A Good Ban, Done Wrong: How to Accelerate Lasting and Just Solutions Amid Bali’s Waste Crisis |
ASEAN Beat | Environment | Southeast Asia
A Good Ban, Done Wrong: How to Accelerate Lasting and Just Solutions Amid Bali’s Waste Crisis
Closing Suwung landfill is the right decision. But the government has yet to provide sustainable alternatives for Bali’s waste.
On April 1, 2026, the Bali provincial government enacted a ban on organic waste at the Suwung landfill, a site that has operated for more than four decades. Closing Suwung is the right decision. However, this move is less proactive provincial reform than delayed enforcement of existing national law.
Law No. 18/2008 already prohibits open dumping and requires all landfills to comply by 2013. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry’s Decree No. 921 of 2025 represents not a sudden intervention, but enforcement more than a decade late. This highlights a structural issue: policy mandates are being introduced without the systems required to implement them.
The closure of Suwung has been postponed repeatedly, from December 2025 to February 2026, then April, and now August 1, 2026. Each extension has cited the same constraint: Bali lacks the infrastructure to process more than 1,000 tonnes of waste generated daily. Even the latest timeline does not appear to be backed by a clear readiness assessment.
Governor I Wayan Koster has compelled citizens to manage waste at source, without providing the tools and infrastructure to do so. It is analogous to a doctor ordering a patient to change their lifestyle without providing a prescription, a referral, or a support system.
The consequences are already visible. Residents have resorted to open burning. Images that went viral on social media show neighborhoods blanketed in smoke, with some witnessing the smoke raised throughout Bali from an airplane window. The Housing and Public Works Agency of Denpasar reported a surge of 7 tonnes of waste being illegally dumped into rivers daily. The closure of Suwung simply outpaced provincial readiness – even though it’s been required by national law for over a decade.
The primary infrastructure solution being promoted is a Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, locally known as PSEL, which is not expected to be operational before 2028 at the earliest. WTE projects received recent policy acceleration through Presidential Regulation 109/2025 and Danantara, President Prabowo Subianto’s state investment vehicle, is acting as a political guarantor to speed up development. However, implementation timelines remain uncertain like other WTE projects in Indonesia in the last decade.
It should also be noted that environmental groups won a landmark civil lawsuit at the Supreme Court in 2017, where WTE incineration practices were found incompatible with the constitutional right to a healthy environment. Despite this ruling, proposals continue to emerge, including an 400 billion rupiah ($23 million) incineration facility in Klungkung and plans to integrate incinerators into TPS3R facilities — the Indonesian equivalent to a Material Recovery Facility. This is inconsistent with Bali Governor Regulation 47/2019, which defines TPS3R facilities as centers for reduction, reuse, and recycling, not waste burning.
Beyond regulatory inconsistencies, there are significant environmental and health concerns. Incineration produces ash that is highly toxic, laden with dioxins and furans, which require specialized hazardous waste management and cannot be safely reused as fertilizer or construction material.
International evidence also raises concerns. The European Union has excluded WTE incineration from its sustainable finance taxonomy due to emissions intensity. In the United Kingdom, recent reporting has identified waste incineration as among the most carbon-intensive forms of electricity generation. Scientifically, burning plastic is equivalent to burning fossil fuels. WTE creates long-term liabilities that will ultimately be borne by the public.
A further concern is “feedstock lock-in.” Incineration projects typically rely on long-term waste supply contracts, often prioritizing residual waste that represents only 5–10 percent of the total waste stream. In reality, it competes with recyclables too, as these materials have high calorific value suitable for burning. This risks undermining waste reduction and separation targets under Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation 75/2019.
Evidence from within Indonesia shows that decentralized systems are viable. In Gianyar, collaboration with Pusat Pendidikan Lingkungan Hidup (PPLH) Bali enabled the development of a community-based zero waste system, including source separation and decentralized composting. The landfill ban at Temesi, a disposal facility dedicated to the Gianyar Regency, was introduced only after these systems were established. That is a key difference from Suwung’s current approach: In Gianyar, the new waste system and infrastructure came before the ban.
Organic waste represents the largest share of Bali’s waste stream. Managing organic waste at source through composting, biodigesters, and community-scale TPS3R facilities is already practiced in multiple regions across Indonesia. In Lebih Village’s TPS 3R Tri Widya Lestari, PPLH Bali and Gianyar Government have implemented door-to-door waste collection program and composting since 2022. This helped them to be resilient when Temesi stopped receiving mixed waste in 2024.
Bandung provides another relevant example. It implemented Indonesia’s first organic waste landfill restriction under crisis conditions and followed it with system expansion. The GASLAH program deployed 1,596 workers for source separation and composting as an alternative to incineration. This demonstrates that when waste management is linked to employment creation, scale becomes achievable.
For such systems to function sustainably, governments must also establish formal offtake mechanisms. This includes guaranteed public procurement of compost and Black Soldier Fly products at stable prices. Without assured demand, organic waste management systems struggle to scale. Similar procurement models already exist in Indonesia, including feed-in tariffs for WTE projects and guaranteed offtake arrangements for Refuse-derived Fuel (RDF). Bandung’s GASLAH already proved it, guaranteeing compost offtake through integration with the city’s urban gardening program.
There is another important consideration: Keadilan (justice), as stated in Law 18/2008, is a guiding principle of Indonesia’s waste management framework. It requires that transitions in waste systems consider the groups most affected, particularly pemulung (waste pickers). For decades, waste pickers have provided an essential environmental service by recovering recyclable materials and reducing landfill pressure, often without formal recognition or protection. The closure of Suwung without transition planning risks eliminating their livelihoods.
Waste pickers should instead be integrated into formal decentralized systems, including roles in collection, sorting, and composting. Their exclusion would weaken the effectiveness and inclusiveness of the system being developed. Excluding them from the transition is a missed opportunity for the governments, as cities need massive workforce to rapidly increase source separation and diversion from disposal.
Bali’s organic waste ban is a necessary policy step. However, the responsibility of the government does not end with prohibition. Without adequate supporting systems, the ban risks producing unintended consequences, including increased open burning, illegal dumping, and public resistance. Forcing incineration will only drive us away from empowering communities whose roles are critical in ensuring successful source separation and diversion of organic waste from landfills.
A more effective approach lies in investment in decentralized infrastructure, integration of waste pickers into formal systems, and the development of procurement mechanisms that ensure economic viability for community-based solutions. Involvement and empowerment of desa adat (customary villages) serve as a unique lever for both policy implementation and enforcement.
The August 2026 deadline is approaching quickly. The key question is whether this period will be used to build functioning systems, or whether it will result in further delays and continued policy-implementation gaps.
Get to the bottom of the story
Subscribe today and join thousands of diplomats, analysts, policy professionals and business readers who rely on The Diplomat for expert Asia-Pacific coverage.
Get unlimited access to in-depth analysis you won't find anywhere else, from South China Sea tensions to ASEAN diplomacy to India-Pakistan relations. More than 5,000 articles a year.
Unlimited articles and expert analysis
Weekly newsletter with exclusive insights
16-year archive of diplomatic coverage
Ad-free reading on all devices
Support independent journalism
Already have an account? Log in.
On April 1, 2026, the Bali provincial government enacted a ban on organic waste at the Suwung landfill, a site that has operated for more than four decades. Closing Suwung is the right decision. However, this move is less proactive provincial reform than delayed enforcement of existing national law.
Law No. 18/2008 already prohibits open dumping and requires all landfills to comply by 2013. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry’s Decree No. 921 of 2025 represents not a sudden intervention, but enforcement more than a decade late. This highlights a structural issue: policy mandates are being introduced without the systems required to implement them.
The closure of Suwung has been postponed repeatedly, from December 2025 to February 2026, then April, and now August 1, 2026. Each extension has cited the same constraint: Bali lacks the infrastructure to process more than 1,000 tonnes of waste generated daily. Even the latest timeline does not appear to be backed by a clear readiness assessment.
Governor I Wayan Koster has compelled citizens to manage waste at source, without providing the tools and infrastructure to do so. It is analogous to a doctor ordering a patient to change their lifestyle without providing a prescription, a referral, or a support system.
The consequences are already visible. Residents have resorted to open burning. Images that went viral on social media show neighborhoods blanketed in smoke, with some witnessing the smoke raised throughout Bali from an airplane window. The Housing and Public Works Agency of Denpasar reported a surge of 7 tonnes of waste being illegally dumped into rivers daily. The closure of Suwung simply outpaced provincial readiness – even though it’s been required by national law for over a decade.
The primary infrastructure solution being promoted is a Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility, locally known as PSEL, which is not expected to be operational before 2028 at the earliest. WTE projects received recent policy acceleration through Presidential Regulation 109/2025 and Danantara, President Prabowo Subianto’s state investment vehicle, is acting as a political guarantor to speed up development. However, implementation timelines remain uncertain like other WTE projects in Indonesia in the last decade.
It should also be noted that environmental groups won a landmark civil lawsuit at the Supreme Court in 2017, where WTE incineration practices were found incompatible with the constitutional right to a healthy environment. Despite this ruling, proposals continue to emerge, including an 400 billion rupiah ($23 million) incineration facility in Klungkung and plans to integrate incinerators into TPS3R facilities — the Indonesian equivalent to a Material Recovery Facility. This is inconsistent with Bali Governor Regulation 47/2019, which defines TPS3R facilities as centers for reduction, reuse, and recycling, not waste burning.
Beyond regulatory inconsistencies, there are significant environmental and health concerns. Incineration produces ash that is highly toxic, laden with dioxins and furans, which require specialized hazardous waste management and cannot be safely reused as fertilizer or construction material.
International evidence also raises concerns. The European Union has excluded WTE incineration from its sustainable finance taxonomy due to emissions intensity. In the United Kingdom, recent reporting has identified waste incineration as among the most carbon-intensive forms of electricity generation. Scientifically, burning plastic is equivalent to burning fossil fuels. WTE creates long-term liabilities that will ultimately be borne by the public.
A further concern is “feedstock lock-in.” Incineration projects typically rely on long-term waste supply contracts, often prioritizing residual waste that represents only 5–10 percent of the total waste stream. In reality, it competes with recyclables too, as these materials have high calorific value suitable for burning. This risks undermining waste reduction and separation targets under Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation 75/2019.
Evidence from within Indonesia shows that decentralized systems are viable. In Gianyar, collaboration with Pusat Pendidikan Lingkungan Hidup (PPLH) Bali enabled the development of a community-based zero waste system, including source separation and decentralized composting. The landfill ban at Temesi, a disposal facility dedicated to the Gianyar Regency, was introduced only after these systems were established. That is a key difference from Suwung’s current approach: In Gianyar, the new waste system and infrastructure came before the ban.
Organic waste represents the largest share of Bali’s waste stream. Managing organic waste at source through composting, biodigesters, and community-scale TPS3R facilities is already practiced in multiple regions across Indonesia. In Lebih Village’s TPS 3R Tri Widya Lestari, PPLH Bali and Gianyar Government have implemented door-to-door waste collection program and composting since 2022. This helped them to be resilient when Temesi stopped receiving mixed waste in 2024.
Bandung provides another relevant example. It implemented Indonesia’s first organic waste landfill restriction under crisis conditions and followed it with system expansion. The GASLAH program deployed 1,596 workers for source separation and composting as an alternative to incineration. This demonstrates that when waste management is linked to employment creation, scale becomes achievable.
For such systems to function sustainably, governments must also establish formal offtake mechanisms. This includes guaranteed public procurement of compost and Black Soldier Fly products at stable prices. Without assured demand, organic waste management systems struggle to scale. Similar procurement models already exist in Indonesia, including feed-in tariffs for WTE projects and guaranteed offtake arrangements for Refuse-derived Fuel (RDF). Bandung’s GASLAH already proved it, guaranteeing compost offtake through integration with the city’s urban gardening program.
There is another important consideration: Keadilan (justice), as stated in Law 18/2008, is a guiding principle of Indonesia’s waste management framework. It requires that transitions in waste systems consider the groups most affected, particularly pemulung (waste pickers). For decades, waste pickers have provided an essential environmental service by recovering recyclable materials and reducing landfill pressure, often without formal recognition or protection. The closure of Suwung without transition planning risks eliminating their livelihoods.
Waste pickers should instead be integrated into formal decentralized systems, including roles in collection, sorting, and composting. Their exclusion would weaken the effectiveness and inclusiveness of the system being developed. Excluding them from the transition is a missed opportunity for the governments, as cities need massive workforce to rapidly increase source separation and diversion from disposal.
Bali’s organic waste ban is a necessary policy step. However, the responsibility of the government does not end with prohibition. Without adequate supporting systems, the ban risks producing unintended consequences, including increased open burning, illegal dumping, and public resistance. Forcing incineration will only drive us away from empowering communities whose roles are critical in ensuring successful source separation and diversion of organic waste from landfills.
A more effective approach lies in investment in decentralized infrastructure, integration of waste pickers into formal systems, and the development of procurement mechanisms that ensure economic viability for community-based solutions. Involvement and empowerment of desa adat (customary villages) serve as a unique lever for both policy implementation and enforcement.
The August 2026 deadline is approaching quickly. The key question is whether this period will be used to build functioning systems, or whether it will result in further delays and continued policy-implementation gaps.
Yobel Novian Putra is the Global Climate Policy Officer at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). He graduated from Institut Teknologi Bandung with a degree in environmental engineering.
waste to energy (WTE)