Waste Law No. 18/2008
Several thing depress me about Law No. 18 of 2008 on Waste ("Waste Law"). One of those things being how good it is. Because it is, as far as laws are concerned, pretty straightforward and comprehensive. But in Indonesia because of the hierarchy of laws, a Law (Undang-Undang) will always be a clawless paper tiger until its implementing regulations come out.
Here's a few tantalizing non-manifestations in the form of OBLIGATIONS:
Article 12 - Everyone must reduce and manage household waste in an environmentally friendly manner.
Article 13 - Managers of residence areas, commercial areas. special areas, industrial areas, public/social facilities, must provide waste-separation facilities.
Article 14 - Producers must put labels on their products relating to waste reduction/management.
Article 15 - Producers must process the packaging and/or goods it manufactures (which is difficult / impossible to degrade).
Not only are there obligations, but the government apparently should also give (i) incentives to those who reduce waste, and (ii) disincentives to those who do not! (Article 21).
It's also got all sorts of warm and fuzzy democratic undertones allowing for civic participation, eg public-private partnership in managing waste, acknowledging citizens rights to provide suggestions and input and take part in policy-making. (Article 27, 28).
It FORBIDS waste importation, waste processing that causes environmental damage, open waste management sites, waste-burning practices. (Article 29) Regional governments are expected to close down all open-sites by 2013 (Article 44).
I read all this slightly mystified. Only slightly, because I'm used to this by now. The catch is in the sentence "this shall be further regulated in....". And although the Law says that implementing regulations should be issued within one year, this has not happened, and there exists no penalty for lateness.
One thing that particularly interests me is this clause:
Article 36 - communities harmed by a tort relating to waste management may file a class action lawsuit.
I have searched jurisprudence files for such a class action lawsuit and have not found any. Has nobody ever thought of claiming damages over open waste management site landslides or river-waste induced dysentery outbreaks? I'm still searching, but if anybody has any info on this I'd be very happy :)
Article 15 is also much talked about these days by virtue of its sheer impotence. We really don't see producers collecting the residues of their products/packaging for recycling (with the exception of a few, like The Bodyshop retailers that have a basket where you can return used Bodyshop containers).
This becomes particularly concerning when we are talking about electronic waste, which is still severely under-managed in the waste world because it is a sum of complicated and different toxic parts. Some discussions on e-waste here: Sampah Elektronik Mau Dibuang Kemana
and here: More Regulations Urged for Indonesia's Hazardous E-Waste
Also cropping up in a discussion with friend Marc, is a dilemma with Article 15's scope of responsibility being limited only to non-degradable packaging. Producers who can claim to use biodegradable plastic bags are exempt from this obligation, and will continue churning out vast amounts of plastic which will continue to pollute rivers, be burnt, clog sewers, etc, without proper management.
Another problem with Article 15 (supposing it is even enforced), is that it inadvertently justifies the churning out of inefficient packaging and tons of plastic waste that will continue to pollute, with the idea that it is offset by producers being responsible for waste-processing. I think we can agree that reducing waste is vastly better than recycling, and if you don't agree yet please read this: Plastic and the Great Recycling Swindle
Speaking of plastic, the Law doesn't seem to provide an umbrella clause that could allow for a nationwide ban on plastic bags. It provides for regional governments to do their own thing, but only specifically mentions "supervision", "partner with waste management business entities". The possible hook is Article 20, which says the government and regional government must have a target for gradual reduction of waste within a certain timeframe. This, again, to be further elaborated in a currently-embryonic implementing regulation.
The gossip is that Jakarta is preparing a policy, flagging it Plastic Free Jakarta 2011. I haven't heard any more news of this since this MoU was signed in 2010.
Enter Draft Government Regulation on the Reduction of Waste, drafted in 2009 and as of today the latest update is that it is sitting on the President's desk. Of course, the plastic bag industry is highly opposed to this draft, with reasonings that sound desperate, I might add.
More on this draft later after I read the academic review.
Here's a few tantalizing non-manifestations in the form of OBLIGATIONS:
Article 12 - Everyone must reduce and manage household waste in an environmentally friendly manner.
Article 13 - Managers of residence areas, commercial areas. special areas, industrial areas, public/social facilities, must provide waste-separation facilities.
Article 14 - Producers must put labels on their products relating to waste reduction/management.
Article 15 - Producers must process the packaging and/or goods it manufactures (which is difficult / impossible to degrade).
Not only are there obligations, but the government apparently should also give (i) incentives to those who reduce waste, and (ii) disincentives to those who do not! (Article 21).
It's also got all sorts of warm and fuzzy democratic undertones allowing for civic participation, eg public-private partnership in managing waste, acknowledging citizens rights to provide suggestions and input and take part in policy-making. (Article 27, 28).
It FORBIDS waste importation, waste processing that causes environmental damage, open waste management sites, waste-burning practices. (Article 29) Regional governments are expected to close down all open-sites by 2013 (Article 44).
I read all this slightly mystified. Only slightly, because I'm used to this by now. The catch is in the sentence "this shall be further regulated in....". And although the Law says that implementing regulations should be issued within one year, this has not happened, and there exists no penalty for lateness.
One thing that particularly interests me is this clause:
Article 36 - communities harmed by a tort relating to waste management may file a class action lawsuit.
I have searched jurisprudence files for such a class action lawsuit and have not found any. Has nobody ever thought of claiming damages over open waste management site landslides or river-waste induced dysentery outbreaks? I'm still searching, but if anybody has any info on this I'd be very happy :)
Article 15 is also much talked about these days by virtue of its sheer impotence. We really don't see producers collecting the residues of their products/packaging for recycling (with the exception of a few, like The Bodyshop retailers that have a basket where you can return used Bodyshop containers).
This becomes particularly concerning when we are talking about electronic waste, which is still severely under-managed in the waste world because it is a sum of complicated and different toxic parts. Some discussions on e-waste here: Sampah Elektronik Mau Dibuang Kemana
and here: More Regulations Urged for Indonesia's Hazardous E-Waste
Also cropping up in a discussion with friend Marc, is a dilemma with Article 15's scope of responsibility being limited only to non-degradable packaging. Producers who can claim to use biodegradable plastic bags are exempt from this obligation, and will continue churning out vast amounts of plastic which will continue to pollute rivers, be burnt, clog sewers, etc, without proper management.
Another problem with Article 15 (supposing it is even enforced), is that it inadvertently justifies the churning out of inefficient packaging and tons of plastic waste that will continue to pollute, with the idea that it is offset by producers being responsible for waste-processing. I think we can agree that reducing waste is vastly better than recycling, and if you don't agree yet please read this: Plastic and the Great Recycling Swindle
Speaking of plastic, the Law doesn't seem to provide an umbrella clause that could allow for a nationwide ban on plastic bags. It provides for regional governments to do their own thing, but only specifically mentions "supervision", "partner with waste management business entities". The possible hook is Article 20, which says the government and regional government must have a target for gradual reduction of waste within a certain timeframe. This, again, to be further elaborated in a currently-embryonic implementing regulation.
The gossip is that Jakarta is preparing a policy, flagging it Plastic Free Jakarta 2011. I haven't heard any more news of this since this MoU was signed in 2010.
Enter Draft Government Regulation on the Reduction of Waste, drafted in 2009 and as of today the latest update is that it is sitting on the President's desk. Of course, the plastic bag industry is highly opposed to this draft, with reasonings that sound desperate, I might add.
More on this draft later after I read the academic review.
0 comments: