Disposition of Waste Management Policy Implementers Through the Regional Cooperation Scheme

Disposition of Waste Management Policy Implementers Through the Regional Cooperation Scheme

Hatta Ridho Muhammad Husni Thamrin Faiz Albar Nasution* Yofiendi Indah Indainanto

Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan 20222, Indonesia

Faculty of Vocational, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan 20222, Indonesia

Faculty of Information Technology and Communication, Universitas Semarang, Semarang 59160, Indonesia

Corresponding Author Email: 
faiz@usu.ac.id
Page: 
275-282
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180129
Received: 
24 October 2022
|
Revised: 
30 December 2022
|
Accepted: 
10 January 2023
|
Available online: 
31 January 2023
| Citation

© 2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

This study departs from the waste management problem through inter-regional cooperation policies represented by North Sumatra Province, Medan City, Binjai City, Deli Serdang Regency, and Karo Regency. This study aims to describe the root causes that influence the low disposition of inter-regional cooperation policy implementers in waste management in the Mebidangro area. This study used a qualitative research method with a descriptive approach. Primary data was obtained from in-depth interviews with stakeholders, and field observations were made to obtain data and information. The research findings show that the attitude of policy implementers shows a negative response to waste management in the Mebidangro area. This condition is motivated by a lack of knowledge, differences in perspectives, separate management, differences in spatial planning, and a lack of trust, giving rise to suspicions that only one party will benefit. It is very important to build a model of inter-regional cooperation that does not consider hierarchical networks to eliminate sectoral egos and form a favorable attitude from each actor towards policy implementation. Future research needs to replicate this research by looking at the impact of the planned cooperation scheme in the national strategic area in waste management, both from social, technological, economic, and cultural aspects.

Keywords: 

disposition, policy, local government cooperation, waste management

1. Introduction

The dynamics of national development continue to exhibit visible progress. Starting with the continued expansion in population, the physical addition of infrastructure amenities follows. The stages and processes continue to develop from the national and regional levels down to the village level, as well as the issues and development paradoxes encountered. The development period's journey has become a motivator that triggers improvements in the improvement of development implementation arrangements that the government dominates as a central actor both at the central government level, regional governments, and the smallest government area unit, namely the village [1].

One of the problems in Indonesia's growth dynamics is how the complexity of development has expanded dramatically and is dominant in various urban regions, mainly metropolitan areas. As the third largest city in Indonesia, the City of Medan is the focus of this research debate. Specifically, the social phenomena of expanding population, size of economic activity, and addressing community demands result in an alarming growth in the volume of garbage [2]. As a result, efforts to build a better one have been encouraged through an integrative development strategy for the Medan-Binjai-Deli Serdang-Karo (Mebidangro) Urban Area, which has been used as a National Strategic Area coverage through Presidential Regulation Number 62 of 2011 concerning Spatial [3].

The early conversation focused on the waste management issue, which became the primary focus of the central government's policy toward inter-regional cooperation, particularly Mebidangro (Medan City, Binjai City, Deli Serdang Regency and Karo Regency). This policy's regulations aim to develop a safe, comfortable, productive, internationally competitive, and sustainable metropolitan area in the northern half of Sumatra Island as a focus for national activities. Several policies have resulted from implementing this policy throughout this period, including initiatives to establish and operate Final Disposal Sites in three places: Medan City, Binjai City, and Deli Serdang Regency. However, the performance of this policy's implementation still needs to be completed. Even with the description of garbage accumulation, particularly in the city of Medan, there is a conflicting dynamic: the Medan City Government closed the Namo Bintang final disposal site by Mayor of Medan Decree Number 658.1/317.K/III/2013 dated February 19, 2013 [4].

This ultimate disposal site, located in the administrative region of Deli Serdang district, is a Medan City Government asset purchased in 1984 and administered until 2013. This scenario has hampered the City of Medan's ability to handle trash. Medan controls trash with the use of 80 waste banks. However, 80 trash banks can only deliver 12 to 18 tons of waste to the central waste bank every month, even though waste generation is expected to be 2,000 tons each day [5]. As a result, the necessity of implementing waste management policies within the aegis of Presidential Regulation No. 62 of 2011 About the Spatial Planning of the Mebidangro Urban Area is increasing, as are the demands on its performance.

One of the critical reasons for the situation is that the format of cooperation between the relevant areas as actors executing policies still needs to be more stable. This fact is supported by Nagai's research findings, which state, "The issue of political will appears to be critical in promoting local cooperation" [6]. The Mebidangro North Sumatra province local cooperation plan was established in 2011 based on Presidential Decree No.62 to facilitate road development, rubbish disposal, and wastewater management. Despite this, the presidential order is the only legal instrument that supports the proposal. There is no official Memorandum of Understanding signed by city mayors and district governors, nor is there a coordinating office.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Regional government cooperation

Cooperation between local governments is a problem that the current government should be concerned about, given its significance in defining the country's resilience. Because the area has so many problems and community needs that must be addressed or met by crossing administrative boundaries [7]. Laws and regulations in each territory explicitly establish administrative boundaries. However, in practice, diverse difficulties and interests frequently arise because of functional interactions in the socioeconomic field that cross these administrative boundaries [8].

The fundamental reason for the necessity for cooperation between local governments in this context is so that diverse cross-administrative challenges can be resolved collaboratively [9]. On the other hand, many of their regional potentials can be used for the common good. As a result, the government's micro-organizational capabilities at the regional level must be revamped, a type of public management reform that the current administration must prioritize. This circumstance also stabilizes macro organizational capacities at the top level. In other words, strengthening the competence of local government institutions is critical [10].

On the other hand, people's routines in metropolitan regions such as Medan City, Binjai City, Deli Serdang Regency, and Karo Regency (Mebidangro) are crucial to the intricacy and complexity that occurs in Medan City. Until recently, it has weakened because of the Covid-19 Pandemic, which has forced regional governments to be sidetracked from focusing on achieving regional development performance. The regional government needs to prepare more due to increased demand for regional spending because of the budget refocusing on prevention, management, and overcoming the Covid-19 Pandemic [11]. Furthermore, the demand on local governments, especially those engaging in policy in the Mebidangro cooperation structure, to offer excellent public services has increased dramatically. As a result, enough knowledge and practice are also required to balance the perceived obligations [3].

The urgency of building attitudes as a physical representation of the Regional heads, the communities, and other development partners' solid cooperation is not easy [12]. The existence of current research and a more responsive governance model than previously existed are critical elements that must be applied routinely [13]. The importance of establishing the necessary information as a guide that provides a good direction for solving cross-regional, cross-social, and cross-cultural development challenges will play a role, as will a strategic placement in the development of science to develop the region.

2.2 Challenges of waste management in urban areas

The following discussion demonstrates that there is a primary beginning point, namely the formation of attitudes required by both Regional Heads. Thus, the community and other development stakeholders can participate in implementing policies outlined in Presidential Regulation Number 62 of 2011 Governing Spatial Planning for the Urban Areas of Medan, Binjai, Deli Serdang, and Karo [3]. Although research on topics important to this subject has been conducted, research that delves into and focuses on policy implementers' attitudes through cooperation among development actors from various regions is still uncommon [14-16].

As evidenced by research findings [17] on home trash management in Coxcatlan, Puebla, Mexico. Similarly, research from [18] in Burkina Faso and Ramos et al. [19] in Caracas, Venezuela, on trash management. These studies have looked at the various types of waste management challenges but have yet to focus on the solution component of waste management. In addition to many challenges and deficiencies, the relevant institutions also have possibilities and opportunities for better waste management. This study focuses on the significance of collaboration between surrounding governments in dealing with waste management concerns in metropolitan Mebidangro areas, as well as the characteristics of people with very tight relationships in the development.

2.3 Inter-regional cooperation Mebidangro

There are few studies on inter-regional cooperation in Indonesia, particularly in North Sumatra Province Medan City. Hence this research is intended to add to existing knowledge. According to the information and fact findings, an inter-regional cooperation approach is expected, which, due to the nature of the horizontal-relationship relationship, can shift from voluntary to collaborative forms, thereby strengthening joint activities of the regions covered by the Mebidangro cooperation [20-23].

The findings of this study are expected to support earlier findings that cooperation between local governments can be fostered if policy implementers exhibit positive attitudes, such as acknowledging mutual dependency and acting in a coordinated fashion [23]. Furthermore, the findings of this study are expected to provide policy input in the form of recommendations on strengthening inter-regional cooperation, stakeholder partnerships, and strengthening community roles in policy implementation in Medan City, Binjai City, Deli Serdang Regency, and Karo Regency (Mebidangro), to achieve the goals outlined in Presidential Regulation No. 62 of 2011 [3]. The concept of inter-regional collaboration presented as research suggestions is also expected to aid in the design of legislation governing the technical aspects of cooperation and the Mebidangro institution, increasing the likelihood of the Mebidangro Urban policy being implemented.

The description of research phenomena related to development problems faced in a dynamic cooperation framework involving several local governments, communities, and existing stakeholders. At the end of this preliminary discussion, it became more apparent. It showed a mismatch of attitudes shown by policy implementers related to inter-regional cooperation (Mebidangro) at a practical level, and there needs to be a gap in the thinking that should be about the theoretical response given. Thus, this scientific paper aims to describe the underlying causes of poor waste management performance in the context of cooperation between Mebidangro regions through the implementation of Presidential Regulation No. 62 of 2011 concerning Spatial Planning for Medan, Binjai, Deli Serdang, and Karo. The research also attempts to provide a thorough thought on prospective improvements, such as enhancing the understanding and practice required to attain good policy implementation performance.

3. Method

This study employs a qualitative research methodology with a descriptive approach. Qualitative descriptive research is a formulation of the problem guide research to explore or identify social situations that will be thorough. This method seeks to comprehend the phenomenon of what research subjects experience, such as behaviour, perceptions, interests, motivations, and actions, by describing it in the form of a statement [24]. The research focuses on providing an overview of Waste Management Policy Implementers through Regional Cooperation Schemes. Primary data is from in-depth interviews and observation. The data and information required were acquired directly at several study locations in informants from North Sumatra Province, Medan City, Binjai City, Deli Serdang Regency, and Karo Regency. In addition, they are collecting data and information from community leaders, environmentalists, community groups managing Waste Banks, and academics who pay great attention to research phenomena in relation.

Furthermore, secondary data is required to supplement the main study data collection results. As a result, the necessary secondary data was gathered in the form of processed data from individuals and authorized agencies in papers, reports, and scientific publications. Data and information acquired before are carefully managed to create the information required to draw study results [25]. Data management from in-depth interviews, systematically following the technical execution of qualitative descriptive analytical methodologies.

4. Results

The desire to achieve the performance of a public policy requires a positive attitude from the subject of the actor responsible for implementing the policy itself. The format of inter-regional cooperation, which includes the Provincial, Regency/City governments together with the community and stakeholders (Mebidangro), is understood as a strategic arrangement with a level of strategic difficulty. This understanding means that if one party is at odds with many other parties as the policy executor horizontally, it will create complex and complicated problems to resolve. Based on these discussions, the attitude shown is truly a strategic dimension for efforts to succeed in the implementation of Presidential Regulation No. 62 of 2011 concerning Spatial Planning for Medan, Binjai, Deli Serdang, and Karo Urban Areas. In this discussion section, the researcher presents information on research findings as well as an analytic discussion of important things to measure to describe the starting point of research problems concerning; an in-depth understanding of the subject of implementing the Mebidangro cooperation policy, especially in efforts to manage waste which is a concern in the routines of adjoining regions. Presentation of important information in the discussion of research also concerns matters regarding the direction of response which is an affirmation of attitudes that can describe the tendency of acceptance, neutrality, and even the possibility of rejection from each of the implementers involved. In the end, this work presents the intensity of each party that shows seriousness and a strong desire to get good results after implementing the intended policy.

Figure 1. Barriers to waste management policy disposition

(Source: Authors’ depiction)

The findings strengthen the implementation of waste management policies in the Mebidangro area (see Figure 1), which has several obstacles, both originating from the subjectivity of policy-implementing actors and structural policies in each region, which have different orientations. In the aspect of subjectivity, the attitude of the executor shows several obstacles—first, knowledge related to understanding and deepening waste management policies. Second, ego subjectivity leads to the assumption that the burden of waste generated in the region is not the responsibility of all regions. Moreover, regions with the most waste producers must be responsible for managing their waste without shifting responsibility to other actors. Third, the trust that not every waste manager in his area has. There is a culture of mutual suspicion that the urban waste management policy of Mebidangro only benefits one region and harms other regions. The four perspectives of each actor in understanding policies in each region are different. Because there is not yet an understanding of waste management, it can be seen from the seriousness of deciding and discussing the ideal waste management cooperation scheme.

Furthermore, the structural policy aspect raises obstacles starting from the management of waste, which is still separated, and spatial disparities in the management of rice fields in each Area; the Mebidangro Region has differences. Its application requires new regulations that must be interconnected within the Area. This process requires joint decision-making that does not conflict with other regulations. Each region's commitment to waste management is different. Each leader has a major commitment to reducing and managing. It is different from other regions still considering this cooperation in terms of profit and loss aspects. As a result, the intensity of discussion for each region has decreased, initiatives between regions in discussing cooperation schemes have been very low, and the focus of each region has preferred to solve its waste problems. The conditions of the problems above, subjectivity, and structural policies place the Implications of Cooperation Policy very low. The obstacles to these two aspects place the knowledge of the implementer, the direction and response of the implementer, as well as the intensity of the implementer of the policy to become a factor in the difficult realization of the Regional Collaboration Mebidangro in Waste Management.

4.1 Executor knowledge and understanding

Policy implementers' attitudes are influenced by their views on a policy and how they see the policy's impact on the interests of their organizations and their interests. Those who oversee accomplishing the standards and policy objectives must understand something that becomes the standard of policy objectives. As a result, policy implementers must be made aware of the standards and objectives. Communication must be consistent and uniform from multiple sources of information within the scope of presenting information to policy implementers about what the standards and objectives are [26].

The study's findings show that in the implementation of Presidential Decree 62/2011, the Provincial Government of North Sumatra always takes the initiative to coordinate. So far, a separate organization within the Regional Apparatus Organization oversees Mebidangro activities, namely the Regional Development Planning Agency of North Sumatra Province. The Provincial Government of North Sumatra needs help implementing policies linked to Mebidangro region cooperation at various activity levels. According to a key informant from the North Sumatra Province, I.S.H, in dealing with the problem of urban garbage in the Mebidangro area, said: “The provincial administration has limited jurisdiction in the issue of urban trash, which is likewise mandated by Presidential Decree 62/2011. The provincial administration has previously developed a standard action plan to address the long-term problem of urban garbage in the Mebidangro area. However, it is the jurisdiction of the relevant regencies/cities, notably Medan City, Deli Serdang Regency, and Binjai City, regarding its future operations, such as procuring a rubbish transport fleet. As Provincial Leader, I want the Regent/Mayor to be serious about this issue. However, the outcomes of the field realization have coordination gaps between parties. For example, at the most recent coordination conference in October 2019, the Regency and City Governments only sent representatives, even though those with executive authority, particularly in terms of budgets, are the Regents and Mayors”.

Limited authority at the provincial level in technical and operational arrangements, placing standard action plans as difficult to bind guidelines. The guidelines provide broad authority for regional leaders to regulate the budget in determining operational aspects. The reluctance to formulate a budget at the regional executive level facilitated by the Governor is inseparable from the budget related to the procurement of waste management tools and operations. This condition places the sectoral ego's reluctance to use his territory as a waste management site, causing a feeling of distrust and a lack of shared commitment. This understanding of implementation places regional leaders experiencing a coordination gap, shown by their non-serious attitude toward waste management cooperation. Provincial businesses that facilitate regents and mayors in solving operational issues were not enthusiastically welcomed in the formulation. The attitude of letting go of responsibility by sending delegations in this coordination shows that the Medindinggro scheme does not benefit every region.

Regarding trash management collaboration, the Medan City Government and the Deli Serdang Regency Government appear to operate independently. Even in certain circumstances, the two local governments do not share the same concept of the program's aims, such as the operation of the Namo Bintang Landfills in the Pancur Batu sub-district of Deli Serdang district, which is close to the Medan Tuntungan sub-district of Medan City. Landfills Namo Bintang is one of the areas officially designated as a dump for Medan City trash in Presidential Decree 62/2011. The Deli Serdang Regency Government objected if the Namo Bintang TPA was reopened using the open dumping technique. While the Namo Bintang Landfills was still operational, the Deli Serdang Regency Government requested that it be closed owing to environmental consequences and a reduction in the weight of the Adipura evaluation from the Ministry of the Environment. There are numerous explanations for the desired disparity, particularly among Deli Serdang Regency policy implementers. The following are the main reasons that became the conclusions of research findings regarding objections to the operation of the Namo Bintang Landfills: The Namo Bintang Landfills existence is not by Law No. 18 of 2008 concerning Waste Management because the final process of solid waste uses open dumping system, which has the potential to harm the environment. Second, the Namo Bintang region is planned as a residential area in the Deli Serdang Regency Spatial Plan. Thus the presence of Landfills will interrupt the activities of residents who will become inhabitants of the area.

The disparity in perceptions between the two local governments demonstrates that synchronizing knowledge and understanding through communication still needs smoother, particularly regarding waste management policies' goals and objectives in the cooperation scheme mandated by Presidential Regulation 62/2011. According to several studies, it is one of the colors in the many collaboration joints carried out in other regions or regions of Indonesia. This issue is known as a sectoral ego problem [9, 27-29]. It has also been described in other relevant research themes that in the practice of implementing a policy, there is often a view that the local government bureaucracy, especially in terms of explaining the conditions of each correlation between regions with one another in interconnectivity goals to get a service or in the interest of coordinating, shows disappointing symptoms., convoluted, lengthy, expensive to unsatisfactory results. The sectoral ego, which is still symptomatic, is thought to be one of the elements that are still a disease in the rules of government management [30]. Other findings, such as Nagai [6], explain the same issue as a sense of distrust expressed by one party towards another party in cooperative ties between regions.

4.2 Response directions for implementers

In defining the direction of the reaction of interested implementers, the continuance of in-depth understanding is acquired through knowledge and even shared understanding. This conversation centred on the goal of collaboration amongst many parts of regional development, specifically North Sumatra Province, Medan City, Binjai City, Deli Serdang Regency, and Karo Regency. This in-depth understanding will undoubtedly influence each party's response choice. The study's findings suggest that the response tendency, which represents policy implementers' attitude (disposition) via the Mebidangro cooperation scheme for urban waste management, demonstrates that conditions remain far from optimal. Horizontally, there is a mutual suspicion that Mebidangro urban waste management policy solely favors Medan by reducing garbage creation in its administrative region.

On the other hand, the Medan City Government believes that the Deli Regency Government is unwilling to build a Medan City TPA. Indeed, the cause of waste generation, according to the Medan City Government, is not only the people of Medan but also the residents of Deli Serdang, considering that Medan is the centre of trade, education, industry, and trade activities. This sense of sectoral ego causes the intensity of the disposition to be very low. Vertically, this response can be seen from the tendency of the district/city government to watch and wait for the policies and actions of the Central and Provincial Governments in carrying out the Mebidangro urban waste management program and other programs. This waiting attitude shows the district/city government's indifference to the level of government above (Provincial Government) because of a misunderstanding of the concept of "organizing and managing their own household" from the goal of regional autonomy.

This situation, where there is a misinterpretation of relations between levels of government, must be avoided because a lack of respect for other local governments will only harm the people of North Sumatra, especially in the Mebidangro area. It is time for regional autonomy rules to be uniform in the era of Regional Government Law No. 23 of 2014. This law explicitly regulates the role of regional governments, such as provincial and district/city governments. Article 13 paragraph (3) of Law 23/2014 has regulated the criteria for affairs that fall under the authority of the provincial government, namely (a) Government Affairs that are domiciled across districts/cities; (b) Government Affairs whose users cross districts/cities; (c) government affairs whose benefits or negative impacts cross districts/cities; and (d) Government Affairs whose resources are used more efficiently if implemented by the Province. The waste management in Mebidangro is part of the concurrent affairs that fulfills cross-regency/city criteria so that the provincial government has the authority to lead efforts to deal with it with the provisions set out in Perpres 62/2011.

To ensure that the Mebidangro program can be implemented without disrespecting the provincial government, it is best to start the awareness campaign by reminding and implementing the provisions in Law 23/2014 that state the relationship between the provincial government and the district/city government can be hierarchical. Articles 91 to 93 of Law 23/2014 have regulated the Governor's authority as a representative of the central government, where the Governor is tasked with providing guidance and supervision of the implementation of co-administration tasks in the Regency/City, conducting monitoring, evaluation, and supervision, evaluating the Regional Revenue and Expenditure Budget, canceling Regency/City Regional Regulations, and giving approval to the Draft Regency/City Regional Regulations. The Governor may also settle disputes between regencies/cities within his or her territory. The Governor, as the Central Administration's representative in the regions, carries out the Central Government's responsibility in supervising and fostering the Regency/City regional government.

It is realized that focusing on regional autonomy in districts/cities has had no effect all this time. The design of symmetrical autonomy with an emphasis on districts/cities and the broadest possible application of autonomy has created difficult conditions for coordinating public sector affairs across districts/cities that are the province's domain. The provincial government appears to have no area because of the growth of regionalism in the district/city administration, likely due to a misinterpretation of legislation. Coordination relationship lines are ineffective, and there are frequent arguments and even infractions because of obligations being thrown over the authority of public services, such as road maintenance.

Normatively according to the provisions of Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution as a result of the amendment, there is no regulation regarding where the emphasis of regional autonomy lies, whether it lies with the provincial or district/city governments, where in Article 18 paragraph (1) it is stated that "The Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia is divided into Provincial regions and provincial areas are divided into regencies and cities, each of which has a regional government which is regulated by law". Because Article 18 is an open legal policy because of the change, the emphasis on autonomy is entirely up to legislators. As a result, parliamentarians must decide whether to emphasize regional autonomy based on an assessment of regional autonomy implementation, which has only been ongoing since 2001, when Law 22/1999 was established.

The implementation of cross-district/city affairs appears to be more successful, for example, in DKI Jakarta Province, which adheres to a one-layer decentralization system. Governors have real power to regulate administrative areas under them so that the impact of the coordination problem in implementing work programs can be minimized. It must be admitted that the impact of Law 22/2009 Article 4 states that no hierarchical relationship between the provincial government and district/city governments has been felt until now in the form of disharmony between the two levels of government. Although the replacement laws, Law 32/2004, and Law 23/2014, have removed this language, there is still a strong presumption at the practical level that provinces are just administrative areas and regencies/cities are autonomous regions. Regents/Mayors believe that coordinating with the province administration is insufficient; hence many Regents/Mayors travel to Jakarta to cooperate with the central government.

4.3 Policy implementation intensity

Policy implementation failure is defined by the intensity of the implementers' disposition, which can affect their performance due to a lack or limited intensity of this disposition [26]. In terms of implementing Presidential Regulation 62/2011, the intensity of disposition, which is the tendency of policy implementers' response, still indicates flaws. One of the most important research findings is that commitment or willingness to implement strategic topics, particularly from district/city leadership, is minimal. As a result of this circumstance, the policy is implemented with little effort to achieve maximum performance.

Although Perpres 62/2011 has been in effect for more than ten years, progress appears to be glacial in comparison to the seriousness of its implementers, particularly the Regency/City Government. Since the implementation of this program in 2011, four governors have taken turns governing North Sumatra: Syamsul Arifin, Gatot Pujonugroho, T Erry Nuradi, and now Eddy Rahmayadi. The number of coordination meetings discussing collaboration amongst the Mebidangro areas during that time can be counted on finger. Medan City, Binjai City, Deli Serdang Regency, and Karo Regency regional heads did not attend the Mebidangro National Strategic Area Coordination Meeting. The North Sumatra Provincial Government, on the other hand, was immediately visited by regional head who were also accompanied by comprehensive and relevant Regional Apparatus Organization leadership elements in accordance with the implemented agenda. In the meeting, the Provincial Government expressed a wish for good intensity through the role, seriousness, and sincerity of all parties to work together to fulfill the aims and efforts to accelerate the development of the Mebidangro integrated area [31].

This study's results align with Fumio Nagai's research, which states that the North Sumatra Provincial Government understands the goodness and benefits of inter-regional cooperation. However, the North Sumatra Provincial Government assesses that the three other regencies/cities seem to have suspicions and jealousy towards the city of Medan. Nagai implicitly got the wrong impression that Medindingro was only there to deal with the problems of Medan City. As a result, policy implementers in other regions will be influenced in assessing the seriousness of Medindingro's operations. One of the main obstacles in the efforts of Medindingro, especially waste management, is the lack of attitude and will [26].

The lack of initiative from district and city governments to take the program seriously and focus on discussing and implementing it indicates that the intensity of the Mebidangro cooperation policy implementation, particularly for waste management in integrated urban areas, still needs to be higher. Researchers have also confirmed through document research or recorded manuscripts such as minutes of coordination activities, all of which are the result of the initiation of the North Sumatra Provincial Government. The provincial government is aware of the situation. Thus, one of the reasons for the poor performance of the Mebidangro cooperation policy implementation in the context of waste management is the need for more intensity on the part of the implementers. In this context, it can also be described as a situation in which policy implementation is still quite limited.

5. Discussion

Critically, the study's findings show that the climate for regional cooperation remains hierarchical and structured. This is very much in line with Van Meter and Van Horn's [26] policy implementation paradigm. This concept undoubtedly refers to attitudes toward interpreting and understanding the classical administrative model, which at the time emphasized a structured, systematic, and hierarchical pattern of cooperative relations between actors. According to this statement, the author emphasizes that cooperation between Mebidangro regions in waste management still needs to be improved to generate knowledge and understanding to overcome problems that arise.

This situation is illustrated by research findings which show that each party has a strong desire to be seen as an equal partner in cooperation. Presidential Decree 62 of 2011 is also an effort to increase cooperation so that each region meets regardless of structure or hierarchy as a policy interpretation at the low level. That is, this policy has several possibilities. If seen as a form of cooperation that prioritizes structure and hierarchy, it will result in low policy performance or more emphasis on familiarity and cohesiveness. Researchers support alternative models of cooperation between regions regardless of network structure or hierarchy. So, there is an opportunity to erode thick sectoral egos to be more flexible in implementing various policy implementers such as provincial governments, district/city governments, communities, and stakeholders in regional development.

This model of inter-regional cooperation also focuses on various concepts of cooperation in European countries. Of course, this thinking effort is accompanied by mainstreaming the consensus of each member about whom to cooperate with, especially in rediscovering common goals and cohesion for the success of policies. To articulate these new ideas, a common platform is needed to support a diverse mix of implementers from all walks of life. Given the research findings regarding the low intensity of this collaborative approach, it also implies that the institutional form developed has been mutually agreed upon by all stakeholders. The researcher proposes a strategic step as a new start to improve collaboration practices. The author emphasizing the importance of the role of the Central Government as an institution that is free from suspicion, especially those that have colored previous collaborations. This step is seen as important as a strategic trigger in articulating the goals of regional cooperation.

6. Conclusion

The disposition of policy implementers through the Mebidangro cooperation scheme for urban waste management demonstrates that conditions are still far from ideal. Despite a strong desire to work together to manage waste. However, it faces several challenges, including a lack of knowledge, differing perspectives, separate management, disparities in spatial planning, and a lack of trust, which raises concerns about just one-party benefits. This condition may be seen in the Regency and City Governments' need for more intensity, initiative, and focus in developing and executing policies, which is a problem that makes waste management integration challenging to achieve.

It is critical to building an inter-regional cooperation model that does not consider the structural or hierarchical network so that there is a possibility to dissolve the sectoral ego and form a favorable attitude from every actor accountable for policy implementation. The limitation of this research is not looking at the impact of waste management from the aspect of society, environment, supporting facilities, and infrastructure. Future research needs to replicate this research by looking at the impact of the benefits of the planned cooperation scheme in the national strategic area in waste management, both from social, technological, economic, and cultural aspects.

Acknowledgment

Researchers would like to thank the Research Institute of the University of North Sumatra for providing the funds to carry out this research properly. The Talenta Program supports this research through Basic Research 2020.

  References

[1] Talitha, T., Firman, T., Hudalah, D. (2020). Welcoming two decades of decentralization in Indonesia: a regional development perspective. Territory, Politics, Governance, 8(5): 690-708. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2019.1601595

[2] Ferronato, N., Torretta, V. (2019). Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(6): 1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061060

[3] Thamrin, M.H., Ridho, H., Nasution, F.A. (2022). Strengthening community participation in spatial planning of riverflow regions in Medan City. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 17(60): 1849-1854. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170619

[4] Izharsyah, J.R. (2020). Analisis strategis Pemko Medan dalam melakukan sistem pengelolaan sampah berbasis open dumping menjadi sanitary landfill. Jurnal Ilmiah Muqoddimah: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Politik dan Hummanioramaniora, 4(2): 109-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.31604/jim.v4i2.2020.109-117

[5] Sriyanto, D., Intan, T.K. (2019). Household waste management to improve the community economy via waste bank in Medan City. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 245(1): 012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/245/1/012038

[6] Fumio, N. (2019). The Current State of Local Cooperation in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. 1-23. https://www.ide.go.jp/library/English/Publish/Reports/Ec/pdf/201903_ch03.pdf, accessed on Jan. 17, 2023.

[7] Nurdin, N., Stockdale, R., Scheepers, H. (2014). Coordination and cooperation in e-government: An Indonesian local e-government case. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 61(1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2014.tb00432.x

[8] Favero, M., Gatto, P., Deutsch, N., Pettenella, D. (2016). Conflict or synergy? Understanding interaction between municipalities and village commons (regole) in polycentric governance of mountain areas in the Veneto Region, Italy. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2): 821-853. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.470

[9] Thamrin, M.H., Ridho, H., Nasution, F.A. (2021). Institutional coordination of flood control at medan city in mebidangro cooperation scheme. Sosiohumaniora, 23(3): 391-399. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v23i3.31620

[10] Pollitt, C. (2012). Politics, administration and performance: A continuing search, but no one best way?. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18508718.pdf, accessed on Jan. 17, 2023.

[11] Sevindik, I., Tosun, M.S., Yilmaz, S. (2021). Local response to the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Indonesia. Sustainability, 13(10): 5620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105620

[12] Brankov, J., Micić, J., Ćalić, J., Kovačević-Majkić, J., Milanović, R., Telbisz, T. (2022). Stakeholders’ attitudes toward protected areas: the case of tara national park (Serbia). Land, 11(4): 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040468

[13] Sahlman, W.A. (2022). The structure and governance of venture-capital organizations. In Venture Capital, 3-51.

[14] Banerjee, S., Sarkhel, P. (2020). Municipal solid waste management, household and local government participation: a cross country analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(2): 210-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1576512

[15] Fernando, R.L.S. (2019). Solid waste management of local governments in the Western Province of Sri Lanka: An implementation analysis. Waste Management, 84: 194-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.030

[16] Agovino, M., D'Uva, M., Garofalo, A., Marchesano, K. (2018). Waste management performance in Italian provinces: Efficiency and spatial effects of local governments and citizen action. Ecological Indicators, 89: 680-695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.045

[17] Hilburn, A.M. (2015). Participatory risk mapping of garbage‐related issues in a rural mexican municipality. Geographical Review, 105(1): 41-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2014.12044.x

[18] Yiougo, L.S., Oyedotun, T.D., Some, C.Y., Da, E.C. (2013). Urban cities and waste generation in developing countries: A gis evaluation of two cities in burkina faso. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering, 7(2): 280-285. https://doi.org/10.4090/juee.2013.v7n2.280285

[19] Ramos, C., Vicentini, A., Ortega, D. (2012). Challenges and opportunities of waste collection in Caracas: Sucre municipality case study. Consilience, (7): 115-129. https://doi.org/10.7916/consilience.v0i7.4576

[20] Primanto, A., Tanjung, A.M., Situmorang, M., Karim, A. M., Puspitasari, L., Purba, N., Pramono, R. (2021). Inter-regional cooperation in improving welfare and resolving poverty in Indonesia. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20: 1-11. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/interregional-cooperation-in-improving-welfare-and-resolving-poverty-in-indonesia.pdf, accessed on Dec. 17, 2022.

[21] Pribadi, D.O., Putra, A.S., Rustiadi, E. (2015). Determining optimal location of new growth centers based on LGP–IRIO model to reduce regional disparity in Indonesia. The Annals of Regional Science, 54(1): 89-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-014-0647-8

[22] Tarigan, A.K., Samsura, D.A.A., Sagala, S., Pencawan, A.V. (2017). Medan City: Development and governance under the decentralisation era. Cities, 71: 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.002

[23] Okitasari, M., Kidokoro, T. (2014). Understanding collaborative governance in decentralizing indonesia a dimensional approach to emerging intergovernmental and cross-sectoral collaboration. Urban and Regional Planning Review, 1: 82-98. https://doi.org/10.14398/urpr.1.82

[24] Creswell, J.W., Poth, C.N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839915580941

[25] Miles Matthew, B., Michael, H.A., Johnny, S. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.

[26] Van Meter, D.S., Van Horn, C.E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration & Society, 6(4): 445-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977500600404

[27] Wijaya, A. F., Muluk, K., Bisri, M.H. (2022). Rural area development policy through the joint village owned enterprise from the perspective of collaborative governance. Governance, 30(3): 2021-2036. https://journals.kozminski.cems-j.com/index.php/pl_cemj/pdf/Andy%20Fefta%20Wijaya.pdf, accessed on Dec. 27, 2022.

[28] Saleh, C., Hardiwinata, W.H., Mindarti, L.I., Zauhar, S. (2020). Management of palm oil by the government of the republic of indonesia. Utopía Y Praxis Latinoamericana: Revista Internacional de Filosofía Iberoamericana Y Teoría Social, (10): 336-353. https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/utopia/article/view/34384, accessed on Dec. 15, 2022.

[29] Asmaraa, A.Y., Kusumastutib, R. (2021). Innovation Policy Implementation in Indonesia: Perspective of Triple Helix. Journal of STI Policy and Management, 6(1): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.14203/STIPM.2021.290

[30] Febrian, R.A. (2016). Collaborative governance dalam pembangunan kawasan perdesaan (Tinjauan Konsep Dan Regulasi). Wedana: Jurnal Kajian Pemerintahan, Politik Dan Birokrasi, 2(2): 200-208. https://journal.uir.ac.id/index.php/wedana/article/view/1824, accessed on Dec. 25, 2022.

[31] Ridho, H., Sos, S. (2022). MEBIDANGRO: Kerja Sama dalam Pengolahan Sampah Perkotaan. Jejak Pustaka.