associations and networks serve
as examples for effective community engagement. Women also self-
report adhering more frequently to proper disposal behaviour, whereas
men confess to littering more.40

Gender perspectives on solid waste management and informal-sector

waste systems are the subject of numerous studies and initiatives, for
example:

– Ocean Conservancy and GA Circular (2019), The Role of Gender

in Waste Management: Gender Perspectives on Waste in India,
Indonesia, The Philippines and Vietnam
– WIEGO Gender and Waste Toolkit41
– USAID Women’s Economic Empowerment and Equality (WE3)
Technical Assistance Project42

Marginalized groups are more exposed to plastic pollution

The negative impact of plastic pollution also falls disproportionately on

the shoulders of marginalized communities. For example, Indonesians
living without an official land title are less likely to be served by
government-run collection and thus more exposed to the effects of
waste burning. They are also more likely to suffer from flooding caused
by waste blocking drains. In 2018, an average year, floods affected over
1.5 million Indonesians.43

___________________________________________
Source: Kartini International and the sources referenced

13
What are the root causes of plastic – Decentralized and fragmented governance
pollution in Indonesia? and accountability for waste management
across multiple levels of local government.
Plastic pollution in Indonesia has three In some areas, accountability is delegated to
interconnected root causes: the village level or even lower, with challenges
of sub-scale economics and a shortage of
1. Underdeveloped and underfunded solid technical knowledge and implementation
waste-management systems with low capacity.
waste-collection rates, resulting in open
burning or dumping of plastic waste. Where – Low investment from local government, due
plastic waste is collected, waste systems to multiple competing demands on annual
very rarely have segregation of recyclables. budgets (e.g. road construction, education,
This leads to high contamination rates, lower healthcare and irrigation infrastructure). This
value for recycling and higher chance of is compounded by the absence of a common
post-collection leakage. system that would enable households to
efficiently and consistently pay for waste-
2. Avoidable and problematic uses of management services, such as through
plastics, such as the use of excess plastics their electricity bills, a practice that has been
in packaging of goods or unnecessary use implemented in several other countries.
of problematic materials that yield negative
environmental impacts. – Institutional and technical capacity
gaps and under-developed monitoring
3. Low or no after-use value for many types and information systems, which make it
of waste plastics relative to other recyclable challenging to enforce policy and incentivise
materials, such as aluminium cans, and good practices.
relative to the time taken for collection of
many plastic waste items, which limits the – Shortage of suitable land for waste facilities.
amount of plastic waste that the informal/
private sector is able to economically collect – Limited options to valorize organic waste
and recycle. in the Indonesian context, where chemical
fertilisers are subsidized. Organic waste
1. Under-developed and under-funded solid represents more than 60% of total weight in
waste-management systems the municipal waste stream and is a major
driver of the costs of running a full waste-
Only 39% percent of waste is collected in
management system.
Indonesia. This is equivalent to 160 million
Indonesians,44 about the population of
Bangladesh, having no or only partial access to
plastic-waste collection in their communities.
They often have no choice but to dispose of their
plastic waste in an environmentally harmful way.

Translating national policies for solid waste

management into improved practices at the city
level is challenging due to several interconnected
factors, including:

14
 2. Avoidable and problematic uses of waste but disintegrate quickly into microplastic
plastics particles and are considered to have a worse
impact on ecosystems and recycling systems
Plastics are lightweight, affordable, easy-to-use,
than standard plastics.45
strong and flexible materials with many valuable
applications. Plastics play an important role in
3. Low or no after-use value
keeping food safe, medical equipment sterile and
fuel consumption low, due to their light weight High value packaging materials such as
compared to alternative materials. However, aluminium cans (around $800 per tonne in East
some of the current uses of plastics are avoidable Java in 2019) are rarely found polluting the
or problematic, leading to unnecessary waste environment even when there is not an effective
and pollution. solid waste-management system in place; they
are viewed as too valuable for disposal.
Avoidable plastics can be illustrated by
overpackaging in e-commerce electronic However, many forms of plastic waste have low
products whose primary packaging is designed or zero value in the recycling market and are time-
for transport, that are repackaged with a consuming to collect. For example, small sachets
secondary layer of packaging with the same or wrappers made from multilayer plastics have
function. Other examples of avoidable plastics very low market price for recyclers (less than
use include the practice of selling drinks in plastic $50 per tonne in the few locations where there
cups even when durable mugs are available, as is demand (East Java, 2019)), and it takes many
well as serving guests individual polypropylene days to collect 1 tonne. As a consequence,
(PP) cups of water, even when the same water is the informal/private collection system and the
available from a refill tank. recycling industry focus on the highest-value
materials in the most high-density areas (e.g.
Problematic plastics include those that impose clean plastic waste from commercial and
proven negative effects on human health when industrial sources, and post-consumer bottles
burned, such as PVC in packaging. It also and containers made from PET and rigid HDPE),
includes so-called oxo-degradable plastics that and other plastics seen as less valuable are more
have been marketed as a solution for plastic likely to leak into the environment (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Mismanaged plastic waste by plastic type: flexibles represent ~76% of plastic pollution
(million tonnes per year in 2017)

Flexibles:
~76% of pollution
Mega 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,5

Medium 0,3 0,5 0,2 1,1

Rural 0,7 1,1 0,6 2,4

Remote 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,9

30% Flexible multilayer

46% Flexible monolayer
24% Rigid

Source: NPAP analysis

15
After-use value starts with the design process. This increase is driven by two factors:
International eco-design guidelines have been
developed to improve the after-use value of plastic – Population growth, from 260 million people in
products and packaging. To give one example, 2019 to 310 million people in 2040
colour pigments used in plastic packaging – Economic growth, which is projected to
contaminate the recycling process and lead to a increase waste per person by 38% in 2040
lower value output, compared to clear or natural- versus today as well as the proportion of
coloured packaging. Overall, it has been estimated plastics compared to other types of waste
that packaging design improvements could such as organics, because consumers tend
increase average after-use value by $90-140 per to buy more goods packaged in plastic when
tonne of mixed plastics collected for recycling.46 their income increases

Limited access to plastic recycling facilities also

limits after-use value in many parts of Indonesia. Figure 6: Handling of plastic waste if collection
Today, recycling hubs are concentrated in only a rates stay at 39% (million tonnes)
limited number of geographies and one-third of
plastic waste is generated in so-called “recycling 14

deserts”, areas in which no recycling plant is Collection and Recycling

12
available within a reasonable commercial range47
Collection and Disposal
(Box C). 10
Collection and Official Dumpsite

What future scenario is projected for 8

plastic waste in Indonesia, without 6

ambitious action on solutions? Open burning
4

Plastic waste generation is projected to Dumping on land

2
grow from 6.8 million tonnes in 2017 to 8.7 Leakage to
body of water
million tonnes in 2025. If current rates of 0
2017 2025 2040
plastic waste collection and treatment are
simply maintained in line with increasing
waste generation, leakage of plastics into
Indonesia’s water bodies is projected to Figure 7: Business-as-usual projection vs.
increase from 620,000 to 780,000 tonnes per System Change Scenario
year from 2017 to 2025 (+30%) and more than
double to 1.2 million tonnes per year 1.4

by 2040.48 1.2
Business-as-usual
scenario

1.0
+100%
0.8
+30%
0.6

0.4 -70% Government target

-100%
0.2
System Change Scenario
0.0
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

16
 Chapter 2
Waking up to the challenge – case studies and
examples of emergent action in Indonesia
Single-use plastic reduction New business model Material Innovation Innovation & informal sector integration

1 Banjarmasin is the first city in Indonesia to successfully restrict plastic bags, following an 5 ! MUUSE in Bali operates a deposit-based platform 8 ! Evoware, has developed edible seaweed-based food 11! Gringgo, founded in 2015 in Bali, developed a digital platform
extensive communication period to gain buy-in from businesses and the community. where restaurants and consumers can rent reusable wrapping to connect waste workers with households using route
Government promotes the use of a locally produced traditional basket food containers and cups for take-away orders analysis to increase collection efficiency

2 MAP Group, a leading retail company with more than 2,000 outlets across the country (e.g. 6 Bulk stores are emerging across Indonesia, 12 Waste4Change and EcoBali privatize waste collection and
Starbucks, Burger King) commits single-use to replace plastics cups and cutlery, and charge a especially in cities such as Jakarta, Bandung, Redesign for recycling employ former waste pickers as collection and sorting
workers in an improved working environment. Monthly reports
fee for plastic bags Yogyakarta, and Denpasar, offering packaging free
shopping to support zero-waste lifestyle 9 ! Nestlé switches to paper straws for its drinks cartons are provided to increase customer awareness
3 BlueBird Group, a company that operates 25,000+ taxis, works together with WWF to eliminate
the cups and bottles used daily by its drivers by providing tumblers and refill stations in taxi 7 Starting in 2015, Kecipir.com operates an online In 2019, Aqua launched Indonesia’s first plastic bottle 13 Smash, MallSampah, Obabas, and other start-ups are helping
10 digitize waste bank operations and connect them with the
pools platform in Jakarta that connects farmers and made of 100% recycled material in Bali and Jakarta.
3 By eliminating pigments and replacing labels by community
Nazava, the provider of a technology to filter rainwater and surface water into drinking water consumers, allowing sales and delivery of in-season
4 embossed text, the bottles are fully recyclable
organic vegetables with minimal packaging 14 Plastic Bank pays a premium price for collected plastics using
have sold over 150,000 products thus reducing the consumption of single-use water bottles, a “plastic offset” scheme funded by corporate clients
Nazava was originally founded to solve water shortage in Aceh post-tsunami
15 In September 2018, SecondMuse launched an incubator
network in Surabaya to accelerate solutions to ocean plastics
Nation-wide initiatives: 4
2 6 8 9 13 15 31 32 33 34 35 36 38
20
Jakarta:

3 7 10 16 17
Enabling activity and research
Waste management & recycling
32! The Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment,
16! In 2016, Jakarta increased the salary of its waste World Bank, and GA Circular are developing best practices
1 and strategies into effective behaviour-change campaigns
workers, known as the orange army, resulting in
increased performance. The government monitors the Surabaya: 21 33 Nahdlatul Ulama, one of the largest religious organisations in
system by requiring each worker to send a daily report the world, has issued a detailed 76-page Islamic guidance on
via mobile phone pictures 18 27 28 29 25 proper plastic waste management
22 30
17 The Jakarta Environmental Agency in collaboration with 34 Indonesia Waste Platform, founded in 2015, connects over
19 22 1000 organizations and individuals to coordinate solutions for
Waste4Change, GBCI, and MVB Indonesia launched Bali: 26 waste management challenges
waste reduction initiatives for buildings and restaurants
in which best practices will receive awards 5 10 11 12 14 24 37
35 IPI, a waste picker association established in 1991, advocates
18 The Surabaya city government has improved the city better livelihood for waste pickers through access to national
waste management strategy by building sorting healthcare (BPJS). They introduced waste recycling zones
facilities, expanding waste banks, and implementing the Community and city level partnership Recycling technology (KPPS) in Greater Jakarta to better integrate the formal and
first plastic-for-bus tickets initiative. In early 2019, the informal sectors.
city was awarded Adipura Kencana, the highest clean 22! Project STOP in Muncar has implemented a zero-leakage collection system that covers ~50,000 28! Unilever CreaSolv® facility close to Surabaya 36 IP2WM, PRAISE, ADUPI are associations of plastics
city award residents for the the first time. STOP has expanded to Pasuruan, East Java and Jembrana, Bali recycles flexible and multi-material plastics manufacturers, consumer packaged goods, and recycling
29 Greater Surabaya will also be home to a industry with growing concern on plastic pollution that have
19 TPST Bakti Bumi in Sidoarjo has been equipped with a 23 In 2018, Bandung adopted The Zero Waste Cities programme, community-based waste management
bottle-to-bottle recycling facility built by been promoting and developing recycling technologies
sorting conveyor and plastic crusher to meet the 14% aiming to divert more waste from landfill through community engagement
waste reduction target set by the local government Danone in partnership with Veolia 37 Bali Partnership has carried out extensive research to build a
24 In Bali, Merah Putih Hijau is implementing a community partnership to improve solid waste management.
PRAISE and McKinsey.org recently launched the Desa Kedas programme to upgrade waste sorting 30 Plastic Energy™ has signed an MoU to build baseline data of plastic waste in Bali
20 A waste reduction strategy is scheduled to be piloted in
Lake Toba, North Sumatera, following partnership built facilities and stimulate household waste segregation five plants in West Java targeting to convert 38 LIPI and universities, such as ITB, Udayana, ITS, UI, Unhas,
between Indonesia and IGES-Japan 100,000 tons of plastic into fuel annually are pioneering research on plastic pollution data
25 Masaro, implemented in e.g. Cilegon, Banten, aims to create zero waste communities
21 Makassar has received the Adipura award three times with waste segregation and waste processing into compost and plastic-to-fuel products 31 Plastic-to-roads is being trialled in several
for its improvement in managing waste throughout the places, in a Chandra Asri and PUPR
26 Koperasi Serba Usaha, a local cooperative in Labuan Bajo, employs a trash bank model to attract people

17
city. It is driven by the community with support from the collaboration in Bali, Banten, and other areas
to participate in the system
government
27 Common Seas and PC Muslimat Surabaya, a women’s charity, have agreed to collaborate to tackle
diaper waste by piloting re-usable diaper and introduce new waste management service in the Brantas
river
 The social enterprise Nazava builds affordable filters for
drinking water, providing a reusable alternative to plastic
water bottles.

At the Jakarta headquarters of Nahdlatul Ulama, the largest

Islamic organization in Indonesia, workers turn plastic waste
into art and household products, such as stools.

A young campaigner with the NGO Indonesia Diet Kantong

Plastik (Plastic Bag Diet) persuades a shopper at Tebet
Market in Jakarta to exchange her plastic shopping bag for a
reusable one.

Workers prepare collected plastic waste for recycling at a

flaking and washing plant in Denpasar, Bali, supported by
Danone-AQUA.

18
Chapter 3
Fast and purposeful – a System
Change Scenario

2020-2025: Reducing marine plastic 3. Double plastic waste collection from 39%
leakage by 70% through short-term to 84% by 2025 by boosting state-funded
interventions and informal or private-sector collection
systems.
In this chapter we present a “System Change
Scenario” (SCS) with a costed package of system 4. Double current recycling capacity to
changes that could collectively reduce ocean process an additional 975,000 tonnes per
plastic leakage in Indonesia by 70% from 2017 year of recycled plastic by 2025.
to 25. This scenario is based on an economic
model for plastic flows in Indonesia under 5. Build or expand controlled waste disposal
different scenarios, adapted from global research facilities to manage an additional 3.3 million
by the Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ.49 tonnes of plastic waste per year by 2025.50

The scenario was developed based on three The order of the system changes outlined above
key criteria: the impact and relative cost of reflects the “waste hierarchy” used by global
different system changes; the risk of unwanted policy-makers and investors such as the World
consequences for people and the environment; Bank (Figure 8).51
and expert opinions on the feasibility, technology
readiness and speed of implementation of
Figure 8: Alignment of System Change Scenario
different solutions.
with the Waste Hierarchy

The analysis indicates how a combination of

World Bank Waste Hierarchy System Change
system changes could achieve the 70% target Scenario
Most preferred option
but does not judge the overall feasibility of Reduce Reduce or substitute
plastic usage
delivering the scenario in the allotted time period. Reuse (includes reuse)

Recycle
The SCS consists of five system changes: Recover
Recycle
(digestion, composting)

Landfill
1. Reduce or substitute plastic usage to
Dispose

prevent the consumption of more than a Incineration (with energy recovery)

million tonnes of plastics per year by 2025. Controlled Dump

Least preferred option

2. Redesign plastic products and packaging
Source: World Bank
for reuse or high-value recycling.

19
Figure 9: Fate of MSW plastic waste in “business as usual” scenario and SCS (million tonnes per year)

Plastic waste generation, million ton/year, Indonesia

Business-as-usual if collection rates stay constant at 39% System Change Scenario
9 9
Collection and Recycling Reduced
8 8
Substituted

7 Collection and Disposal 7

Collection and Recycling

6 Collection and 6
Official Dumpsite
5 5

4 4
Collection and Disposal
Open burning
3 3
Collection and Official Dumpsite

2 2 Open Burning
Dumping on land Dumping on land
1 1 Leakage to
Leakage to
body of water body of water
0 0
2017 2025 2017 2025
39% 39% 39% 86%
Collection rate Collection rate

Source: NPAP Analysis based on >50 public, private and academic publications, nearly all Indonesian (e.g. Jakstrada, BPS, PUPR)

1. Reduce or substitute more than a million 1. Evidence of R&S potential

tonnes per year of avoidable plastic use 2. Risk of unintended consequences for
by 2025 performance, health and food safety,
convenience or affordability
The SCS quantifies how much reduction and 3. Implementation time
substitution (R&S) is possible by 2025 through an
analysis of 15 types of plastic applications. Four Using this methodology, the SCS estimates that
R&S options are considered: 1.1 million tonnes per year of plastic consumption
(13% of projected plastic waste generation in
– Avoidance of use, such as plastic straws, 2025) can be reduced or substituted by 2025
stirrers, fresh fruit trays and tubs without compromising on performance, health
– Reuse, such as water bottles, shopping bags, and food safety, convenience or affordability.
and durable cutlery
– New delivery models, such as packaging-free 1.1 Reduction potential: 740,000 tonnes of
deliveries, refill from dispensers, and take- plastic use avoided in 2025
back services
Out of 15 screened product applications, five
– Substitution with non-plastic materials that
represent around 80% of the estimated reduction
have a better environmental impact, such as
potential:
internationally certified compostable materials
or paper-based materials used for certain
1. Carrier bags (8% of plastic waste) that are
applications
not used just for groceries, but often also for
direct food-contact applications in traditional
The SCS estimates the R&S potential based on
markets. The SCS points towards savings
three factors (see details in the methodological
of up to 40-50% (320,000 tonnes per year)
appendix):
of plastic bag waste by further encouraging
reusable and durable bags in the place of
unnecessary single-use bags.
20
2. Sachets and multi-material flexible Paper and coated paper are only considered
packaging (16% of plastic waste), which acceptable under strict conditions for land
is often used in small format goods (e.g. use and energy use. Metal and glass were not
shampoo, seasoning packs) to provide considered as substitute materials because of
a single-dose product for lower-income concerns about the life-cycle climate impact
consumers. The SCS estimates that new of these materials compared to plastics. The
delivery models that replace sachets and multi- SCS estimates that 370,000 tonnes per year
material flexible packaging with re-fills and of plastic consumption (4% of projected
packaging reuse systems can avoid 140,000 plastic-waste generation) can be avoided in
tonnes of plastic waste per year by 2025 2025 without compromising on performance,
(around a 10% reduction from 2017 volumes). health and food safety, environmental impact,
convenience or affordability.
3. Business-to-Business packaging (rigid and
flexible, 9% of plastic waste) is typically large- 2. Redesign plastic products and packaging
format packaging designed for bulk delivery
Plastics with low or zero value for recycling are
(e.g. shrink wrap and cooking oil containers
less likely to be picked up by waste pickers and
for restaurants). Businesses can reconfigure
more likely to pollute the environment. Design-
operating and business models to encourage
for-recycling (D4R) specifically takes the after-
reuse and build a collective returnable
use value of plastic products and packaging into
packaging network to prevent an estimated
account in the design process.
120,000 tonnes per year (around 10-20%) of
this type of waste.
To simulate the effect of design for recycling in
the NPAP Indonesia system model, the SCS
4. Bottles (food and non-food, around 8% of
assumes that 20% of non-recyclable (multi-
plastic waste). Using reusable water bottles
material) plastics are switched to recyclable
coupled with refill models and concentrated
formats by 2025. Doing so increases the volume
non-food goods point towards prevention
of recyclable materials by 470,000 tonnes per
of around 70,000 tonnes per year of bottle
year and is estimated to reduce loss rates in
waste (a reduction of 10 to 20%).
the recycling industry. The combination of these
measures leads to an improvement in recycling
1.2 Substitution potential: 370,000 tonnes of
rates and reduced plastic pollution.
plastic use avoided in 2025

Three substitutes for plastic are modelled to the 3. More than double the plastic-waste
gauge substitution potential: paper, coated paper collection rate from 39% to over 80%
and compostable materials. Specifically, this (2.7 to 6.2 million tonnes per year) by 2025
means:
A rapid increase in the plastic-waste collection
– Paper or cardboard materials, generally as a rate is central to the SCS. After all, households
replacement for plastic films without waste-collection services have no choice
– “Coated paper” with a coating that meets but to burn, bury or dump their plastic waste.
the criteria for technical recyclability52
– Internationally certified compostable The SCS projects that plastic-waste collection
materials used in locations that have suitable rates would need to more than double to 84%
after-use systems, such as certified home- to achieve the 70% ocean-leakage reduction
compostable materials where food-waste target by 2025. This could be achieved through
collection or home composting is supported an accelerated rollout of government-run waste-
and materials could be segregated from management systems (70% of the new collection
mechanical recycling in the SCS) and through incentives for the
recovery of more plastic waste by private/informal
collectors (30% of the new collection in the SCS).

21
 This incentive programme is incorporated in The SCS assumes that all recycling will take
the SCS because it could integrate informal- place in the form of mechanical recycling until
sector workers and enable a faster rollout of 2025 (cleaning and remoulding of plastics into
plastic-waste recovery, compared to reliance new products). Advanced (chemical) recycling
on local government agencies. An incentive technologies could play a bigger role after 2025,
programme of this nature would rely on proactive assuming that technological readiness, safety
approaches to improve working conditions in the and speed of deployment progress is managed.
informal sector, support legal and environmental These advanced recycling technologies could
compliance and enable mutually beneficial include pyrolysis, gasification, purification or
cooperation or integration between private/ depolymerization of plastic waste back into
informal and government-run waste systems. feedstocks that can be used to manufacture
recycled plastics. Plastic-to-fuel solutions are
Lessons from existing schemes in South Asia, classified in the NPAP Indonesia model as
Africa and Latin America can be referenced for “disposal” options.
good practices in this field.53

4. Double recycling rate by 2025

Increased waste collection and improved design

of plastic products and packaging would provide
more suitable feedstock for the recycling industry.
Construction or expansion of recycling facilities
will be needed to process these materials and to
provide the incentives for collection of plastic waste.
The SCS incorporates a doubling of recycling rate
from 10% to 22%, adding 975,000 tonnes so that
1.7 million tonnes are recycled in 2025.

Box C: Analysis of recycling catchments in Indonesia

Today, between 80% and 90% of recycling companies are concentrated on the island of Java,54 with a much smaller
concentration in Northern Sumatra. This leaves most of Indonesia’s land area (though not its population) too far from a
recycling plant to supply recyclable material under commercial conditions.

To understand the geographic challenges for plastic recycling in Indonesia, we defined 12-14 potential “recycling
catchments” in Indonesia centred on a major city, each able to cover a hinterland of around 400 km in distance without
obvious topographic barriers, from where we assume waste can be economically shipped to the hub.55

Viable economics for recycling depend on economics of scale and consistent feedstock supply. 300,000 tonnes
per year of total plastic-waste generation in a catchment was estimated as a minimum size for a viable plastic-waste
recycling hub, since a 50% recovery rate for recyclable plastics (one third of the total plastic waste) would generate
approximately 50,000 tonnes of recyclable plastics per year – suitable for one mid-sized recycling plant processing PET
and one plant processing polyolefin plastics (PE/PP).

This calculation could change if advanced recycling technologies are proven to accept a wider range of plastics, such as
flexible polyolefin plastics.

22
Figure 10: Potential recycling catchments analysed (BAU plastic-waste generation, tonnes in 2025)

The recycling catchments clearly divide into three groups based on plastic-waste generation and logistics costs:

1. Catchments in Western, Central and Eastern Java, Northern and Southern Sumatra have volumes of over 500,000
tonnes of waste generation per recycling catchment (74% of national plastic waste by volume).
2. Marginal catchments in Central Sumatra and South Sulawesi56 have volumes of around 300,000 tonnes, which is
borderline for an economically viable recycling hub (7% of national plastic waste by volume).
3. Catchments in the rest of Indonesia have volumes of less than 220,000 tonnes (20% of national plastic waste by volume).

This analysis suggests that catchments in Western, Central and Eastern Java, Northern and Southern Sumatra are
commercially viable recycling hubs if the right enabling conditions are met. Central Sumatra and South Sulawesi would
require more support. Catchments in other parts of Indonesia are not likely to support commercially viable recycling
hubs and will require a different strategy for plastic-waste management, for example by supporting pre-processing and
shipping of plastic waste for recycling in other parts of Indonesia or elsewhere in the region. A prototype for this model
could be Labuan Bajo in East Nusa Tenggara, where this approach is being piloted by the government of Indonesia and
local government authorities together with industry and NGO partners.

5. Build or expand controlled waste disposal We define controlled disposal as any option for
facilities post-collection management of plastic waste that
does not recycle the material into a new material
Despite the ambitious projection for growth
or product, and operates within internationally
in recycling in the SCS, a substantial increase
accepted limits for health, environmental and
in controlled disposal capacity is needed to
social impacts. The word “controlled” is not
accommodate the extra volumes of additional
intended to mean that these options are harmless
plastic collected. To handle this, controlled
to people or the environment. Landfills are the
disposal capacity must be expanded to
only disposal option that operates at scale in
accommodate 3.3 million additional tonnes of
Indonesia today. For that reason, sanitary landfills
plastic waste per year in 2025.57

23
 are assumed as the controlled disposal option Figure 11: Comparison of circular vs linear
and used to estimate disposal costs in the SCS scenarios to reach near-zero leakage from
(for new landfill construction and operation). 2025 to 2040
It should be noted that most landfills currently
in operation in Indonesia require a substantial $2.3 billion 66 Mt
$23,8 135.3 Mt
improvement in sanitary practices; however,
$21,5
retrofitting of existing landfill facilities to meet
international standards is not included in the SCS
cost analysis.58 69.4 Mt

2025 to 2040: Transition from a mostly

linear “disposable” economy to a circular
plastics economy
Linear system System Change Linear system System Change
scenario Scenario scenario Scenario
From 2017 to 2025, the SCS includes an Collection, sorting and disposal Landfill burden
ambitious scaling up of recycling capacity in operating cost

Indonesia: more than doubling the amount

of plastics that are currently recycled. Yet as Source: NPAP analysis

collection rates need to grow even faster to bring

down plastic pollution, the SCS only meets the
70% ocean-leakage reduction target if it relies on The 2025 to 2040 SCS includes the following
so-called “linear-economy” solutions – plastic- system changes, summarized in Figure 12:
waste collection and disposal – to meet the 70%
ocean-leakage reduction target. 1. Reduce or substitute (R&S) around 6.5 million
tonnes per year of avoidable plastic use by
The 2025 to 2040 SCS sees the acceleration of a 2040:
second programme of action: achieving a “near-
zero” level of leakage of plastics into nature, and Reduction
transitioning the nation from a linear to a circular The consumption of 4.3 million tonnes per
economy. This transformation will decouple year of plastics could be avoided in 2040,
economic growth from plastic use through compared to projected growth in plastic-
reduction and substitution, as well as lead to a waste generation (31% of projected plastic-
radical increase in plastic recycling rates through waste generation in 2040). This could be
better product design and system changes. achieved through avoidance of use or reuse,
without compromising on performance,
environmental impact, health and food
safety, convenience or affordability.
The SCS projects that 2.8 million tonnes of plastic
recycling could be recycled in 2040, compared to an Substitution
estimated 680,000 tonnes in 2017. 2.2 million tonnes per year of plastics could
be substituted with known alternatives in
2040, compared to projected growth in
Compared to reliance on “linear economy” plastic-waste generation (16% of projected
solutions to reach near-zero leakage, this circular plastic-waste generation in 2040). This
economy scenario saves $2.3 billion in waste- could be achieved through substitution
management costs and avoids the disposal of 66 from plastics to internationally-certified
million tonnes of plastic into over-burdened landfill compostable materials or materials based on
facilities from 2025 to 2040 (see Figure 11). paper or cardboard, without compromising
on performance, health and food safety,
convenience or affordability.

24
2. Redesign plastic products and packaging 4. Quadruple the plastic recycling rate by 2040

The SCS models a further shift towards The SCS projects that 2.8 million tonnes of
standardization and design for recycling, with plastic recycling could be recycled in 2040,
almost half of all non-recyclable (multi-material) compared to an estimated 680,000 tonnes
plastics switched to recyclable formats in 2017. The 2040 figure includes 150,000
by 2040 (up from 20% in 2025). Doing so tonnes of plastics-to-plastics chemical
increases the volume of recyclable plastic recycling that could process low-value
materials by 1.1 million tonnes per year. plastics that are unsuitable for mechanical
recycling today. The overall plastics recycling
3. Extend plastic-waste collection to almost all rate would increase from 10% in 2017 to
communities in Indonesia 40% in 2040.

To achieve near-zero leakage of plastics 5. Build or expand controlled disposal facilities

to the ocean, almost all communities in by 2040
Indonesia must be served by government-
run or private/informal sector collection Under the SCS, significant steps to reduce,
of plastic waste by 2040. In the SCS, 7.1 substitute and recycle more plastics by 2040
million tonnes per year of plastic waste would would slow down the growth in disposal
require collection in 2040. volumes after 2025. However, even taking
this into account, the SCS projects a need
Since the SCS incorporates a rapid for controlled disposal facilities that can
expansion of waste collection from 2017 to handle 4.3 million tonnes per year of plastic
2025 (and significant R&S), the remaining waste in 2040 (and beyond). Plastics-to-fuel
rollout from 2025 to 2040 is more modest processing is estimated to grow to 150,000
in comparison (990,000 tonnes of additional tonnes in 2040, on the assumptions that this
government-run and informal collection in technology is economically viable compared
Rural and Remote areas in 2040 compared to other disposal options, and that it can
to 2025, equivalent to about 20% of be operated safely and in accordance with
Indonesia’s population). This expansion international standards for air emissions. This
poses particular challenges and involves must be proven in the Indonesian context.59
higher costs because it requires plastic-
waste collection from remote and rural
communities in the country.

The 2025-40 SCS increases plastic-waste
sorting and recycling in government-run
collection streams, through increases
in segregation of recyclable waste in
households and by sorting an additional 1.1
million tonnes per year through TPS3R or
other waste sorting facilities (on top of the
330,000 tonnes per year processed in 2025).

25
Figure 12: Where plastics end up, BAU vs SCS, 2017 to 2040 (million tonnes per year)

Plastic waste generation, million ton/year, Indonesia

Business-as-usual if collection rates stay constant at 39% System Change Scenario
14 14
Collection and Recycling
12 12
Reduced
Collection and Disposal
10 10
Collection and Official Dumpsite
8 8 Substituted

6 6 Collection and Recycling

Open burning

4 4

2 Dumping on land 2 Collection and Disposal

Leakage to
body of water
0 0
2017 2025 2040 2017 2025 2040

Source: NPAP Analysis

Costs and benefits of the System run government-run collection, sorting and
Change Scenario disposal of both plastics and non-plastics.
They include incentives to the informal/private
Financial costs sector to supplement the value of post-use
plastics and increase collection rates.
– Total capital investments of $5.1 billion are
required to realize the SCS from 2017 to 2025
Not included are the revenues and costs of the
(for all waste, including non-plastics). Of this,
profitable parts of the industry, including informal/
$4 billion is required for state-managed waste
private collection, sorting and recycling, beyond
collection and disposal infrastructure, and $1.1
the incentive. Costs of reducing, substituting
billion is required to develop the necessary
or re-designing plastics are not included in
capacity in the (private) plastic recycling
these totals as they are considered costs and
sector.60
benefits to private enterprise that would not

be covered by the government. In the SCS,
From 2025 to 2040, additional capital
Indonesia’s government saves $700 million in
investments of $13.3 billion are required:
waste-management costs from reducing and
$11.7 billion for state-managed waste
substituting avoidable plastics from 2017 to 2025.
collection and disposal infrastructure, and
$1.5 billion for plastic recycling.61
Operating expenditure will rise to $1.8-2.2 billion
per year in 2040, driven by higher collection
– Annual operating expenditures on solid-
rates in rural and remote areas, higher operating
waste management need to rise from $0.5-
costs of segregated collection, and expansion of
1.0 billion62 in 2017 to $1.1-1.5 billion in
sorting facilities.
2025. These figures represent the costs to

26
 Capital expenditure to realise the System Change Scenario

Years Collection and Collection and Collection Plastic recycling Safe disposal
controlled disposal disposal – allocated equipment facilities facilities attributed
systems for all to plastic waste attributed to plastic to plastic waste
waste waste

2017-2025 $4.0 billion $1.2 billion $0.4 billion $1.1 billion $0.8 billion

2025-2040 $11.8 billion $4.2 billion $2.0 billion $1.5 billion $2.2 billion

Figure 13: Waste-management operational cost excluding recycling (USD billion per year)

0.7 1.8-2.2

0.6-0.9 1.1-1.5

0.5-1.0

20172 Additional 20253 Additional 2040

opex needed opex needed

Source: NPAP Analysis

Social and environmental benefits equivalent) per year in 2025 and 20 million tonnes
per year in 2040.
The System Change Scenario has a sweeping
positive impact on Indonesia’s society and These figures are for plastics only; an even more
environment. Firstly, by design, it would meet positive contribution to climate change mitigation
the government target of 70% reduction of can be expected from the proper management of
ocean plastics leakage by 2025 and reach organic waste, which would be enabled through
near-zero leakage by 2040. Between 2017 implementation of some elements of the SCS,
and 2040, this adds up to 16 million tonnes of but not quantified here.
avoided ocean plastic.63 In parallel, it would also
bring other types of mismanaged waste down A social co-benefit of realising the SCS is the
by the same rate and avoid a total of 128 million net creation of more than 150,000 direct jobs
tonnes of plastic pollution into the environment. in the plastic waste and recycling sectors, most
A second environmental effect is the curbing of them in waste collection systems.64 This also
of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and air highlights a major anticipated challenge: the need
pollution. Under the SCS, Indonesia would avoid to mobilise and train such a large workforce in a
emissions of 10 million tonnes of GHG (CO2- short space of time.

27
 The SCS is also expected to contribute to the Plastic-waste imports
improvement of public health. A decrease in
Indonesia switched from being a net exporter to
waste burning will reduce air pollution, limit the
a net importer of plastic waste in January 2018,
spread of contagious diseases, and lessen the
after China effectively closed its market. One
likelihood of flooding caused by mismanaged
study estimates that 5-20% of plastics imported
waste blocking rivers and drainage systems.
into the Global South is low-value and may lead
to burning or dumping (data for Indonesia is not
Finally, the System Change Scenario offers the
available).65
opportunity to advance gender equality and
social justice, as women, migrants, marginalized
Reports in the Indonesian media also suggest
communities and low-income populations
that we should look beyond plastic imports alone
are more likely to be negatively affected by
into plastic contamination in paper imports.66
plastic pollution and inadequate solid-waste
On this basis, a preliminary estimate of potential
management (see Box B).
leakage from plastic-waste imports today is
less than 5% of total leakage in Indonesia.67
Beyond the System Change Scenario
Although plastic-waste imports may be small
in comparison to total plastic-waste generation
Due to data limitations, three important topics
(about 3%), they are much larger as a share of
could not be addressed by the NPAP system
recycling feedstock: in 2018, imports accounted
model: plastic-waste imports, microplastics and
for 30% of recycling feedstock in Indonesia.
maritime sources of waste. For these topics, we
Reducing imports could free up recycling
rely on research carried out elsewhere.
capacity that can be used for the substantial
extra volumes of Indonesian waste that must
be collected to meet the country’s targets for
preventing plastic pollution.

Figure 14: Exports and imports of plastic waste (thousand tonnes, Indonesia)

Amount of exported and imported plastic waste into Indonesia

Thousand tons/year

Export Rigid monomaterials

Other plastic scraps

194 204 194

26 149 23 18
28 99
167 180 175 12
121 86

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Import 59 57 84 86
48 40
37 42
107 97 260
121 129

61
320

Net 87 52 83 65 (221)
Export

Source: NPAP Analysis

28
Primary microplastic sources Maritime sources of leakage

The NPAP had insufficient sources for Indonesia Abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear, as
to analyse pollution from primary microplastics.68 well as litter from ships (35% of maritime waste
Global analysis indicates that around 13% of in the European Union and possibly higher in
total ocean plastics leakage is estimated to come Indonesia) are understood to be major maritime
from four sources of microplastics: tyre dust sources of leakage. Maritime sources of leakage
(77% by mass), pellets (17%), textile microfibers in Indonesian waters are also not covered by
and microplastics in personal care products the NPAP analysis due to a lack of data. This
(both contribute less than 6%). International knowledge gap is a worldwide issue; estimates
research indicates that middle- and lower- of the contribution of maritime sources of leakage
income countries will become a growing source range between 10 and 30% of ocean leakage,
of primary microplastics in the next years, with but there is much uncertainty.
primary microplastic pollution projected to grow
from 148 to 419 grams per capita between 2016 Guidelines have been published72 and pilot
and 2040.69 projects have been run to recover and recycle
fishing gears, also in Indonesia.73
Broadly, microplastics can be addressed by three
types of interventions: Reliable data is also scarce for marine littering
from ships. Given its geographic position on
1. Material and product redesign to eliminate the Malacca Strait, Indonesia sits on one of the
some sources of microplastics. This could world’s busiest shipping routes. In addition,
mean developing low-abrasion tyres, using Indonesia’s island geography means that
natural fibers and improving fabric cuts ships play a larger role in the nation’s domestic
and weaving style in textiles, or eliminating transport system than in comparable countries.
microbeads in personal care products. Combatting marine littering requires measures
similar to managing land-based waste: reduce
2. Bans on avoidable sources of microplastics. problematic plastics as much as possible,
The European Union has banned the use of provide waste management facilities in ports, and
microplastics in most products, such as in create incentives or enforcement measures to
cosmetics, detergents, paints, polish and ensure that vessels use these facilities.
coatings.70

3. Construction or upgrading of wastewater

treatment facilities equipped with microplastic
filtering systems. In Indonesia, as of 2017,
only 13 cities have wastewater treatment
facilities at scale.71 Many recycling plants
operate with minimal wastewater treatment
or without these facilities altogether.

29
Chapter 4
Five points of action – a
comprehensive policy and industry
action roadmap for Indonesia

Despite an impressive and growing ecosystem of accelerators that would achieve a radical and
Indonesian initiatives to tackle the mismanaged sustained reduction in mismanaged plastic waste
plastic waste challenge (Chapter 2), achieving in Indonesia, in line with the President’s vision, the
the 70% ocean leakage reduction target in National Action Plan on Marine Plastic Debris and
Indonesia will require a step-change in efforts. the Roadmap for Waste Reduction by Producers.74
An action plan of practical recommendations
for government, industry and civil society Delivery of this plan will require a coordinated
is proposed below, co-developed and tested multistakeholder effort between government,
with the NPAP Expert Panel and Steering Board. industry and civil society – with a combined focus
It outlines a combination of actions and critical on policy reform, industry leadership and voluntary
action, public and private investment, civil society
and community mobilization and innovation.

30
 Five points of action Ten critical accelerators to enable system change

a. Reduce or substitute avoidable uses of plastic through policies, targets and incentives.76
Phase out the most problematic plastic uses through voluntary industry action and
regulation. This includes PVC and expanded polystyrene in packaging, unsafe degradable
materials such as plastics with oxo-degradable additives, and microplastics in personal care
products.77

Stimulate plastic reduction, plastic-free alternatives and reuse models through innovation
and fiscal incentives, such as reuse models that can replace single-use shopping bags, straws,
tableware and food-service containers, multilayer sachets, food and beverage packaging and
1. Reduce or substitute business-to-business packaging.
plastic usage to prevent Test reduction and substitution measures with a gender-conscious approach to ensure
the consumption of more successful adoption and make sure the risks are assessed to avoid impact to environment and
than 1 million tonnes of society, especially to women and marginalized groups.
plastics per year by 2025
“Walk the talk” by reducing avoidable uses of plastics on premises for companies and
civil society organizations, government agencies and state-owned enterprises, schools and
universities and incorporating R&S principles in procurement guidelines for national government
2. Redesign 500,000 tonnes bodies and state-owned enterprises.78
of plastic products and
packaging for reuse or b. Transition to 100% recyclable, reusable or compostable plastics and increase the use of
high-value recycling recycled plastics, through policies, targets and incentives
Implement policies, industry initiatives and incentives that will enable the transition of all
packaging in Indonesia to be 100% recyclable, reusable or compostable, in alignment with the
Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Global Commitment to a New Plastics Economy.
3. Double plastic-waste
collection from 39% to
Provide incentives and support for eco-design and use of recycled plastics, for example
84% by 2025 by boosting
through modulated fees in an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme and by streamlining
state-funded and informal
the process for certifying recycled content for food-contact packaging applications.79
or private sector collection

systems
Set up a dialogue between businesses and government regarding the implementation and
funding of the Roadmap for Waste Reduction by Producers, issued by the Minister of the
Environment and Forestry in 2019
4. Double current recycling
capacity to process an Develop a world leading packaging design programme or institute in Indonesia, which would
additional 975,000 tonnes bring together companies, government and academia to ensure that design is tailored to the
per year of recycled plastic particular needs of emerging-market waste collection and recycling systems.80
by 2025
c. Boost solid-waste management master plans, implementation initiatives and monitoring
across Indonesia: Strengthen the Jakstrada policy by developing Solid Waste Management
and Recycling Master Plans for each province and update those of regencies and cities, with
5. Build or expand controlled cross-government support and the involvement of stakeholders and experts, and ensure that
waste-disposal facilities solid waste management responsibilities are articulated at the appropriate level of government
to manage an additional for effective implementation.
3.3 million tonnes of plastic
waste per year by 2025.75 Ensure policies and practices support equality and non-discrimination principles, particularly in
creating equal-opportunity employment for women and men across the plastics value chain, as
well as strengthening safety and protection measures for women working in waste management.

Expand solid-waste management through a city-by-city or regency-by-regency programme that

combines capacity building, infrastructure development, behaviour change, a workable long-
term funding plan and local regulations.

Identify priority locations for new recycling factories and provide incentives or special regulatory
regimes,81 based on assessments of recycling potential and installed capacity in provincial Solid
Waste Management and Recycling Master Plans.

31
 Ten critical accelerators to enable system change

Incorporate strategies for valorizing organic waste, such as by equalizing the subsidies that chemical fertilizers receive with new
subsidies for waste-based fertilizers or through carbon-credit mechanisms.
Strengthen national and sub-national monitoring of waste collection rates, leakage rates, recycling rates, sanitary landfill
management practices and incentivize high performance among local governments, potentially through an extended and
strengthened application of the Adipura “clean city” initiative.

d. Integrate and support informal-sector workers and companies in the waste and recycling system.
Recognize the important role of workers in the informal waste recovery sector in Indonesia, strengthen representative associations
such as Ikatan Pemulung Indonesia (IPI) and consult this sector as key stakeholders for national and sub-national decisions on
waste management and recycling.

Ensure safe and dignified working conditions and living wages in a way that is equitable for women and marginalized groups.
Provide training, protective equipment and tools, simplified access to government identity cards (KTP), uniforms, access to
healthcare, social security and pension through inclusion in Indonesia’s social security programme (BPJS).82

Design waste systems to incorporate safe informal/private sector collection and sorting activities away from landfills or dumpsites
and provide opportunities in government-funded waste management and recycling systems for informal-sector workers and
companies.

e. Enable industry co-funding of plastic-waste collection and recycling systems, such as through an Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) scheme that draws from international best practices, yet is tailored to the Indonesian context and is
developed collaboratively between industry and government to be fair, cost-effective, and fit-for-purpose in scaling up packaging
recovery and recycling.

f. Mobilize capital investment for equipment and infrastructure and budgets for waste-system operations
Ramp up operational spending on solid-waste management through national budgets (APBN), local budgets (APBD) and co-
funding from industry, waste-generating companies (such as through disposal fees) and households (such as through retribution
fees from households receiving waste-management services, paid through local taxes or electricity payments).

Mobilize funds for solid waste-management equipment and infrastructure, for example through a blended finance approach with
concessionary capital from governments, industry, philanthropy and multilateral agencies that can “crowd in” large-scale investment
from mainstream financial investors for large infrastructure investments, such as through the SDG Indonesia One platform.

Enable investment into plastics recycling facilities by increasing the reliability of feedstock supply (for example, innovative
approaches working with informal sector supply chains), improving transparency, environmental and quality standards in the
recycling sector, securing offtake demand (through long-term contracts for recycled plastics), and providing fiscal incentives
such as lowering value-added tax for recycled materials. These should target upgrades of existing facilities as well as greenfield
investments.

g. Provide capacity building, training and skills development to enable a rapid growth of the solid-waste management and
recycling sector in Indonesia in line with international best practices for safety, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and transparent
financial management, environmental standards and gender equality.

h. Conduct ambitious public engagement and behaviour-change campaigns in partnership with government, industry, civil society
and religious organizations designed to encourage positive consumer choices, waste behaviours and participation in reduction,
reuse and innovative waste-management and recycling programmes.

j. Enable innovation and incubation of new and emerging solutions, through support and incentives from government and
industry, such as advanced recycling technologies like plastics-to-plastics chemical recycling, new plastic-free product delivery
models or reuse systems, and digital technologies and traceability mechanisms for socially responsible waste collection through
informal/private supply chains.

k. Continue and expand efforts to convene, coordinate and collaborate on solutions between stakeholders and decision-makers
across government, industry, civil society and academia, using the NPAP Indonesia platform and others to ensure a convergent
approach to changing the plastic system and meeting national targets.

32
 Relation between the five points of action and 10 critical accelerators

Direct effect 1. Reduce or substitute 2. Redesign plastic 3. Double plastic waste 4. Double current 5. Build or expand safe
Indirect effect plastic usage products and packaging collection recycling capacity waste disposal facilities

Reduce or substitute avoidable uses of plastic through policies,

A
targets and incentives
Transition to 100% recyclable, reusable or compostable plastics
B
and increase the use of recycled plastics

Boost solid-waste management master plans, implementation

C
initiatives and monitoring

Integrate and support informal sector workers and companies in

D
the waste and recycling system

Enable industry co-funding of plastic-waste collection and

E
recycling systems
Mobilize capital investment for equipment and infrastructure, and
F
budgets for waste-system operations

Provide capacity building, training and skills development

G

Conduct ambitious public engagement and behaviour-change

H
activities
Enable innovation and incubation of new and emerging solutions
I

Continue and expand efforts to convene, coordinate and

J
collaborate on solutions between stakeholders

33
 Appendix
Methodology for scenario analysis

With support from the Indonesia expert panel, Board, the Indonesian Government and other
the NPAP team has striven to use the most key stakeholders. Field data from Indonesia was
recent and accurate data in compiling this report. used as much as possible, mostly data reported
It should be pointed out, however, that quality by local governments, the national government
of waste data is often a challenge in Indonesia. and shared in academic papers. This covered
To make the report easier to read for a general nearly all input. In rare cases where data was not
public, we have chosen to give point estimates, available, assumptions were made based on other
rather than ranges throughout the report. This sources, such as global data. The analysis result
should not be taken as an indication that the was then verified with the NPAP expert panel.
data reported is precise - much work remains to
improve waste data accuracy in Indonesia. The Secondary data
NPAP Indonesia scenario analysis methodology
is adapted from global research by the Pew Population data was obtained from Biro Pusat
Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ and the Statistik combined with tonnage and composition
system model outlined in Figure 15.83 It was data from Jakstranas (2017-2018) and Adipura
carried out with input from the NPAP Indonesia (2015). To estimate waste-generation growth, the
Expert Panel, the NPAP Indonesia Steering World Bank What a Waste 2.0 (2018) formula was
used, which uses GDP and population projections.

Figure 15: System map on which the analytical model used in GPAP is based

PRODUCTION and Mechanically COLLECTION and SORTING RECYCLING

CONSUMPTION recycled plastics G: Exported waste1 H: Imported waste1
Separate
system map I1
F4 H1
Plastic reduction Collected for I:Closed-loop
recycling F1 mechanical recycling I2
Plastic
C1 D1 Losses
B: Collected plastic

Box ‘0’: C:
Demand for substitution B1 Formal collection F: Formal Sorting F2
plastic utility
A: Total E3
(MRF) J:Open-loop
Recycled plastic plastic mechanical recycling J1
A1 C2 E: Mixed collection E3 D2 Losses
polymers waste

Virgin plastic E1 K: Chemical

D: Informal collection conversion to
B2 K3
monomers and
Recycled monomers and sorting D3 Losses
D4 E2 F3 Sorting
Sortinglosses
Losses
hydrocarbons
and hydrocarbons

Recycled monomers and Uncollected/lit Dumpsite L: Unsorted waste

K1 A2 tering V1 recovery
hydrocarbons

UNMANAGED
DISPOSAL
Q: Uncollected waste R: Mismanaged waste M: Unsorted managed
L2 L1
waste
Post collection Post collection
Q2 Q3 R1 R2 mismanaged disposal
Q1
M2 M1 K2
V:Dumpsites/
T: Terrestrial dumping U: Direct discard to water
unsanitary landfill

U1
T1 V3 V2 Post-leakage W1 O: Thermal treatment P: Fuels fraction from
W: Ocean collection N: Engineered landfills
with energy recovery chemical conversion
leakage

S: Open burning Legend: Plastic flow Pre-consumer Nexus

Points of mass accumulation

Source: NPAP Analysis

34
Growth projection for plastic waste was derived Scenario assumptions
from Breaking the Plastic Wave analysis.
The System Change Scenario was modelled
The formal (government-run) collection rate on plastic leakage into bodies of water, which
was estimated based on the amount of waste is a proxy of plastic into the sea, to achieve
transported to landfill or sorted in TPS 3R from a 70% reduction of ocean leakage in 2025
Jakstranas data (2017-2018). Informal collection (compared to 2017) and near-zero leakage in
was estimated according to several academic 2040. The Reduce and Substitute levers were
papers (such as Putri et al, 2018 and Sasaki modelled based on Breaking the Plastic Wave
et al, 2014) and industry reports for Jakarta (forthcoming) adapted to Indonesia.
and Surabaya. Step-down assumptions for the
Medium and Rural archetypes (i.e. assuming 50% The SCS estimates the reduction and substitution
lower than Mega) were made as no archetype- percentages for 15 different plastic applications
specific data on the informal sector was available based on three factors:
to us. Remote is assumed to not have significant
informal-sector activity. 1. Evidence for the R&S potential: Proven
examples of reductions in avoidable plastic
Plastic waste collected by the informal sector and use from across the world, through voluntary
plastic waste sorted by TPS 3R are assumed to industry action or regulation, checked for
go to recycling facilities. The loss rate between applicability in lower- and middle-income
plastic collected for recycling and plastic recycled countries.
is based on Putri et al (2018). The split between
open loop and closed loop mechanical recycling is 2. Risk of unintended consequences:
taken from Breaking the Plastic Wave (forthcoming) Screening of potential negative impacts
for lower- and middle-income countries. on the environment, health and food
safety, and society at large; as well as
The fate (final destination) of plastics that are performance, convenience or affordability
uncollected was calculated based on the using a methodology established by a global
percentage from Riset Kesehatan Dasar (2018). panel of experts convened for Breaking the
The transfer rate for post-collection mismanaged Plastic Wave. The screening is tested for
waste to the end destination of plastic waste and the Indonesian context using high-volume
the transfer rate for mismanaged plastic waste applications relevant to Indonesia (beverage
to different end-of-life destinations is based on bottles made from PET, water cups made
Breaking the Plastic Wave and the ISWA Plastic from polypropylene, single-use plastic carrier
Pollution Calculator. Transfer rates are an area in bags – typically low-density polyethylene or
which current data quality is especially poor; we LDPE – and multilayer sachets for food or
suggest this as an area for further research. cosmetic products). Where risks of negative
impacts exceed a threshold level, they are
While the study used data at the regency or city not considered viable opportunities to reduce
level to derive estimates for waste generation and avoidable plastic use.
plastic leakage (drawing on population data and
national averages), it is important to note that the 3. Implementation time: most R&S efforts
analysis cannot be used to estimate the waste cannot be implemented overnight, as they
situation in specific regencies or cities. The team require policy change and changes to
was unable to verify data for more than 300 districts products and supply chains. The SCS takes
and expected data inconsistencies within each this into account by assuming a certain
individual regency or city. However, the archetype implementation timeframe that depends on
analysis was used to average-out inconsistencies the assessments for technological maturity,
within each archetype and nationally. performance, convenience, and affordability.

35
The SCS recognizes that the urban archetypes NPAP Expert Panel
can execute waste management at a lower price
per inhabitant than Rural and Remote, due to The NPAP expert panel has guided the analysis
scale, population density and the presence of an and provided detailed feedback on assumptions
informal sector. For that reason, the SCS targets used where data is not available. Our
full collection rate for Mega and Medium in 2025. stakeholders were drawn from a broad group:

For Rural areas, the SCS targets a 70% collection – Government, in particular the Coordinating
rate in 2025. The SCS assumes that collection Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Investment,
operations cost 10 to 30% more than in Mega the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, and
cities. In the SCS, it is assumed that residents in the Ministry of Public Works
lower-density areas compost their organic waste – Industry, including plastic raw material
locally; waste collection covers inorganic waste producers, plastic recyclers, and the
only to reduce cost. consumer goods sector
– Academics
Collection costs in Remote regencies are – Non-profits and waste-management
assumed to be 40% higher than Mega on practitioners
average. Remote is the most diverse of the – The investment community, including
archetypes, both geographically and culturally. development banks
It includes very low-income communities as well
as towns centred on oil and gas production or Consultation was done on a continuous basis
tourism that generate more waste per person with individual experts and through convenings
than Mega cities. Here too the SCS assumes that of the panel. The panel was convened at three
only inorganics are collected, targeting a 60% stages of the analysis: (1) Business-as-Usual, (2)
collection rate in 2025. System Change Scenario, and (3) after the first
draft of action recommendations. Adjustments
were made after each panel session based on
feedback received. In total, we received more
than 200 comments from over 15 parties on this
report and held one-on-one meetings with more
than 30 organizations.

36
Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the generous support of the founders of the Global Plastic Action Partnership: Canada,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Dow, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo and
Nestlé, as well as the guidance and encouragement from the Coordinating Ministry of Maritime Affairs and
Investment and the Ministry of the Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia.

We are also grateful to The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ for generously allowing the NPAP
team to adapt the methodology from Breaking the Plastic Wave and to Kartini International for their
contributions on gender.

Global Plastic Action Partnership

Kristin Hughes, Director, Global Plastic Action Partnership, World Economic Forum
Madeleine Brandes, Specialist, Global Plastic Action Partnership, World Economic Forum
Lai Sanders, Communications Specialist, Global Plastic Action Partnership, World Economic Forum

SYSTEMIQ Project Team

Martin Stuchtey, Managing Partner
Ben Dixon, Partner
Arthur Neeteson, Programme Manager
William Handjaja, Manager NPAP Analytics
Wiwik Widyastuti, Public-Private Partnerships Lead
Dian Adelina Limbong, Associate
Dinda Annisa Nurdiani, Associate
Theo Teja, Associate
Joi Danielson, Partner
Yoni Shiran, Programme Manager
Julia Koskella, Associate
Alexandre Kremer, Associate

NPAP Steering Board

Mari Elka Pangestu, Chair (2019-2020)
Sri Indrastuti (Tuti) Hadiputranto, Chair, NPAP (as of March 2020)
Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, Coordinating Minister of Maritime Affairs and Investment, Patron
Siti Nurbaya Bakar, Minister of the Environment and Forestry, Patron
Agus Gumiwang Kartasasmita, Minister of Industry, Patron
Cameron MacKay, Ambassador of Canada to the Republic of Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of
Timor-Leste
Owen Jenkins, Ambassador of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Republic of
Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
Satu Kahkonen, Country Director for Indonesia, The World Bank
Axton Salim, Director, PT Indofood

37
Said Aqil Siroj, Chair, Nahdlatul Ulama
Cherie Nursalim, Co-Founder, United in Diversity
Rizal Malik, Chief Executive Officer, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Indonesia
Yuyun Ismawanti, Chair, BaliFokus
Erwin Ciputra, President Director, Chandra Asri Petrochemical Tbk
Kadir Gündüz, Managing Director, Coca-Cola Amatil
Dharnesh Gordhon, President & Chief Executive Officer, Nestlé Indonesia
Vichan Tangkengsirisin, President Director, Dow Indonesia
V.P. Sharma, Chief Executive Officer, MAP Group
Simon Baldwin, Chief Executive Officer, Second Muse

NPAP Expert Panel

Nani Hendiarti, Assistant Deputy IV, Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment
Ujang Solihin Sidik, Subdirectorate Head, Ministry of the Environment and Forestry
Dodi Krispratmadi, Director of Sanitation Development, Ministry of Public Works and Housing
M. Ali Yusuf, Chairman of the Disaster Management and Climate Change Institute, Nahdlatul Ulama
Enri Damanhuri, Professor, Institute of Technology Bandung
Zainal Abidin, Professor, Institute of Technology Bandung
André Rodrigues de Aquino, Senior Natural Resources Management Specialist, World Bank
Edi Riva’i, Chair, INAPLAS (plastics industry)
Christine Halim and Justin Wiganda, Chair and Vice-Chair of ADUPI (recycling industry)
Sinta Kaniawati, Chair, PRAISE (consumer goods and packaging industry)
Sri Bebassari, Chair, InSWA (waste-management sector)
Pris Polly, Chair, IPI (informal sector)
Dini Trisyanti, Co-founder, Sustainable Waste Indonesia
Tiza Mafira, Executive Director, Aliansi Zero Waste Indonesia
David Christian, Chief Executive Officer, Evoware
Marta Muslin, Expert, Indonesia Waste Platform
Jane Fisher, Expert, Indonesia Waste Platform
Bangkit Oetomo, ADM Capital
Muhammad Reza Cordova, Researcher, LIPI (national research institute)
Morten Holm van Donk, Head of Environmental Sector, Royal Danish Embassy
Júlia Reisser, independent expert

38
Endnotes

1. An early version of this foreword was shared on 20 January 2020 at the Annual Meeting of the World
Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters. See: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/here-s-how-
indonesia-plans-to-tackle-its-plastic-pollution-challenge/.

2. The estimated total plastic-waste generation of 6.8 million tonnes per year requires further research
to reconcile with industry production and importation estimates. Further research and action are also
required to assess and then reduce plastic pollution from primary microplastics (small plastic particles
from sources including textiles, tyre dust and personal care products) and maritime waste (plastic
pollution at sea, primarily from shipping and fishing industries).

3. Other major targets are a 30% reduction of waste at source (including recycling) and increasing the
volume of managed plastic waste to 70% (Presidential Decree 97/2017). This target builds on existing
policy programmes to improve waste management and reduce pollution, such as Jakstranas and
Jakstrada, initiated in 2017. In this report, we take “marine plastic debris” to hold the same meaning
as “ocean plastic leakage”. “Ocean plastic leakage” is part of a broader category we call “mismanaged
waste”, which includes open burning, dumping on land, official dumpsites and dumping into other
bodies of water. Generally speaking, measures that address the root causes of ocean leakage also
reduce ocean leakage. The methodology used in this report does not allow us to quantify leakage into
oceans specifically, but only “leakage into bodies of water”. Deltares and the World Bank are working
on a follow-up study (forthcoming), based on NPAP data, that quantifies ocean leakage specifically
using hydrological modelling.

4. This research will be published in 2020 as Breaking the Plastic Wave. We refer to it in this document
as Breaking the Plastic Wave (forthcoming).

5. Net plastic scrap imports are equivalent to 3.1% of domestic waste generation; these are generally
imports specifically aimed at the recycling industry, which can be expected to have lower leakage
rates than domestic plastic waste in general (which is 61% uncollected). We have no data on illegal
waste imports, plastic hidden in paper waste imports, which may increase the total import numbers
and therefore their environmental leakage. The figure of >95% takes a prudential margin into account.
The team estimates that the actual figure is higher.

6. Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating the Significant Adverse Impacts on Marine and
Coastal Biodiversity. Technical Series No.83. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.

7. Rochman, Chelsea M et al. “Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in
fish and bivalves sold for human consumption.” Scientific Reports vol. 5 14340. 24 September 2015,
doi:10.1038/srep14340.

8. An annual average from 2017 to 2025 of total additional households that would need to be served by
collection services by 2025 to meet an 84% collection rate, assuming four persons per household.

9. In addition to 18.3 million tonnes of non-plastics, mostly organic material.

10. Figures refer to total municipal solid waste, including non-plastics.

11. Calculated based on INAPLAS & Ministry of Industry, Plastic flow, 2019; Breaking the Plastic Wave
(forthcoming) reports that plastic MSW makes up 64% of total plastic waste worldwide.

39
12. This report follows the World Bank’s definition of municipal solid waste.

13. Based on population data from BPS (Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia’s central statistics agency),
aggregated total waste-generation data from Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Sistem Informasi
Pengelolaan Sampah Nasional/SIPSN), Adipura waste-generation data, and waste composition data
from SIPSN.

14. One explanation for the discrepancy between these figures is contamination: the volume that is
counted as “plastic MSW” contains more than plastic molecules alone; inevitably, it includes humidity
and traces of former use.

15. Euromap; GDP growth was 5% over the same period.

16. This report uses 2017 as the base year. Because the switch from net-exporter to net-importer of
plastic waste took place in 2018, we do not include imports in our analytical model. Instead, we treat
the subject separately.

17. Breaking the Plastic Wave (forthcoming).

18. LIPI (Indonesian Institute of Science) released a baseline number of 0.27-0.59 million tonnes of ocean
plastic per year based on early field results in 18 locations collected using stranded beach data
collection over a year. This figure was adopted by the National Taskforce on Marine Plastic Debris as a
preliminary national baseline in December 2019.

19. Lacking more precise data, the system model assumes that all waste disposal in archetypes Mega
and Medium are landfills and all disposal in archetypes Rural and Remote are official dumpsites. We
assume higher runoffs from dumpsites than from landfills. There is no incineration at scale in Indonesia
today. In this report, we assume that official dumpsites are semi-formal disposal facilities; this makes
them different from smaller-scale dumping on land by households.

20. For example as waste pickers who work at waste-transfer stations or on landfills to recover plastics
that were originally collected by the government.

21. By definition; regencies and cities are allocated to the archetypes Mega, Medium and the pair Rural/
Remote based on population density. The distinction between Rural and Remote is made based on
distance from an urban centre, e.g. a potential recycling hub.

22. This map is based on per-archetype averages for the collection rate and for waste generation per
capita; it does not accurately reflect local circumstances.

23. Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating the Significant Adverse Impacts on Marine
and Coastal Biodiversity. Technical Series No. 83. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montreal.

24. Rochman, Chelsea M et al. “Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in
fish and bivalves sold for human consumption.” Scientific Reports vol. 5 14340. 24 September 2015,
doi:10.1038/srep14340.

25. Barreiros, João P., and Violin S. Raykov. “Lethal lesions and amputation caused by plastic debris and
fishing gear on the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758). Three case reports from Terceira
Island, Azores (NE Atlantic).” Marine Pollution bulletin 86, no. 1-2 (2014): 518-522; De Stephanis, R.,
Giménez, J., Carpinelli, E., Gutierrez-Exposito, C. and Cañadas, A. “As main meal for sperm whales:
Plastics debris.” Marine pollution bulletin, 69(1-2), (2013) pp.206-214.

26. Lavers, J.L., Hutton, I. and Bond, A. “Clinical pathology of plastic ingestion in marine birds and
relationships with blood chemistry.” Environmental Science & Technology 53, 2019: 9224-9231.

27. GESAMP. “Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: part two of a global
assessment” (Kershaw, P.J., and Rochman, C.M., eds). (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/
IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection). Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 93, 220 p. (2016).

40
28. Number for wild fisheries, aquaculture is not included https://globalmarinecommodities.org/en/
indonesia-2/.

29. https://www.wttc.org/about/media-centre/press-releases/press-releases/2019/indonesian-travel-
and-tourism-growing-twice-as-fast-as-global-average/; BPS data points to a similar number: of 124.5
million employed workers in Indonesia, 11.17% works in tourism sector, which calculates to 14 million.

30. Ratih Indri Hapsari and Mohammad Zenurianto. “View of Flood Disaster Management in Indonesia and
the Key Solutions”, American Journal of Engineering Research, 5 (3), 140-151. April 2016 http://dibi.
bnpb.go.id/.

31. President Joko Widodo commented on the December 2019 / January 2020 Jakarta flood: “Some of
the flooding is caused by damage to the ecosystem but it is also a result of our mistakes in disposing
of waste everywhere”, “At least 21 dead in Jakarta floods as thousands are evacuated”, Asian
Financial Review, 2 January 2020

32. This number was calculated using an emission factor from laboratory experiments. Park, Young Koo,
Wooram Kim and Young Min Jo. “Release of Harmful Air Pollutants from Open Burning of Domestic
Municipal Solid Wastes in a Metropolitan Area of Korea.” Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 2013:
1369.

33. Cogut, A. “Open Burning of Waste: A Global Health Disaster.” R20 Regions of Climate Action, 2016.
34. Exposure to Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Substances: A Major Public Health Concern, who.int; Julvez &
Grandjean, 2009.

35. Calculated using an EPA conversion number and Breaking the Plastic Wave (forthcoming).

36. GA Circular, The Role of Gender in Waste Management: Gender Perspectives on Waste in India,
Indonesia, The Philippines and Vietnam, Ocean Conservancy/GA Circular, 2019, 31.

37. Julvez, J. & Grandjean, P. “Neurodevelopmental toxicity risks due to occupational exposure to
industrial chemicals during pregnancy.” Industrial health, 47 (5), pp.459–468, 2009. Cited in: WECF,
Women Engage for a Common Future, Plastics, Gender and the Environment, Utrecht: WECF, 2017;
SEA Circular, Marine plastic litter in East Asian Seas: Gender, human rights and economic dimensions,
UNEP, Cobsea, SEI, 2019.

38. GA Circular, 2019, 36; in addition, Government data for West Jakarta confirm this statement.

39. WIEGO, Violence and Informal Work, Briefing Note, May 2018.

40. GA Circular, 2019, 36.

41. https://www.wiego.org/gender-waste-project.

42. US AID, Women’s Economic Empowerment and Equality (WE3) Technical Assistance – Municipal
Waste Management And Recycling WE3 Gender Analysis Report, April 2019.

43. Ratih Indri Hapsari and Mohammad Zenurianto, 2016, 30.

44. Direct data about access to waste collection is not available. This number was calculated based on
the tonnage of uncollected waste and waste generation per capita in the various regions of Indonesia.

45. https://www.newplasticseconomy.org/assets/doc/Oxo-statement-May2019.pdf and http://

standardisasi.menlhk.go.id/index.php/barangjasateknologi-ramah-lingkungan/barang-berlabel-
lingkungan/ekolabel-yang-berbasis-sni/. For an overview of the environmental effects of oxo and other
materials: Napper, I.E. and Thompson, R.C., 2019. Environmental deterioration of biodegradable, oxo-
biodegradable, compostable, and conventional plastic carrier bags in the sea, soil, and open-air over
a 3-year period. Environmental science & technology.

46. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, The New Plastics Economy - Catalysing Action, 2017, p 36.

47. Calculated as all of Indonesia minus Java and North Sumatra.

41
48. This projection assumes that Indonesia’s waste-management capacity increases to maintain the
collection rate and recycling rate at 39% and 10% respectively (as in 2017). We have also calculated
an alternative scenario where waste management does not expand (remains at today’s size despite
growth in waste volumes). In this case waste generation increases from 620 thousand to 870
thousand tonnes per year by 2025 (+41%) and more than doubles to 1.5 million tonnes per year by
2040.

49. This research will be published in 2020 as Breaking the Plastic Wave. We refer to it in this document
as Breaking the Plastic Wave (forthcoming).

50. In addition to 18.3 million tonnes of non-plastics, mostly organic material.

51. The World Bank. 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington, DC
20433 USA.

52. Acceptable coated paper is defined as paper with plastic coating less than 5% weight, or other
compostable/water-soluble solutions. This material needs to be acceptable by the current recycling
industry, certified in line with international standards.

53. Examples of cooperation and integration between formal and informal could be drawn from the city of
Pune, India and various cities in Latin America.

54. Various sources from Adupi.

55. Both road and sea transport are considered viable transport alternatives.

56. The clusters centred on Medan, Pekanbaru, Palembang and Makassar.

57. In addition to 18.3 million tonnes of non-plastics, mostly organic material

58. Dian Andriani, “A Glance at the World: Current Status of Waste Management in Indonesia”, LIPI
Working Paper, January 2015.

59. In the SCS, plastics-to-fuel processing focuses on plastics that are hard to recycle economically (e.g.
flexible or multilayer plastics). Plastics-to-fuel recycling is often seen as a stepping stone to plastics-to-
plastics chemical recycling since the process to convert plastic waste back to synthetic oil is similar in
both cases.

60. Does not include capital investments for informal-sector collection and sorting.

61. Indonesia has updated its solid waste-management funding programme with World Bank support in
2019. At the time of writing, it was too early to assess the results.

62. First method is using the model estimates of collection rate, disposal activities, and the estimated
operational cost per tonne; this bottom-up method gave us $0.5 billion per year. The second method
looks into government budget items that could be used for waste management and assigned
estimated proportion for waste-management activities, such as local (Dana Desa, Dinas Lingkungan
Hidup) budgets, and national (PUPR) budgets, etc.; this top-down method gave us the $1 billion per
year estimate. It is not possible for the NPAP to provide accurate top-down depiction as departmental
responsibilities may overlap between waste management and other sanitation responsibilities.
Therefore, we present both numbers as a range while using the modelling exercise consistently for
System Change Scenario.

63. The NPAP team was unable to calculate ocean plastics directly and used “leakage into bodies of
water” as a proxy.

64. Job creation by improved waste management outweighs potential job losses through reduced waste
volumes. The total job creation under the SCS is higher than the direct job creation reported because
a number of factors are not included in this number: direct jobs in organic waste management; direct

42
 job creation caused by the “reduce and substitute” transformation (whereas job losses due to lower
production are taken into account in the above numbers); indirect jobs that result from the SCS, for
example food stalls, which sell more because collection workers have more disposable income, or
suppliers of waste bins; sustained employment in fisheries and tourism.

65. Breaking the Plastic wave (forthcoming).

66. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/07/09/after-plastic-indonesia-now-also-returns-
contaminated-paper-waste-to-australia.html.

67. Based on 320,000 tonnes of imports in 2018 compared to a little over 1 million tonnes of plastic
available for recycling (pre-loss rate) in 2018.

68. Primary microplastics are any plastic fragments or particles that are already 5.0 mm in size or less
before entering the environment. These include particles from tyres, clothing, microbeads, and plastic
pellets (also known as nurdles).

69. Preliminary findings based on research on four major modelled sources; it does not reflect total
microplastic leakage, Breaking the Plastic Wave (forthcoming).

70. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/30/eu-european-union-proposes-microplastics-
ban-plastic-pollution.

71. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3442862/baru-13-kota-di-indonesia-yang-miliki-sistem-ipal-berskala-
besar.

72. Gilman, E., Chopin, F., Suuronen, P. & Kuemlagen, B. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded
fishing gear: Methods to estimate ghost fishing mortality, and the status of regional monitoring and
management. (2016); Huntington, T. Development of a best practice framework for the management
of fishing gear. Part 1: Overview and current status. Global Ghost Gear Initiative, 2016.

73. https://www.ghostgear.org/projects/2018/10/10/gear-marking-in-indonesian-small-scale-fisheries.

74. Decree 75/2019 of October 2019 by the Minister of the Environment and Forestry

75. In addition to 18.3 million tonnes of non-plastics, mostly organic material.

76. Achieve these reduction targets without lowering the value of plastic waste, such as without changing
design to the point where it is no longer a valuable commodity for recycling, e.g. through light-
weighting.

77. Review the current green certification of oxo, for instance, to bring Indonesian certification in line with
international standards.

78. The Coordinating Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Investment and the Ministries of the Environment and
Forestry and of Marine Affairs and Fisheries are examples of ministries that have implemented such
guidelines.

79. For example, eco-design incentives could encourage a shift in rigid plastic packaging to transparent
(pigment-free) mono-material formats that are more easily recycled into high value products.

80. Currently many packaging designs come from Japan, Europe or North America.

81. Example: Plastic Parks in India.

82. KTP stands for Kartu Tanda Penduduk, “Resident Identity Card”; BPJS stands for Badan
Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial, “Social Security Management Agency”, shorthand for the state-run
health and old age insurance scheme.

83. This research will be published in 2020 as Breaking the Plastic Wave. We refer to it in this document
as Breaking the Plastic Wave (forthcoming).

43
The World Economic Forum,
committed to improving
the state of the world, is the
International Organization for
Public-Private Cooperation.

The Forum engages the

foremost political, business
and other leaders of society
to shape global, regional
and industry agendas.

World Economic Forum

91–93 route de la Capite
CH-1223 Cologny/Geneva
Switzerland

Tel.: +41 (0) 22 869 1212

Fax: +41 (0) 22 786 2744

[email protected]
www.weforum.org