1

ANNEX 3: WORKSHOP MATERIALS Group 1: Facilitator: Alfred Lambertus, Resource Person: Syurur Wahyudi, BORDA Group members: 1. Dr. Jerry Siahaan, M. Kes-Dinkes Kendari 2. Ir. Andi Baso Fahrir, MM-Bappeda Kendari 3. Ir. Albertus B. Pongmanda, -PU, Kendari 4. Ir. Titik Sulandri, MT-Bappeda Bandung 5. Ir. Ridwan Musagani- PDAM, Makassar 6. Kuswardono – PDAM Makassar 7. Ristina Apprilia – USAID ESP 8. Sugino Suwahjo – PD PAL Jaya 9. Basuki Harijadi – PDAM Malang 10. Niken Pudyiastuti – Dep. Keuangan 11. Maryanto – PDAM Solo 12. BRM. Bambang Irawan – PDAM Solo 13. Ir. Amrie Ramli – Bappeda Jambi

Courtesy: Risyana Sukarma

HOW CAN STAKEHOLDERS HELP THE PROJECT CITIES LEARN ABOUT CBS Stakeholders CBS Caractéristiques

Who are they? Its role How to promote

- Planned, implemented, operated & maintained by the community

- Demanded by the community & community able to pay

- Community involved in planning, implementation and maintenance

- Community based sanitation means: planned, implemented and operated by community self-help groups

- CBS easy and cheap to operate by users of all levels, rich, middle and poor levels

- Sanitation systems maintained by the community backed-up with by-laws

- Almost all people in the community understood proper sanitation and implement it proven by decrease of diarhoea cases

- Idea should originated from the community for the community for the sake of improved health with bottom-up planning.

- Community directly feel improved sanitation services to ensure sustainability of system.

- From and for communities

- Apropriate

- Government - Appointed PDAM - DPRD - Investor/consultant - Universities - Private sector - Community/ies - Community self-help

organizations - Urban: sub-district,

kelurahan, PKK/community - Rural: village head/lurah,

community - Mayor - BAPPEDA - PU/Public Work - Donor/s - Cleansing Dep. - City Planning Dept. - NGO - Donor - Developer

- Funding - Coordination - Policy - Mandate holder - Operator - Control (legal) - Supplier (materoal) - Technology Transfer - Penanggung jawab - Controller - Donor - Planner - Implementor - Fasilitator - Pengarah - Owner - Obyek & subyek - Pendamping

(capacity building) - User - O&M

- Use of Mass Media - Health Department - Through Transfer of

Technology - Desiminate use of

CBS to communities - Behavioural change:

consume clean water, community education

- Promotion through local government system

- Information share through arisan PKK, RT Meetings and activities within RT

2

technology opion/fit to users need

- O&M from the comunity

- CBS Institution should be: legal & accountable

- Technology criteria: community chosen, affordable, appropriate and meet technical standards.

Conclusion: CBS caractéristiques

1. Community understanding and decisión is based on informed choice 2. Demanded by the community 3. Willingness to contribute 4. Sense of belonging: based on process and staging 5. Strengthens local resources and potentials

Stakeholders No Who Role 1 Community - Mobilize funding

- As user - Operator and is responsable for maintenance - Decisión maker - Planner and implementor

2 Government - Budget allocation/sponsorship - Fasilitator - Coordinator - Controller of effluent standards

3 Private Sector/NGO - Funding - Pembina - Fasilitator

4 Mass Media - Desimenation - Promotion/campaign

How to promote

1. Build same perception and understanding on CBS at government and legislative levels 2. Adopt, formalised and legalised CBS as an potential option

Efektif promotion methods 1. Workshops at district and municipality levels. All stakeholders as participants 2. Cross-visit/s 3. Publications 4. Campaign (Sosialisasi) at arisan PKK (Women Union), RT (neighborhood) meetings dan other RT activities

Group 2. Facilitator: Hamzah Harun Al Rasyid, Group Member: 1. Dra. Betty Wediati – PDAM Bandung 2. Rina Ariyanie Tahir, ST – Tata Kota Kendari 3. Drs. H. Baharumin, AK, ST – Bapeda Kendari 4. Ir. T. Fahmi Johan – PDAM Medan 5. M. Muhidin – PDAM Banjarmasin 6. Edy Sudiro, S Sos – Bappeda Kendari 7. Agus Hebi DJ – Dinas Kebersihan Surabaya 8. Agus Hernadi – USAID ESP 9. Ir. Atitus Sofyan (diwakili) – PU DKI Jakarta 10. Ika Angela – USAID ESP 11. Bachrun Konggoasa 12. Nanang Piramono – PDAM Solo 13. Drs. M. Rawi, Msi – Jambi.

Courtesy Risyana Sukarma

3

There were 3 key questions which was discussed in group 2, as follows:

1. What are the advantage and disadvantage of community based sanitation (CBS) and city wide sanitation?

2. What’s the meaning of stepping up to city-wide sanitation? (sanitation services will directed to municipal services/piped sanitation only or mixed with CBS – Unbundling).

3. Stepping up to city wide sanitation, what has to be done? Results of discussion: Q#1: What are the advantage and disadvantage of community based sanitation (CBS) and city wide sanitation?

System Advantages Disadvantages

CBS (Community Based Sanitation 1. Low investment and O&M cost 2. Multi-source funding 3. Can be managed by community

or other parties (NGOs, service providers, govts) who appointed by the community

4. Easy to operate and maintain 5. Least land used 6. Tariff is relatively low 7. High community’s participation 8. High ownership/sense of

belonging 9. More sustainable 10. Flexible land use

1. Small scale 2. The ownership is not quite

clear/ there is no protection of community ownership

3. Difficult to arrange O&M cost 4. Required more time (to build

capacity, knowledge transfer and technology, design)

5. Difficult to find location (there has to be a demand)

6. A bit complex and various funding mechanism

7. Relatively difficult to find a good self-help institution

8. Difficult to predict sustainability Sewerage/piped sanitation 1. Wider coverage

2. People health improvement is more tangible

3. Better system for ground water quality improvement

4. Coordination is better 5. Clear management or managed

institution 6. Wastewater control can be

monitored by specific institution 7. For long term period, more

reasonable investment - cheaper 8. Sustainability can be predicted 9. More efficient in wastewater

transfer

1. High investment cost 2. There will always be pro –

contra in development (some are agree but some are not)

3. Difficult to recover the cost 4. High O&M cost 5. Required more/bigger land 6. Tariff is relatively high 7. Required an expert 8. Long planning processes 9. Might not covered all the

populations 10. Long time to implement

Q#2: What’s the meaning of stepping up to city-wide sanitation? (sanitation services will directed to municipal services/piped sanitation only or mixed with CBS – Unbundling).

4

All participants agreed that city wide sanitation should combined both community based sanitation and sewerage/piped sanitation according to the existing services condition and availability of budget. Q#3: Stepping up to city wide sanitation, what has to be done? 1. Sanitation promotion to stakeholders at all levels – LGs, communities, & related stakeholders. 2. Support on regulation from respective governments (central, prov., and local) and readiness of

communities. 3. Required to prepare the feasibility study, sanitation map, and environmental impact

assessment (Amdal) 4. Setting up and enhancement of responsible institution 5. Required clear source of funding 6. Developed list of priority 7. Pilot project 8. Monitoring and evaluation Group 3. Facilitator: Lina Damayanti, Resource Person: Risyana Sukarma Group Members: 1. Zainal Arifin - PDAM Banjarmasin 2. Agus Sunara - PDAM Jambi 3. Drs. Komara Afandi - PDAM Bandung 4. Drs. Hasanuddin - Dinas LH, Kendari 5. H. Agus Abdullah - Bappeda, Kendari 6. Alwi - Ketua Komisis D DPRD Kendari 7. Nastain Gasba - WASPOLA 8. Ir. Rasyid Kasinong, MM - PDAM Makasar 9. Ferry Boyke, AS - USAID ESP 10. Risyana Sukarma - World Bank 11. Ir. Herning Wahyuningsih - PU Jakarta 12. Wuri Hastuti S.Sos - Dep. Keuangan 13. Agus Saryono - PDAM Solo 14. H. Sabarudin – Jambi

Courtesy: Risyana Sukarma

Topic: PDAM as a responsible institution for city-wide sanitation Rationale: - Legal aspect: Water Resources Law No. 7/2004 and followed by Government Regulation No.

16/2005 on Water Supply and Sanitation Management, mentioned that water supply and sanitation should be integrated in management.

- Institutional aspect: Most of the cities or districts already have PDAM as a service provider institution --> efficiency.

Need attention: - Tariff setting: base on water consumption? building space? 1 billing for water and wastewater?

Etc --> required standard formulation

5

Q #1: In what type of city or district (scale or characteristics) PDAM is appropriate as responsible agency in sanitation? - Appropriateness is not determined by city type but PDAM performance - Depends on regulation in every districts - As an institution PDAM is appropriate to manage sanitation, what makes it inappropriate is

external factors such as over intervention from pemda (LG) Q#2: What the advantages and disadvantages of PDAM as a responsible agency for city-wide sanitation

Advantages Disadvantages - Wastewater can’t be separated from water

consumption - directly related (water in water out)

- Integrated management information (database)

- Integrated system management (water and piped sanitation system are similar)

- Human resources capacity and sustainability (internal reshuffling)

- PDAM’s role on water resources protection (polluter pay principle)

- Tariff charging efficiency (for water and wastewater)

- PDAM capability and readiness? Only managing water PDAM performance is quite poor

- No regulation at district/city level which appointed PDAM as a responsible agency for water and wastewater

- Tariff setting must be clear and equal with the service being delivered

- How about people who don’t have PDAM connection? on the other hand they must have wastewater which potential to become polluters

Q#3: What’s PDAM role in community based sanitation (CBS)? - Provide advance service for examples vacuum truck service - Provide technical assistance or/and facilitation for the community - Contribute some funds but only for stimulus or incentive - Awareness building through socialization, campaign, and promotion which can be implemented

with cooperation lowest community organization (RT or RW) Illustration: Q#4: What’s PDAM role in planning for O&M cost recovering city-wide sanitation?

CBS

Community’s roles: - Contribute fund - Labor and material - Manage & finance

for OM

NGO’s roles: - Contribute fund - Technical assistance

& facilitation - Capacity building

LG’s roles: - Contribute fund - Coordination - Provide responsible

agency <--- PDAM

6

- Provide related information or data for city wide planning --> minimize cost - Provide standard operating procedures (SOP) for wastewater/sanitation (SOP for water and

wastewater are similar) - Provide necessary experts, infrastructure, etc - Initial subsidy from water to wastewater for the first stage operation - Identification of potential demand --> feasibility study Group 4. Facilitator: Jim Woodcock, Group members: 1. Jan Drozdz 2. Isabel Blackett 3. Eduardo Perez 4. Dorai Narayana 5. Russell Abram 6. Sriningsih 7. Ruth Waluyan 8. Foort Bustraan

Courtesy: Risyana Sukarma

Question 1. Is sanitation a cost recoverable sector? And rationale. Some participants in the discussion group defined sanitation works as cost-recovering if there were enough subsidies to break even with the current income. Using that definition, operations in all sectors that are not going bankrupt are cost recovering operations. Others defined utilities as cost-recovering if revenues cover expenses such as operations, maintenance, depreciation, and loan repayments. Using this second definition, most participants felt that Indonesian sanitation utilities could aim for cost recovery in operations, maintenance, and depreciation and that capital investments should be borne by local and/or central and provincial governments. The rationale is that the public in general is not willing to pay a tariff high enough to recover capital costs. They are not willing to pay the public benefits (a cleaner environment for all) or even the full costs of the private benefits (easy disposal of household wastewater), so the government must start a sanitation program with stimulus grants. Several participants pointed out that middle and upper class consumers may be able to pay the full tariff, but they are a minority. Examples are housing estates that may be required to build wastewater treatment plants according to government specifications or industries that a required to build wastewater treatment plants for the business or factory effluent. Question 2. Which financing policy supports the sanitation sector (and which one does not)? The group divided financing policy into financing for capital works and financing for O&M Capital Works

7

Some suggested it was best to start out with simple sanitation schemes that address problems of public health. Even with these basic schemes, Government help for all or most of the initial investment was considered essential. The amount of investment could be reduced if the works were designed for simple and appropriate technology, possibly after citizens have informed choice of level of service. Other alternatives included providing incentives to the private banking sector to lend for public infrastructure; using part of the property tax; part of business tax; or a national pollution tax on all goods and services . O&M Tariff income should cover O&M costs, but if it does not, the government should be clear on how it is to be partially subsidized. In Malaysia, there is a tourist tax, and part of it goes to utilities to keep beaches and waterways clean. The costs of O&M can be charged on top of the electricity bill from PLN. Funds saved from removal of subsidy on oil and gas (or SEAB, subsidi energi air bersih) can be used for sanitation costs. Question 3. Cost recovery vs. affordability The group felt that many people might be able to afford services but they might be unwilling to pay. So they felt it was more appropriate in the Indonesian context to ask how to increase willingness to pay. Comments fell into two categories: increase willingness to pay and increasing public awareness. Increase Willingness to Pay One of the best ways to increase willingness to pay for sanitation is to provide continuous good service; to follow up with consumers and to adjust levels of service to ability to pay. Many customer service benefits do not involve capital cost, so they are easy to implement. Central government or local government can provide incentives or awards for outstanding service providers. Building Public Awareness Public awareness is increased by keeping a high profile, painting trucks and equipment a bright color so they will be easily identifiable and appearing in many places. This has the added benefit of making equipment so visible that employees will be discouraged from “borrowing” it outside of working hours. Utilities should practice transparency in service delivery and enforcement of fee collection. Billings could show both the cost to the customer and the full (unsubsidized) cost of the service. Specific messages should be targeted to specific groups. Success stories of good sanitation experience should be shared. Campaigns can be conducted in schools, and there can be visits to sites and open houses. The Indah Water Konsortium has a budget of about US$500,000 a year for public awareness.