Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia · and sustainable water supply and sanitation service delivery. The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership, part of the

Water Supply and Sanitationin IndonesiaTurning Finance intoService for the Future

May 2015Service Delivery Assessment

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb350881

Typewritten Text

100891

This report is the product of extensive collaboration and information sharing between many government agencies, and organizations in Indonesia. The core team of the Directorate of Settlements and Housings in the Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) has been key partners with the Water and Sanitation Program in analyzing the sector. The authors ac-knowledge the valuable contributions made by the Members of the Technical Working Group on Water and Sanitation (Pokja AMPL): Bappenas, Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Housings, National Statistical Bureau, and the provincial technical working group of the province of West Sumatra; by the development partners (UNICEF and ADB) and the National Water Supply Association of Indonesia (PERPAMSI).

The Task Team Leader for the Service Delivery Assessment (SDA) in East Asia and Pacific is Susanna Smets. The follow-ing World Bank staff and consultants have provided valuable contributions to the service delivery assessment process and report: Martin Albrecht, Rahmi Kasri, Maraita Listyasari, Deviariandy Setiawan and Almud Weitz. The peer reviewers were George Soraya and Fook Chuan Eng from the World Bank, Aidan Cronin from UNICEF and Julian Syah from the ADB in Indonesia.

The SDA was carried out under the guidance of the World Bank’s Wa ter and Sanitation Program and local partners. This re-gional work, implemented through a country-led process, draws on the experience of water and sanitation SDAs conduct ed in more than 40 countries in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. An SDA analysis has three main components: a review of past water and sanitation access, a costing model to as sess the ad-equacy of future investments, and a scorecard that allows diagnosis of bottlenecks along the service de livery pathways. SDA’s contribution is to answer not only whether past trends and future finance are sufficient to meet sector targets for infrastructure and hardware but also what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure that fi nance is effectively turned into accelerated and sustainable water supply and sanitation service delivery.

The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership, part of the World Bank Group’s Water Global Practice, sup-porting poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. WSP’s donors include Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nor-way, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and the World Bank.

WSP reports are published to communicate the results of WSP’s work to the development community. Some sources cited may be informal documents that are not readily available.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations, or to members of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The bound-aries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank Group concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to [email protected]. WSP encourages the dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. For more information, please visit www.wsp.org.

© 2015 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank

Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia

Service Delivery Assessment

Turning Finance into Services for the Future

Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesiaiv

Indonesia has made modest progress in recent years to help people gain access to improved water and sanitation ser-vices. In 2011, around 55% of the population had access to improved water supply services, and 56% of the population had access to improved sanitation services. Compared to 1993, this is an increase of 17 percentage points for water supply, and 31 percentage points for sanitation. Increasing political priority for sanitation in recent years, and the result-ing increase in budget allocation for the sanitation subsec-tor, suggests that Indonesia is on the right track to scale up access to improved sanitation services. It remains unlikely, however, that the Millennium Development Goals for sanita-tion will be met by 2015. Similarly, the sector targets of uni-versal access by 2019 remain ambitious, and the increasing efforts will need to continue to achieve these targets.

Despite the moderate gains in water supply and sanitation as a whole, a closer look at the urban and rural disaggrega-tion of access rates reveals wide disparities. For water sup-ply, most access gains were achieved in rural areas, where 58% of the rural population had access to improved facili-ties in 2011, compared to only 32% in 1993. In urban areas, almost no nominal increase in access rates can be deter-mined in the last two decades, which is mainly attributed to the high urban population growth that absorbs most of the relative gains in access rates.

For sanitation, both urban and rural areas have seen quite an increase in access rates over the past two decades. However, despite an increase of 28 percentage points to 39% access to rural sanitation services in 2011, the low starting point of only 11% in 1993 suggests that still more

Strategic Overview

than 100 million people have to gain access to improved sanitation services to reach the sector targets. Urban ar-eas have had higher access rates to improved services, but similar to water supply, the absolute number of people that need to gain access is also still high due to the high rates of urban population growth.

From an institutional point of view, Indonesia has made good progress in the past decade in setting up the framework for a well-functioning service delivery pathway. This is reflected in the Service Delivery Assessment (SDA) scorecard, which identified a sound institutional and policy framework. Laws, policies and strategies regulate and guide the service deliv-ery and distribute general roles and responsibilities between line ministries and different levels of government, resulting in improved coordination between stakeholders involved. Since decentralization in 2001, local governments have made good progress in building capacity to provide water supply and sanitation services in their districts and cities, and being consistent in reducing inequality by providing ac-cess to low income communities in both rural and urban areas. Budget allocation to the water supply and sanitation sector has increased significantly in recent years, proving the increase in political priority to the sector.

While this policy and institutional framework is in place, the Service Delivery Assessment process also revealed that the bottlenecks in the service delivery pathway mainly describe the lack of effectiveness with which policies and finance is turned into access to improved services. The gaps in the planning and budgeting building block, as well as in the out-put and uptake and use building blocks provide evidence

Service Delivery Assessment v

that Indonesia still faces challenges in turning finances into services in an effective way.

The focus in the future will be to strengthen the existing system, improve the implementation of policies and strate-gies into actual outputs, improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the systems and sustain the achieved services through strong ownership, operation and mainte-nance. Bottlenecks in the developing and sustaining pillars suggest that high political will needs to be translated into improved investment plans that are linked with local gov-ernment work plans and budgeting processes. At the same time, priority has to be given to the sound and integrated planning to ensure the future availability of water resources.

Comparing the number of people who still need to gain ac-cess to services to achieve the sector targets of universal access with the financial commitments made by the Gov-ernment for the near future, the SDA costing tool calculates the financial requirements in capital expenditures until 2019

to be very significant: The Government needs to allocate an additional US$3.1 billion per year for water supply, and an additional US$1.4 billion per year for sanitation. In absolute numbers, this translates into almost 24 million people per year to gain access to water supply, and 16 million people per year to gain access to sanitation services.

In summary, in order for Indonesia to achieve universal ac-cess to improved water supply and sanitation services by 2019, the Government not only has to significantly raise their financial commitments to the sector, but also find so-lutions of how to best utilize the funds through the existing sector institutions to improve the performance and increase access rates at scale.

Concretely, the agreed priority actions to tackle these chal-lenges, and ensure finance is effectively turned into ser-vices, are:

Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesiavi

Sector-wide

Recommended Priority Actions Who to take action

• Identify support structures for local governments to assess and improve the quality of their strategic planning processes.

• Scale up development of human resources through institutionalized capacity building.

• Urge development of sound investment plans and their endorsement and incorporation into local government work plans for immediate implementation.

• Investigate how local accountability mechanisms are functioning and potential ways to improve this.

• Actively seek involvement of private sector cooperation in the sector. • Engage local governments to improve their planning processes to secure

future availability of water resources.

POKJA AMPL (Water and Sanitation Technical Working Group),Ministry of Public Works,Ministry of Health,Ministry of Planning and Development (Bappenas), Ministry of Finance,Ministry of Home Affairs.

Equity


• Clearly define poor households at the bottom 40% of the income distribution and design targeted support to ensure inclusive service-delivery.

• Improve greater coordination between water supply and sanitation programs and poverty programs to increase the effectiveness of service delivery for the bottom 40% households.

Bappenas, Menkokesra (Coordinating Ministry for Community Welfare), National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction (TNP2K).

Monitoring and evaluation


• Link monitoring and evaluation systems to budgeting and planning processes.

• Strengthen the National Water Supply and Sanitation Information Services System (NAWASIS) to become an integrated portal for sector-wide M&E.

• Improve local capacity for use of M&E data for sector planning, budgeting and targeting implementation support.

Bappenas,Ministry of Finance,BPS (National Statistics Agency), National and Local POKJAs.

Service Delivery Assessment vii

Rural water supply


• Establish a clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities within the local governments after the hand-over of assets on managing and maintaining the water supply systems.

• Continue to facilitate and support community organizations in accessing commercial finance from local banks.

• Establish comprehensive technical support structures for communities to ensure sustainability of water and sanitation schemes.

• Improve capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and implementation support.

Ministry of Public Works, Bappenas, Ministry of Home Affairs.

Urban water supply


• Continue to assist ‘unhealthy’ Local Government Water Utilities (PDAMs) to improve their overall business management condition and become and remain ‘healthy’, by improving asset management, implementing cost-recovery tariffs, reduce non-revenue water and improving the management of human resources.

• Intensify assistance to PDAMs to access financial sources such as commercial financing or government-assisted schemes.

• Continue supportive incentive schemes such as Water Hibah to realize financial commitments by local government into the sector.

• Identify further incentives for PDAMs to increase access into low-income communities.

• Engage local governments into a sound planning to secure future availability of water sources, e.g. by developing sound water safety plans.

Ministry of Public Works, BPPSPAM (Support Agency for the Development of Drinking Water Supply Schemes) Ministry of Finance, Bappenas.

Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesiaviii

Rural sanitation and hygiene


• Strengthen the capacity of the secretariat of the Community-based Total Sanitation Strategy (STBM) to coordinate and assist the implementation of STBM in Indonesia.

• Continue efforts to increase the number and capacity of sanitation entrepreneurs and sanitation personnel to support STBM scaling up nationwide.

• Improve capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and implementation support.

• Ensure sufficient funding on software components to ensure leverage of household contributions.

Ministry of Health,Bappenas.

Urban sanitation and hygiene


• Improve technical and managerial performance of urban sanitation treatment facilities by building managerial capacity and increasing the efficiency of the treatment facilities.

• Provide technical assistance to intensify the development of fecal sludge management systems in urban areas including private sector participation.

• Institutionalize the clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities for regulation and service provision at local level to ensure more effective service delivery.

Ministry of Public Works, Bappenas.

Service Delivery Assessment ix

Contents

Strategic Overview .............................................................................................................................................................ivContents .............................................................................................................................................................................ixAbbreviations and Acronyms ...............................................................................................................................................x

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 12. Sector Overview: Access Trends ................................................................................................................................. 33. Reform Context .......................................................................................................................................................... 104. Institutional Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 125. Financing and its Implementation .............................................................................................................................. 186. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 217. Subsector: Rural Water Supply .................................................................................................................................. 238. Subsector: Urban Water Supply ................................................................................................................................ 269. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene .................................................................................................................. 2910. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene ................................................................................................................. 3211. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 35

Annex 1: The Score of SDA in Indonesia .......................................................................................................................... 38Annex 2: Key Inputs for the Required and Anticipated Capital Expenditures .................................................................. 63Annex 3: Comparison with Alternative Estimates of Investment Requirements .............................................................. 69

Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesiax

ADB Asian Development BankAKKOPSI Association of Districts and Cities that Care about SanitationAMPL Water and SanitationBappenas Ministry for National Planning and Development BPKP Finance and Development Controller BureauBPPSPAM Support Agency for the Development of Drinking Water Supply SystemsBPS National Statistics AgencyCAPEX Capital ExpenditureCBO Community-Based OrganizationCLTS Community-Led Total SanitationCSR Corporate Social ResponsibilityDAK Special Allocation FundDAU General Budget AllocationDEWATS Decentralized Waste Water Treatment Systems DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia. DPSP Domestic Private Sector Participation ProjectESI Economic of Sanitation InitiativesGDP Gross Domestic ProductJMP WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring ProgrammeMenkokesra Coordinating Ministry for Community WelfareMDG Millenium Development GoalMoE Ministry of EnvironmentMoF Ministry of FinanceMoH Ministry of HealthMoHA Ministry of Home AffairsMoPH Ministry of People’s HousingMoPW Ministry of Public Works (or Pekerjaan Umum/PU)NAWASIS National Water and Sanitation Information ServicesO&M Operation and MaintenancePDAM Local Government Water UtilityPAMSIMAS Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities Project 3PERPAMSI National Water Supply Association of IndonesiaPokja AMPL Water and Sanitation Technical Working GroupPPP Public Private PartnershipPPSP Sanitation Acceleration ProgramRiskesdas Indonesia Basic Health SurveyPRIJM Local Government Mid-Term Investment PlanRPJMN Mid-Term Development PlanSAIG Sanitation Australian Indonesian Grant

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Service Delivery Assessment xi

SDA Service Delivery AssessmentSSK City Sanitation StrategySTBM Community-Based Total Sanitation StrategySUSENAS National Socio-Economic SurveyTNP2K National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty ReductionUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUSAID U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentUSDP Urban Development Sanitation ProgramWSP Water and Sanitation ProgramWSSLIC Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities Project

Service Delivery Assessment 1

1. Introduction

Water and Sanitation Service Delivery Assessments (SDA) are being carried out in eight countries in East Asia and the Pacific region under the guidance of the World Bank’s Wa-ter and Sanitation Program and local partners. This regional work, implemented through a country-led process, draws on the experience of water and sanitation SDAs conduct-ed in more than 40 countries in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia.1

An SDA analysis has three main components: a review of past water and sanitation access, a costing model to as-sess the adequacy of future investments, and a scorecard that allows diagnosis of bottlenecks along the service de-livery pathways. SDA’s contribution is to answer not only whether past trends and future finance are sufficient to meet sector targets for infrastructure and hardware but also what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure that fi-nance is effectively turned into accelerated and sustainable water supply and sanitation service delivery. Bottlenecks can in fact occur throughout the service delivery pathway – all the institutions, processes, and actors that translate sec-tor funding into sustainable services. Where the pathway is well developed, sector funding should turn into services at the estimated unit costs. Where the pathway is not well developed, investment requirement may be needed to “un-block” the bottlenecks in the pathways.

The scorecard looks at nine building blocks of the service de-livery pathway, which correspond to specific functions classi-fied in three categories: three functions that refer to enabling conditions for putting services in place (policy development, planning new undertakings, budgeting), three actions that re-

late to developing the services (expenditure of funds, equity in use of these funds, service output), and three functions that relate to sustaining these services (facility maintenance, expansion of infrastructure, use of the service). Each building block is assessed against specific indicators and is scored from 0 to 3 accordingly. The scorecard uses a simple color code to indicate building blocks that are largely in place, act-ing as a driver for service delivery (score >2, green); building blocks that are a drag-on service delivery and that require at-tention (score 1-2, yellow); and building blocks that are inad-equate, constituting a barrier to service delivery and a priority for reform (score<1, red).

The SDA analysis relies on an intensive, facilitated consulta-tion process, with government ownership and self-assess-ment at its core. The SDA in Indonesia was led by the Na-tional Water and Sanitation Technical Working Group (Pokja AMPL) under the guidance of its chair, Ministry of National Planning and Development (Bappenas), and with sup-port from the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP). Data collection of relevant sector documents served as the basis for the following facilitated process. Parallelly, financial data on government and donor budgets and ex-penditures were collected and used to calculate required and anticipated investments through the SDA costing tool. In a consultation workshop held in June 2013, preliminary results of the SDA were reviewed and verified by sector stakeholders, and areas for priority actions were identified.

Despite the efforts of the SDA to provide an evidence-based analysis of the sector, the methodology does have limitations. In highly decentralized countries an assess-

1 For example, refer to the Africa CSO synthesis report available at http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/CSO-Synthesis-Report.pdf

Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia2

Jakarta

INDONESIA

ment at national level will inevitably lead to generalizations of the performance at local level. This is especially true in the Indonesian context, where water supply and sanitation service delivery is the responsibility of districts and cities, of which there are more than 500. Among local govern-ments, performance level varies substantially between well-performing ones and those that still have a long way to go to meet the sector targets. The SDA does not claim to be representative of the diversity of this decentralized country, but rather seeks to give a general impression of the sector performance from a national level point of view. However, interest was expressed by several Indonesian provincial governments to have the SDA methodology applied for an analysis at the provincial level.

The Service Delivery Assessment in Indonesia has been aligned with the preparation process of the third five-year mid-term development plan (RPJMN) 2015-19. This pro-cess also requires adjusting the targets for water supply and sanitation coverage by the end of the RPJMN period. Currently, the idea of how to achieve universal access to

improved water and sanitation services is being circulated among senior government officials involved in the sector. While a final decision is pending upon official approval of the RPJMN, it is likely that targets will be set at 100% ac-cess by 2019. It was therefore decided to use these num-bers for the calculations of investment requirements and for references made in this report.

The discussions within the structured SDA framework in-cluding the scorecard exercise as well as discussing sub-sector targets and identifying funding requirements and gaps informed ongoing discussion forums, technical stud-ies and briefings to higher echelons. Ultimately, this report aims to support the Indonesian government in their assess-ment and evaluation of the water and sanitation service de-livery pathway, locate bottlenecks and present the agreed priority actions to help address them.

The Water and Sanitation Program in collaboration with the Pokja AMPL and other valuable stakeholders produced this SDA report.

Figure 1: Map of Indonesia


Access: Assessing Past Progress

Data from the Joint Monitoring Programme2 (JMP) suggest that Indonesia made modest gains in terms of increasing access to improved water supply and sanitation (see Figure 2.1). Access to improved water supply, which was already quite high in 1990 at 70%, rose to 84% in 2011 and is ex-pected to meet, albeit barely, the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target by 2015. Most of the gains are in rural areas, where access rates increased from 61% of the popu-lation in 1990 to 76% in 2011. Access to improved facilities in urban areas changed very little between 1990 (90% of the population) and 2011 (93%). The JMP also estimates that only a small proportion of the population (21%) had access to piped facilities.

Government estimates of access to improved water sup-ply, which are based on the national socio-economic survey (SUSENAS), use more stringent criteria and indicate lower access rates compared to the JMP3. Trends in government indicators suggest that, despite the relatively sharp increase in access rates from 2009 to 2011, considerably higher ef-forts are needed to achieve the target of 100% access to improved water supply by 2019.4

As of 2011, JMP estimates indicate that only 59% of the Indonesian population had access to improved sanita-tion facilities (Figure 2.2). Compared to the past two de-cades, progress in increasing access in recent years has been more rapid, suggesting that the country is on the right path towards scaling up access to sanitation services by 2015. However, there is still a wide disparity in access to

2. Sector Overview: Access Trends

improved sanitation facilities between the rural (44%) and urban (73%) population. The amount of treated wastewater is also still low, with only about one percent of the urban population having access to sewerage systems.5 Therefore, continuous high efforts will be needed to achieve the tar-gets of 100% access to improved sanitation by 2019.

Government and JMP estimates generate similar conclu-sions with respect to the low access rates and wide disparity in access rates between rural and urban areas. Government statistics further indicate that, if current trends continue, the country is likely to miss government targets in 2019 by a wide margin.

2 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.3 Based on the JMP Report on Intercountry Workshop (2009), there are some major discrepancies between JMP and national data in Indonesia: differences in data sources, methodologies, population estimates, urban/rural definitions and definitions of ‘adequate’ and ‘sustainable’. 4 The targets for water supply and sanitation are currently being considered by Bappenas for the third Medium-term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2015-19. 5 See Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February. Also see World Bank and AusAID (2013) Urban Sanitation Review: A Call for Accelerating Action, Draft report, May.6 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Acce

ss to

impr

oved

sa

nita

tion

cove

rage

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Acce

ss to

impr

oved

w

ater

sup

ply

cove

rage

JMP improved estimates MDG target JMP improved estimates MDG target

Figure 2.1 Progress in water supply access

SDA Costing tool, JMP (2013)6, and Bappenas


Equity of Access

Assessing access to improved services disaggregated by wealth levels in Indonesia provides a more nuanced and less positive picture than national averages. For water sup-ply, access to improved services is relatively equally dis-tributed between the four higher wealth quintiles, while the lowest quintile is lagging slightly behind (Figure 2.3). In ur-ban areas, 74% of the people in the lowest quintile have access to improved water supply, compared to 86% - 96% in the higher quintiles. In rural areas, the situation is more severe, with only 57% of the people in the poorest quintile having access to services, compared to 75% - 93% in the higher quintiles.

While progress has been made within each of the quintiles, access to piped water supply is still very low for people in the poorest urban quintile (9%) and in the lowest three rural quintiles (3% - 11%). The rest of the people with access to improved water supply is serviced through protected wells, rainwater or refill water.

The picture for sanitation is less optimistic. Both in urban and rural areas there is a big gap between access to im-proved sanitation within households in the lowest two quintiles in urban (40% and 65%) and in rural areas (36% and 65%), and the higher three quintiles (82% - 100% in both urban and rural areas). Moreover, there is still a huge number of people practicing open defecation both in urban (37%) and rural areas (43%). This provides evidence that sanitation programs should re-validate and possibly recon-sider their strategy of how to target the bottom 40% of the population.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Acce

ss to

impr

oved

sa

nita

tion

cove

rage

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Acce

ss to

impr

oved

w

ater

sup

ply

cove

rage

JMP improved estimates MDG target JMP improved estimates MDG target

Figure 2.2 Progress in sanitation access

SDA Costing tool, JMP (2013)7, and BPS

7 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th Richest

% o

f the

pop

ulat

ion

Access to urban water supply by quintile

0

20

40

60

80

100


% o

f the

pop

ulat

ion

Access to rural water supply by quintile

Surface water

Other unimproved

Other improved

Piped on premises

9

65

23

3

18

68

13

23

68

9 8

62

30

4

46

50

0 0 0 0

Surface water

Other unimproved

Other improved

Piped on premises

3

54

31

112

23

68

7

1

17

72

11

13

71

16

6

64

29

0 0

National quintiles

Figure 2.3 Access to urban and rural water supply by quintile


Recommended priority actions for equity

Cleary define poor households at the bottom 40% of the income distribution and design targeted support to ensure inclusive service-delivery

Improve greater coordination between water supply and sanitation programs and poverty programs to increase the effectiveness of service delivery for the bottom 40% households

Figure 2.3 Access to urban and rural sanitation by quintile

0

20

40

60

80

100


% o

f the

pop

ulat

ion

Access to urban sanitation by quintile

0

20

40

60

80

100


% o

f the

pop

ulat

ion

Access to rural sanitation by quintile

40

23

37

65

719

82

16

113

2

95 100

0

Open Defecation

Unimproved

Improved

36

21

43

22

14

65

85

87

22

96

00

100

National quintiles

Open Defecation

Unimproved

Improved

Investment Requirements: Testing the Sufficiency of Finance

In line with the current preparations of the third Mid-term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2015-2019, the SDA costing tool estimates the investments required to meet the tar-gets of universal access to improved water and sanitation services by 2019. It also facilitates a comparison of these requirements with sector investments in order to provide a sense of funding situations.

The analysis derives capital expenditure (CAPEX) require-ments, representing hardware costs of new facilities as well as replacement costs of existing facilities at the end of their economic life cycle. Estimated CAPEX requirements are fur-ther disaggregated between publicly funded, donor funded and investments contributed by households8. Key inputs in the estimation of investment requirements are (a) base year and target year access rates, (b) population projections, (c) unit costs of different facilities and (d) technology mix at the base year and target year. Access rates for the base year (2011), which were based on the SUSENAS survey, were ob-tained from the National Statistics Agency (BPS) and Bappe-nas. The analysis assumes government targets of universal access to improved water supply and sanitation by 2019. It also assumes that 6% of the urban population will have ac-cess to sewerage systems by 2019.

Investment data were collected from publicly available doc-uments and websites, and subsequently validated through visits to the various stakeholders. The collected information was divided between recent and anticipated investments, which represent the average annual budgets of govern-ment, development partners and users from 2009 to 2011 and 2012 to 2014, respectively. Expenditures were also dis-aggregated as follows: (a) sector - water supply or sanita-tion, (b) location – rural or urban, (c) nature – hardware or software, (d) year, and (e) budget versus actual.

8 Investments of utilities, NGOs and the private sector were excluded in the analysis because of the lack of summary information.


Information on government investments was obtained from the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Public Works and Bap-penas. Central government funding captures expenditures under the regular budget for water and sanitation and the Special Allocation Fund (DAK).

Local government funds capture their share of contribu-tions to DAK funding from national level as well as rough estimates of expenditures for water supply and sanitation in provincial and district budgets. Based on interviews with government officials, local governments are expected to contribute 10% of DAK-funded projects.

The analysis also assumes that the following shares of pro-vincial budgets were allocated to water supply and sanita-tion: 0.15% for rural drinking water supply, 0.15% for urban water supply, 0% for rural sanitation, and 0.2% for urban sanitation. Additionally, the following shares of district and city budgets are allocated to water supply and sanitation: 1% for rural water supply, 1% for urban water supply, 0% for rural sanitation, and 0.7% for urban sanitation. These proportions were derived by examining documents from the World Bank9, Waspola and consultations with various ex-

perts. Provincial and district budgets for 2009 to 2011 were provided by the World Bank. Budgets for 2012 and 2013 were extrapolated using the available data.

Funds from development partners represent the invest-ments/loans coming from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Australian Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) and the World Bank.

Figure 2.4 shows estimates of anticipated and recent ex-penditures for the water and sanitation sector of Indonesia based on the methodology discussed above. It indicates that nearly two-thirds of anticipated investments are ex-pected to come from local governments. The large share of local government units, which in the current analysis was only estimated rather than based on published documents, stresses the importance of reviewing the budgets and ac-tual expenditures of these institutions in a recommended follow-up activity.10

A more detailed description of the sources and limitations of the information used in the analysis is presented in Annex 2.

Figure 2.4 Estimated investments for water and sanitation by source of funding

9 World Bank (2013) Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study, World Bank Group, Washington D.C., September.10 One recommended follow-up activity would be a more detailed analysis of government budgeting and spending. The World Bank is currently in the process of conducting a Water and Sanitation Public Expenditure Review.

Box 1.1 Special Allocation Fund - DAKDAK grants represent central government transfers to lo-cal governments for specific purposes that are of interest to the central government. Sectors, geographical locations that receive these grants as well as the total grant amount are identified in the Government Annual Work Plan and are decided on a yearly basis. For water and sanitation, these funds are intended for providing (a) drinking water and sani-tation for the improvement of health conditions, (b) house-hold and communal connections for the poor, and (c) access to safe water for remote areas difficult to reach. A condition of the DAK provision is that the recipient local governments should match at least 10% of DAK funds through their own budget. Challenges linked to the DAK include insufficiency of funds to meet the specific requirements and the difficulty to track and monitor the use of the funds.

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Anticipated expenditures(2012-2014)

mili

on U

S$/y

ear

Water and Sanitation Total

Recent expenditures(2009-2011)

Development partners

Central government

Local government


Table 2.1 presents the annual averages of the CAPEX re-quirements and anticipated investments that were estimat-ed for Indonesia. It indicates that national targets will be met if about 24 million people per year gain access to improved water supply, and 16 million people per year gain access to improved sanitation facilities. Relatively rapid population growth also implies that a larger proportion of the required beneficiaries are located in urban areas.

The people that will need access to improved water supply and sanitation facilities translate to CAPEX requirements of US$4.7 billion per year and 2.8 billion per year, respectively. Higher per capita costs and number of people requiring ac-cess explain the higher investment requirements for water supply. The required CAPEX for urban areas is also higher than for rural areas mostly as a result of higher per capita costs.11

Table 2.1 also shows that anticipated public CAPEX are about US$1.6 billion per year for water supply and US$496 million per year for sanitation. Accounting for about 0.2% of 2012 GDP, most of these funds are expected to come from domestic sources.

Subtracting the sum of anticipated CAPEX contributions of the public and households from CAPEX requirements suggests deficits of US$2.4 billion per year for water sup-ply and US$1.4 billion per year for sanitation. This implies that projected investments for 2012 to 2014 fall far short of the amounts required to meet targets, especially for water supply. The expected deficits from 2012 to 2014 suggest the need for higher expenditures from 2015 to 2019 if the country wishes to achieve its targets for water supply and sanitation.

11 There are other studies that present alternative estimates of investment requirements for the water supply and sanitation sector of Indonesia. The estimates from these studies and short comparison with the estimates presented here are provided in Annex 3.12 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.

Table 2.1 Coverage and Investment Figuresa

Coverage (base year)

Target 2019

Population requiring access

Annual CAPEX requirement

Anticipated public CAPEX2012-2014

Anticipated household

CAPEX

Annual surplus (deficit)Total Public Domestic External Total

% % ‘000/year US$ million/year

Rural water supply 58% 100% 9,283 772 315 733 58 791 457 476

Urban water supply 52% 100% 14,637 3,975 2,868 747 25 771 298 -2,906

Water supply total 55% 100% 23,920 4,748 3,183 1,480 83 1,563 755 -2,430

Rural sanitation (on-site)

39% 100% 8,380 414 4 39 29 69 410 65

Urban sanitation (waste treatment)

73% 100% 7,384 2,341 1,439 400 28 427 439 -1,475

Sanitation total 56% 100% 15,764 2,755 1,443 439 57 496 848 -1,411

Notes: a Columns may not add up due to rounding. Sources: SDA costing, JMP (2013)12 , BPS, Bappenas.


Figure 2.5 Required vs anticipated (public) and assumed (household) expenditure for water supply

Figure 2.6 Required vs anticipated (public) and assumed (household) expenditure for sanitation

13 Recent investments do not include the contribution of households.

There is some uncertainty over the estimated deficits. Ag-gregate and sector-specific deficits can be reduced by ac-counting for expenditures of utilities and the private sector. The implied reduction in the deficits may also be partially or wholly offset when one considers the fact that the antici-pated household CAPEX is no more than a rough estimate of the amounts that the households are expected to con-tribute. However, it is important to note that encouraging households to invest in improved facilities also entails costs in terms of efforts by government and other agencies in so-cial outreach and demand creation.

Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 indicate that anticipated invest-ments (excluding the contribution of households) for 2012-14 in water supply and sanitation are higher than recent

investments13 from 2009-11. While this is a good sign, an-ticipated investments still fall short of investment require-ments.

Annual operation and maintenance expenditures for wa-ter supply and sanitation facilities are important consider-ations. These expenditures impose pressure on the budgets of households in the case of private facilities like toilets. It is also a burden on utilities in terms of the need to gener-ate income for their daily operations. Table 2.2 shows that water supply and sanitation service provision requires an-nual operation and maintenance funds of US$538 million and US$262 million, respectively. Most of these funds are expected to be used in urban areas.

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Total investmentrequirement

Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

t in

mili

on U

S$

Total sanitation

Anticipatedinvestment 2012-2014

3,000

Recent investment2009-2011

Household

External

Domestic

Seweragesystem

Replacement

New

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500


Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

t in

mili

on U

S$

Total water supply


3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000


Household

External

Domestic

Replacement

New

Source: SDA costing. Note: Recent investments do not account for the contribution of households.

Source: SDA costing. Note: Recent investments do not account for the contribution of households.


Table 2.2 Annual operation and maintenance requirements

Subsector O&MUS$ million/year

Rural water supply 64

Urban water supply 474

Water supply total 538

Rural sanitation 31

Urban sanitation 231

Sanitation total 262

Source: SDA Costing. Note: Columns may not add up due to rounding.


3. Reform Context

In the decades between the 1970s and the 1990s, Indone-sia implemented an extensive water and sanitation devel-opment program that resulted in remarkable achievements in the sector: a tenfold increase in production capacity of piped water supply, reaching 94,000 liters per second in 1997, a full cost-recovery and low-income focused tariff policy and growing private sector participation in the de-livery of water supply services. However, the country ex-perienced a significant set-back in the economic and in-stitutional landscape when the Asian financial crisis hit in 1997. Further, a law was passed to implement nationwide decentralization reforms in 2001, which handed responsi-bilities from central to local city and district levels, including the provision of water and sanitation services. Local gov-ernments, being newly responsible for service provision fol-lowing decades of centralized structures, were lacking the

experience and skills needed in their new role. As a con-sequence of this lack of skills as well as of the inadequate availability of capital funding for investments and operation and maintenance, water supply services provided by local water utilities (PDAMs) and community groups suffered se-rious degradation in the following years. In several cases, the challenges in service provision continue onwards until today.

The situation in urban areas is further exacerbated by the fact that access rates to water supply services cannot catch up with high urban population growth rates of around 4%.14 Against this backdrop, the government’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 had a considerable impact on refocusing public investments on water and sanitation sector priorities.

Table 3.1 Key dates in the reform of the sector in Indonesia

Year Reform Context

1945 Independence

2001 1 January 2001 Law No. 22/1999 implemented; beginning of decentralization reforms and local autonomy period

2003 Establishment of the inter-ministerial technical water supply and sanitation working group (Pokja AMPL)

2004 Law No. 7/2004 on water resources

2005 Government Decree No 16/2005 on development of water service systems

2008 Ministry of Health Decree No 832/2008 on national community based total sanitation program

2009 Presidential Regulation No.29/2009 on Guaranty and Interest Subsidy by National Government to Accelerate Provision of Water Supply

14 Bappenas, “Perkembangan Kebijakan Penyediaan Air Minum”, http://perkim-Bappenas.info/index.php?prm_page_id=1&prm_id=21&prm_type_id=4&prm_parent_id=20&prm_doc_cat_id=4&prm_text=air_sejarah.php&prm_lbl=Sejarah


As a response, the Indonesian government strengthened the responsibilities for the water and sanitation sector de-velopment within five line ministries: Bappenas, the Min-istries of Public Works, Home Affairs, Health and Finance. In line with political decentralization reforms, the service provision shifted from central government to local govern-ments, from projects to programs, from government of-ficers to communities, from infrastructure construction to sustainable infrastructure and behavior change, and from loans to increasing financial contributions from govern-ment, communities and the private sector. A number of supporting laws and regulations were issued to enable a conducive environment for sector development (see Table 3.1).

The reform history puts the service delivery pathway into a broader historical context that allows the report to explore the progress of different pillars of service provision. The

SDA scorecard tool was developed to provide a snapshot of the reform progress along the service delivery pathway. The scorecard was designed to assist the government in consolidating information on the status of water supply and sanitation based on subsector development progress. It does so by grouping the service delivery pathway into three pillars, each of which comprising of three building blocks: developing services (policy, planning and budget), enabling services (expenditure, equity and output) and sustaining services (maintenance, expansion, user outcome). The re-sults of the scorecard are then interpreted in the light of progress, past spending, future funding needs and com-mitments.

Section 4 to 6 highlight challenges across three thematic areas: the institutional framework, finance, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The scorecards for each subsector are presented in their entirety in sections 7 to 10.


Decentralization and Coordination

With the implementation of decentralization in 2001, roles and responsibilities for water and sanitation service deliv-ery changed. Central government including the line minis-tries responsible for water and sanitation service provision now focuses on policy and strategy development as well as oversight of implementation rather than direct control of service delivery. At the sub-national level, districts and cities carry the authority to ensure service delivery, while provincial governments provide technical support to their respective cities and districts. A critical challenge for the sector is for sub-national government to develop the ca-pacity to fulfil its devolved role in the planning, development and management of services; and for effective instruments to be in place to hold it accountable for doing so.

Technical working groups for water and sanitation (Pokja AMPL) have been established both at national as well as sub-national levels to support the implementation of poli-cies and strategies, and the coordination of day to day

4. Institutional Framework

Priority actions for institutional framework

• Identify support structures for local governments to assess and improve the quality of their strategic planning pro-cesses.

• Clarify roles and responsibilities for regulation and operation of urban sanitation service provision at local govern-ment level.

• Ensure efficient implementation of agreed commitments on water and sanitation sector development. • Scale up development of human resources through institutionalized capacity building. • Establish a comprehensive technical support structure for communities to ensure sustainability of water and sani-

tation schemes.

activities. The national Pokja is headed by Bappenas and comprises representatives of 8 line ministries engaged in the sector, such as the Ministries of Home Affairs, Health, Public Works, Finance, Environment, Education and Na-tional Bureau of Statistics. The national Pokja is also sup-ported by various projects, NGOs, donor agencies, univer-sities, etc. At local level, Pokjas comprise the respective local government agencies responsible for water supply and sanitation. When meeting on a regular basis, Pokjas have proved to be a very effective forum to support and coordinate sector development. To date, Pokjas have been established in all provinces, and in more than 400 district and city governments.

While provision of water and sanitation services since de-centralization in Indonesia has been divided up between central government for policy making and overviewing, and local governments for implementation, the actual responsi-bilities for particular subsectors lie with individual line minis-


tries and their corresponding offices at local level. The Min-istry of Public Works is the lead agency for providing water and sanitation infrastructure to urban and rural areas, while the Ministry of Health is responsible for behavior change and setting standards for drinking water quality. Bappenas is in charge of setting sector targets and policy develop-ment. The Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for capac-ity building for local governments

Water Supply Service Provision

Drinking water supply in Indonesia is carried out through different ways and organizational structures, and can be broadly divided into utility-managed and community-man-aged systems. As part of the utility-managed systems, local water utilities in urban areas (PDAMs) are in charge of providing water to households through piped systems. Owned by the respective local governments, management of PDAMs – including budget and tariff approvals, as well as investment decisions – is usually undertaken in close co-operation with other departments at local government level, and local parliament. Typical challenges PDAMs are facing include providing equity investment for their PDAMs to ex-pand into low-income areas or accessing debt restructuring programs. The lack of revenues due to tariffs below cost-recovery level is another frequent challenge PDAMs are fac-ing. Failure to increase tariffs to a cost-recovery level, how-ever, is only the symptom of deeper issues. Since laws and regulations for appropriate, cost-recovery tariffs do exist, the main reason local government and PDAM management do not implement tariff increases reflects a lack of political will and support for a sound management of the PDAMs.

One way to support the development of urban water supply services is through the Water Hibah program (a grant pro-gram), which the Government set up with assistance by the Australian government. Through the Water Hibah, the central government reimburses a large part of the capital investment costs to local governments or PDAMs for investments made

to low-income households, providing incentives to expand their networks into these areas. Another way to address these challenges is by accessing the government’s special budget allocation fund (DAK, see Box 1.1), which is granted from central government to cities and districts to reduce idle capacity of water supply in urban area or to serve low-in-come communities in urban slums and water scarce areas

Water utilities are being supervised and receive technical support through several channels. The Ministry of Finance monitors PDAM performance across a wide range of pa-rameters through semi-annual audits undertaken by its financial and development oversight agency, the Finance and Development Controller Bureau (BPKP). Under the Ministry of Public Works, BPPSPAM (Support Agency for the Development of Drinking Water Supply Systems) com-piles and disseminates a statistical summary of the BPKP performance data. Based on criteria derived from that data, BPPSPAM further establishes the PDAM rating system, categorizing the utilities into healthy, less healthy or sick. To date, around 375 PDAMs exist across the country, with 214 of them categorized as ‘healthy’.15 Setting water tariffs is under the responsibility of the district heads (Bupati) or mayors, who are guided by laws and regulations issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. PERPAMSI (the National Water Supply Association of Indonesia) is an association repre-senting all PDAMs in Indonesia with the objective of coor-dinating investment and support activities, demonstrating best practices, promoting professional business principles and motivating utilities to improve human resource man-agement.

In urban areas that are not served by piped water supply, households tend to access groundwater through deep wells and pumps, although groundwater quality has been deterio-rating in densely populated areas due to overuse and con-tamination by domestic waste. Laws and regulations exist to regulate the overuse of groundwater, but monitoring and enforcement are difficult due to a limitation of resources.

15 BPPSPAM conducts an assessment of PDAMs against a set of 30 indicators, including technical, financial, managerial ones, categorizing the utilities as healthy, less healthy or sick. The target is that all 375 PDAMs are in a healthy condition by 2014.


Developing community-based water supply systems in ru-ral and peri-urban areas has been on the Government’s pri-ority agenda since the late 1990s. Through large programs such as Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities 1 and 2 (WSSLIC) and the successor Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities Project 3 (PAMSIMAS), the central government is supporting the development of lo-cal community-based water and sanitation systems. The program is aimed at attracting local government funding to set up, support, and scale up community-based systems throughout the country. This approach is working quite suc-cessfully in Indonesia: access rates to rural water supply services have increased from 61% in 1990 to 76% in 2011.16 Further, community-based organizations (CBOs) managing water supply schemes are formally recognized by the cen-tral government as official providers of water supply sys-tems as stated in Government Regulation No.16/2005. It is estimated that around 13,000 CBOs exist to date.

Challenges remain such as how to attract support from local governments to enable CBOs expand their services since in reality, CBOs are still facing many challenges to do so: (a) a lack of capacity to maintain and expand services; (b) a lack of access to finance that would provide much-need-ed capital; and (c) an unclear legal framework in relation to the expansion of services across more than one village administration area. Commercial banks remain reluctant in granting credits to CBOs, mainly due to poor accountabil-ity mechanisms within the CBOs, a lack of collaterals, poor financial management of the CBOs or simply a lack of un-derstanding of the local water and sanitation service mar-ket by the banks. Some initiatives to improve and expand community-managed water schemes have been carried out by the Ministry of Public Works with support from WSP and DFAT (formerly AusAID). The aim of these initiatives is to build partnerships among CBOs, local governments and the private sector in supporting the development of rural water supply in Indonesia.17

Altogether, management of the water supply schemes over-all has become more effective in recent years. The work of institutions and large-scale programs are backed up by supportive regulations, planning processes coordination mechanisms, finance and audit mechanisms and monitor-ing and evaluation systems. Many recommendations from evaluations are being followed up if financial and human resources allow. Performance evaluations for PDAMs are done regularly by BPPSPAM according to standards laid out in PDAM performance indicators

Sanitation Service Provision

For urban sanitation services, institutional challenges are much more severe than that for water supply systems, so several large gaps remain. Despite good overall progress made in recent years in increasing access to sanitation ser-vices, coverage of centralized wastewater systems in urban areas in Indonesia remains very low – estimates range from 1-2% for altogether only 12 cities (Jakarta, Banjarmasin, Denpasar, Medan, Cirebon, Bandung, Prapat, Yogyakarta, Surakarta, Balikpapan, Tangerang, Batam). According to a recent study, only 1% of the sewerage is actually being treated.18 These centralized systems are managed by local utilities19 that are owned by local governments. They require heavy subsidization mainly due to low wastewater tariffs as potential source of revenues and a low number of house-hold connections to the systems. Several initiatives have been carried out by central government to reduce idle ca-pacity in the existing sewerage systems, which some stud-ies quantify to around 50%. Some cities are also preparing feasibility studies and detailed engineering designs to build new sewerage systems. Further, the Government through the Sanitation Australian Indonesian Grant (SAIG) project is intensifying its effort to develop simplified centralized sewerage systems in many cities. However, despite these efforts, national targets for centralized sewerage systems are only 5% by 2014, which is still far from being realized.

16 In comparison, access to urban water supply services has only increased from 90% to 93% between 1990 and 2011. While pointing out successes in rural water supply development, the report does acknowledge that the different increase in access rates between urban and rural areas is majorly influenced by the high urban population growth rate of around 4%. 17 Several projects such as the Multi Village Pooling Project, the Second Generation Project and the Domestic Private Sector Participation Project (DPSP) have been implemented by MPW to facilitate partnerships among local governments, CBOs and local banks in order to improve provision of rural water supply services. 18 World Bank & AusAID (2013): EAP Urban Sanitation Review, Indonesia Country Study: Only 1% of sewerage and 4% of sludge is being treated, while 95% of waste water is not disposed safely.19 These utilities are either specific waste water utilities (PDPAL), or combined with water supply utilities (PDAM) or own an own utility for this system only (BLUD in Denpasar, Bali).


Hence, the majority of urban areas in Indonesia will con-tinue to depend on decentralized and on-site sanitation systems in the foreseeable future.

Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (DEWATS) are one of the available options to bridge the gap between onsite sanitation and centralized sewerage systems, par-ticularly in dense, low-income urban areas. A growing num-ber of DEWATS have been built in Indonesia over the past years, with over 80% of them functioning well. However, challenges within a number of DEWATS systems remain, especially in relation to ineffective community management structures, lack of local government support, and a short-age of skilled project facilitators to train residents about the long-term operation and maintenance of the systems.20

One of the key aspects of introducing both centralized or decentralized wastewater systems to urban settings is the willingness of households to connect to the system. Pre-liminary findings of a WSP study show that households can be reluctant to conduct physical work on their premises, mainly due to financial, institutional, technical and/or so-cial reasons, e.g. who whould bear the cost for installing the pipe to the house or unclear land and asset ownership. Different solutions are currently being considered, e.g. in-terceptors that capture gray and black water at the cor-ner of the premises or from a canal. This also allows for better functioning system through sufficient inflow into the treatment plants and the possibility of a gradual upgrade of household connections to the wastewater system.

Recent studies show that around 60% of the urban popula-tion have access to onsite sanitation facilities, which mostly consist of enforced pit-latrines or septic tanks.21 These facil-ities do count as ‘access to improved sanitation’ according to the JMP but that masks the fact that the management of septage is not functioning well – only around 4% of septage

is treated properly.22 This is caused by several issues com-monly found in cities, such as low demand for pit and tank emptying service; lack of enforcement to ensure septage from tanker is treated safely; and under-performance of septage treatment plants. Efforts are currently ongoing un-der the leadership of the Ministry of Public Works—with support from USAID and WSP—to support local govern-ment to improve their urban septage management systems. Some cities are starting to pilot regular desludging in order to lower the risk of groundwater and surface water pollution. In response to the growing demand of desludging within the city, private sector operator engagement is sporadically available. But often, sludge is not disposed safely into the treatment plant, but illegally dumped into the environment.

Compared to urban sanitation services, rural sanitation, on the other hand, has seen some remarkable progress in re-cent years. Following the introduction and success of the Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach in 2005, the Government under the leadership of the Ministry of Health has developed the Community-based Total Sanita-tion Strategy (STBM), which takes the CLTS approach as basis and complements it with hand washing with soap, hy-giene and safe food and water treatment, safe wastewater management as well as solid waste management at house-hold level. At the same time, the Government is actively en-couraging the private sector to deliver affordable sanitation products and services, with local sanitarians and health cadres taking a key role in behavior change and demand creation. Since rolling out in 2008, STBM is now accepted as the standard approach for sanitation across Indonesia. Responsibilities for implementation are with local health of-fices and their sanitarian staff to carry out the program in their respective communities with strong support of local government, local and international NGOs, as well as de-velopment partners.

20 WSP (2013): Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia. 21 World Bank & AusAID (2013): EAP Urban Sanitation Review, Indonesia Country Study. 22 WSP (2013): Review of Fecal Sludge Management in 12 Cities, Draft Report.


Hygiene Practices

Although hygiene programs had been introduced and im-plemented nationally since 1970s together with the provi-sion of latrines and the establishment of official schools for sanitation, the outcomes of the programs have only re-sulted in limited success. In 2007, hand washing with soap practice was still low with only 23% of the population regu-larly washing their hands at ‘critical times’.23 The Commu-nity-Based Total Sanitation (STBM) strategy adopted by the Government in 2008 also includes a hygiene component focusing on behavior change as basis for communities to adopt safe hygiene practices. According to the RISKESDAS survey, by 2013 the rate of people washing their hands with soap at critical times has risen to around 47%.

To successfully scale up hygiene promotion in Indonesia, the most important link necessary is a strong partnership with the private sector. Using mass media to communicate hygiene-related messages to a large number of people, or combining sales strategies for hygiene products with the persuasive messaging are areas where the private sector has a comparative advantage over government. Further, the collaboration with midwives to communicate hygiene be-havior messages is a way to reach scale.

Human Resources Development

Despite the progress made in recent years, institutional challenges are to deliver at-scale services throughout the country and to provide the human resources required to do so. Scaling up water and sanitation service provision in or-der to reach sector targets will require a large number of skilled personnel. For the water supply sector, however, no aggregated data on number and status of human resources needed or those available exist yet. The sanitation subsec-tor, on the contrary, has estimated in a recent study24 that around 18,000 personnel are needed to meet the national

target in medium term. Only around 9,000 sanitation per-sonnel are currently available, though, indicating a gap of 50%.

Different training institutions exist within the Ministries of Public Works and Health, which follow standard govern-ment curricula aligned with existing government programs such as STBM. However, the amount of graduates that fi-nally support the sector development in the districts and provinces – especially facilitators, project managers and technicians – continue to fall short of the demand through-out the country. Since 2013, MoH connects the STBM ca-pacity building program to the ministry’s human resource development schemes through accredited training, individ-ual government officer’ performance credit mechanisms, e-learning, and by including it into the health schools cur-ricula.

Sustainability and Asset Transfer

Sustainability of community-operated water supply schemes is often weakened by an unclear transfer process of assets from government programs or projects to com-munities. In theory, existing laws and regulations define how ownership of assets is handed over by national government and projects to local governments and communities after the completion of an intervention to operate, maintain and manage the systems. In reality the operational process of handing over assets bears a number of challenges: For ex-ample, monitoring and registration of assets is required on a voluntary basis and therefore not conducted diligently; at handover, the registry of the assets as well as their func-tionality is not clear; and subsequently, responsibilities after handover are often disputed with communities or local gov-ernments refusing to allocate budget for repairs, operation and maintenance. Furthermore there is a lack of support structures for communities to request assistance for the

23 Hand washing at five critical times includes after defecation, after babies and children defecate, before eating and preparing food, before breastfeeding and after contact with animals.24 Qipra Galang Kualita (2012): Sanitation Personnel: Capacity Development Strategy.


proper operation and management of their newly acquired systems. Assistance is required to help both parties monitor and register the quantity and functionality of the assets at the point of transfer, as well as to technical support to com-munities on how to manage the new systems in the time after handover. Government programs and projects are fur-ther to engage more actively already from an early stage with the community representatives, who will be part of the operation and maintenance teams after transfer.


Investment Planning

Investment planning in the water and sanitation sector in Indonesia is still not done systematically throughout the sector and lacks coordination among key stakeholders. For the water supply subsector, the Ministry of Public Works has developed the Water Investment Roadmap (WIRA),25 which includes an assessment of issues in the water supply subsector and proposes specific investment packages and programs to reach sector targets. For sanitation, Bappenas coordinates the Sanitation Acceleration Program (PPSP), which includes an overview of investment requirements based on the stages of the program.

At local government level, a mid-term investment plan (RPI-JM) is developed to coordinate funding from the Ministry of Public Works at national level as well as from provincial and local level budgets. Cities and districts participating in PPSP have to develop city sanitation strategies (SSK), which includes mid-term investment plans and is also in-cluded into the RPIJM. For water supply, local water utilities (PDAMs) develop investment plan as part of their business plans, which is a requirement to participate at the debt re-structuring program.

5. Financing and its Implementation

While these investment planning exercises cover large parts of the water supply and sanitation sector, it does not cover ru-ral sanitation development. In fact, the investment roadmaps and plans are mainly focusing on infrastructure development in the sector, which is why they have not yet been fully applied to the rural sanitation sub-sector with its behavior change ap-proach that is aimed at leveraging household contributions. Even though the PPSP roadmap covers both rural and urban sanitation development nationwide, it does lack the depth and detail of a comprehensive investment plan.

In order to achieve sector targets by 2019, the raising rate of budget allocation to the sector over recent years has to be increased even further. It is therefore crucial to continuously optimize the processes of how finances are turned into ac-cess to services. For that, a sound and comprehensive in-vestment planning process is key so that available funds can be utilized in an efficient way. It is further important to link investment planning processes at central level with the more detailed, specific investment planning processes at local level, to ensure that local sector development also contributes to national targets.

Priority actions for financing and its implementation

• Urge development of sound investment plans and their endorsement and incorporation into local government work plans for immediate implementation.

• Establish a clearly defined public financing policy for urban sanitation with sources well identified.• Actively seek involvement of private sector participation in the sector. • Continue to develop alternative financing schemes to leverage sector investment.

25 MoPW, World Bank (2012): Indonesia Water Investment Roadmap 2011-14.


Budget Transparency

Despite clear mandates and regulations, it remains difficult to get a comprehensive picture of the total budget and ex-penditures in the water and sanitation sector. The Indone-sian law requires a three-party consensus for budget plan-ning, including the Ministry of Finance, Bappenas, and the according line ministry. A number of criteria have been set up to develop the budget, such as consistency with tar-geted performance indicators, accountability of users and source of funds. The formula used to calculate the budget might be revised every year depending on national and lo-cal revenues, the share of tax allocation for the sector, the population growth and technical conditions. The Ministry of Finance releases a detailed mechanism and formula every year as guidance for developing budget allocations. For transparency and accountability reasons, a national gov-ernment accounting system is implemented jointly between the Ministry of Finance and the line ministries. Budget and financial audit reports are available for the public, although most of those documents are not accessible online but only upon request.

There has been great improvement in recording govern-ment budgets and auditing expenditures, including catego-rizing budgets and expenditures by source of funds. The disaggregation of data, however, stops at the sector-level—reports do not disaggregate the water and sanitation sector further into urban and rural areas. This complicates specific accountability of sector performance to individual agencies, especially because the water and sanitation budget is held by several ministries involved with particular parts of the sector, and can even be spread out within several depart-ments within one ministry. So despite the fact that the data do exist in one form or another, due to a variety of different forms and templates used by different ministries or local government agencies, no consolidated report is available at national level for the sector as a whole, neither at national nor at local level.

Utilization of Budgets

It is difficult to get a real picture of the budget utilization given the unreliability of data as described above. In fact, the lack of compiled data reports in the water and sanitation sector continues into the auditing mechanisms. Audits are mostly done for individual ministries or projects, but do not cover a disaggregation between rural and urban areas. Au-dit reports do exist but are scattered among different agen-cies or projects. Stakeholders estimate that the rate of bud-get utilization is more than 75% for the sector as a whole and in some cases reaches almost 100%. In the review of the RPJMN 2010 – 2014, the ADB estimated a 75% utiliza-tion of the development budget for the water and sanitation sector, which is why many ministries work hard to ensure a maximum utilization of their budgets.

Private Sector Participation

Private involvement through public-private partnerships (PPP) or by utilizing corporate social responsibility funds for the water sector does exist, although it’s still limited. Two presidential regulations26 to strengthen partnerships with the private sector and to provide a guarantee fund mecha-nism for viable PPP schemes have been developed and need to be intensified in its implementation to provide ac-cess to new and large sources of investment funds for local governments. Currently, the Indonesia Water and Sanitation Investment Facility is under preparation. This initiative, led by Ministry of Finance, Bappenas, and the Ministry of Pub-lic Works with support from World Bank is aimed at provid-ing financing in combination with technical assistance when required, to help PDAMs access non-government sources of funding, in case they are not ‘healthy’ enough to borrow from commercial banks.

Another idea to leverage increased private sector funding would be to establish a pooled Municipal Development Fund, aimed to mobilize funds from different sources for

26 Perpres 13/2010 and Perpres 78/2010.


investment in infrastructure. This would then have to be combined with a project preparation facility to support lo-cal governments in developing good, bankable investment projects.

Budget Adequacy

Figure 5.1 shows the different sources of finance for the four sectors. As a whole, there are deficits in the urban wa-ter and sanitation sector, as can be seen in orange color in the diagram. However the reverse seems to be the case in rural areas, where water supply and sanitation are projected to be fully funded.

It is clear from Figure 5.1 that households and other do-mestic stakeholders27 are expected to be a major source of investments in both rural and urban areas. In rural sanita-tion, removing anticipated household investments leads to a deficit rather than a fully funded subsector. This raises a question of whether rural sanitation is actually fully fund-ed. The reason is that the household anticipated expen-ditures were modeled rather than based on documents or expressed intentions of stakeholders, which was the case for Government and donor agencies. In other words, there is no assurance that households will actually make these investments.

Domestic anticipated investment

External anticipated investment

Household anticipated investment

De�cit

Urban water supplyRural water supply Urban sanitationRural sanitationTotal : US$772,000,000Per capita (new): US$35

Total : US$3,980,000,000Per capita (new): US$180

Total : US$414,000,000Per capita (new): US$28

Total : US$2,340,000,000Per capita (new): US$184

Figure 5.1 Overall annual and per capita investment requirements and contribution to anticipated financing by source

Source: SDA costing

27 Domestic stakeholders are represented in this case mostly by the national government. The basis of the Figure 3 contains limited information on local governments and no information on utilities and the private sector.


6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation

Most monitoring efforts in the Indonesian water and sanita-tion sector are still being undertaken at a program or project level with limited coordination across the sector. Decentral-ization and the new responsibilities of local governments to provide water and sanitation services has not made this ef-fort easier. Many local governments still lack the capacity, full understanding and incentives to regularly conduct monitor-ing and utilize the data for planning purposes. In fact, many local governments are reaching their capacity limits with the multitude of reports they already have to submit every year for numerous programs and projects they participate in.28

Despite these difficulties, there has been significant improve-ment in sector monitoring and evaluation in recent years, both regarding coordination mechanisms and technical as-pects. Line ministries, local governments and other stake-holders have conducted regular monitoring and evaluation exercises, formulated follow up actions, and implemented corrective actions based on the results. The national Pokja undertakes a coordinated regular annual review for the sec-tor, involving several main government agencies related to water and sanitation.

While this is a very useful and welcomed exercise, the re-sults of these reviews are not sufficiently shared and agreed corrective actions of respective agencies at national and local level are not always followed through diligently. De-spite annual review mechanisms, development partners and projects continue to carry out their own internal M&E reviews, but do not necessarily share the findings with other line ministries or the Pokja. Communities also conduct M&E reviews on a voluntary basis, but there is no clear reporting requirement to share their reports with their respective dis-trict offices. M&E studies done by line ministries and part-ners, even though available, are also not always shared or published. Above all, consolidated reports based on com-parable sets of data are not yet available, either, making it difficult to find reliable data, except for project M&E sys-tems such as PAMSIMAS, which now operates in 220 out of 440 districts in Indonesia. Similarly, other large programs that fund for example water schemes, such as PNPM, have their own program M&E system.

NAWASIS as a national level M&E platform would facilitate consistent targets and indicators derived from a compre-

Priority actions for sector monitoring and evaluation

• Link monitoring and evaluation systems to budgeting and planning processes. • Strengthen the National Water Supply and Sanitation Information Services System (NAWASIS) to become an inte-

grated portal for sector-wide M&E.• Improve local capacity for use of M&E data for sector planning, budgeting and targeting implementation support.

28 Some local governments report that they have to submit up to 27 reports annually to various donors and projects that are active in their areas.


hensive results framework. So far, the RPJMN 2009-2014 does not differentiate between targets and indicators for ru-ral and urban areas, and each ministry or sector partner has their own specific indicators and targets for their part of the sector – which are not always in line with national indicators in mid-term or long-term development plans. The Ministry of Public Works has developed an online M&E tool for water supply named SIMSPAM. The number, condi-tion, and location of water utilities are constantly kept up-dated. At this moment, the system covers about 6 million people. MoH is also developing an online reporting system for sanitation, through SMS and web-based M&E. This sys-tem currently covers 9 provinces. It is planned that it will be implemented nationally in 2014. It remains to be discussed

in detail how this system can be incorporated into the NA-WASIS umbrella.

Despite increased efforts to carry out monitoring and evalu-ation in the water and sanitation sector, the data collected are not always analyzed and compiled in a systematic sec-tor review. Furthermore, recommendations and priority ac-tions, if available, are not always followed up to improve the quality of services. It is therefore recommended to improve the Government’s capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and implementation support. This should be linked to a system-atic incentive structure tailored to local circumstances, that combines rewards and punishments.


Figure 7.1 shows access rates and targets for rural water supply. Government estimates from Bappenas, which are based on the SUSENAS survey, indicate that only about 58% of the rural population had access to improved wa-ter supply in 2011. Progress between 1993 and 2011 has been moderate, with about 0.7 percentage points per year on average. However, following years of large rural wa-ter supply projects,29 and an increase in the Government’s commitment into the sector in recent years, a more rapid increase in access rates can be witnessed between 2009 to 2011, amounting to around 5% per year on average. If this accelerated trend continues to rise, it might be pos-sible for the Government to meet the 2019 targets of uni-versal access.

JMP estimates, which have a less stringent standard for defining improved water supply compared to the Govern-ment, indicate that a much higher proportion (76%) of the rural population had access to improved sanitation.

7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply

However, JMP and government indicators both suggest modest increases in access rates over time and, if current trends continue, a strong likelihood that country targets for 2019 will not be reached.

Priority actions for rural water supply

• Establish a clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities within the local governments after the hand-over of as-sets on managing and maintaining the water supply systems.

• Continue to facilitate and support community organizations in accessing commercial finance from local banks.• Establish comprehensive technical support structure for communities to ensure sustainability of water and sanita-

tion schemes. • Improve capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and imple-

mentation support.

Sources: SDA costing, Bappenas, and JMP (2013)30

Figure 7.1 Access to rural water supply

29 Three Water Supply and Sanitation for Low-Income Communities Projects have been implemented in the past two decades (WSSLIC 1 and 2, PAMSIMAS).30 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.

Acce

ss to

impr

oved

ru

ral w

ater

sup

ply

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Govt. estimates (1993-2011) Government target

Govt. estimates (2009-2011)


ment has to be treated with caution. As explained earlier, this has to do with household investments being modeled in the analysis rather than reflecting an expressed desire of households to fund expenditures for water supply facili-ties.

Figure 7.4 shows the scorecard results of the rural water supply service delivery pathway. The development of the rural water supply subsector reflects positive scores as a result of a supportive policy, shared roles and responsibili-ties among major stakeholders, good coordination among government institutions, and improving quality of scheme management and financial record keeping. At the same time the red scores and those on the lower end of the yel-low blocks, particularly equity, output, expansion and user outcomes, give reason for concern: It is especially the focus on equity, ensuring that the money is spent effectively on developing new services, as well as expanding and sustain-ing performance of existing schemes that need to function well in order to increase access rates especially for low-income areas.

Figure 7.2 Rural water financing (required, anticipated and recent investments)

Source: SDA costing

Figure 7.3 Rural water supply financing, anticipated and gaps

31 JMP (2012) Estimates for the use of Improved Drinking-Water Sources: Indonesia, wssinfo.org.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000


Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

t in

mili

on U

S$

Rural water supply


1,200


1,400Household

External

Domestic

Replacement

New

The SUSENAS survey for 2010, as presented in the JMP,31 indicates that protected wells were the most common (33% of the rural population) drinking water source in the rural Indonesia. Other common sources were tubewells/boreholes (13%) and protected springs (14%). Private ac-cess to piped water remains low at less than 5% of the rural population.

The country needs to raise an estimated US$772 million per year in order to meet its rural water supply targets for 2019 (Figure 7.2). About 57% of this amount is needed to replace worn-out facilities over the period of analysis. Anticipated investments ($1.2 billion per year), which rep-resent projected annual investments from 2012-14, are much higher than requirement investments. This finding is consistent with the earlier projection that the sector is likely to meet its target. It also suggests that government and donors should continue with current efforts to fund the sector. While funds from government and donors seem sufficient to fund requirements, the fully funded budget re-sulting from the inclusion of household anticipated invest-

Rural water supplyTotal : US$772,000,000Per capita (new): US$35 Domestic anticipated

investment



De�cit


In order to improve the service delivery pathway for ac-cess to rural sanitation, a series of priority actions can be identified. Since most systems are built through national programs or projects, problems – if there are any – most-ly occur after the projects are finished. There is no clear division of roles and responsibilities within local govern-ments on who does what in terms of providing assistance to communities. Although a Ministry of Home Affairs De-cree32 is being issued that aims to increase the priority of supporting CBOs as part of the expansion and improve-ment of existing rural water supply schemes, it is not clear yet on how this will be implemented. The capacity of many CBOs to manage existing water supply schemes, on the other hand, is still limited.

To address these gaps in capacity of CBOs, the challenge is how to reach the large number of CBOs in the country with only limited resources. In that regard, two approaches are being carried out: In the first approach, the Ministry of Public Works with support from WSP through the Domes-tic Private Sector Participation project (DPSP) is strength-ening the role of local governments to provide assistance to CBOs, in order to improve community-managed service provision through public and private investment funds.

The second approach includes CBO Associations (Asso-siasi BPSPAM), both at central and at district levels, that

Figure 7.4 Rural water supply scorecard

have been established with support from the Ministry of Public Works. These associations are a forum for CBOs to engage in knowledge sharing and horizontal learning amongst each other. Further, the associations are used as vehicle to carry out performance monitoring. Finally, the Government is strengthening the capacity of the asso-ciations to provide technical assistance to their member CBOs, and serve as a supportive link between the CBOs and other potential partners, such as the private sector.

Aside from the level of capacity of CBOs, the amount of public funds available is not sufficient to cover the de-mand for access to services in the rural areas. However, facilitating CBOs to access finance from local banks has proved to improve the capacity of the CBOs to improve and expand services. It is therefore recommended to iden-tify well functioning, alternative financial sources as well as alternative financial schemes, and scale them up more widely across the country.

In terms of sustaining services, the monitoring and infor-mation system developed through PAMSIMAS has been widely used to provide updates on the functionality of local water systems. Moreover, this monitoring system could be used as a tool for local governments to track their achieve-ments compared with the targets stated in their individual development plans.

32 Ministry of Home Affairs Decree No. 23/2013 regarding the Local Government Development Plans (RKPD).

Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning

1.5

Policy

2.5

Budget

1.5

Output

1

Expenditure

3

Maintenance

1.5

Equity

1

Expansion

0.5 1

Use

Source: SDA scorecard


8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply

Priority actions for urban water supply

• Continue to assist ‘unhealthy’ PDAMs to improve their overall business management condition and become and remain ‘healthy’, by improving asset management, implementing cost-recovery tariffs, reduce non-revenue water and improving the management of human resources.

• Intensify assistance to PDAMs to access financial sources such as commercial financing or government assisted schemes.

• Continue supportive incentive schemes such as Water Hibah to realize financial commitments by local government into the sector.

• Identify further incentives for PDAMs to increase access into low-income communities.• Engage local governments into a sound planning to secure future availability of water sources, e.g. by developing

sound water safety plans.

Figure 8.1 shows access rates and targets for urban water supply. Government estimates from Bappenas, which are based on the SUSENAS survey, indicate that only about 52% of the urban population had access to improved water supply in 2011. Access rates have significantly improved since 2010 due to strong political commitment to prioritize the achievement of the MDGs, as stated in RPJMN 2010-2014. However, in order to reach the more ambitious target of universal access by 2019, more efforts than in the recent past are needed.

The JMP uses less stringent standards compared to the Government and estimates that 93% of the urban popula-tion had access to improved water supply sources in 2011. Despite this difference, JMP and government estimates are similar in the sense that access rates have changed very slowly over the past two decades and that 2019 targets are unlikely to be met if the current changes in access rates continue.

The SUSENAS survey for 2010, as presented in the JMP,33 indicates that access to private piped water supplies (18% of the urban population) as a source of drinking water in the urban areas of Indonesia is quite low. There remains a heavy reliance on tubewells/boreholes (19%), protected wells (22%), bottled water (9%) and water refillers (16%).

33 JMP (2012) Estimates for the use of Improved Drinking-Water Sources: Indonesia, wssinfo.org.34 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.

Figure 8.1 Access to urban water supply

Sources: SDA costing, Bappenas. JMP (2013)34

Acce

ss to

impr

oved

ur

ban

wat

er s

uppl

y

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




Figure 8.2 Urban water supply financing (required, anticipated and recent investments)

The country needs to raise an estimated US$4 billion per year in order to meet its targets for 2019 (Figure 8.2). More than half (66%) of these requirements are for providing access to people who did not have facilities (new invest-ments) in the base period. The remaining investments are required for replacing facilities at the end of their economic life (replacement investment). Recent investments, which are mostly from domestic sources, are very low. Anticipated investments, which are also projected to come mostly from domestic sources, are estimated to be higher than recent investments. However, this only amounts to about 10% of investment requirements. Funding issues are compounded by the findings in Section 2 that an additional US$474 mil-lion per year needs to be generated for O&M expenditures.

The high deficit of almost US$3 billion per year is mainly due to the high targets for piped water supply in urban ar-eas (projected to be for 90% of all households with access to improved water supply by 2019), and the associated high unit costs for these piped systems.35 Considering the urban population growth, reaching these targets will require con-siderable investments into the subsector.

Figure 8.3 Urban water supply financing (anticipated and gap)

Source: SDA costing

35 For more information on unit costs, see Annex 2.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500


Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

t in

mili

on U

S$

Urban water supply


3,000


3,500

4,000

4,500

Household

External

Domestic

Replacement

New




De�cit

Urban water supplyTotal : US$3,980,000,000Per capita (new): US$180

The service delivery pathway for urban water supply achieves overall higher scores than the other subsectors (Figure 8.4), which can mainly be attributed to better policy and legal guid-ance on well-defined responsibilities, coordination mecha-nisms, recording and reporting, as well as organization and management of the utilities. While there is high commitment by the central government to provide access to water sup-ply in urban areas, local governments continue to face chal-lenges to increase access rates. One major gap identified by stakeholders remains the Government’s ability to commit an adequate budget necessary to reach the sector targets. This is exacerbated by the limited resources available to PDAMs to invest and expand coverage.

In comparison, expansion in the sustaining pillar receives a medium score of 1.5, indicating autonomy and the avail-ability of business plans. This is an important basis, but – as can be seen at the low output block – does not automati-cally translate into effective results if the quality of these business plans is not sufficient and not enough funds are available to implement them. Closely related to the low score of the output building block is the medium score of


Figure 8.4 Urban water supply scorecard and results (0 = lowest; 3 = highest)

1.5 given to planning and budgeting within the enabling pil-lar. In order to meet the target of universal access by 2019, the effectiveness of producing outputs and expanding ser-vices needs to be increased.

Of specific concern is the low score of 0.75 attributed to the maintenance building block of the sustainability pillar. Many of the issues that prevent PDAMs from more efficiency are compiled in this building block: non-revenue water losses (NRW), cost-recovery and tariff reviews. The national aver-age for NRW is still as high as 38% in 2012, just two per-centage points below a red score in the scorecard; the ratio between operational revenues and costs is below 0.8, in-dicating insufficient collection of revenues and high losses (e.g. due to NRW); and tariffs are reviewed regularly with regards to cost-recovery level, as required by law, but often no tariff adjustment is made. This underlines the important point that well managed water provision through utilities is not only a technical or managerial matter, but heavily de-pendent on the dynamics of the political economy at local level. With a strong political leader understanding the need for sustainable service provision by the water utility, tariff re-views and adjustments are expected to happen faster and more frequently.

In order to strengthen efforts to serve low-income com-munities, active participation of communities facilitated by

local government, CSOs and projects, as well as realizing equity funds from local budgets, should be continuously advocated and encouraged. Support and participation of private sector such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) should also be strengthened.

Water Resources Security

High population growth, and continuous high rate of urban-ization, combined with widespread water pollution and de-creasing water conservation areas are increasingly stress-ing the availability of water resources for domestic use. Linked with rising economic growth and increased prosper-ity, the volume of water used is also rising. At the same time, the development and implementation of technologies to reclaim water has started although its use is still limited. Leaking latrines and the lack of a properly functioning fecal sludge management system also contributes to pollution of water sources, which is why the synergy between sanitation and water has to start from the planning stage. For future security of water sources in view of the projected demo-graphic and climate change scenarios, local governments need to be engaged into a rigorous discussion to improve resilience and improve their capability to adjust service pro-vision accordingly. Continuous focus on an integrated and coordinated water safety planning process at local level is crucial for this challenge.


1.5

Policy

3

Budget

1.5

Output

0.5

Expenditure

3

Maintenance

0.75

Equity

2

Expansion

1.5 1

Use


Figure 9.1 shows access rates and targets for rural sanita-tion. Government estimates from BPS, which are based on the SUSENAS survey, indicate that only about 39% of the rural population had access to improved sanitation in 2011. While the 2011 access rate is about three times higher com-pared to 1993, the rate of increase (1.5 percentage points per year) is not fast enough to meet the target of universal access in 2019.

The JMP operates on less stringent standards compared to the Government and estimates that 44% of the urban population had access to improved sanitation in 2011. De-spite this difference, JMP and government estimates are similar in the sense that 2019 targets are unlikely to be met it the current trends in access rates continue.

The SUSENAS survey for 2010, as presented in the JMP,36 indicates that flush-toilets/gooseneck pans are very com-mon in rural Indonesia (64%). However, government defini-tions for improved facilities are much lower because these

also require that the toilets be private and have access to either a septic tank, a sewerage system or a pit. The JMP37 also estimates that more than a third (35%) of the rural pop-ulation still practiced open defecation in 2011.

9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene

Priority actions for rural sanitation and hygiene

• Strengthen the capacity of the STBM secretariat to coordinate and assist the implementation of STBM in Indone-sia.

• Continue efforts to increase the number and capacity of sanitation entrepreneurs and sanitation personnel to sup-port scaling up STBM nationwide.

• Improve capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and imple-mentation support.

• Ensure sufficient funding on software components to ensure leverage of household contributions.

36 JMP (2012) Estimates for the use of Improved Sanitation Facilities: Indonesia, wssinfo.org.37 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.38 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.

Acc

ess

to im

pro

ved

san

itatio

n

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Figure 9.1 Access to rural sanitation

SDA costing, BPS and JMP (2013)38


Indonesia needs to raise an estimated US$414 million per year in order to meet its rural sanitation targets for 2019 (Figure 9.2). About 43% of these requirements are need-ed for replacing facilities at the end of their economic life (replacement investment). Anticipated investments are ex-pected to meet requirements, indicating that targets for rural sanitation might even be reached earlier than 2019. However, care must be exercized in interpreting the results for two reasons. First, current trends presented earlier sug-gest that the access rate in 2019 is likely to be way below the target. Second, the anticipated contribution of house-holds (US$410 million per year) is the primary reason for the existence of the surplus. Recalling that such investments were simply modeled rather than based on documents/budgets suggests a significant amount of uncertainty. The surplus could very well be a deficit if households decide to spend less than projected here. The fact that access to im-proved sanitation in rural areas remains low suggests that a significant amount of investment for demand creation (soft-ware) will also be necessary to induce households to invest in hardware facilities.

Figure 9.2 Rural sanitation financing (required, anticipated and recent investments)

Source: SDA costing

Figure 9.3 Rural sanitation financing (anticipated and gap/surplus)

Rural sanitation has received a significant increase in po-litical priority over the past years, following the National Community-Based Total Sanitation Strategy (STBM) issued in 2008 and the definition of sector targets including ‘open defecation free’ status by 2014. Meeting these targets, however, remains challenging for various reasons. First, the magnitude of the problem. With still 100 million people still not having access to improved sanitation facilities (and 58 million people still practicing open defecation in 2011), In-donesia will need to help 16 million people per year gain access to improved sanitation facilities, current population growth rates considered. Second, the type of approach used for sector development. The methodology underlying STBM is based on a community-participatory, non-subsidy approach triggering behavior change, ultimately leveraging household contributions as main source of financing, and aiming for collective outcomes. This means a higher focus on software compared to hardware expenditures, such as capacity building through training and institutionalization in schools or the development of real-time SMS and web-based monitoring.

0

100

200


Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

t in

mili

on U

S$

Rural sanitation


300


400

500

600

Household

External

Domestic

Replacement

New




De�cit

Rural sanitationTotal : US$414,000,000Per capita (new): US$28


In this regard, the scorecard reveals a quite realistic pic-ture of the current situation of the rural sanitation subsector (Figure 9.4): The green building blocks policy and up-take reflect the existence of the STBM program, a sound policy framework including sector targets and clearly established roles and responsibilities, embracing a high degree of com-munity participation and equity, with a number of incentives and focus on behavior change.

The challenges now focus on the next step in the process, the implementation of the policy at national level, and sus-tainability of the services created. Here, the scorecard re-sults show some bottlenecks. The planning and budgeting building blocks, including creating investment plans, estab-lishing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, assessing number and capacity of human resources, as well as having sound budget and financial planning mechanisms in place, are maturing, although are still in need of development to achieve full nation-wide implementation. A number of initia-tives, activities and mechanisms have been implemented in numerous provinces and now being replicated across the wide-spread rural population in Indonesia.

Promising improvements as well as large remaining gaps are both combined in the sustainability level of the program. Acceptance of the approach among the community, willing-ness to bear the cost of improved sanitation services, and improved health and hygiene outcomes were confirmed by an impact evaluation in 2012.39 The local private sector of sanitation enterprises is seen as an important partner in de-livering services, as well as contributions through corporate social responsibility programs, all of which are contribut-ing towards better sector performance.40 At the same time, the use building block still shows a score of 0, indicating that great efforts are still required to meet the 2019 sector targets, the effectiveness of the equity focus still needs to be strengthened, and the use of improved facilities is still quite low.

At central government level, a secretariat in the Ministry of Health has been set up to assist the implementation of the STBM program. This is key to scale up STBM to a nation-wide level. The secretariat, however, requires continued as-sistance to build capacity and coordinate the implementa-tion of the strategy.

39 WSP (2013): TSSM Impact Evaluation, Field note.40 According to the Association for Sanitation Entrepreneurs (APPSANI), more than 3000 private sanitation entrepreneurs exist in Indonesia to date.

Figure 9.4 Rural sanitation and hygiene scorecard and results (0 = lowest; 3 = highest)


1.125

Policy

3

Budget

1

Output

1

Expenditure

1.5

Markets

1.125

Equity

2

Up-take

2.5 0.5

Use


Figure 10.1 shows access rates and targets for urban sani-tation. Government estimates from the BPS, which are based on the SUSENAS survey, indicate that about 73% of the urban population had access to improved sanitation in 2011. Access rates have improved modestly since 1993 and the changes do not seem large enough to meet the tar-get of universal access in 2019. The JMP access rates for 2011 are very close to government estimates.

The SUSENAS survey for 2010, as presented in the JMP,41 indicates that flush toilets/gooseneck toilet pans are com-mon in rural Indonesia (88%). However, government defini-tions for improved facilities are much lower than JMP defi-nitions, because they require that the toilets be private and have access to either a septic tank, a sewerage system or a pit. Access to sewerage systems and sewerage treatment in urban areas is still very low, covering only about 1% of the urban population, according to studies by the USDP

10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene

Priority actions for urban sanitation and hygiene

• Improve technical and managerial performance of urban sanitation treatment facilities by building managerial ca-pacity and increasing the efficiency of the treatment facilities.

• Provide technical assistance to intensify the development of fecal sludge management systems in urban areas including private sector participation.

• Institutionalize the clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities for regulation and service provision at local level to ensure more effective service delivery.

41 JMP (2012) Estimates for the use of Improved Sanitation Facilities: Indonesia, wssinfo.org.42 Urban Sanitation Development Program (2012) National Sanitation Demand Assessment 2012, Draft report, November. 43 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.44 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.

Figure 10.1 Access to urban sanitation

Acc

ess

to im

pro

ved

san

itatio

n

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Source: SDA costing44

and Eales et al.42,43 The JMP also estimates that as of 2011, about 14% of the urban population still practiced open def-ecation.44


The country needs to raise an estimated US$2.3 billion per year in order to meet its 2019 targets for urban sanitation (Figure 10.2). About 24% (US$560 million per year) of this amount is for providing access to sewerage systems, with a national target of 6% of the urban population by 2019. Anticipated investments are less than investment require-ments, suggesting that planned expenditures for 2012-14 are not enough to meet the targets. This implies that achiev-ing the targets for 2019 may require substantial increases in investments starting now. The deficits for 2012-14 might actually be higher than what is estimated here. The reason is that 51% of the anticipated expenditures are projected to come from households. Funding issues are compounded further by the finding in Section 2 that an additional US$214 million per year needs to be generated for maintenance and operating expenditures

The results of the urban sanitation scorecard (Figure 10.4) show that it is evident that Indonesia has developed a sound basis for urban sanitation service delivery: Policy and budget building blocks receive quite high scores, followed

by medium scores for planning, expenditure and equity. However, the performance of how services are implement-ed and sustained still show major weaknesses, especially regarding the rate of expansion and quality of treatment, described through the low output score. For example, in the past, a number of urban sanitation facilities were construct-ed throughout the country, but as recent studies show,45 many of the facilities still have substantial issues regard-ing the quality of their performance. Although regulations (including norms and standards) are available, but ensuring high quality technical and managerial performance is one of the biggest challenges Indonesia faces in the urban sanita-tion sector.

Another major bottleneck is the markets building block, which reveals the shortcomings in fecal waste collection and treatment (score = 0) and the lack of cost recovery of treatment systems (score = 0). Given the large prevalence of pit latrines and septic tanks in urban areas, the lack of fecal sludge management is of particular concern. Studies have shown46,47 that the majority of facilities, which are com-

45 Refer to WSP (2013), Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, World Bank and AusAID (2013), Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study.46 Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study. The World Bank, 2013. 47 Urban Sludge Management, WSP [reference]

Figure 10.2 Urban sanitation financing (required, anticipated and recent investments)

Figure 10.3 Urban sanitation financing (anticipated and gap)

0

500

1,000


Ann

ual i

nves

tmen

t in

mili

on U

S$

Urban sanitation


1,500


2,000

2,500Household

External

Domestic

Seweragesystem

Replacement

New




De�cit

Urban sanitationTotal : US$2,340,000,000Per capita (new): US$184


monly called ‘septic tanks’, do not actually include a prop-erly functioning sealed tank and treatment system; in most cases, they are merely latrine facilities with an enforced pit as sub-structure. Households in urban areas – many of them are tenants with unclear land ownership structures – are not aware of the potentially improperly functioning sub-structures, hence operation and maintenance is poor, pits are leaking and often discharging directly into the ground-water. As a consequence, only a few households request their tanks to be emptied regularly by calling either public or private service providers for desludging. Once the sludge is collected from the households, these providers then further lack a regulatory mechanism and incentives to safely dis-pose the fecal sludge into the septage treatment plants. As a result, a large portion of the collected sludge is disposed unsafely directly into the environment.48 The Government is aware of the issue and with support from USAID and WSP is currently developing a program of fecal sludge manage-ment to improve the services.

Further bottlenecks in the service delivery pathway of the urban sanitation and hygiene subsector is the lack of prop-er management of decentralized wastewater treatment sys-tems (DEWATS systems), as well as septage and wastewa-ter treatment plants. Tariffs collected do not cover costs for operation and maintenance, which leads to dysfunctional facilities. In particular for DEWATS systems, studies have shown that external monitoring and support for technical and non-technical problem solving is highly necessary to keep infrastructure in a well functioning shape and ensure good treatment performance on the long term. Further-more, this management issue is also related with institu-tional arrangements due to the unclear distinction between regulator and service provider – in numerous cases at local government level, one entity resumes both roles. To tackle this issue, central government has started some initiatives, such as the Ministry of Public Works and the Ministry of Home Affairs, with support from development partners.

Figure 10.4 Urban sanitation and hygiene scorecard and results (0 = lowest; 3 = highest)

48 It is estimated that only 4% of septage in urban areas is being treated (Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study, The World Bank, 2013).


1.5

Policy

2.5

Budget

2

Output

0.5

Expenditure

1.5

Markets

0.375

Equity

1.5

Up-take

1 1

Use


Both Government and JMP data sources indicate that In-donesia has made significant progress in the overall in-crease of access to water and sanitation services in recent years. However, sector targets of 100% coverage by 2019, as set out in the development plans, are very ambitious, even though they can be interpreted as a reflection of the increased political priority the sector is receiving as result of years of strong sector development. Nonetheless, the strong political support to the sector needs to be continued, and budget allocations need to be increased even more than they already have over the recent years to reach these targets. At the same time a focus on reducing the overall bottlenecks in the sector through more accurate planning, effective implementation and a focus on sustaining the ser-vices is required to improve the service delivery pathway

Reaching universal access by 2019 will require a total an-nual investment into the sector amounting to more than US$4.7 billion per year for water supply and US$2.8 bil-lion per year for sanitation. These numbers constitute a 4.5-fold and 7.5-fold increase in investment into the water supply and sanitation subsector, respectively, compared to recent years, when progress was already at an all-time high level. However, the anticipated investments over the three years between 2012 and 2014 still fall far short of the requirements, with projected deficits of US$2.4 million for water supply and US$1.4 billion for sanitation. On top of this, approximately US$538 million is required for the operation and maintenance of water supply services, and US$244 million for sanitation. This money is necessary when considering the number of people that have to gain

access in the coming years to achieve universal access by 2019; about 24 million people per year have to gain ac-cess to water supply services and 16 million per year for sanitation services.

The financial analysis reveals that most of the money is needed for the development of urban water supply facili-ties (US$4 billion per year) as well as urban sanitation fa-cilities (US$2.3 billion per year). The reason for these high costs associated with urban services is attributed to the high rate of urbanization and population growth as well as the higher unit costs associated with urban services.

The scorecard analysis shows that overall, Indonesia is progressing reasonably well in the enabling and develop-ing pillars of the service delivery pathway. This results from a supportive institutional environment, improved coordina-tion between line ministries, and consistency in reducing inequality by providing access to low income communities in both rural and urban areas. The focus in the future will be to strengthen the existing system, improve the implementa-tion of policies and strategies into actual outputs, improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the systems and sustain the achieved services through strong ownership, operation and maintenance. Bottlenecks in the developing and sustaining pillars suggest that high political will needs to be translated into improved investment plans that are linked with local government work plans and budgeting processes. Considering the high investment requirements to develop urban water supply services, the need for wa-ter utilities to generate revenues and expand access to the

11. Conclusion


poor is rising as well. This includes a supportive political economy environment at local government level and its in-fluence on achieving cost-recovery tariffs. It further includes strengthening the equity focus by developing clear sub-sector strategies for reaching the poor, including specific incentives or subsidies for the poor.

At the same time, priority has to be given to the sound and integrated planning to ensure the future availability of wa-ter resources. Without this, many existing weaknesses in the performance of the water supply and sanitation service delivery will be exacerbated and investments and solutions required will increase significantly.

The big task for Indonesia in the near future will be to find ways to address these challenges. In addition to detailed subsector priority actions identified in section 6 to 10, the following sector-wide priority actions have been identified by stakeholders:• Identify support structures for local governments to as-

sess and improve the quality of their strategic planning processes.

• Scale up development of human resources through in-stitutionalized capacity building.

• Develop sound investment plans and ensure their en-dorsement and incorporation into local government work plans for immediate implementation.

• Investigate how local accountability mechanisms are functioning and potential ways to improve this.

• Actively seek involvement of private sector and devel-op alternative financing mechanism.

• Engage local governments in water management and planning to secure future availability of water resources.

• Cleary define poor households at the bottom 40% of the income distribution and design targeted support to ensure inclusive service-delivery.

• Improve greater coordination between water and sanitation sector programs and poverty programs to increase the effectiveness of service delivery for the poor.

• Improve local capacity for using M&E systems to in-form sector planning, budgeting and targeting imple-mentation support.

• Strengthen the National Water Supply and Sanitation Information Services System (NAWASIS) to become an integrated portal for sector-wide M&E.


Figure 11.1 Scorecard of the service delivery pathway for all four subsectors


1.5

Policy

2.5

Budget

2

Output

0.5

Expenditure

1.5

Markets

0.375

Equity

1.5

Up-take

1 1

Use


1.125

Policy

3

Budget

1

Output

1

Expenditure

1.5

Markets

1.125

Equity

2

Up-take

2.5 0.5

Use


1.5

Policy

3

Budget

1.5

Output

0.5

Expenditure

3

Maintenance

0.75

Equity

2

Expansion

1.5 1

Use


1.5

Policy

2.5

Budget

1.5

Output

1

Expenditure

3

Maintenance

1.5

Equity

1

Expansion

0.5 1

Use

Rural Water Supply

Urban Water Supply

Rural Sanitation and Hygiene

Urban Sanitation and Hygiene

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

38

Ann

ex 1

: Th

e S

core

of S

DA

in In

done

sia

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

RURA

L SA

NITA

TION

ENAB

LING

Enab

ling

Polic

ySe

ctor

targ

ets

Are

ther

e RW

S ac

cess

ta

rget

s in

the

natio

nal

leve

l dev

elop

men

t pl

an?

Yes,

ther

e ar

e ta

rget

s fo

r rur

al

wat

er s

uppl

y in

th

e de

velo

pmen

t pl

an

Ther

e ar

e na

tiona

l ta

rget

s in

the

deve

lopm

ent

plan

but

non

e fo

r ru

ral w

ater

.

No ta

rget

s in

the

deve

lopm

ent

plan

1M

id-t

erm

Dev

elop

men

t pla

n: 6

7% a

cces

s fo

r w

ater

by

2014

(no

sepa

rate

targ

et b

etw

een

rura

l an

d ur

ban)

. Ind

ones

ia M

DG ta

rget

: 54%

rura

l pi

ped

wat

er. L

ong-

term

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n: a

cces

s fo

r wat

er fo

r all

popu

latio

n by

202

5. R

enst

ra o

f th

e M

PW in

clud

es s

ub-s

ecto

ral t

arge

ts fo

r rur

al

wat

er s

uppl

y.

Indo

nesi

a M

id-t

erm

De

velo

pmen

t Pla

n (2

010-

2014

), In

done

sia

Long

-ter

m

Deve

lopm

ent P

lan

(200

5-20

25).

Indo

nesi

a M

DG T

arge

t.

Enab

ling

Polic

ySe

ctor

Pol

icy

Is th

ere

a ru

ral w

ater

po

licy

that

is a

gree

d by

sta

keho

lder

s,

appr

oved

by

gove

rnm

ent,

and

is

publ

icly

avai

labl

e?

Polic

y of

ficia

lly

appr

oved

and

pu

blic

ly av

aila

ble

Polic

y dr

afte

d an

d ag

reed

but

no

t offi

cial

ly ap

prov

ed

No p

olic

y1

Law

No.

7/20

04 o

n W

ater

Res

ourc

es. A

rticl

e 40

st

ated

that

pro

visio

n of

wat

er s

uppl

y is

a s

hare

d re

spon

sibi

lity

amon

g na

tiona

l gov

ernm

ent,

loca

l go

vern

men

t, co

mm

unity

and

priv

ate

sect

or to

en

sure

qua

lity

serv

ice

at a

fford

able

pric

e. L

aw

No.3

2/20

09 o

n pr

otec

tion

and

man

agem

ent

of e

nviro

nmen

t give

s m

anda

te to

Min

istry

of

Envir

onm

ent t

o co

ntro

l bal

ance

of e

nviro

nmen

t an

d pr

otec

t wat

er re

sour

ces.

Gov

ernm

ent

Decr

ee N

o. 1

6/20

05 o

n sy

stem

for p

rovis

ion

of

wat

er. A

rticl

e 65

of t

his

Decr

ee a

ckno

wle

dges

co

mm

unity

-bas

ed w

ater

org

aniza

tions

as

a le

gal

body

to m

anag

e pr

ovis

ion

of w

ater

in ru

ral a

reas

. Al

so R

enst

ra a

vaila

ble

in th

e M

PW.

Rela

ted

law,

agr

eem

ent,

decr

ee o

n w

ater

(pub

licly

avai

labl

e on

inte

rnet

).

Buku

Sak

u Re

gula

si A

MPL

- Ai

r Min

um d

an P

enye

hata

n Li

ngku

ngan

(han

dboo

k of

w

ater

and

env

ironm

enta

l he

alth

pol

icy)

, Pok

ja A

MPL

, 20

10

Polic

yIn

stitu

tiona

l Ro

les

Are

the

inst

itutio

nal

role

s of

rura

l wat

er

subs

ecto

r pla

yers

(n

atio

nal/s

tate

& lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent,

serv

ice

prov

ider

, reg

ulat

or

etc)

cle

arly

defin

ed

and

oper

atio

naliz

ed?

Defin

ed a

nd

oper

atio

naliz

edDe

fined

but

not

op

erat

iona

lized

Not d

efine

dNo

t defi

ned

0.5

Clea

rly d

efine

d in

sev

eral

law

s, d

ecre

es a

nd

agre

emen

ts s

uch

as W

ater

and

Env

ironm

enta

l He

alth

Nat

iona

l Stra

tegy

(200

3), L

aw N

o.

32/2

004

on lo

cal a

uton

omy,

Gove

rnm

ent D

ecre

e No

. 38/

2007

on

dem

arca

tion

of ro

les

betw

een

natio

nal a

nd lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, M

inis

ter o

f Hea

lth

Decr

ee N

o. 7

36/2

010

on w

ater

sur

veilla

nce,

M

inis

ter o

f Pub

lic W

orks

Dec

ree

No. 1

2/20

10 o

n w

ater

sys

tem

bus

ines

s m

anag

emen

t, Go

vern

men

t De

cree

No.

72/

2005

on

villa

ges.

How

ever

, the

re

are

som

e op

erat

iona

l iss

ues

whe

n th

e ru

ral

wat

er s

yste

m h

as b

een

hand

ed-o

ver t

o ru

ral

com

mun

ities

/villa

ge g

over

nmen

t reg

ardi

ng a

sset

m

anag

emen

t and

mai

nten

ance

.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t39

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Fund

flow

co

ordi

natio

nDo

es g

over

nmen

t ha

ve a

pro

cess

for

coor

dina

ting

mul

tiple

in

vest

men

ts in

the

subs

ecto

r (do

mes

tic

or d

onor

, eg.

Nat

iona

l gr

ants

, sta

te b

udge

ts,

dono

r loa

ns a

nd

gran

ts e

tc.)?

Coor

dina

tion

proc

ess

defin

ed a

nd

oper

atio

naliz

ed

Coor

dina

tion

proc

ess

defin

ed b

ut n

ot

oper

atio

naliz

ed

Not d

efine

d/ n

o pr

oces

s0.

5Cl

early

defi

ned

proc

ess

and

equi

pped

with

rela

ted

supp

ortin

g pl

anni

ng, i

mpl

emen

tatio

n, m

onito

ring

and

repo

rting

doc

umen

ts. B

udge

ting

proc

ess

was

don

e by

thre

e pa

rties

: Min

istry

of F

inan

ce,

Bapp

enas

, and

sec

tor m

inis

try/a

genc

ies.

The

re

is v

ery

few

off-

budg

et, o

ff re

cord

s in

the

sect

or.

Budg

etin

g pr

oces

s is

gui

ded

by th

e la

w, b

ut th

ere

are

still

issu

es w

ith q

ualit

y of

bud

getin

g.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Inve

stm

ent p

lan

Is th

ere

a m

ediu

m

term

inve

stm

ent p

lan

for r

ural

wat

er b

ased

on

nat

iona

l tar

gets

th

at c

oste

d, p

riorit

izes

inve

stm

ent n

eeds

, is

publ

ishe

d an

d us

ed?

Inve

stm

ent p

lan

base

d on

prio

rity

need

s ex

ists

, is

publ

ishe

d an

d us

ed

Exis

ts b

ut n

ot

used

, or u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n

Does

not

exis

t1

Ther

e is

an

Indo

nesi

an W

ater

Inve

stm

ent

Road

map

(201

1-20

14) d

evel

oped

by

Min

istry

of

Publ

ic W

orks

and

a M

aste

r Pla

n fo

r Dev

elop

ing

Com

mun

ity B

ased

Wat

er P

rovis

ion

Syst

em

(BPP

SPAM

) for

a p

erio

d of

15-

20 y

ears

(sta

rting

in

200

7). R

oadm

ap a

nd m

aste

r pla

n ar

e te

chni

cal

docu

men

ts (G

over

nmen

t Wor

k Pl

ans

- RK

P)

that

con

sist

of d

etai

led

cost

est

imat

es a

nd

deta

iled

impl

emen

tatio

n pl

ans.

Inve

stm

ent p

lan

impl

emen

tatio

n is

bei

ng p

repa

red.

Indo

nesi

an W

ater

Inve

stm

ent

Road

map

(201

1-20

14).

Mas

ter p

lan

for D

evel

opin

g W

ater

Pro

visio

n Sy

stem

(B

PPSP

AM).

Rur

al W

ater

W

orks

hop

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Annu

al re

view

Is th

ere

an a

nnua

l m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der

revie

w in

pla

ce to

m

onito

r sub

sect

or

perfo

rman

ce, t

o re

view

pro

gres

s an

d se

t cor

rect

ive a

ctio

ns?

Revie

w o

f pe

rform

ance

an

d se

tting

of

corre

ctive

act

ions

Revie

w o

f pe

rform

ance

bu

t no

setti

ng o

f co

rrect

ive a

ctio

ns

No re

view

or

set

ting

of

corre

ctive

act

ions

0.5

Ther

e ar

e re

gula

r rev

iew

s co

nduc

ted

by

stak

ehol

ders

and

pro

ject

s. R

egar

ding

tech

nica

l is

sues

, Min

istry

of P

ublic

Wor

ks h

as a

n on

line

M&E

sys

tem

(SIM

SPAM

) to

acce

lera

te c

orre

ctive

ac

tion.

Nec

essa

ry c

orre

ctive

act

ions

exis

t fo

r som

e pr

ojec

ts (e

.g. P

AMSI

MAS

), bu

t not

sy

stem

atic

ally.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

HR C

apac

ityHa

s an

ass

essm

ent

been

und

erta

ken

of

the

hum

an re

sour

ce

need

s in

the

sub

sect

or to

mee

t the

su

bsec

tor t

arge

t and

is

the

actio

n pl

an

bein

g im

plem

ente

d?

Asse

ssm

ent

unde

rtake

n an

d ac

tions

bei

ng

impl

emen

ted

Asse

ssm

ent

unde

rtake

n bu

t no

act

ion

bein

g ta

ken

No a

sses

smen

t un

derta

ken

0No

spe

cific

ass

essm

ent m

ade

on th

is a

rea.

Ru

ral W

ater

Wor

ksho

p

Enab

ling

Budg

etAd

eque

ncy

(of

finan

cing

)Ar

e th

e pu

blic

fin

anci

al c

omm

itmen

ts

to th

e ru

ral w

ater

su

bsec

tor s

uffic

ient

to

mee

t the

nat

iona

l ta

rget

s fo

r the

su

bsec

tor?

Mor

e th

an

75%

of w

hat i

s ne

eded

Betw

een

50-

75%

of n

eeds

Less

than

50%

of

nee

ds1

Mor

e th

an 7

5%. T

he S

DA c

ostin

g an

alys

is

estim

ates

that

if fu

ndin

g co

ntin

ues

as a

ntic

ipat

ed,

the

sect

or w

ill be

fully

fund

ed to

mee

t the

targ

ets

by 2

019.

SDA

cost

ing

anal

ysis

.

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

40

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Enab

ling

Budg

etSt

ruct

ure

Does

the

budg

et

stru

ctur

e pe

rmit

the

inve

stm

ents

and

su

bsid

ies

(ope

ratio

nal

cost

s, a

dmin

istra

tion,

de

bt s

ervic

e, e

tc)

for t

he ru

ral w

ater

se

ctor

to b

e cl

early

id

entifi

ed?

Yes

for

inve

stm

ent a

nd

for s

ubsi

dies

Yes

for

inve

stm

ent b

ut

not s

ubsi

dies

No0.

5Th

ere

is a

sep

arat

ion

betw

een

subs

idy

and

inve

stm

ent i

n th

e bu

dget

stru

ctur

e, b

ut n

ot

betw

een

rura

l and

urb

an. T

his

is s

tate

d in

Pr

esid

entia

l Reg

ulat

ion

No.2

9/20

09 o

n Gu

aran

ty

and

Inte

rest

Sub

sidy

by

Natio

nal G

over

nmen

t to

Acc

eler

ate

Prov

isio

n of

Wat

er S

uppl

y. It

is

also

gui

ded

in M

inis

ter o

f Fin

ance

Dec

ree

No.

229/

2009

on

Impl

emen

tatio

n Gu

idel

ine

on

the

Guar

anty

and

Inte

rest

Sub

sidy

by

Natio

nal

Gove

rnm

ent t

o Ac

cele

rate

Pro

visio

n of

Wat

er

Supp

ly.

Pres

iden

tial R

egul

atio

n No

.29/

2009

, Min

iste

r of

Fina

nce

Decr

ee N

o. 2

29/2

009,

an

d Ru

ral W

ater

Wor

ksho

p.

Enab

ling

Budg

etCo

mpr

ehen

sive

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent b

udge

t co

mpr

ehen

sive

ly co

ver d

omes

tic

and

offic

ial d

onor

in

vest

men

t/sub

sidy

to

rura

l wat

er?

Mor

e th

an 7

5%

of fu

nds

to

subs

ecto

r on

budg

et

Betw

een

50-

75%

of f

unds

to

sub

sect

or o

n bu

dget

Less

than

50%

of

fund

s to

su

bsec

tor o

n bu

dget

0No

t all

budg

ets

are

regi

ster

ed, e

spec

ially

co

mm

uniti

es' c

ontri

butio

n in

the

com

mun

ity

base

d ru

ral w

ater

sup

ply.

Min

istry

of F

inan

ce

keep

s re

cord

of a

ll go

vern

men

t bud

get o

n w

ater

, ho

wev

er, t

his

does

not

pro

vide

the

over

all b

udge

t of

this

sec

tor s

ince

it is

est

imat

ed o

nly

70%

of

the

budg

et c

omes

from

gov

ernm

ent,

whi

le th

e ot

her 3

0% fr

om p

rivat

e se

ctor

. Als

o no

sep

arat

ion

betw

een

urba

n an

d ru

ral i

s av

aila

ble.

Seki

las

APBN

, Din

amik

a Pe

ngan

ggar

an d

i Ind

ones

ia

(201

1), D

raft

repo

rt on

revie

w

of m

idte

rm d

evel

opm

ent p

lan

2010

-201

4 (A

DB, 2

013)

, PH

LN D

alam

Dis

parit

as

Pem

bang

unan

Kes

ehat

an

(201

0), a

nd R

ural

Wat

er

Wor

ksho

p

DEVE

LOPI

NG

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Utiliz

atio

n of

dom

estic

fu

nds

Wha

t per

cent

age

of d

omes

tic fu

nds

budg

eted

for r

ural

w

ater

are

spe

nt (3

ye

ar a

vera

ge)?

Over

75%

Betw

een

50%

an

d 75

%Le

ss th

an 5

0%1

ADB

Mid

term

Rev

iew

of t

he M

idte

rm D

evel

opm

ent

Prog

ram

sta

ted

that

mor

e th

an 7

5% b

udge

t has

be

en u

tilize

d. H

owev

er, n

o se

para

te d

ata

on ru

ral

and

urba

n.

ADB

Mid

term

Rev

iew,

Rur

al

Sani

tatio

n W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Utiliz

atio

n of

ext

erna

l fu

nds

Wha

t per

cent

age

of e

xter

nal f

unds

bu

dget

ed fo

r rur

al

wat

er a

re s

pent

(3

year

ave

rage

)?

Over

75%

Betw

een

50%

an

d 75

%Le

ss th

an 5

0%1

Mos

tly a

lmos

t 100

% w

hen

the

proj

ects

/act

ivitie

s fin

ish.

Ru

ral W

ater

Wor

ksho

p

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Repo

rting

Is ru

ral w

ater

ex

pend

iture

ver

sus

budg

et a

udite

d an

d re

porte

d on

in a

co

nsol

idat

ed fo

rmat

fo

r all

sour

ces

of

dom

estic

and

offi

cial

do

nor e

xpen

ditu

re?

Yes

for d

omes

tic

and

dono

r ex

pend

iture

Yes

for d

omes

tic

expe

nditu

reNo

1Al

l gov

ernm

ent b

udge

t fro

m a

ll so

urce

s ar

e au

dite

d an

d re

porte

d in

a c

onso

lidat

ed

gove

rnm

ent f

orm

at, b

ut in

-line

with

PM

K 59

/PM

K06/

2005

, the

re is

no

requ

irem

ent f

or a

se

para

te a

ccou

nt fo

r pur

e go

vern

men

t and

pr

ojec

t's e

xpen

ditu

res

as a

ll ar

e co

nsid

ered

as

gove

rnm

ent.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t41

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Loca

l par

ticip

atio

nAr

e th

ere

clea

rly

defin

ed p

roce

dure

s fo

r in

form

ing,

con

sulti

ng

with

and

sup

porti

ng

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n in

pl

anni

ng, b

udge

ting

and

impl

emen

ting

for r

ural

wat

er

deve

lopm

ents

?

Yes

and

syst

emat

ical

ly ap

plie

d

Yes,

but

not

sy

stem

atic

ally

appl

ied

No0.

5Pl

anni

ng a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of w

ater

and

sa

nita

tion

in In

done

sia

are

botto

m u

p fo

rwar

ding

lo

cal p

artic

ipat

ion.

Thi

s is

cle

arly

stat

ed in

pr

ogra

m's

and

pro

ject

’s g

uide

line,

whi

ch w

as

deve

lope

d by

loca

l im

plem

ente

r, an

d co

ncre

tely

real

ized

in p

rogr

am's

or p

roje

ct's

cos

t sha

ring.

Th

ough

, cle

arly

proc

edur

e is

exis

t, re

aliza

tion

of

com

mitm

ent i

s st

ill w

eak.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Budg

et a

lloca

tion

crite

riaHa

ve c

riter

ia (o

r a

form

ula)

bee

n de

term

ined

to a

lloca

te

rura

l wat

er fu

ndin

g eq

uita

bly

to ru

ral

com

mun

ities

and

is

it b

eing

app

lied

cons

iste

ntly?

Yes,

app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

Yes,

but

no

t app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

No0.

5La

w N

o. 3

2/20

04 o

n lo

cal g

over

nmen

t and

M

inis

ter o

f Fin

ance

Reg

ulat

ion

No 1

65/2

012

on tr

ansf

er fu

nd s

tate

d th

at b

udge

t allo

catio

n is

con

duct

ed b

y M

oF w

ith s

peci

fic c

riter

ia.

MoF

con

sults

oth

er te

chni

cal m

inis

tries

and

lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, es

peci

ally

to g

et te

chni

cal

inpu

ts, w

hen

allo

catin

g th

e bu

dget

. How

ever

, th

e al

loca

tion

is n

ot a

pplie

d co

nsis

tent

ly by

loca

l go

vern

men

ts.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Redu

cing

ineq

ualit

yIs

ther

e pe

riodi

c an

alys

is to

ass

ess

whe

ther

allo

catio

n cr

iteria

and

loca

l pa

rtici

patio

n pr

oced

ures

set

by

gove

rnm

ent h

ave

been

adh

ered

to

and

are

redu

cing

di

spar

ities

in a

cces

s?

Yes

perio

dic

anal

ysis

pu

blis

hed

and

acte

d up

on

Yes

perio

dic

anal

ysis

pu

blis

hed

but n

ot

acte

d up

on

No0

No p

erio

dic

anal

ysis

is b

eing

con

duct

ed

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Quan

tity

Is th

e an

nual

num

ber

of n

ew s

yste

ms

built

(and

sys

tem

s re

plac

ed) s

uffic

ient

to

mee

t sec

tor t

arge

ts?

(incl

udin

g ou

tput

by

gove

rnm

ent d

irect

ly as

wel

l as

thro

ugh

cont

ract

ors

and

NGOs

)

Over

75%

of t

hat

need

ed to

reac

h se

ctor

targ

ets

Over

50%

of t

hat

need

ed to

reac

h se

ctor

targ

ets

Less

than

50%

of

that

nee

ded

to re

ach

sect

or

targ

ets

0In

telle

ctua

l gue

ss: l

ess

than

50%

. Tar

get r

ural

pi

ped

wat

er 1

9.76

% (2

015)

. Acc

ess

in 2

011

was

13

.94

(or 7

0.54

% fr

om 2

015

targ

et).

Non-

pipe

d w

ater

: no

relia

ble

natio

nal d

ata

(not

yet

fully

in

corp

orat

ed in

SIM

SPAM

dat

a). P

AMSI

MAS

pr

ojec

t rep

orte

d ac

cess

for 4

milli

on p

eopl

e.

Dit P

AM, D

irjen

Cip

ta K

arya

, M

insi

try o

f Pub

lic W

orks

dat

a,

PAM

SIM

AS d

ata,

and

Rur

al

Wat

er W

orks

hop.

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

42

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Capa

city

for

prom

otio

nAr

e th

ere

drin

king

w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s fo

r rur

al

wat

er a

nd a

re a

ll ne

w

inst

alla

tions

test

ed?

Stan

dard

s ex

ist a

nd n

ew

inst

alla

tions

te

sted

Stan

dard

s ex

ist b

ut n

ew

inst

alla

tions

not

te

sted

No0.

5M

inst

er o

f Hea

lth R

egul

atio

n No

.736

/201

0 se

t up

guid

elin

e fo

r wat

er q

ualit

y su

rvei

llanc

e.

Min

iste

r of H

ealth

Reg

ulat

ion

No.4

92/2

010

set u

p m

ore

deta

il re

quire

men

t on

qual

ity o

f w

ater

. Ass

essm

ent r

epor

t is

avai

labl

e ev

ery

year

fo

r pub

lic in

a n

umbe

r of p

ublic

atio

n su

ch a

s Ba

sic

Heal

th S

urve

y, Na

tiona

l Soc

ial E

cono

mic

Su

rvey

, and

Indo

nesi

an H

ealth

pro

file.

Min

istry

of

Hea

lth d

ata

2011

: 90.

8% w

ater

can

fulfi

l ba

sic

requ

irem

ent f

or h

ealth

y w

ater

. How

ever

, co

nsid

erin

g th

at th

e su

rvei

llanc

e sy

stem

was

do

ne th

roug

h sa

mpl

ing

met

hod

and

not a

cen

sus,

th

en p

artic

ipan

ts a

t the

Rur

al S

anita

tion

Wor

ksho

p co

uld

not e

nsur

e m

ore

than

75%

has

bee

n te

sted

.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Repo

rting

Is th

e nu

mbe

r of n

ew

sche

mes

and

thei

r lo

catio

ns re

porte

d in

a

cons

olid

ated

form

at

each

yea

r?

Yes

with

full

listin

g of

lo

catio

ns

Yes

but w

ithou

t a

full

listin

g of

lo

catio

ns

No0.

5M

ost p

roje

cts

and

prog

ram

s th

roug

h M

inis

try

of P

ublic

Wor

ks a

re w

ell d

ocum

ente

d an

d re

porte

d th

roug

h w

orki

ng g

roup

s. D

ata

incl

ude

loca

tion

and

stat

us. Y

et, n

atio

nal s

tatis

tic b

urea

u do

es n

ot in

clud

e lo

catio

n in

its

quar

terly

soc

ial

econ

omic

sur

vey.

Issu

es o

ccur

red

amon

g ot

hers

: da

ta re

port

and

mai

nten

ance

afte

r fac

ilitie

s be

ing

hand

ed o

ver t

o co

mm

uniti

es?

who

will

cont

inue

mai

ntai

ning

faci

litie

s m

ade

by g

roup

s of

co

mm

uniti

es?

hand

-ove

r iss

ues?

.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ng

Sust

aini

ngM

aint

enan

ceFu

nctio

nalit

yAr

e th

ere

regu

lar

asse

t reg

iste

r up

date

s of

rura

l w

ater

infra

stru

ctur

e in

clud

ing

thei

r fu

nctio

nal s

tatu

s?

Asse

t reg

iste

r an

d re

gula

r up

datin

g of

fu

nctio

nalit

y

Asse

t reg

iste

r bu

t no

upda

ting

of fu

nctio

nalit

y

Neith

er0.

5Pa

rtial

ly av

aila

ble.

Upd

atin

g is

con

duct

ed b

y pr

ojec

ts a

nd s

ome

min

istri

es c

oord

inat

ed b

y M

inis

try o

f Pub

lic W

orks

. For

exa

mpl

e, P

AMSI

MAS

up

date

s as

sets

in it

s 50

00 p

rogr

am v

illage

s,

Was

pola

doe

s in

3 d

istri

cts,

and

infra

stru

ctur

e un

it fin

ance

d by

Spe

cial

Allo

catio

n Bu

dget

(DAK

) do

es it

in 6

pro

vince

s. T

hrou

gh th

e go

vern

men

t au

dit s

yste

m, a

ll as

sets

fina

nced

by

gove

rnm

ent

are

regi

ster

ed a

nd th

eir s

tatu

s is

upd

ated

. Ho

wev

er, t

he q

ualit

y of

dat

a is

stil

l que

stio

nabl

e.

No in

form

atio

n on

the

reco

rd o

f ass

ets

prov

ided

by

com

mun

ities

and

priv

ate

sect

ors.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t43

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Sust

aini

ngM

aint

enan

ceCo

st re

cove

ryIs

ther

e a

natio

nal

polic

y on

O&M

cos

ts

and

are

O&M

cos

ts

know

n an

d co

vere

d fro

m s

ubsi

dies

and

/or

user

fees

?

O&M

pol

icy

exis

ts, c

osts

are

as

sess

ed a

nd

>75

% c

over

ed

O&M

pol

icy

exis

ts, c

osts

are

es

timat

ed a

nd

>50

% c

over

ed

No O

&M p

olic

y, co

sts

not k

now

n0.

5BP

PSPA

M s

tudy

: O&M

for c

omm

unity

ba

sed

wat

er s

yste

ms

is b

ased

on

cons

umer

co

ntrib

utio

ns. A

mou

nt o

f con

tribu

tion

is th

e av

erag

e of

tota

l cos

t. Ac

cord

ing

to n

atio

nal

polic

y, na

tiona

l gov

ernm

ent d

oes

not c

over

O&M

, it

is lo

cal g

over

nmen

t's re

spon

sibi

lity.

For p

iped

ru

ral w

ater

sch

emes

, O&M

will

be c

harg

ed to

co

nsum

ers

thro

ugh

the

PDAM

.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ngM

aint

enan

ceSp

are

parts

cha

inIs

ther

e a

syst

em

defin

ed fo

r spa

re

parts

sup

ply

chai

n th

at is

effe

ctive

in a

ll pl

aces

?

Syst

ems

defin

ed

and

spar

es

avai

labl

e in

>

50%

of v

illage

s

Syst

ems

defin

ed

but s

pare

s no

t av

aila

ble

up to

50

% o

f villa

ges

Syst

ems

not

defin

ed

0.5

Spar

e pa

rts a

re a

vaila

ble

near

big

ger s

ettle

men

ts.

It is

unl

ikel

y th

at p

eopl

e w

ill ha

ve to

go

mor

e th

an

a da

y tri

p to

acc

ess

the

spar

e pa

rt. Y

et, t

here

is n

o sp

ecifi

c sy

stem

in p

lace

to e

nsur

e th

e sp

are

part

avai

labi

lity.

Curre

ntly,

gov

ernm

ent w

ith s

uppo

rt fro

m a

num

ber o

f par

tner

s an

d as

soci

atio

ns is

se

tting

up

spar

e pa

rt m

arke

ting

syst

em.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ngM

aint

enan

ceM

anag

emen

t of

Disa

ster

Ris

k an

d Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

Do ru

ral s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

pla

ns

for c

opin

g w

ith n

atur

al

disa

ster

s an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

?

Yes,

the

maj

ority

of

rura

l ser

vice

prov

ider

s ha

ve a

pl

an fo

r dis

aste

r ris

k m

anag

emen

t an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

No. O

nly

som

e se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a p

lan

for

disa

ster

risk

m

anag

emen

t an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

or m

ost

serv

ice

prov

ider

s ha

ve u

nder

take

n a

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ent.

No s

ervic

e pr

ovid

er h

as a

cl

imat

e ac

tion

plan

or h

as

unde

rtake

n a

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ent.

0.5

Soci

al s

afeg

uard

s ha

ve b

een

inco

rpor

ated

in

rura

l wat

er s

yste

m d

evel

opm

ent i

n so

me

area

s, in

par

ticul

ar th

ose

vuln

erab

le to

nat

ural

di

sast

er. M

ost o

f pro

ject

s ha

ve a

lso

inco

rpor

ated

pl

ans

to c

ope

with

nat

ural

dis

aste

r and

effe

cts

of c

limat

e ch

ange

. Con

side

ring

Indo

nesi

a’s

geog

raph

y, go

vern

men

t is

curre

ntly

prom

otin

g th

e im

porta

nce

to in

corp

orat

e th

is is

sue

in a

ll pr

ojec

t m

anag

emen

t pla

ns.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

ion

Inve

stm

ent s

uppo

rtAr

e pi

ped

syst

ems

in

rura

l are

as re

cogn

ized

as m

anag

emen

t en

titie

s an

d gi

ven

tech

nica

l and

fina

ncia

l su

ppor

t to

expa

nd

thei

r sys

tem

s ei

ther

by

gov

ernm

ent o

r la

rger

util

ities

?

Reco

gnize

d an

d su

ppor

ted

Reco

gnize

d bu

t no

t sup

porte

dNe

ither

0.5

Min

iste

r of P

ublic

Wor

ks R

egul

atio

n No

. 20/

2006

on

wat

er s

yste

m m

anag

emen

t has

reco

gnize

d ru

ral p

iped

wat

er s

chem

es a

s m

anag

emen

t en

titie

s, w

hich

are

give

n te

chni

cal a

ssis

tanc

e an

d hu

man

reso

urce

s, in

clud

ing

supp

ort g

iven

by

loca

l gov

ernm

ent.

How

ever

, no

syst

emat

ic fu

ndin

g is

give

n to

CBO

s af

ter h

and-

over

of a

sset

s to

ex

pand

thei

r ser

vices

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

ion

Plan

sAr

e th

ere

sche

me-

leve

l pla

ns fo

r the

ex

pans

ion

of p

iped

sy

stem

s in

rura

l ar

eas?

Yes

in m

ost r

ural

ar

eas

Yes

in a

roun

d ha

lf of

rura

l ar

eas

In a

sm

all

prop

ortio

n, o

r no

rura

l are

as

0In

telle

ctua

l gue

ss: l

ess

than

hal

f hav

e do

cum

ente

d pl

ans,

from

the

proj

ects

and

Sub

-Di

stric

t Citi

es p

rogr

am (I

KK).

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

44

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

ion

Inve

stm

ent fi

nanc

eAr

e ex

pans

ion

cost

s fo

r rur

al w

ater

bei

ng

cove

red

by u

ser f

ees

and/

or p

ublic

gra

nts?

Yes

in m

ost r

ural

ar

eas

Yes

in a

roun

d ha

lf of

rura

l ar

eas

In a

sm

all

prop

ortio

n, o

r no

rura

l are

as

0On

ly to

a v

ery

smal

l ext

ent.

Gove

rnm

ent a

nd

PAM

SIM

AS, f

or e

xam

ple

prov

ide

smal

l am

ount

of

fund

s fo

r exp

ansi

on. T

he re

st re

lies

on c

omm

unity

co

ntrib

utio

ns.

Rura

l Wat

er W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ngUs

eSu

bsec

tor

prog

ress

Is th

e su

bsec

tor o

n tra

ck to

mee

t the

st

ated

targ

et?

On-t

rack

Off-

track

but

ke

epin

g up

w

ith p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

Off-

track

0.5

In th

e rig

ht d

irect

ion,

but

incr

ease

d co

mm

itmen

ts

and

budg

ets

need

to m

ater

ializ

e to

reac

h th

e ta

rget

s.

SUSE

NAS

2011

, RIS

KESD

AS

2010

, Vic

e Pr

esid

ent R

epor

t (2

012)

, Rur

al W

ater

Wor

ksho

p.

Sust

aini

ngUs

eEq

uity

of u

seW

hat i

s th

e ra

tio o

f im

prov

ed d

rinki

ng

wat

er a

cces

s be

twee

n th

e lo

wes

t and

hig

hest

qu

intil

e in

rura

l are

as?

Less

than

2

times

Betw

een

2 an

d 5

Mor

e th

an 5

tim

es0

mor

e th

an 5

.BP

S da

ta. R

ural

Wat

er

Wor

ksho

p.

Sust

aini

ngUs

eQu

ality

of u

ser

expe

rienc

eOf

the

hous

ehol

ds

usin

g an

impr

oved

dr

inki

ng w

ater

sou

rce,

w

hat p

ropo

rtion

are

us

ing

pipe

d dr

inki

ng

wat

er in

the

dwel

ling

and

yard

/plo

t?

Mor

e th

an 5

0%

of h

ouse

hold

sM

ore

than

25%

of

hou

seho

lds

Less

than

25%

of

hou

seho

lds

0.5

40.2

% (N

atio

nal S

tatis

tical

Bur

eau

Data

)BP

S da

ta. R

ural

Wat

er

Wor

ksho

p.

URBA

N SA

NITA

TION

ENAB

LING

Enab

ling

Polic

ySe

ctor

Tar

gets

Are

ther

e UW

S ac

cess

ta

rget

s in

the

natio

nal

leve

l dev

elop

men

t pl

an?

Yes,

ther

e ar

e ur

ban

wat

er

supp

ly ta

rget

s in

th

e de

velo

pmen

t pl

an

Ther

e ar

e na

tiona

l ta

rget

s in

the

deve

lopm

ent

plan

but

non

e fo

r ur

ban

wat

er.

No ta

rget

s in

the

deve

lopm

ent

plan

1Se

cond

RPJ

MN:

67%

acc

ess

to im

prov

ed w

ater

su

pply

by 2

014

(no

sepa

rate

targ

et b

etw

een

rura

l an

d ur

ban)

. Ind

ones

ia M

DG ta

rget

: 69%

urb

an

pipe

d w

ater

. Thi

rd R

PJM

N: u

nive

rsal

acc

ess

by

2019

.

Indo

nesi

a M

id-t

erm

De

velo

pmen

t Pla

n (2

010-

2014

), In

done

sia

Long

-ter

m

Deve

lopm

ent P

lan

(200

5-20

25).

Indo

nesi

a M

DG T

arge

t.

Enab

ling

Polic

ySe

ctor

Pol

icy

Is th

ere

an u

rban

w

ater

pol

icy

that

is a

gree

d by

sta

keho

lder

s,

appr

oved

by

gove

rnm

ent,

and

publ

icly

avai

labl

e?

Polic

y of

ficia

lly

appr

oved

, and

pu

blic

ly av

aila

ble

Polic

y dr

afte

d an

d ag

reed

but

no

t offi

cial

ly ap

prov

ed

No p

olic

y1

Law

No.

5/1

962

on th

e es

tabl

ishm

ent o

f loc

al

wat

er c

ompa

nies

(PDA

M).

Law

No.

7/20

04 o

n W

ater

Res

ourc

es. A

rticl

e 40

sta

ted

that

pro

visio

n of

wat

er is

a s

hare

d re

spon

sibi

lity

amon

g na

tiona

l go

vern

men

t, lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, co

mm

unity

and

pr

ivate

sec

tor t

o en

sure

qua

lity

serv

ice

with

af

ford

able

pric

e. L

aw N

o.32

/200

9 on

pro

tect

ion

and

man

agem

ent o

f env

ironm

ent g

ives

man

date

to

Min

istry

of E

nviro

nmen

t to

cont

rol b

alan

ce

of e

nviro

nmen

t and

pro

tect

wat

er re

sour

ces.

Go

vern

men

t Dec

ree

No. 1

6/20

05 o

n sy

stem

for

prov

isio

n of

wat

er.

Rela

ted

law,

agr

eem

ent,

decr

ee o

n w

ater

(pub

licly

avai

labl

e on

inte

rnet

).

Buku

Sak

u Re

gula

si A

MPL

- Ai

r Min

um d

an P

enye

hata

n Li

ngku

ngan

(han

dboo

k of

w

ater

and

env

ironm

enta

l he

alth

pol

icy)

, Pok

ja A

MPL

, 20

10

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t45

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Enab

ling

Polic

yIn

stitu

tiona

l Rol

esDo

es g

over

nmen

t ha

ve a

pro

cess

for

coor

dina

ting

mul

tiple

in

vest

men

ts in

the

subs

ecto

r (do

mes

tic

or d

onor

, eg.

Nat

iona

l gr

ants

, sta

te b

udge

ts,

dono

r loa

ns a

nd

gran

ts e

tc.)?

Coor

dina

tion

proc

ess

defin

ed a

nd

oper

atio

naliz

ed

Coor

dina

tion

proc

ess

defin

ed b

ut n

ot

oper

atio

naliz

ed

Not d

efine

d/no

pr

oces

s1

Law

No.

33/

2004

on

Fisc

al B

alan

ce g

ives

man

date

to M

oF to

coo

rdin

ate

fisca

l bal

ance

, in

clud

ing

trans

fer a

nd g

rant

s, a

nd w

ill be

aud

ited

by B

PK. T

he p

roce

ss is

cle

ar a

lread

y. Ho

wev

er, t

o da

te, t

here

are

stil

l som

e is

sues

on

off b

udge

t, su

ch a

s fu

nd p

rovid

ed b

y NG

Os o

r CSR

.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Fund

flow

co

ordi

natio

nIs

ther

e a

med

ium

te

rm in

vest

men

t pl

an fo

r urb

an w

ater

ba

sed

on n

atio

nal

targ

ets

that

is c

oste

d,

prio

ritize

s in

vest

men

t ne

eds,

is p

ublis

hed

and

used

?

Inve

stm

ent p

lan

base

d on

prio

rity

need

s ex

ists

, is

publ

ishe

d an

d us

ed

Exis

ts b

ut n

ot

used

, or u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n

Does

not

exis

t0.

5In

done

sian

Wat

er In

vest

men

t Roa

dmap

(201

1-20

14) d

evel

oped

by

Min

istry

of P

ublic

Wor

ks a

nd

Mas

ter P

lan

for D

evel

opin

g Co

mm

unity

Bas

ed

Wat

er P

rovis

ion

Syst

em (B

PPSP

AM) f

or a

per

iod

of 1

5-20

yea

rs (2

007)

. Roa

dmap

and

mas

ter

plan

are

tech

nica

l doc

umen

ts (R

KP-G

over

nmen

t W

ork

Plan

) tha

t con

sist

of d

etai

l cos

t est

imat

es

and

deta

il im

plem

enta

tion

plan

. Inv

estm

ent p

lan

impl

emen

tatio

n is

und

er p

repa

ratio

n.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Inve

smen

t pla

nsIs

ther

e a

med

ium

te

rm in

vest

men

t pl

an fo

r urb

an w

ater

ba

sed

on n

atio

nal

targ

ets

that

is c

oste

d,

prio

ritize

s in

vest

men

t ne

eds,

is p

ublis

hed

and

used

?

Inve

stm

ent p

lan

base

d on

prio

rity

need

s ex

ists

, is

publ

ishe

d an

d us

ed

Exis

ts b

ut n

ot

used

, or u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n

Does

not

exis

t0.

5In

done

sian

Wat

er In

vest

men

t Roa

dmap

(201

1-20

14) d

evel

oped

by

Min

istry

of P

ublic

Wor

ks a

nd

Mas

ter P

lan

for D

evel

opin

g Co

mm

unity

Bas

ed

Wat

er P

rovis

ion

Syst

em (B

PPSP

AM) f

or a

per

iod

of 1

5-20

yea

rs (2

007)

. Roa

dmap

and

mas

ter

plan

are

tech

nica

l doc

umen

ts (R

KP-G

over

nmen

t W

ork

Plan

) tha

t con

sist

of d

etai

l cos

t est

imat

es

and

deta

il im

plem

enta

tion

plan

. Inv

estm

ent p

lan

impl

emen

tatio

n is

und

er p

repa

ratio

n.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Annu

al re

view

Is th

ere

an a

nnua

l m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der

revie

w in

pla

ce to

m

onito

r sub

sect

or

perfo

rman

ce, t

o re

view

pro

gres

s an

d se

t cor

rect

ive a

ctio

ns?

Annu

al re

view

of

per

form

ance

an

d se

tting

of

corre

ctive

act

ions

Annu

al re

view

of

per

form

ance

bu

t no

setti

ng o

f co

rrect

ive a

ctio

ns

No re

view

or

set

ting

of

corre

ctive

act

ions

0.5

Vario

us m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der r

evie

w a

ctivi

ties

have

be

en c

ondu

cted

org

anize

d by

Pok

ja A

MPL

, BP

PSPA

M, P

ublic

Wor

ks, a

nd p

roje

cts.

The

re

is a

ded

icat

ed d

irect

orat

e fo

r eva

luat

ion

and

mon

itorin

g in

Pub

lic W

orks

(sec

tor b

ased

) an

d re

gion

dire

ctor

ate

in P

ublic

Wor

ks. S

ome

stak

ehol

ders

are

not

yet

invo

lved,

thou

gh.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

46

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

HR C

apac

ityHa

s an

ass

essm

ent

been

und

erta

ken

of th

e hu

man

re

sour

ce n

eeds

in th

e su

bsec

tor t

o m

eet

the

subs

ecto

r tar

get

and

is th

e ac

tion

plan

be

ing

impl

emen

ted?

Asse

ssm

ent

unde

rtake

n an

d ac

tions

bei

ng

impl

emen

ted

Asse

ssm

ent

unde

rtake

n bu

t no

act

ion

bein

g ta

ken

No a

sses

smen

t un

derta

ken

0Th

is is

at p

repa

ratio

n st

age.

PER

PAM

SI (w

ater

co

mpa

nies

ass

ocia

tion)

has

est

ablis

hed

a ne

w s

peci

al u

nit t

o or

gani

ze tr

aini

ng a

nd H

R as

sess

men

t. AD

B su

ppor

ts P

ublic

Wor

ks to

do

an a

sses

smen

t stu

dy to

est

ablis

h ce

nter

for

exce

llenc

e to

opt

imize

PIP

2B. A

t thi

s m

omen

t, tra

inin

g ne

eds

are

bein

g as

sess

ed.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Enab

ling

Budg

etAd

equa

cyAr

e th

e pu

blic

fin

anci

al c

omm

itmen

ts

to th

e ur

ban

wat

er

subs

ecto

r suf

ficie

nt

to m

eet t

he n

atio

nal

targ

ets

for t

he

subs

ecto

r?

Mor

e th

an

75%

of w

hat i

s ne

eded

Betw

een

50 a

nd

75%

of n

eeds

Less

than

50%

of

nee

ds0

Less

than

50%

. The

SDA

cos

ting

anal

ysis

es

timat

es th

at if

cur

rent

tren

ds c

ontin

ue,

antic

ipat

ed in

vest

men

ts a

re fa

lling

far s

hort

of re

quire

d in

vest

men

ts, w

ith o

nly

abou

t 25%

co

vere

d.

SDA

cost

ing

anal

ysis

.

Enab

ling

Budg

etSt

ruct

ure

Does

the

budg

et

stru

ctur

e pe

rmit

inve

stm

ents

and

su

bsid

ies

(ope

ratio

nal

cost

s, a

dmin

istra

tion,

de

bt s

ervic

e, e

tc)

for t

he u

rban

wat

er

sect

or to

be

clea

rly

iden

tified

?

Yes

for

inve

stm

ent a

nd

for s

ubsi

dies

Yes

for

inve

stm

ent b

ut

not s

ubsi

dies

No1

Ther

e is

a s

epar

atio

n be

twee

n su

bsid

ies

and

inve

stm

ents

in th

e bu

dget

stru

ctur

e, b

ut n

ot

betw

een

rura

l and

urb

an. T

his

is s

tate

d in

Pr

esid

entia

l Reg

ulat

ion

No.2

9/20

09 o

n Gu

aran

ty

and

Inte

rest

Sub

sidy

by

Natio

nal G

over

nmen

t to

Acc

eler

ate

Prov

isio

n of

Wat

er S

uppl

y. It

is

also

gui

ded

in M

inis

ter o

f Fin

ance

Dec

ree

No.

229/

2009

on

Impl

emen

tatio

n Gu

idel

ines

on

the

Guar

anty

and

Inte

rest

Sub

sidy

by

Natio

nal

Gove

rnm

ent t

o Ac

cele

rate

Pro

visio

n of

Wat

er

Supp

ly. M

inis

ter o

f Fin

ance

Reg

ulat

ion

No.

238/

2005

exp

lain

ed a

bout

gov

ernm

ent

acco

untin

g sy

stem

whi

ch s

et u

p ca

tego

rizat

ions

fo

r bud

get,

incl

udin

g su

bsid

y an

d gr

ant.

Pres

iden

tial R

egul

atio

n No

.29/

2009

, Min

iste

r of

Fina

nce

Decr

ee N

o. 2

29/2

009,

an

d Ur

ban

Wat

er W

orks

hop.

Enab

ling

Budg

etCo

mpr

ehen

sive

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent b

udge

t co

mpr

ehen

sive

ly co

ver d

omes

tic

and

offic

ial d

onor

in

vest

men

t/sub

sidy

to

urba

n w

ater

?

Mor

e th

an 7

5%

of fu

nds

to

subs

ecto

r on

budg

et

Betw

een

50-

75%

of f

unds

to

sub

sect

or o

n bu

dget

Less

than

50%

of

fund

s to

su

bsec

tor o

n bu

dget

0.5

Not a

ll bu

dget

s ar

e re

gist

ered

. Min

istry

of F

inan

ce

keep

s re

cord

s of

all

gove

rnm

ent b

udge

ts o

n w

ater

and

san

itatio

n w

hich

com

pute

d by

sec

tor i

n di

stric

ts/p

rovin

ces,

how

ever

, thi

s do

es n

ot p

rovid

e th

e ov

eral

l bud

get o

f thi

s se

ctor

and

spe

cific

br

eakd

own

of s

ourc

e of

fund

. It i

s es

timat

ed o

nly

70%

of t

he b

udge

t com

es fr

om g

over

nmen

t, w

hile

the

othe

r 30%

from

the

priva

te s

ecto

r. M

insi

try o

f Pub

lic W

orks

can

ens

ure

100%

pe

rcen

t reg

istra

tion

of u

rban

wat

er s

ecto

r und

er

revie

w, b

ut n

o fir

m e

xpla

natio

n av

aila

ble

abou

t bu

dget

man

aged

by

othe

r min

istri

es.

Seki

las

APBN

, Din

amik

a Pe

ngan

ggar

an d

i Ind

ones

ia

(201

1), D

raft

repo

rt on

revie

w

of m

idte

rm d

evel

opm

ent p

lan

2010

-201

4 (A

DB, 2

013)

, PH

LN D

alam

Dis

parit

as

Pem

bang

unan

Kes

ehat

an

(201

0), a

nd U

rban

Wat

er

Wor

ksho

p

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t47

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

DEVE

LOPI

NG

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Utiliz

atio

n of

dom

estic

fu

nds

Wha

t per

cent

age

of d

omes

tic fu

nds

budg

eted

for u

rban

w

ater

are

spe

nt (3

ye

ar a

vera

ge)?

Over

75%

Betw

een

50%

an

d 75

%Le

ss th

an 5

0%1

ADB

Mid

term

Rev

iew

of t

he M

idte

rm D

evel

opm

ent

Prog

ram

sta

ted

that

mor

e th

an 7

5% b

udge

t has

be

en u

tilize

d. H

owev

er, n

o se

para

te d

ata

on ru

ral

and

urba

n.

ADB

Mid

term

Rev

iew,

Urb

an

Sani

tatio

n W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Utiliz

atio

n of

ext

erna

l fu

nds

Wha

t per

cent

age

of e

xter

nal f

unds

bu

dget

ed fo

r urb

an

wat

er a

re s

pent

(3

year

ave

rage

)?

Over

75%

Betw

een

50%

an

d 75

%Le

ss th

an 5

0%1

Mor

e th

an 7

5% a

s re

cord

ed b

y M

inis

try o

f Pub

lic

Wor

ks. S

ame

goes

with

oth

er m

inis

tries

, usu

ally

utiliz

atio

n is

mor

e th

an 7

5% o

r alm

ost 1

00%

.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Repo

rting

Do u

rban

util

ities

(n

atio

nal o

r 3 la

rges

t ut

ilitie

s) h

ave

audi

ted

acco

unts

and

bal

ance

sh

eet?

Audi

ted

acco

unts

an

d ba

lanc

e sh

eet

Bala

nce

shee

t bu

t not

aud

ited

No b

alan

ce s

heet

1Al

l gov

ernm

ent b

udge

t fro

m a

ll so

urce

s ar

e au

dite

d an

d re

porte

d in

a c

onso

lidat

ed

gove

rnm

ent f

orm

at. 9

0% P

DAM

s ha

ve b

een

audi

ted

(PDA

M P

erfo

rman

ce R

epor

t 201

1), t

he

rem

aini

ng 1

0% o

f PDA

M a

re c

urre

ntly

in p

roce

ss

of b

eing

aud

ited.

PDAM

Per

form

ance

Rep

ort

2011

, Urb

an W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Loca

l par

ticip

atio

nAr

e th

ere

clea

rly

defin

ed p

roce

dure

s fo

r in

form

ing,

con

sulti

ng

with

and

sup

porti

ng

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n in

pl

anni

ng, b

udge

ting

and

impl

emen

ting

for u

rban

wat

er

deve

lopm

ents

?

Yes

and

syst

emat

ical

ly ap

plie

d

Yes,

but

not

sy

stem

atic

ally

appl

ied

No0.

5Co

mpo

sitio

n of

bud

get o

f wat

er s

uppl

y fo

r low

in

com

e co

mm

uniti

es is

40%

from

nat

iona

l go

vern

men

t and

60%

from

loca

l gov

ernm

ent.

Som

e is

sues

: low

util

izatio

n be

caus

e de

lay

in c

ost s

harin

g fro

m lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, so

me

polit

ical

con

side

ratio

n du

e to

bud

get a

vaila

bilit

y at

loca

l lev

el, a

nd c

hang

e of

com

mitm

ent/

polic

y di

rect

ion

due

to ra

pid

chan

ge o

f gov

erno

r/re

gent

. Pro

cedu

res

are

clea

r, co

mm

itmen

ts a

re

alre

ady

writ

ten

dow

n in

doc

umen

ts, b

ut b

udge

t di

sbur

sem

ent i

s of

ten

dela

yed.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Budg

et a

lloca

tion

crite

riaHa

ve c

riter

ia (o

r a

form

ula)

bee

n de

term

ined

to a

lloca

te

urba

n w

ater

fund

ing

equi

tabl

y to

urb

an

utilit

ies

or s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

and

amon

g m

unic

ipal

ities

and

is

it be

ing

cons

iste

ntly

appl

ied?

Yes,

app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

Yes,

but

no

t app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

No1

Law

No.

32/

2004

on

loca

l gov

ernm

ent a

nd

Min

iste

r of F

inan

ce R

egul

atio

n No

165

/201

2 on

tran

sfer

fund

sta

ted

that

bud

get a

lloca

tion

is c

ondu

cted

by

MoF

with

spe

cific

crit

eria

. MoF

co

nsul

ts o

ther

tech

nica

l min

istri

es a

nd lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent,

espe

cial

ly to

get

tech

nica

l inp

uts,

w

hen

allo

catin

g th

e bu

dget

.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

48

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Redu

cing

ineq

ualit

yHa

ve u

rban

ut

ilitie

s or

ser

vice

prov

ider

s (n

atio

nal

or in

3 la

rges

t citi

es)

deve

lope

d an

d im

plem

ente

d sp

ecifi

c pl

ans

for s

ervin

g th

e ur

ban

poor

?

Plan

s de

velo

ped

and

impl

emen

ted

Plan

s de

velo

ped

but n

ot

impl

emen

ted

No p

lans

do

cum

ente

d0.

5M

ain

targ

et o

f wat

er s

uppl

y de

velo

pmen

t is

low

in

com

e co

mm

uniti

es a

nd u

nser

ved

loca

tion.

Thi

s is

cle

arly

stat

ed a

nd g

uide

d in

nat

iona

l wat

er a

nd

sani

tatio

n po

licy

(200

3), P

AMSI

MAS

gui

delin

es

(201

2), W

ater

Inve

stm

ent P

lan,

Wat

er G

rant

, an

d m

oreo

ver M

inis

ter o

f Hom

e Af

fair

Decr

ee

No. 4

7/19

99 o

n PD

AM p

erfo

rman

ce g

uide

line.

Sp

ecia

l Bud

get a

lloca

tion

(DAK

) is

also

use

d to

fix

idle

cap

acity

wat

er s

uppl

y in

urb

an a

reas

. In

re

ality

, it i

s no

t im

plem

ente

d co

nsis

tent

ly. T

he

Wat

er H

ibah

pro

gram

is fu

rther

add

ress

ing

thes

e is

sues

with

in lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts a

nd P

DAM

s,

tryin

g to

ince

ntivi

ze in

vest

men

t int

o lo

w-in

com

e ar

eas.

Law

rela

ted

docu

men

ts, U

rban

W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Quan

tity

(acc

ess)

Is th

e an

nual

ex

pans

ion

of H

H co

nnec

tions

and

sta

nd

post

s in

urb

an a

reas

su

ffici

ent t

o m

eet t

he

subs

ecto

r tar

gets

?

Over

75%

of t

hat

need

ed to

reac

h se

ctor

targ

ets

Over

50%

of t

hat

need

ed to

reac

h se

ctor

targ

ets

Less

than

50%

of

that

nee

ded

to re

ach

sect

or

targ

ets

0JM

P es

timat

e: 3

6% p

iped

wat

er. M

inis

try o

f Pu

blic

Wor

ks a

s pe

r Oct

201

1: 4

1.88

%.

JMP

2012

, Urb

an W

ater

Di

scus

sion

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Quan

tity

(trea

tmen

t)Ar

e th

ere

drin

king

w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s fo

r urb

an

wat

er th

at a

re

regu

larly

mon

itore

d an

d th

e re

sults

pu

blis

hed?

Stan

dard

s ex

ist,

ther

e is

a

surv

eilla

nce

prog

ram

, and

re

sults

are

pu

blis

hed

Stan

dard

s ex

ist

and

ther

e is

a

surv

eilla

nce

prog

ram

but

th

ere

is n

o pu

blic

atio

n of

re

sults

No s

tand

ards

, or

sta

ndar

ds

exis

t but

are

not

m

onito

red

0.5

Inte

rnal

PDA

M d

oes

the

qual

ity c

heck

ing

but

no re

sult

is p

ublic

ly av

aila

ble.

MoH

doe

s qu

ality

ch

eck

and

issu

e an

ann

ual r

epor

t.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Repo

rting

Is th

e nu

mbe

r of

addi

tiona

l hou

seho

ld

conn

ectio

ns m

ade

and

stan

d po

sts

cons

truct

ed re

porte

d on

in a

con

solid

ated

fo

rmat

for t

he n

atio

n ea

ch y

ear?

Yes

with

full

listin

g of

co

nnec

tions

Yes

but w

ithou

t a

full

listin

g of

co

nnec

tions

No0

The

repo

rting

sys

tem

is a

vaila

ble

but d

one

for

less

than

75%

of n

ew c

onne

ctio

ns. A

dditi

onal

ly,

PDAM

/Pub

lic W

orks

is s

till t

ryin

g to

incr

ease

the

upda

ting

syst

em a

s w

ell a

s so

me

tech

nica

l erro

rs.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

SUST

AINI

NG

Sust

aini

ngM

aint

enan

ceFu

nctio

nalit

yW

hat i

s th

e w

eigh

ted

aver

age

perc

enta

ge

of n

on-r

even

ue w

ater

ac

ross

urb

an u

tiliti

es

(nat

iona

l or 3

larg

est

utilit

ies)

(las

t 3 y

ears

av

erag

e)?

Less

than

20%

20%

to 4

0%M

ore

than

40%

0.5

2012

: 38%

http

://ci

ptak

arya

.pu.

go.

id/s

imsp

am/in

dex.

php/

reka

p#da

ta_k

euan

gan

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t49

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Sust

aini

ngM

aint

enan

ceCo

st re

cove

ryAr

e al

l O&M

cos

ts

for u

tiliti

es (n

atio

nal

or 3

larg

est u

tiliti

es)

bein

g co

vere

d by

re

venu

es (u

ser f

ees

and/

subs

idie

s) (l

ast 3

ye

ars

aver

age)

?

Oper

atin

g ra

tio

grea

ter t

han

1.2

Oper

atin

g ra

tio

betw

een

0.8

and

1.2

Oper

atin

g ra

tio

belo

w 0

.80

Big

PDAM

s ap

ply

full

cost

reco

very

. Sm

all P

DAM

s us

e m

oney

for O

&M. N

atio

nal a

vera

ge b

etw

een

all

PDAM

s es

timat

e ra

tio b

elow

0.8

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Sust

aini

ngM

aint

enan

ceTa

riff r

evie

ws

Are

tarif

f rev

iew

s re

gula

rly c

ondu

cted

us

ing

a pr

oces

s an

d ta

riffs

adj

uste

d ac

cord

ingl

y an

d pu

blis

hed?

Cond

ucte

d,

adju

sted

and

pu

blis

hed

Cond

ucte

d bu

t no

t adj

uste

dNo

t con

duct

ed0.

5Re

gula

r rev

iew

is c

ondu

cted

, how

ever

it ta

kes

time

and

polit

ical

sup

port

to in

crea

se ta

riffs

. Som

e PD

AMs

alre

ady

have

aut

omat

ic ta

riff i

ncre

men

t sy

stem

s an

d us

ually

pub

lish

this

on

thei

r web

site

an

d br

ochu

res.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Sust

aini

ngM

aint

enan

ceM

anag

emen

t of

Disa

ster

Ris

k an

d Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

Do u

tiliti

es (n

atio

nal o

r 3

larg

est u

tiliti

es) h

ave

plan

s fo

r cop

ing

with

na

tura

l dis

aste

rs a

nd

clim

ate

chan

ge?

Yes,

the

maj

ority

of

urb

an s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a

plan

for d

isas

ter

risk

man

agem

ent

and

clim

ate

chan

ge

No. O

nly

som

e se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a p

lan

for

disa

ster

risk

m

anag

emen

t an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

or m

ost

serv

ice

prov

ider

s ha

ve u

nder

take

n a

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ent.

No s

ervic

e pr

ovid

er h

as a

cl

imat

e ac

tion

plan

or h

as

unde

rtake

n a

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ent.

0To

dat

e, o

nly

very

few

util

ities

in e

spec

ially

di

sast

er p

rone

are

as s

uch

as W

est S

umat

ra o

r Ac

eh h

ave

deve

lope

d di

sast

er m

anag

emen

t pl

ans.

Con

side

ring

the

tota

l num

ber o

f PDA

Ms

(>35

0), t

his

is s

till v

ery

few.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

ion

Upta

keDo

util

ities

or s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

(nat

iona

l or

3 la

rges

t) ha

ve

oper

atio

nal d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

auto

nom

y in

in

vest

men

t pla

nnin

g,

HR, fi

nanc

e (s

epar

ate

bala

nce

shee

t) an

d pr

ocur

emen

t m

anag

emen

t?

Yes

in a

ll as

pect

sIn

all

aspe

cts

exce

pt

inve

stm

ent

plan

ning

No0.

5De

pend

s on

PDA

M. S

ome

are

alre

ady

auto

nom

ous

and

som

e ar

e st

ill de

pend

ing

on

loca

l gov

ernm

ent.

Enab

ling

polic

ies

are

avai

labl

e su

ch a

s La

w N

o. 7

/200

4 an

d Go

v. Re

gula

tion

No.

16/2

005.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

ion

Plan

sDo

ser

vice

prov

ider

s (n

atio

nal/s

tate

or 3

la

rges

t util

ities

) hav

e bu

sine

ss p

lans

for

expa

ndin

g ac

cess

to

urba

n w

ater

?

Busi

ness

pla

ns

for i

ncre

asin

g ac

cess

bei

ng

impl

emen

ted

Busi

ness

pla

ns

for i

ncre

asin

g ac

cess

bei

ng

prep

ared

No b

usin

ess

plan

s0.

5Al

l PDA

Ms

have

bus

ines

s pl

an a

s a

requ

irem

ent

of p

erfo

rman

ce e

valu

atio

n an

d to

get

sup

port

and

inte

rest

sub

sidy

from

nat

iona

l gov

ernm

ent.

The

qual

ity o

f the

bus

ines

s pl

ans

ofte

n re

mai

ns

ques

tiona

ble,

thou

gh.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

50

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

ion

Borro

win

gAr

e ut

ilitie

s al

low

ed

by la

w to

acc

ess

and

are

they

acc

essi

ng

com

mer

cial

fina

nce

for e

xpan

sion

?

Allo

wed

and

ac

cess

ing

Allo

wed

but

not

ac

cess

ing

Not a

llow

ed0.

5Su

ppor

ted

by P

resi

dent

Reg

ulat

ion

No. 2

9/20

09

on g

uara

nty

and

inte

rest

sub

sidy

pro

vided

by

natio

nal g

over

nmen

t for

wat

er s

uppl

y th

roug

h ba

nk lo

an. A

lthou

gh b

anks

hav

e pr

ovid

ed a

la

rge

amou

nt o

f fun

d, o

nly

abou

t IDR

200

bn

is a

cces

sed

by th

e PD

AMs

due

to is

sues

suc

h as

a d

elay

in th

e ap

prai

sal f

rom

the

Min

istry

of

Fin

ance

, can

cella

tion

of g

uara

ntee

s by

loca

l go

vern

men

ts,

conc

ern

that

DAU

(gen

eral

bud

get

allo

catio

n) w

ill be

forw

arde

d as

col

late

ral,

or s

ome

polit

ical

inte

rven

tions

.

http

://w

ww.

ditp

am-p

u.or

g/in

dex.

php?

optio

n=co

m_c

ont

ent&

view

=ar

ticle

&id=

120:

prog

ram

-pin

jam

an-p

erba

nkan

-ba

ntu-

pdam

-tin

gkat

kan-

pel

ayan

an&c

atid

=51

:ber

ita&I

tem

id=

148;

urba

n w

ater

di

scus

sion

Sust

aini

ngUs

eSu

bsec

tor

prog

ress

Is th

e su

bsec

tor o

n tra

ck to

mee

t the

st

ated

targ

et?

On-t

rack

Off-

track

but

ke

epin

g up

w

ith p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

Off-

track

0In

term

inis

trial

con

sens

us -

verifi

ed B

PS a

nd J

MP'

s da

ta: 5

2%. T

he s

ub-s

ecto

r is

stru

gglin

g to

kee

p up

with

hig

h po

pula

tion

grow

th in

man

y ur

ban

area

s.

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Sust

aini

ngUs

eEq

uity

of u

seW

hat i

s th

e ra

tio o

f im

prov

ed d

rinki

ng

wat

er a

cces

s be

twee

n th

e lo

wes

t and

hig

hest

qu

intil

e in

urb

an

area

s?

Less

than

2

times

Betw

een

2 an

d 5

Mor

e th

an 5

tim

es0

mor

e th

an 5

BPS/

Urba

n W

ater

Dis

cuss

ion

Sust

aini

ngUs

eQu

ality

of u

ser

expe

rienc

eW

hat i

s th

e av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of h

ours

of

ser

vice

per d

ay

acro

ss u

rban

util

ities

? (W

eigh

ted

by n

umbe

r of

HH

conn

ectio

ns p

er

utilit

y)?

Mor

e th

an 1

2 ho

urs

per d

ay6

to 1

2 ho

urs

per d

ayLe

ss th

an 6

ho

urs

per d

ay1

14 h

ours

ave

rage

/day

.ht

tp://

cipt

akar

ya.p

u.go

.id

/sim

spam

/inde

x.ph

p/re

kap#

data

_keu

anga

n

RURA

L W

ATER

SUP

PLY

ENAB

LING

Enab

ling

Polic

ySe

ctor

targ

ets

Are

ther

e RS

H ac

cess

targ

ets,

for

hous

ehol

ds a

nd/

or c

omm

uniti

es, i

n th

e na

tiona

l lev

el

deve

lopm

ent p

lan?

Targ

ets

for

rura

l hou

seho

ld

acce

ss a

nd

com

mun

ities

be

com

ing

ODF

in

the

deve

lopm

ent

plan

Targ

ets

for

rura

l hou

seho

ld

acce

ss in

the

deve

lopm

ent

plan

No ru

ral

sani

tatio

n ta

rget

s in

the

deve

lopm

ent

plan

1RP

JMN:

Ope

n De

feca

tion

Free

by

2014

, off-

site

se

wer

age

syst

em fo

r 10%

of p

opul

atio

n (5

%

sew

erag

e, 5

% c

omm

unal

), 90

% o

nsite

sew

erag

e sy

stem

. New

RPJ

MN:

uni

vers

al a

cces

s by

201

9.

Indo

nesi

a M

id-t

erm

De

velo

pmen

t Pla

n (2

010-

2014

), In

done

sia

Long

-ter

m

Deve

lopm

ent P

lan

(200

5-20

25).

Indo

nesi

a M

DG T

arge

t.

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t51

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Enab

ling

Polic

yIn

stitu

tiona

l Rol

esAr

e th

e in

stitu

tiona

l ro

les

of ru

ral

sani

tatio

n su

bsec

tor

play

ers

(nat

iona

l/sta

te

& lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, se

rvic

e pr

ovid

er,

regu

lato

r etc

) cl

early

defi

ned

and

oper

atio

naliz

ed?

Defin

ed a

nd

oper

atio

naliz

edDe

fined

but

not

op

erat

iona

lized

Not d

efine

d1

Clea

rly d

efine

d in

sev

eral

law

s, d

ecre

es a

nd

agre

emen

ts s

uch

as W

ater

and

Env

ironm

enta

l He

alth

Nat

iona

l Stra

tegy

(200

3), L

aw N

o.

32/2

004

on lo

cal a

uton

omy,

gove

rnm

ent d

ecre

e No

. 38/

2007

on

dem

arca

tion

of ro

les

betw

een

natio

nal a

nd lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, M

inis

ter o

f Hea

lth

Decr

ee R

egul

atio

n No

. 852

/200

8 on

Com

mun

ity

Base

d To

tal S

anita

tion,

Law

No.

18/

2009

on

was

te m

anag

emen

t.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Enab

ling

Polic

yFu

nd fl

ow

coor

dina

tion

Does

gov

ernm

ent

have

a p

roce

ss fo

r co

ordi

natin

g m

ultip

le

inve

stm

ents

in th

e su

bsec

tor (

dom

estic

or

don

or, e

g. n

atio

nal

gran

ts, s

tate

bud

gets

, do

nor l

oans

and

gr

ants

etc

)?

Coor

dina

tion

proc

ess

defin

ed a

nd

oper

atio

naliz

ed

Coor

dina

tion

proc

ess

defin

ed b

ut n

ot

oper

atio

naliz

ed

Not d

efine

d/no

pr

oces

s1

Clea

rly d

efine

d pr

oces

s an

d eq

uipp

ed w

ith re

late

d su

ppor

ting

plan

ning

, im

plem

enta

tion,

mon

itorin

g an

d re

port

docu

men

ts. C

oord

inat

ion

is le

d by

as

sign

ed le

adin

g ag

enci

es s

uch

as p

ublic

Wor

ks

for i

nfra

stru

ctur

e an

d M

oH fo

r beh

avio

r cha

nge.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Inve

stm

ent P

lan

Is th

ere

a m

ediu

m

term

inve

stm

ent p

lan

for r

ural

san

itatio

n ba

sed

on n

atio

nal

targ

ets

that

is c

oste

d,

prio

ritize

s in

vest

men

t ne

eds,

is p

ublis

hed

and

used

?

Inve

stm

ent p

lan

base

d on

prio

rity

need

s ex

ists

, is

publ

ishe

d an

d us

ed

Exis

ts b

ut n

ot

used

, or u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n

Does

not

exis

t0

Not a

vaila

ble

for r

ural

san

itatio

n in

vest

men

t pla

n.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Annu

al re

view

Is th

ere

a an

nual

m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der

revie

w in

pla

ce to

m

onito

r sub

sect

or

perfo

rman

ce, t

o re

view

pro

gres

s an

d se

t cor

rect

ive a

ctio

ns?

Revie

w o

f pe

rform

ance

an

d se

tting

of

corre

ctive

act

ions

Revie

w o

f pe

rform

ance

bu

t no

setti

ng o

f co

rrect

ive a

ctio

ns

No re

view

or

set

ting

of

corre

ctive

act

ions

0Re

view

s co

nduc

ted

by p

roje

cts

in in

terv

entio

n ar

eas

or in

are

as w

ith a

n ac

tive

Pokj

a. B

ut it

is n

ot

clea

r whe

ther

all

stak

ehol

ders

hav

e be

en in

volve

d.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

52

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

HR C

apac

ityHa

s an

ass

essm

ent

been

und

erta

ken

of

the

hum

an re

sour

ce

need

s in

the

sub

sect

or to

mee

t the

su

bsec

tor t

arge

t and

is

the

actio

n pl

an

bein

g im

plem

ente

d?

Asse

ssm

ent

unde

rtake

n an

d ac

tions

bei

ng

impl

emen

ted

Asse

ssm

ent

unde

rtake

n bu

t no

act

ion

bein

g ta

ken

No a

sses

smen

t un

derta

ken

0.5

Spor

adic

ass

essm

ents

hav

e be

en m

ade

but n

o cl

ear i

nfor

mat

ion

on fo

llow

up

actio

n or

onl

y fe

w is

bei

ng fo

llow

ed u

p. S

ome

asse

ssm

ents

: Ba

ppen

as a

nd W

orld

Ban

k St

udy:

san

itatio

n ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing,

MPU

HR

anal

ysis

. MoH

is tr

ying

to a

ccre

dite

d an

d in

stitu

tiona

lize

capa

city

bui

ldin

g fo

r san

itaria

ns a

nd re

late

d fa

cilit

ator

s.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Enab

ling

Budg

etAd

equa

cy (o

f fin

anci

ng)

Are

the

publ

ic

finan

cial

com

mitm

ents

to

the

rura

l san

itatio

n su

bsec

tor s

uffic

ient

to

mee

t the

nat

iona

l ta

rget

s fo

r the

su

bsec

tor?

Mor

e th

an

75%

of w

hat i

s ne

eded

Betw

een

50-

75%

of n

eeds

Less

than

50%

of

nee

ds0

Less

than

50%

. The

SDA

cos

ting

anal

ysis

es

timat

es th

at a

ntic

ipat

ed d

omes

tic a

nd e

xter

nal

fund

s fa

ll sh

ort o

f the

requ

irem

ents

. It i

s fu

rther

ca

lcul

ated

that

hou

seho

ld c

ontri

butio

ns w

ill be

su

bsta

ntia

l, ho

wev

er n

o gu

aran

tee

is g

iven

that

th

ese

hous

ehol

d co

ntrib

utio

ns w

ill be

mad

e.

Furth

erm

ore,

pub

lic fu

nds

are

nece

ssar

y to

le

vera

ge h

ouse

hold

con

tribu

tions

, and

give

n cu

rrent

est

imat

ions

, pub

lic fu

nds

are

also

in

suffi

cien

t for

this

obj

ectiv

e.

SDA

cost

ing

anal

ysis

.

Enab

ling

Budg

etSt

ruct

ure

Does

the

budg

et

stru

ctur

e pe

rmit

inve

stm

ents

and

su

bsid

ies

(ope

ratio

nal

cost

s, a

dmin

istra

tion,

de

bt s

ervic

e, e

tc) f

or

the

rura

l san

itatio

n se

ctor

to b

e cl

early

id

entifi

ed?

Yes

for

inve

stm

ent a

nd

for s

ubsi

dies

Yes

for

inve

stm

ent b

ut

not s

ubsi

dies

No0

Ther

e is

no

subs

idy

in th

e go

vern

men

t app

roac

h fo

r rur

al s

anita

tion.

The

re is

als

o no

bud

get f

or

prom

otio

n/m

arke

ting

of ru

ral s

anita

tion.

MoF

Fin

ance

Not

e 20

13; R

ural

Sa

nita

tion

Wor

ksho

p

Enab

ling

Budg

etCo

mpr

ehen

sive

Do

es th

e go

vern

men

t bud

get

com

preh

ensi

vely

cove

r dom

estic

an

d of

ficia

l don

or

inve

stm

ent/s

ubsi

dy to

ru

ral s

anita

tion?

Mor

e th

an 7

5%

of fu

nds

to

subs

ecto

r on

budg

et

Betw

een

50-

75%

of f

unds

to

sub

sect

or o

n bu

dget

Less

than

50%

of

fund

s to

su

bsec

tor o

n bu

dget

1Ye

s, o

n bu

dget

, on

treas

ury,

equi

pped

with

co

rrela

ted

audi

t pro

cess

. But

no

subs

idy

is

avai

labl

e

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

DEVE

LOPI

NG

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Utiliz

atio

n of

dom

estic

fu

nds

Wha

t per

cent

age

of d

omes

tic fu

nds

budg

eted

for r

ural

sa

nita

tion

are

spen

t (3

year

ave

rage

)?

Over

75%

Betw

een

50%

an

d 75

%Le

ss th

an 5

0%1

No re

liabl

e da

ta, b

ut e

stim

ated

at m

ore

than

75%

.Ru

ral S

anita

tion

Wor

ksho

p

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t53

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Utiliz

atio

n of

ext

erna

l fu

nds

Wha

t per

cent

age

of e

xter

nal f

unds

bu

dget

ed fo

r rur

al

sani

tatio

n ar

e sp

ent (

3 ye

ar a

vera

ge)?

Over

75%

Betw

een

50%

an

d 75

%Le

ss th

an 5

0%0.

5No

relia

ble

data

, how

ever

bas

ed o

n no

rmal

pr

actic

e th

e av

erag

e is

usu

ally

mor

e th

an 5

0%.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Repo

rting

Is ru

ral s

anita

tion

expe

nditu

re v

ersu

s bu

dget

aud

ited

and

repo

rted

on in

a

cons

olid

ated

form

at

for a

ll so

urce

s of

do

mes

tic a

nd o

ffici

al

dono

r exp

endi

ture

?

Yes

for d

omes

tic

and

dono

r ex

pend

iture

Yes

for d

omes

tic

expe

nditu

reNo

0No

con

solid

ated

repo

rtRu

ral S

anita

tion

Wor

ksho

p

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Loca

l par

ticip

atio

nAr

e th

ere

clea

rly

defin

ed p

roce

dure

s fo

r in

form

ing,

con

sulti

ng

with

and

sup

porti

ng

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n in

pl

anni

ng, b

udge

ting

and

impl

emen

ting

for r

ural

san

itatio

n de

velo

pmen

ts?

Yes

and

syst

emat

ical

ly ap

plie

d

Yes,

but

not

sy

stem

atic

ally

appl

ied

No1

Philo

soph

y an

d ap

proa

ch fo

r san

itatio

n:

com

mun

ity b

ased

(bot

tom

up

appr

oach

) em

phas

izes

on lo

cal p

artic

ipat

ion

and

guid

ed

with

sev

eral

regu

latio

ns a

nd g

uide

lines

. Bud

get

com

posi

tion,

at l

east

20%

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Budg

et a

lloca

tion

crite

riaHa

ve c

riter

ia (o

r a

form

ula)

bee

n de

term

ined

to

allo

cate

rura

l sa

nita

tion

fund

ing

equi

tabl

y ac

ross

rura

l co

mm

uniti

es a

nd

is it

bei

ng a

pplie

d co

nsis

tent

ly?

Yes,

app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

Yes,

but

no

t app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

No1

Law

No.

32/

2004

on

loca

l gov

ernm

ent a

nd

Min

iste

r of F

inan

ce R

egul

atio

n No

165

/201

2 on

tran

sfer

fund

sta

ted

that

bud

get a

lloca

tion

is c

ondu

cted

by

MoF

with

spe

cific

crit

eria

. MoF

co

nsul

ts o

ther

tech

nica

l min

istri

es a

nd lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent,

espe

cial

ly to

get

tech

nica

l inp

uts,

w

hen

allo

catin

g th

e bu

dget

.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Redu

cing

ineq

ualit

yIs

ther

e pe

riodi

c an

alys

is to

ass

ess

whe

ther

allo

catio

n cr

iteria

and

loca

l pa

rtici

patio

n pr

oced

ures

set

by

gove

rnm

ent h

ave

been

adh

ered

to

and

are

redu

cing

di

spar

ities

in a

cces

s?

Yes

perio

dic

anal

ysis

pu

blis

hed

and

acte

d up

on

Yes

perio

dic

anal

ysis

pu

blis

hed

but n

ot

acte

d up

on

No0

Ther

e is

no

data

on

whe

ther

a p

erio

dic

anal

ysis

is

bei

ng c

ondu

cted

regu

larly

. Ana

lyses

are

bei

ng

carri

ed s

pora

dica

lly b

y pr

ojec

ts o

r gov

ernm

ent,

but n

ot re

gula

rly, n

ot w

ides

prea

d an

d it

is n

ot

bein

g ac

ted

upon

.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

54

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Qu

antit

yIs

the

annu

al

expa

nsio

n of

rura

l ho

useh

olds

gai

ning

ac

cess

to s

afe

sani

tatio

n su

ffici

ent

to m

eet t

he s

ubse

ctor

ta

rget

s?

Over

75%

of t

hat

need

ed to

reac

h se

ctor

targ

ets

Betw

een

75%

an

d 50

% o

f th

at n

eede

d to

ac

hiev

e ta

rget

s

Less

than

50%

of

that

nee

ded

to

reac

h ta

rget

s

035

% o

f urb

an p

opul

atio

n st

ill pr

actic

e op

en

defe

catio

n, (S

USEN

AS 2

011)

, stil

l far

till

natio

nal

targ

et o

f 100

% O

DF in

201

4.

SUSE

NAS

2011

, Rur

al

Sani

tatio

n W

orks

hop

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Qu

ality

of w

ater

Is th

ere

enou

gh

capa

city

- s

taff,

ex

perti

se, t

ools

, m

ater

ials

- to

del

iver

a sa

nita

tion

prog

ram

at

sca

le, u

sing

ta

ilore

d co

mm

unity

-ba

sed

and/

or o

ther

ap

proa

ches

?

Yes,

cap

acity

ex

ists

and

ap

proa

ches

are

be

ing

used

at

scal

e

Gaps

in c

apac

ity

but a

ppro

ache

s ge

nera

lly b

eing

us

ed a

t sca

le

Defic

its in

ca

paci

ty a

nd

no c

omm

unity

-ba

sed

appr

oach

es a

t sc

ale

0.5

Sani

taria

ns h

ave

wor

k an

d ge

nera

lly fu

nctio

n w

ell.

Follo

w u

p ac

tions

of c

apac

ity b

uild

ing

asse

ssm

ent

are

bein

g do

ne th

roug

h tra

inin

g an

d su

perv

isor

y ac

tiviti

es. M

inis

ter o

f Hea

lth R

egul

atio

n No

. 32

/201

3 on

san

itaria

n se

t up

guid

elin

es fo

r ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

incl

ude

rew

ards

and

sup

port

give

n fo

r the

san

itaria

ns.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop,

Qi

pra

stud

y (2

012)

, Min

iste

r of

Heal

th R

egul

atio

n No

. 32/

2013

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Re

porti

ngDo

es th

e go

vern

men

t re

gula

rly m

onito

r and

re

port

on p

rogr

ess

and

qual

ity o

f rur

al

sani

tatio

n ac

cess

, in

clud

ing

settl

emen

t-w

ide

sani

tatio

n, a

nd

diss

emin

ate

the

resu

lts?

Qual

ity,

quan

tity

and

diss

emin

ated

Qual

ity o

r qu

antit

yNe

ither

0.5

Regu

lar s

urve

illanc

e m

onito

ring

is c

ondu

cted

by

MoH

. It i

s pa

rt of

the

mai

n re

spon

sibi

lity

of th

e sa

nita

rians

and

repo

rted

on a

mon

thly

basi

s. A

t th

is m

omen

t, 5

prov

ince

s al

read

y do

sm

s ba

sed

daily

repo

rts th

at a

ppea

rs o

nlin

e w

ith S

TBM

w

ebsi

te.

No v

erifi

catio

n is

con

duct

ed, t

houg

h.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

SUST

AINI

NG

Sust

aini

ngM

arke

tsSu

pply-

chai

nDo

es th

e su

pply-

chai

n fo

r san

itatio

n pr

oduc

ts

mee

t hou

seho

ld

need

s (re

ady

avai

labi

lity,

quan

tity

and

cost

), sa

tisfy

go

vern

men

t sta

ndar

ds

and

reac

h to

uns

erve

d ar

eas?

Yes

for q

uant

ity,

cost

, sta

ndar

ds

and

reac

h

Yes,

but

not

for

all o

f qua

ntity

, co

st, s

tand

ards

an

d re

ach

No0.

5In

done

sian

San

itatio

n M

arke

t Ass

essm

ent

(201

0): s

uppl

y ch

ain

syst

em is

exis

ting,

but

onl

y fe

w p

rovid

es h

ave

one

stop

sho

p se

rvic

es a

t an

affo

rdab

le p

rice

and

a va

riatio

n of

pro

duct

s. It

is

avai

labl

e in

som

e pa

rt of

Indo

nesi

a bu

t not

yet

na

tionw

ide.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ngM

arke

tsPr

ivate

sec

tor

capa

city

Is th

ere

suffi

cien

t m

ason

/arti

san/

sm

all

busi

ness

cap

acity

to

mee

t hou

seho

ld

need

s (q

uant

ity,

qual

ity a

nd c

ost)?

Yes

for q

uant

ity

and

cost

Yes,

for q

uant

ity

but n

ot fo

r cos

tNe

ither

0.5

Inte

rven

tion

in s

ome

regi

ons.

Mas

ons/

artis

ans

are

gene

rally

ava

ilabl

e, b

ut q

ualit

y of

ski

lls a

nd

prod

ucts

del

ivere

d no

t alw

ays

suffi

cien

t.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t55

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Sust

aini

ngM

arke

tsPr

ivate

sec

tor

deve

lopm

ent

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent

have

pro

gram

s to

pr

omot

e an

d gu

ide

the

dom

estic

priv

ate

sect

or a

nd fa

cilit

ate

inno

vatio

n fo

r the

pr

ovis

ion

of s

anita

tion

serv

ices

in ru

ral

area

s?

Yes,

with

var

ious

co

mpo

nent

sYe

s, b

ut e

ither

be

ing

deve

lope

d or

has

gap

s

No p

rom

otio

n,

guid

ance

or

enco

urag

emen

t

0.5

MoH

has

som

e pr

ogra

ms

on h

ealth

pro

mot

ion

and

priva

te s

ecto

r eng

agem

ent,

e.g.

in S

TBM

and

its

cor

resp

ondi

ng p

roje

cts

such

WSP

pro

ject

s, a

nd

PAM

SIM

AS. C

urre

ntly

this

initi

ative

is s

till a

t the

ea

rly s

tage

and

will

be c

ontin

uous

ly de

velo

ped.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ngM

arke

tsM

anag

emen

t of

Disa

ster

Ris

k an

d Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

Do lo

cal g

over

nmen

t or

rura

l ser

vice

prov

ider

s ha

ve p

lans

fo

r cop

ing

with

nat

ural

di

sast

ers

and

clim

ate

chan

ge?

Yes,

the

maj

ority

of

rura

l ser

vice

prov

ider

s ha

ve a

pl

an fo

r dis

aste

r ris

k m

anag

emen

t an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

No. O

nly

som

e se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a p

lan

for

disa

ster

risk

m

anag

emen

t an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

or m

ost

serv

ice

prov

ider

s ha

ve u

nder

take

n a

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ent.

No s

ervic

e pr

ovid

er h

as a

cl

imat

e ac

tion

plan

or h

as

unde

rtake

n a

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ent.

0No

pla

ns fo

r the

rura

l san

itatio

n su

bsec

tor e

xist.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ngUp

take

Supp

ort f

or e

xpan

sion

Are

expe

nditu

res

at th

e lo

cal l

evel

in

line

with

the

natio

nal

sani

tatio

n po

licy

and

are

they

suf

ficie

nt

to a

chie

ve n

atio

nal

targ

ets?

In li

ne w

ith p

olic

y an

d su

ffici

ent t

o ac

hiev

e na

tiona

l ta

rget

s

In li

ne w

ith p

olic

y bu

t in

suffi

cien

t to

ach

ieve

na

tiona

l tar

gets

Not i

n lin

e w

ith

polic

y an

d in

suffi

cien

t to

achi

eve

natio

nal

obje

ctive

s

0.5

Man

y ci

ties

and

dist

ricts

hav

e pr

ovid

ed m

inim

um

to s

uffic

ient

am

ount

of b

udge

t for

rura

l san

itatio

n (S

TBM

) stra

tegy

.

Nugr

oho

Tri U

tom

o, b

log

ww

w.am

pl.o

rg, 2

2 No

v 20

11; R

ural

Sa

nita

tion

Wor

khsh

op.

Sust

aini

ngUp

take

Ince

ntive

sHa

s go

vern

men

t (n

atio

nal o

r loc

al)

deve

lope

d an

y po

licie

s, p

roce

dure

s or

pr

ogra

ms

to s

timul

ate

upta

ke o

f rur

al

sani

tatio

n se

rvic

es

and

beha

viors

by

hous

ehol

ds?

Polic

ies

and

proc

edur

es

(inst

rum

ents

) de

velo

ped

and

bein

g im

plem

ente

d

Som

e po

licie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

(in

stru

men

ts)

deve

lope

d bu

t no

t im

plem

ente

d

No p

olic

ies

or

proc

edur

es

(inst

rum

ents

) ex

ist

1M

oH h

as is

sued

a p

olic

y to

sup

port

ince

ntive

s at

nat

iona

l lev

el. C

urre

ntly

this

pol

icy

is b

eing

di

ssem

inat

ed to

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

. MoH

als

o pr

ovid

es te

chni

cal a

dvis

ory

and

train

ing

to

prov

ince

s, c

ities

, and

dis

trict

s.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Sust

aini

ngUp

take

Beha

viors

Is th

e su

bsec

tor o

n tra

ck to

mee

t the

st

ated

targ

et?

On-t

rack

Off-

track

but

ke

epin

g up

w

ith p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

Off-

track

039

% (b

asic

san

itatio

n ac

cess

-SUS

ENAS

201

1).

Subs

ecto

r dev

elop

men

t is

impr

ovin

g, b

ut s

till o

ff tra

ck to

mee

t the

targ

ets.

Rura

l San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

56

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Sust

aini

ngUs

eSu

bsec

tor

prog

ress

Is th

e su

bsec

tor o

n tra

ck to

mee

t the

st

ated

targ

et?

On-t

rack

Off-

track

but

ke

epin

g up

w

ith p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

Off-

track

0.5

Rate

of p

rogr

ess

is n

ot h

igh

enou

gh to

reac

h na

tiona

l tar

get

NTPI

, NTP

II co

mpl

etio

n Re

ports

; Ann

ual 2

011.

201

2 NT

P Re

ports

UN S

umm

it Re

ports

.W

B Re

port

on P

over

ty

Redu

ctio

n.

Sust

aini

ngUs

eEq

uity

of u

seW

hat i

s th

e ra

tio o

f im

prov

ed to

ilet a

cces

s be

twee

n th

e lo

wes

t an

d hi

ghes

t qui

ntile

in

rura

l are

as?

Less

than

2

times

Betw

een

2 an

d 5

Mor

e th

an 5

tim

es0.

5Th

e SD

A eq

uity

ana

lysis

reve

aled

that

in ru

ral

area

s, th

e ric

hest

qui

ntile

has

100

% a

cces

s to

im

prov

ed s

anita

tion,

com

pare

d to

36%

for t

he

low

est q

uint

ile, w

hich

is a

bout

3 ti

mes

.

SDA

equi

ty a

nalys

is.

Sust

aini

ngUs

eHy

gien

ic u

se o

f qu

ality

faci

litie

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

pe

ople

livin

g in

rura

l ar

eas

use

impr

oved

to

ilet f

acilit

ies

(exc

ludi

ng s

hare

d fa

cilit

ies)

?

Mor

e th

an 7

5%

of p

eopl

e us

e to

ilets

Betw

een

50%

an

d 75

% o

f pe

ople

use

toile

ts

Less

than

50%

of

peo

ple

use

toile

ts

0SU

SENA

S 20

11: 3

9%, R

ISKE

SDAS

201

0:

hous

ehol

d ac

cess

(59%

), sh

ared

7%

. SU

SENA

S 20

11, R

ISKE

SDAS

20

10, R

ural

San

itatio

n W

orks

hop

URBA

N W

ATER

SUP

PLY

ENAB

LING

Enab

ling

Polic

ySe

ctor

targ

ets

Are

ther

e US

H ac

cess

ta

rget

s (h

ouse

hold

le

vel a

nd s

ewer

age/

sept

age

man

agem

ent)

in th

e na

tiona

l lev

el

deve

lopm

ent p

lan?

Yes,

tar

gets

for

urba

n ho

useh

old

acce

ss a

nd

sew

erag

e/se

ptag

e m

anag

emen

t in

clud

ed in

the

deve

lopm

ent

plan

Targ

ets

for

urba

n ho

useh

old

acce

ss

incl

uded

in

the

deve

lopm

ent

plan

but

no

sew

erag

e or

sep

tage

m

anag

emen

t ta

rget

s in

clud

ed

No u

rban

sa

nita

tion

targ

ets

in th

e

deve

lopm

ent

plan

1RP

JMN:

Ope

n De

feca

tion

Free

by

2014

, off-

site

se

wer

age

syst

em fo

r 10%

of p

opul

atio

n (5

%

sew

erag

e, 5

% c

omm

unal

), 90

% o

nsite

sew

erag

e sy

stem

, 80%

urb

an h

ouse

hold

hav

e be

tter w

aste

m

anag

emen

t, de

duct

22.

500

acre

s flo

odin

g ar

ea in

100

stra

tegi

c ur

ban

loca

tion,

PPS

P ta

rget

: ren

ovat

e pu

blic

san

itatio

n fa

cilit

ies

in

226

sele

cted

citi

es, d

educ

t was

te w

ater

by

20%

by

impr

ove

was

te w

ater

man

agem

ent i

n 24

0 ci

ties.

Nex

t RPJ

KN: u

nive

rsal

acc

ess

to im

prov

ed

sani

tatio

n by

201

9.

Indo

nesi

a M

id-t

erm

De

velo

pmen

t Pla

n (2

010-

2014

), In

done

sia

Long

-ter

m

Deve

lopm

ent P

lan

(200

5-20

25).

Indo

nesi

a M

DG T

arge

t.

Enab

ling

Polic

ySe

ctor

pol

icy

Is th

ere

an u

rban

sa

nita

tion

polic

y th

at is

agr

eed

by s

take

hold

ers,

ap

prov

ed b

y go

vern

men

t, an

d pu

blic

ly av

aila

ble?

Polic

y of

ficia

lly

appr

oved

and

pu

blic

ly av

aila

ble

Polic

y dr

afte

d an

d ag

reed

but

no

t offi

cial

ly ap

prov

ed

No p

olic

y1

Min

istry

of P

ublic

Wor

ks R

egul

atio

n No

. 16/

2008

se

t up

requ

irem

ent f

or c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith

stak

ehol

ders

bef

ore

mak

ing

a po

licy,

and

it sh

ould

be

ava

ilabl

e pu

blic

ly.

Perm

en P

U No

. 16/

2008

; Ur

ban

Sani

tatio

n W

orks

hop

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t57

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Enab

ling

Polic

yIn

stitu

tiona

l Rol

esAr

e th

e in

stitu

tiona

l ro

les

of u

rban

sa

nita

tion

subs

ecto

r pl

ayer

s (n

atio

nal/s

tate

&

loca

l gov

ernm

ent,

serv

ice

prov

ider

, re

gula

tor e

tc.)

clea

rly d

efine

d an

d op

erat

iona

lized

?

Defin

ed a

nd

oper

atio

naliz

edDe

fined

but

not

op

erat

iona

lized

Not d

efine

d0.

5In

stitu

tiona

l rol

es a

re p

artly

defi

ned

in s

ever

al

law

s, d

ecre

es a

nd a

gree

men

ts s

uch

as W

ater

and

En

viron

men

tal H

ealth

Nat

iona

l Stra

tegy

(200

3),

Law

No.

32/

2004

on

loca

l aut

onom

y, go

vern

men

t de

cree

No.

38/

2007

on

dem

arca

tion

of ro

les

betw

een

natio

nal a

nd lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, M

inis

ter

of H

ealth

Dec

ree

Regu

latio

n No

. 852

/200

8 on

Co

mm

unity

Bas

ed T

otal

San

itatio

n, L

aw N

o.

18/2

009

on w

aste

man

agem

ent.

Dem

arca

tion

of

role

s an

d fu

nctio

ns a

mon

g in

stitu

tions

and

loca

l go

vern

men

t can

als

o be

see

n at

Gov

ernm

ent

Regu

latio

n No

. 41/

2007

on

loca

l gov

ernm

ent.

How

ever

, iss

ues

rem

ain

in u

rban

san

itatio

n ab

out a

lack

of c

lear

dis

tinct

ion

betw

een

serv

ice

prov

ider

and

regu

lato

r.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Fund

flow

co

ordi

natio

nDo

es g

over

nmen

t ha

ve a

pro

cess

for

coor

dina

ting

mul

tiple

in

vest

men

ts in

the

subs

ecto

r (do

mes

tic

or d

onor

, eg.

Nat

iona

l gr

ants

, sta

te b

udge

ts,

dono

r loa

ns a

nd

gran

ts e

tc.)?

Coor

dina

tion

proc

ess

defin

ed a

nd

oper

atio

naliz

ed

Coor

dina

tion

proc

ess

defin

ed b

ut n

ot

oper

atio

naliz

ed

Not d

efine

d/ n

o pr

oces

s0.

5Cl

early

defi

ned

proc

ess

and

equi

pped

with

rela

ted

supp

ortin

g pl

anni

ng, i

mpl

emen

tatio

n, m

onito

ring

and

repo

rt do

cum

ents

. Coo

rdin

atio

n is

led

by

Bapp

enas

. How

ever

, not

yet

fully

ope

ratio

naliz

ed.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Inve

stm

ent p

lan

Is th

ere

a m

ediu

m

term

inve

stm

ent p

lan

for u

rban

san

itatio

n ba

sed

on n

atio

nal

targ

ets

that

is c

oste

d,

prio

ritize

s in

vest

men

t ne

eds,

is p

ublis

hed

and

used

?

Inve

stm

ent p

lan

base

d on

prio

rity

need

s ex

ists

, is

publ

ishe

d an

d us

ed

Exis

ts b

ut n

ot

used

, or u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n

Does

not

exis

t0.

5Av

aila

ble

in m

inis

tries

' stra

tegi

c pl

ans,

pr

ovin

cial

/dis

trict

mid

-ter

m d

evel

opm

ent p

lan,

se

ctor

al s

trate

gic

plan

, mid

-ter

m in

vest

men

t pl

an, s

anita

tion

mem

oran

dum

pro

gram

, etc

, Th

ese

plan

s ar

e be

ing

exec

uted

. Iss

ue: q

ualit

y im

plem

enta

tion.

The

mec

hani

sm m

ust b

e fo

llow

ed b

ut n

ot a

ll SS

Ks a

re fi

ne w

ith th

at.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

Annu

al re

view

Is th

ere

an a

nnua

l m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der

revie

w in

pla

ce to

m

onito

r sub

sect

or

perfo

rman

ce, t

o re

view

pro

gres

s an

d se

t cor

rect

ive a

ctio

ns?

Revie

w o

f pe

rform

ance

an

d se

tting

of

corre

ctive

act

ions

Revie

w o

f pe

rform

ance

bu

t no

setti

ng o

f co

rrect

ive a

ctio

ns

No re

view

or

set

ting

of

corre

ctive

act

ions

0.5

Annu

ally,

ther

e ar

e m

inis

tries

/ ins

titut

ions

' ev

alua

tion.

For

gen

eral

revie

w, B

appe

nas

has

a de

velo

pmen

t eva

luat

ion

dire

ctor

ate.

Out

com

es

are

subm

itted

to th

e pr

esid

ent.

The

devia

tion

of th

e ou

tcom

es w

ill be

use

d as

a b

asis

for t

he

futu

re w

ork

plan

. BPS

als

o do

es a

nnua

l eva

luat

ion

for s

anita

tion.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

58

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Enab

ling

Plan

ning

HR C

apac

ityHa

s an

ass

essm

ent

been

und

erta

ken

of th

e hu

man

re

sour

ce n

eeds

in th

e su

bsec

tor t

o m

eet

the

subs

ecto

r tar

get

and

is th

e ac

tion

plan

be

ing

impl

emen

ted?

Asse

ssm

ent

unde

rtake

n an

d ac

tions

bei

ng

impl

emen

ted

Asse

ssm

ent

unde

rtake

n bu

t no

act

ion

bein

g ta

ken

No a

sses

smen

t un

derta

ken

0.5

Spor

adic

ass

essm

ents

hav

e be

en m

ade

but n

o cl

ear i

nfor

mat

ion

on fo

llow

up

actio

n or

onl

y fe

w

is b

eing

follo

wed

up.

Eac

h m

inis

try h

as it

s ow

n HR

cen

ter a

nd e

valu

atio

n/as

sess

men

t cen

ter.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Enab

ling

Budg

etAd

equa

cyAr

e th

e an

nual

pub

lic

finan

cial

com

mitm

ents

to

the

urba

n sa

nita

tion

subs

ecto

r suf

ficie

nt to

m

eet n

atio

nal t

arge

ts

for t

he s

ubse

ctor

?

Mor

e th

an

75%

of w

hat i

s ne

eded

Betw

een

50-

75%

of n

eeds

Less

than

50%

of

nee

ds0

Less

than

50%

. The

SDA

cos

ting

anal

ysis

es

timat

es th

at o

nly

37%

of t

he re

quire

d in

vest

men

ts c

an c

urre

ntly

be a

ntic

ipat

ed.

SDA

cost

ing

anal

ysis

.

Enab

ling

Budg

etSt

ruct

ure

Does

the

budg

et

stru

ctur

e pe

rmit

inve

stm

ents

and

su

bsid

ies

(ope

ratio

nal

cost

s, a

dmin

istra

tion,

de

bt s

ervic

e, e

tc) f

or

the

urba

n sa

nita

tion

sect

or to

be

clea

rly

iden

tified

?

Yes

for

inve

stm

ent a

nd

for s

ubsi

dies

Yes

for

inve

stm

ent b

ut

not s

ubsi

dies

No1

Ther

e is

no

subs

idy,

budg

et fo

r pro

mot

ion

is

avai

labl

e at

MoH

. In

budg

et p

lan

and

capi

tal

budg

et p

lan,

sou

rce

of in

vest

men

t has

som

e ca

tego

rizat

ion

but n

o su

bsid

y av

aila

ble.

MoF

Fin

ance

Not

e 20

13; R

ural

Sa

nita

tion

Wor

ksho

p

Enab

ling

Budg

etCo

mpr

ehen

sive

Does

the

gove

rnm

ent b

udge

t co

mpr

ehen

sive

ly co

ver d

omes

tic

and

offic

ial d

onor

in

vest

men

t/sub

sidy

to

urba

n sa

nita

tion?

Mor

e th

an 7

5%

of fu

nds

to

subs

ecto

r on

budg

et

Betw

een

50-

75%

of f

unds

to

sub

sect

or o

n bu

dget

Less

than

50%

of

fund

s to

su

bsec

tor o

n bu

dget

1Ye

s, o

n bu

dget

, on

treas

ury,

equi

pped

with

co

rrela

ted

audi

t pro

cess

. Ur

ban

Sani

tatio

n Di

scus

sion

DEVE

LOPI

NG

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Utiliz

atio

n of

dom

estic

fu

nds

Wha

t per

cent

age

of d

omes

tic fu

nds

budg

eted

for

urba

n sa

nita

tion

are

spen

t (3

year

ave

rage

)?

Over

75%

Betw

een

50%

an

d 75

%Le

ss th

an 5

0%0.

5No

relia

ble

data

, but

ther

e is

a s

peci

al b

udge

t for

ur

ban

sani

tatio

n.Ur

ban

Sani

tatio

n Di

scus

sion

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Utiliz

atio

n of

ext

erna

l fu

nds

Wha

t per

cent

age

of e

xter

nal f

unds

bu

dget

ed fo

r urb

an

sani

tatio

n ar

e sp

ent (

3 ye

ar a

vera

ge)?

Over

75%

Betw

een

50%

an

d 75

%Le

ss th

an 5

0%0.

5No

relia

ble

data

, est

imat

ed g

uess

bet

wee

n 50

-75%

. Ur

ban

Sani

tatio

n Di

scus

sion

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t59

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Deve

lopi

ngEx

pend

iture

Repo

rting

Is u

rban

san

itatio

n ex

pend

iture

ver

sus

budg

et a

udite

d an

d re

porte

d on

in a

co

nsol

idat

ed fo

rmat

fo

r all

sour

ces

of

dom

estic

and

offi

cial

do

nor e

xpen

ditu

re?

Yes

for d

omes

tic

and

dono

r ex

pend

iture

Yes

for d

omes

tic

expe

nditu

reNo

0.5

No c

onso

lidat

ed re

port,

but

ther

e is

a d

ivisi

on

betw

een

exte

rnal

and

inte

rnal

sou

rces

of f

unds

. Th

e da

ta a

re a

vaila

ble

at e

ach

rele

vant

min

istry

.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Loca

l par

ticip

atio

nAr

e th

ere

clea

rly

defin

ed p

roce

dure

s fo

r in

form

ing,

con

sulti

ng

with

and

sup

porti

ng

loca

l par

ticip

atio

n in

pl

anni

ng, b

udge

ting

and

impl

emen

ting

for u

rban

san

itatio

n de

velo

pmen

ts?

Yes

and

syst

emat

ical

ly ap

plie

d

Yes,

but

not

sy

stem

atic

ally

appl

ied

No0

Philo

soph

y an

d ap

proa

ch fo

r san

itatio

n:

com

mun

ity b

ased

(bot

tom

up

appr

oach

) em

phas

izes

on lo

cal p

artic

ipat

ion

and

guid

ed

with

sev

eral

regu

latio

ns a

nd g

uide

lines

. Mid

-ter

m

deve

lopm

ent p

lan

is d

evel

oped

thro

ugh

botto

m u

p ap

proa

ch. I

n re

ality

, rep

orts

sho

w h

igh

num

ber o

f ca

ses

of in

suffi

cien

t com

mun

ity p

artic

ipat

ion

for

man

agin

g an

d ut

ilizin

g of

f-si

te s

yste

ms.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on,

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Budg

et a

lloca

tion

crite

riaHa

ve c

riter

ia (o

r a

form

ula)

bee

n de

term

ined

to a

lloca

te

urba

n sa

nita

tion

fund

ing

equi

tabl

y to

urb

an u

tiliti

es o

r se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

and

amon

g m

unic

ipal

ities

an

d is

it b

eing

co

nsis

tent

ly ap

plie

d?

Yes,

app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

Yes,

but

no

t app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

No1

Law

No.

32/

2004

on

loca

l gov

ernm

ent a

nd

Min

iste

r of F

inan

ce R

egul

atio

n No

165

/201

2 on

tran

sfer

fund

sta

ted

that

bud

get a

lloca

tion

is c

ondu

cted

by

MoF

with

spe

cific

crit

eria

. MoF

co

nsul

ts o

ther

tech

nica

l min

istri

es a

nd lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent,

espe

cial

ly to

get

tech

nica

l inp

uts,

w

hen

allo

catin

g th

e bu

dget

. Rea

dine

ss o

f the

city

is

als

o co

nsid

ered

.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Deve

lopi

ngEq

uity

Redu

cing

ineq

ualit

ies

Do lo

cal g

over

nmen

t or

urb

an s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

(nat

iona

l or

in 3

larg

est c

ities

) ha

ve s

peci

fic p

lans

or

mea

sure

s de

velo

ped

and

impl

emen

ted

for

serv

ing

the

urba

n po

or?

Plan

s de

velo

ped

and

impl

emen

ted

Plan

s de

velo

ped

but n

ot

impl

emen

ted

No p

lans

do

cum

ente

d0.

5Pl

ans

are

bein

g de

velo

ped

with

in P

PSP,

and

acco

rdin

g to

Impr

es n

o. 3

/201

0 on

equ

ity o

f de

velo

pmen

t. Bu

t the

se p

lans

are

not

fully

im

plem

ente

d ye

t.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Quan

tity

Is th

e an

nual

ex

pans

ion

of u

rban

ho

useh

olds

gai

ning

ac

cess

to s

afe

sani

tatio

n su

ffici

ent

to m

eet t

he s

ubse

ctor

ta

rget

s?

Over

75%

of t

hat

need

ed to

reac

h se

ctor

targ

ets

Betw

een

75%

an

d 50

% o

f th

at n

eede

d to

ac

hiev

e ta

rget

s

Less

than

50%

of

that

nee

ded

to

reac

h ta

rget

s

0Ur

ban

sani

tatio

n ac

cess

to im

prov

ed s

anita

tion

=

77%

(SUS

ENAS

201

2). H

owev

er, s

ecto

r tar

gets

ou

tline

by

2019

: 100

% a

cces

s to

impr

oved

sa

nita

tion

over

all,

6% a

cces

s to

sew

erag

e sy

stem

s, a

nd in

crea

se in

com

mun

al s

yste

ms.

An

nual

exp

ansi

ons

still

fall

shor

t to

less

than

50%

SUSE

NAS

2012

, Urb

an

Sani

tatio

n W

orks

hop

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

60

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Deve

lopi

ngOu

tput

Repo

rting

Ar

e th

ere

proc

edur

es

and

proc

esse

s ap

plie

d on

a re

gula

r bas

is

to m

onito

r urb

an

sani

tatio

n ac

cess

and

th

e qu

ality

of s

ervic

es

and

is th

e in

form

atio

n di

ssem

inat

ed?

Qual

ity,

quan

tity

and

diss

emin

ated

Qual

ity o

r qu

antit

yNe

ither

0.5

Regu

lar s

urve

illanc

e m

onito

ring

is c

ondu

cted

by

MoH

. It i

s pa

rt of

the

mai

n re

spon

sibi

lity

of th

e sa

nita

rians

and

repo

rted

in m

onth

ly ba

sis.

At t

his

mom

ent,

5 pr

ovin

ces

alre

ady

do s

ms-

base

d da

ily

repo

rts th

at a

ppea

rs o

nlin

e w

ith S

TBM

web

site

. So

me

issu

es w

ith d

ata

qual

ity re

mai

n, th

ough

.

http

://ci

ptak

arya

.pu.

go.id

/v2

/?ac

t=vin

&nid

=11

42,

MoP

W d

ata,

Urb

an S

anita

tion

Wor

ksho

p

SUST

AINI

NGW

SP s

tudy

Sust

aini

ngM

arke

tsCo

llect

ion

and

treat

men

t W

hat i

s th

e pr

opor

tion

of to

tal f

ecal

was

te

gene

rate

d th

at g

ets

safe

ly co

llect

ed a

nd

treat

ed?

Over

75%

of

that

gen

erat

ed

is c

olle

cted

and

tre

ated

Over

50%

of

that

gen

erat

ed

is c

olle

cted

from

th

e HH

leve

l

Less

than

50%

of

that

gen

erat

ed0

Only

5 IP

LTs

are

wor

king

pro

perly

. No

syst

emat

ic

retri

butio

n sy

stem

exis

ts y

et, o

nly

a fe

w n

eigh

bor

grou

ps s

tart

to im

plem

ent i

t.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Sust

aini

ngM

arke

tsCo

st re

cove

ryAr

e O&

M c

osts

of

treat

men

t sys

tem

s (b

eyon

d ho

useh

old

leve

l fac

ilitie

s)

asse

ssed

/kno

wn

and

fully

met

by

eith

er

cost

reco

very

thro

ugh

user

fees

and

/or l

ocal

re

venu

e or

tran

sfer

s?

O&M

cos

ts

know

n an

d >

75%

cov

ered

th

roug

h co

st

reco

very

O&M

cos

ts a

re

know

n an

d 50

%

cove

red

thro

ugh

cost

reco

very

O&M

cos

ts n

ot

know

n0

Uncl

ear O

&M s

yste

m, m

any

IPLT

and

IPAL

do

not

wor

k pr

oper

ly. H

ouse

hold

s pa

y fo

r dis

char

ge a

nd

gove

rnm

ent p

ays

for t

reat

men

t

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Sust

aini

ngM

arke

tsDi

scha

rge

Are

ther

e no

rms

and

stan

dard

s fo

r w

aste

wat

er d

isch

arge

fo

r sep

tage

and

se

wer

age

treat

men

t pl

ants

that

are

sy

stem

atic

ally

mon

itore

d un

der a

re

gim

e of

san

ctio

ns

(pen

altie

s)?

Exis

t and

are

m

onito

red

unde

r a

regi

me

of

sanc

tions

Exis

t and

maj

ority

ar

e m

onito

red,

bu

t the

re a

re n

o sa

nctio

ns

Stan

dard

s ex

ist

but m

ajor

ity

of p

lant

s ar

e no

t reg

ular

ly m

onito

red

0.5

Law

No.

32/

2009

on

the

prot

ectio

n an

d m

anag

emen

t of t

he e

nviro

nmen

t. So

me

loca

l go

vern

men

ts h

ave

thei

r ow

n re

gula

tions

suc

h as

Jak

arta

with

Gov

erno

r Reg

ulat

ion

No.

220/

2010

on

IPAL

and

AM

DAL.

How

ever

, no

firm

ev

iden

ce o

n en

forc

ing

sanc

tions

exis

ts, t

houg

h m

onito

ring

is m

anag

ed b

y th

e lo

cal e

nviro

nmen

t m

anag

emen

t bod

y (B

PLHD

). M

oH is

mon

itorin

g m

edic

al w

aste

man

agem

ent.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y A

sses

smen

t61

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Sust

aini

ngM

arke

tsM

anag

emen

t of

Disa

ster

Ris

k an

d Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

Do lo

cal g

over

nmen

t or

ser

vice

prov

ider

s (n

atio

nal o

r in

3 la

rges

t citi

es) h

ave

plan

s fo

r cop

ing

with

na

tura

l dis

aste

rs a

nd

clim

ate

chan

ge?

Yes,

the

maj

ority

of

urb

an s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a

plan

for d

isas

ter

risk

man

agem

ent

and

clim

ate

chan

ge

No. O

nly

som

e se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

have

a p

lan

for

disa

ster

risk

m

anag

emen

t an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

or m

ost

serv

ice

prov

ider

s ha

ve u

nder

take

n a

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ent.

No s

ervic

e pr

ovid

er h

as a

cl

imat

e ac

tion

plan

or h

as

unde

rtake

n a

vuln

erab

ility

asse

ssm

ent.

0An

em

erge

ncy

sani

tatio

n po

licy

exis

ts in

clud

ing

proc

edur

es, a

pro

gram

, and

a c

lust

er o

n di

sast

ers

(BNP

B). T

he g

over

nmen

t has

a p

lan

to p

repa

re

a po

licy,

but n

o cl

ear i

nfor

mat

ion

whe

ther

the

priva

te s

ecto

r has

acc

ess

to it

.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

iont

Auto

nom

yDo

util

ities

or s

ervic

e pr

ovid

ers

(nat

iona

l or

3 la

rges

t) ha

ve

oper

atio

nal d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

auto

nom

y in

in

vest

men

t pla

nnin

g,

HR, fi

nanc

e (s

epar

ate

bala

nce

shee

t) an

d pr

ocur

emen

t m

anag

emen

t?

Yes

in a

ll as

pect

sIn

all

aspe

cts

exce

pt

inve

stm

ent

plan

ning

No0.

5Ut

ilitie

s ar

e fin

anci

ally

auto

nom

ous

but I

nves

tmen

t / M

aste

r pla

ns m

ust b

e ap

prov

ed b

y th

e Lo

cal

Gove

rnm

ent a

utho

ritie

s.

Decr

ees

of P

rodu

ctio

n an

d Co

nsum

ptio

n of

Cle

an

Wat

er (1

77/2

006/

ND-C

P &

124/

2011

/ND-

CP)

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

ion

Upta

ke

Has

gove

rnm

ent

(nat

iona

l or l

ocal

) de

velo

ped

any

polic

ies,

pro

cedu

res

or

prog

ram

s to

stim

ulat

e up

take

of u

rban

sa

nita

tion

serv

ices

an

d be

havio

rs b

y ho

useh

olds

?

Polic

ies

and

proc

edur

es

(inst

rum

ents

) de

velo

ped

and

bein

g im

plem

ente

d

Som

e po

licie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

(in

stru

men

ts)

deve

lope

d bu

t no

t im

plem

ente

d

No p

olic

ies

or

proc

edur

es

(inst

rum

ents

) ex

ist

0.5

A ba

selin

e st

udy,

prel

imin

ary

soci

aliza

tion,

and

na

tion-

wid

e ca

mpa

ign

is b

eing

led

by M

oH. S

till

limite

d im

plem

enta

tion.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

ion

Plan

sDo

gov

ernm

ent/

serv

ice

prov

ider

s ha

ve b

usin

ess

plan

s fo

r exp

andi

ng th

e pr

opor

tion

of c

ityw

ide

feca

l was

te th

at is

sa

fely

colle

cted

and

tre

ated

?

Busi

ness

pla

ns

for e

xpan

sion

of

col

lect

ion

& tre

atm

ent b

eing

im

plem

ente

d

Busi

ness

pla

ns

for e

xpan

sion

of

col

lect

ion

& tre

atm

ent u

nder

pr

epar

atio

n

No B

usin

ess

Plan

s0

PPSP

dev

elop

s ci

ty s

anita

tion

stra

tegi

es (S

SK),

whi

ch in

clud

e ur

ban

sani

tatio

n st

rate

gies

. Ho

wev

er, t

he c

onst

rain

ts in

urb

an fe

cal s

ludg

e m

anag

emen

t are

stil

l sub

stan

tial,

no m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

is in

pla

ce y

et.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Wat

er S

upp

ly a

nd S

anita

tion

in In

don

esia

62

Serv

ice

Deliv

ery

Cycl

eBu

ildin

g Bl

ock

Area

s of

evi

denc

e fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ques

tion

High

(1)

Med

ium

(0,5

)Lo

w (0

)Sc

ore

Expl

anat

ion

for s

core

Sour

ce o

f evi

denc

e

Sust

aini

ngEx

pans

ion

Priva

te s

ecto

r de

velo

pmen

tDo

es th

e go

vern

men

t ha

ve o

ngoi

ng

prog

ram

s an

d m

easu

res

to

stre

ngth

en th

e do

mes

tic p

rivat

e se

ctor

for t

he

prov

isio

n of

san

itatio

n se

rvic

es in

urb

an o

r pe

ri-ur

ban

area

s?

Yes,

var

ious

co

mpo

nent

sIn

dev

elop

men

t, fe

w c

ompo

nent

sNo

0.5

Ther

e ar

e so

me

prog

ram

s th

roug

h co

rpor

ate

soci

al re

spon

sibi

lity

supp

ort f

or s

mal

l sca

le

busi

ness

. Med

ium

and

big

sca

le b

usin

ess

do n

ot

have

any

pro

gram

yet

.

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Sust

aini

ngUs

eSu

bsec

tor p

rogr

ess

Is th

e su

bsec

tor o

n tra

ck to

mee

t the

st

ated

targ

et?

On-t

rack

Off-

track

but

ke

epin

g up

w

ith p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

Off-

track

0Su

bsec

tor i

s pr

ogre

ssin

g, b

ut n

ot y

et o

n tra

ck to

m

eet s

ecto

r tar

gets

. Ur

ban

Sani

tatio

n Di

scus

sion

Sust

aini

ngUs

eEq

uity

of u

seW

hat i

s th

e ra

tio o

f im

prov

ed to

ilet a

cces

s be

twee

n th

e lo

wes

t an

d hi

ghes

t qui

ntile

in

urba

n ar

eas?

Less

than

2

times

Betw

een

2 an

d 5

Mor

e th

an 5

tim

es0.

52.

34 (B

PS)

Urba

n Sa

nita

tion

Disc

ussi

on

Sust

aini

ngUs

eUs

e of

faci

litie

sW

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

pe

ople

livin

g in

urb

an

area

s us

e im

prov

ed

toile

t fac

ilitie

s (e

xclu

ding

sha

red

faci

litie

s)?

Mor

e th

an 9

0%

of p

eopl

eM

ore

than

75%

of

peo

ple

Less

than

75%

of

peo

ple

0.5

Hous

ehol

d us

e (7

9.7%

), sh

ared

(8,3

%),

tota

l 88%

(R

iske

sdas

201

0); S

USEN

AS 2

011:

72.

5%Ri

skes

das

(201

0). S

usen

as

(201

1)


Annex 2: Key Inputs for the Required andAnticipated Capital Expenditures

This annex describes the key inputs that were used to generate estimates of the required and anticipated capital expenditures. It discusses the sources, adjustments and assumptions of the following information: exchange rates, demographic variables, sector-specific technologies and spending plans.

Exchange Rates

Amounts in Indonesia rupiah (IDR) from 2009 to 2012 were converted into US Dollars using annual exchange rates from the World Development Indicators.49 Projections for 2013 fol-low the assumptions used by the Ministry of Finance, which are in turn based on Law No. 15 on the State Budget for 2013.50 The exchange rates for succeeding years were as-sumed to be the same as in 2013.

Demographic Variables

The model requires two sets of demographic variables. The first set captures rural and urban population estimates/pro-jections for base year (2011) and target year (2019). This in-formation is combined with existing and target access rates for water and sanitation in order to calculate the number of people that will be requiring access to improved facilities during the period of analysis. The other set of information refers to the average size of households. This is used to convert costs of facilities, which are generally in expressed on a per household basis, into per capita terms.

Table A2.1 shows the key demographic variables used in the analysis. Aggregate population data for 2011 and 2019 were obtained from Bappenas et al. (2005).51 Rural and urban population data were generated using proportions and growth rates from the UN.52 The analysis assumes that there are 3.9 members per household.53

Access Rates

Table A2.2 shows the baseline (2011) and target (2019) ac-cess rates for water supply and sanitation. The 2011 ac-cess rates for sanitation and water supply were calculated using data from the SUSENAS by the BPS and Bappenas, respectively.

Table A2.1 Current and target access rates

Region Population (millions)Annual population growth (%)

2011 2019

Rural 117 112 -0.3%

Urban 120 146 2.5%b

National 236 258 not calculated

a All values for this row were calculated as residuals. b This value represents the projected population growth rate for 2010-2015 of the UN (2012) World Statistics Pocketbook, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN, New York. c Bappenas, BPS and United Nations Population Fund (2005) Proyeksi Penduduk Indonesia (Indonesia Population Projection), Jakarta.

49 World Bank (2013) World Development Indicators, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF.50 Ministry of Finance website, http://www.depkeu.go.id/Eng/?menu=english.51 Bappenas, BPS and United Nations Population Fund (2005) Proyeksi Penduduk Indonesia (Indonesia Population Projection), Jakarta.52 UN (2012) World Statistics Pocketbook, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN, New York.53 The estimate is for 2010. Badan Pusat Statistik [Statistics Indonesia] (2013) Perkembangan Beberapa Indikator Utama Social-Ekonomi Indonesia [Trends of Selected Socio-Economic Indicators of Indonesia], Jakarta, May.


Table A2.2 Current and target access ratesSector 2011 2019

Rural water supply 58% 100%

Urban water supply 52% 100%

Rural sanitation 39% 100%

Urban sanitation 73% 100%

Sector-specific Technologies: Water

Information on sector-specific technologies, unit costs, and expected life are necessary for the calculation of invest-ment requirements. Table A2.3 presents data on the vari-ables mentioned above for water supply.

The options included and shares for 2011 were based on the technologies reported in SUSENAS 2010, which was presented in JMP. However, given the absence of docu-ments, the distribution of water supply technologies for 2020 was based on the informed judgment of stakeholders at the SDA validation workshop in Jakarta on June 2013.54

Unit capital costs represent expenditures for materials and labor used in the construction of the different facilities while lifespan refers to the projected number of years before a facility is fully replaced. For urban water supply, the infor-mation in Table A2.2 was based on the project experience of participants at the SDA validation workshop in Jakarta on June 2013. On the other hand, unit costs for rural water supply were based on estimates from the Domestic Private Sector Project (DPSP) and the Third Water Supply and San-itation for Low Income Communities Project (PAMSIMAS).

Sector-specific Technologies: Sanitation

Table A2.4 presents information on the expected household distribution, costs and lifespans of key sanitation technolo-gies.

Improved sanitation facilities are defined by Indonesian au-thorities as a household that has its own latrine, gooseneck latrine and/or pit latrine, and uses a septic tank as the final disposal facility.55

An Urban Sanitation Development Program (USDP)56 report identifies improved facilities as private or shared facility that has access to a gooseneck as a type of barrier and either a septic tank, pit latrine or sewerage system as a type of treatment.57 The 2011 distribution of facilities in Table A2.4 were apportioned across facilities using information from the JMP.58 Given the absence of documents, the distribu-tion of sanitation options for rural areas in 2019 was based on the opinions that stakeholders provided at the SDA validation workshop in Jakarta on June 2013. For urban households, the projected distribution was obtained as fol-lows. Information from Bappenas indicates that national targets for communal facilities (which represents SANIMAS in the analysis) rise by about one percentage point per year between 2010 (1%) to 2014 (5%). If this trend continues, then about 9% of the national population will have access to such facilities by 2019. Confining the use of such facili-ties to urban areas suggests that about 16% of the urban population in 2019 will have access to communal facilities. However, using 16% for SANIMAS facilities will be difficult to employ in the analysis because it means that proportion of the urban population with access to private facilities will fall from 86% in 2011 to 84% in 2019. Hence, the decision adopted for the analysis is to assume that access to private facilities in 2019 will be the same as in 2011 and that all the remaining urban households (14%) will have access to SANIMAS.

54 JMP (2012) Estimates for the Use of Improved Drinking Water Sources: Indonesia. Downloaded from wss.info.org.55 Ministry of Health (2013), Main Findings of Indonesia Basic Health Survey 2013. 56 Urban Sanitation Development Program (2012) National Sanitation Demand Assessment 2012, Draft report, November. 57 The USDP report identifies the following facilities as not improved: (a) public facility, (b) public/private/shared facilities that do not have access to a gooseneck and/or septic tank/pit latrine/sewer system, (c) no toilets. 58 JMP (2012) Estimates for the Use of Improved Sanitation: Indonesia. Downloaded from wss.info.org.


Table A2.3 Selected information on sanitation technologies

Option

Distribution of facilities (base year, %)a

Projected distribution of facilities

(2020, %)a,b

Unit capital cost (per capita at 2012 prices) Lifespan

(in years)

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

Piped into dwelling/yard 9% 26% 58% 90% 40 181 30

Public tap 5% 9% 5% 5% 4 91 30

Tubewell/Borehole 26% 28% 5% 0% 40 160 5

Protected well 23% 32% 25% 5% 20 64 5

Protected spring 28% 5% 4% 0% 24 3 5

Rainwater 9% 0% 3% 0% 40 21 4

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% nc nc nc

a As a share of the population that have access to improved facilities. b Based on informed judgments of participants in a stakeholder workshop in Jakarta on June 2013.

Unit capital costs in urban areas, which exclude the costs of sewers, and the lifespan of private and shared facilities were based on the informed judgment of the participants in the SDA validation workshop in Jakarta on June 2013. Fur-thermore, it is also assumed that three households share a facility; which translates to unit costs of shared facilities that are a third of private facilities. The cost of a private facility in rural areas ($31 per person or $120 per facility) is based on the curriculum for the STBM entrepreneur training of 2013 of the Ministry of Health). This cost is conservative relative to the median price of permanent pit latrines (at $44 per person or $173 per facility at 2010 prices) found by Giltner and Arianto59 for rural areas in Indonesia. It is also way be-low the costs of a toilet with septic tank ($140 per person) used in the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI).60 The per capita cost of SANIMAS facilities, which includes treat-ment facilities, represents investments for Community Sani-tation Centers. The value represents median capital costs as calculated by Eales et al. (2013) using survey data.61 The per capita estimates here, which are much higher than es-timated per capita costs of $152 per person under optimal

conditions, reflects the under-utilization of the Community Sanitation Centers.

Sewerage Systems

Sewerage systems in urban areas, which are also covered in the analysis, are treated separately from on-site treat-ment facilities. The assumptions used in the analysis are as follows:

• Access: In the base period (2011), it is assumed that 1% of the urban population had access to sewerage systems. While there seems to be no solid evidence on access rates, studies by the World Bank and AusAID62,USDP63 and Eales et. al.64 suggest values close to this assumption. Access to sewerage systems is assumed to increase to 6% by the target year (2019).

• Unit costs: The analysis assumes unit costs of $372 per person (at 2012 prices). This represents the lower end of per capita CAPEX costs (US$ 350 per person at 2010 prices) estimates presented in a study by the

59 Giltner, S and I. Arianto (2011) Rural Latrine Costs in Indonesia, UNICEF, Plan Indonesia, ADB and WSP, World Bank.60 Winara, A., G. Hutton, Oktarinda, E. Purnomo, K. Hadiwardoyo, I. Merdykasari, T. Nurmadi, B. Bruinsma, D. Gunawan, D. Fadilah and M. Albrecht (2011) Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.61 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.62 World Bank and AusAID (2013) East Asia Urban Sanitation Flagship Study: Indonesia Country Study, Main Report, February.63 Urban Sanitation Development Program (2012) National Sanitation Demand Assessment 2012, Draft report, November. 64 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.


Table A2.4 Selected information on sanitation technologies

Option

Distribution of facilities (base year, %)a

Projected distribution of facilities (2020, %)a,b

Unit capital cost (per capita at 2012 prices) Lifespan

(in years)Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

Private facility 69% 86% 80% 86% 31 55 20

Shared facility 31% 13% 20% 0% 10 18 20

SANIMAS na 1% na 14% na 294 20

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% nc nc nc

a As a share of households with access to improved facilities.

Table A2.5 Public investments (million US$, annual average)

Sector Central government Local government Development partners Total

Anticipated (2012-2014)

Rural water supply 254 480 58 791

Urban water supply 265 481 25 771

Rural sanitation 37 2 29 69

Urban sanitation 48 352 28 427

Total 604 1,315 140 2,059

Recent (2009-2014)

Rural water supply 111 369 43 524

Urban water supply 121 370 19 510

Rural sanitation 23 2 22 47

Urban sanitation 32 271 21 324

Total 287 1,013 105 1,405

a Anticipated investments of the government only represent expenditures for 2012 and 2013.


World Bank and AusAID65,66. The value used in the analysis is much higher than the average capital costs at optimal use of simplified sewerage systems ($136 per person at 2012 prices) and combined systems ($186 per person at 2012 prices) of SANIMAS projects. However, it is closer to the median costs at actual use of simplified sewerage systems ($228 per person at 2012 prices) and combined systems ($251 per person at 2012 prices) of SANIMAS projects.67 The costs are also higher than the unit costs of centralized sewer-age and treatment systems ($130 per person at 2012 prices) reported in the ESI.68

• Lifespan: Sewerage systems are assumed to have a lifespan of 20 years. This value was taken from the ESI.69

Spending Plans

Collecting information on recent and anticipated invest-ments and comparing the results to CAPEX requirements allows the costing tool to generate estimates of financing gaps (or surpluses). As discussed in the text, investments for water and sanitation were obtained/derived from docu-ments and websites of various stakeholders.

The process of the collecting and compiling the information for capital expenditures was difficult and the subject to the following issues and limitations. First, expenditures of the central government for 2014 are not yet available. Hence, anticipated expenditures of the government only represent the average over two years (2012 and 2013). Second, there is also some uncertainty surrounding the sub-sectoral data used in the analysis. In some instances, information was only available for water supply and sanitation as a whole but not separately. Quite often, the data also do not make

a clear distinction by location (rural or urban), annual dis-bursements for multi-year projects, actual expenditures and allocations, and nature (hardware and software). In all these cases, the approach used in the analysis was to ask the concerned stakeholders for their best guess of how the data might be suitably disaggregated.

Given the available information, estimates of anticipated (2012-2014) and recent (2009-2011) CAPEX from the gov-ernment and development partners are shown in Table A2.5. To ensure comparability with the investment requirements, estimates of anticipated and recent CAPEX are limited to hardware expenditures only.

Given the available information, estimates of anticipated (2012-2014) and recent (2009-2011) CAPEX which come from government and development partners are shown in Table A2.4. To ensure comparability with the investment re-quirements, estimates of anticipated and recent CAPEX are limited to hardware expenditures only.

The planned spending of users is computed by specify-ing the proportion of investments that the authorities are expecting households to contribute. Table A2.5 shows the proportion of investments that households are expected to contribute. In the absence of an expressed policy, all the proportions used for urban areas were based on the in-formed judgment of the stakeholders who participated in the June 2013 workshop in Jakarta. Users are expected to finance 15% of piped water into dwellings. The amount rep-resents household payments for the connection pipe and meter. The only exception is the contribution of households in SANIMAS projects which is the midpoint of the estimated contribution of the community that was estimated in the lit-erature.70

65 World Bank and AusAID (2013) East Asia Urban Sanitation Flagship Study: Indonesia Country Study, Main Report, February.66 The value used in the analysis, which is at 2012 prices, accounts for changes in the general price level and exchange rate. 67 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.68 Winara, A., G. Hutton, Oktarinda, E. Purnomo, K. Hadiwardoyo, I. Merdykasari, T. Nurmadi, B. Bruinsma, D. Gunawan, D. Fadilah and M. Albrecht (2011) Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.69 Winara, A., G. Hutton, Oktarinda, E. Purnomo, K. Hadiwardoyo, I. Merdykasari, T. Nurmadi, B. Bruinsma, D. Gunawan, D. Fadilah and M. Albrecht (2011) Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.70 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.


Table A2.6 Share of users in capital/development costs, %

Option Rural Urban

Water Supply

Public tap 0% 0%

Piped into dwelling/yard 15% 15%

Tubewell/Borehole 99% n.a.

Improved dug well 99% 99%

Protected spring 99% n.a.

Rainwater 99% n.a.

Sanitationa

Private facility-gooseneck-with treatment 99% 99%

Shared facility-gooseneck-with treatment 99% 99%

SANIMAS na 3%b

a Sewerage systems in urban areas are not included in the table. Such facilities are expected to be initially financed entirely by government/donors/utilities and not by house-holds. b Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.


Annex 3: Comparison with Alternative Estimatesof Investment Requirements

This annex compares the estimates and key assumptions of the SDA costing tool with two studies in the water and sanitation sector in Indonesia. The first study, which pres-ents estimated investment requirements for the water sup-ply sector, provides an investment roadmap for Indonesia (WIRA study team, 2012). The second study, which was conducted by USDP (2012), examines, among others, sani-tation investments. Table A3.1 summarizes the key informa-tion from the current analysis and the two studies.

The WIRA study team (2012) presents an estimated invest-ment requirement of Rp64 trillion from 2011 to 2014. The study asserts that this estimate will lead to 56 million people (41 million with access to piped systems and 15 million with access to non-piped systems) having access to improved water supply services by 2014. It was derived by adding up on the costs of various activities in rural and urban areas.71

Converted into US Dollar and expressed on an annual ba-sis, the costs presented by the WIRA study team ($1.7 bil-lion per year) are much lower than the estimates presented in the current analysis ($4.8 billion per year). There are two factors that might explain this. First, the target adopted in the current analysis suggests that about 29 million people a year will gain access to improved water supply facilities. This is more than twice as many as the estimate of the WIRA study team (56 million in 4 years equals 13.3 million

people per year). Second, the analysis presented by the WIRA study team does not appear to include replacement costs. Removing this item from the estimates of the current analysis reduces the investment requirement to $1.8 billion per year, a figure that is not very different from the values presented by the WIRA study team.

The USDP (2012) calculations assume universal access to improved sanitation by 2035. It estimates costs to be in the order of Rp472 trillion (about $2.5 billion per year) from 2015 to 2035. Estimates in the current analysis ($2.4 billion/year) seem very close to the USDP estimate but this should be viewed with care. The reason is that the USDP invest-ment requirements do not appear to include expenditures for replacing worn-out facilities. Removing these replace-ment costs from the current analysis leads to investments requirements ($1.9 billion per year) that are noticeably lower than USDP estimates. The resulting difference between the two estimates may then be explained in part by examining the technology distribution at the target year. In the current analysis, it is assumed that only about 3.4% of the total population in 2019 (or 8.8 million people) will have access to offsite wastewater treatment facilities by the target year. In contrast, the USDP analysis assumes that about 32% of the 2035 population (95.2 million people) will have access to medium scale decentralized wastewater treatment facili-ties.

71 Table 2 of the WIRA report provides the details.


Table A3.1 Comparison among three studies

Item Current SDA analysis WIRA Study team (2012) USDP analysis (2012)b

Sector of interest Water supply and sanitation Water supply Sanitation

Period of analysis 2011-2019 2011-2014 2015-2035

Access to improved facilities at target year

Water supply: 100% Sanitation: 100%

56 million people or about 68% of the population by end 2014

2035: 100%

Estimated costs (as presented in study) Water supply: $4.75bn/ year ($1.79bn/ year excluding replacement costs)Sanitation: $2.42bn/ year ($1.86bn/ year)

Rp65 trillion for the entire period Rp472 trillion for the entire period

Estimated cost (converted to billion US$/ year)a

Water supply: $4.75bn/ year ($1.79bn/ year excluding replacement costs)Sanitation: $2.42bn/ year ($1.86bn/ year)

$1.73bn/year $2.5bn/year

a Estimates from WIRA and USDP were converted to US$ using the 2012 exchange rate of Rp9386/US$. b USDP estimates are not yet final.


References

Bappenas, BPS and United Nations Population Fund (2005) Proyeksi Penduduk Indonesia (Indonesia Population Projec-tion), Jakarta.

Bappenas, “Perkembangan Kebijakan Penyediaan Air Minum” [Development of Water Provision Policy], can be accessed at http://perkim-Bappenas.info/index.php?prm_page_id=1&prm_id=21&prm_type_id=4&prm_parent_id=20&prm_doc_cat_id=4&prm_text=air_sejarah.php&prm_lbl=Sejarah.

Badan Pusat Statistik [Statistics Indonesia], Socioeconom-ic Survey 2011.

Badan Pusat Statistik [Statistics Indonesia] (2013) Perkem-bangan Beberapa Indikator Utama Social-Ekonomi Indone-sia [Trends of Selected Socio-Economic Indicators of Indo-nesia], Jakarta, May.

BPPSPAM (2011), Laporan Kinerja PDAM [PDAM Perfor-mance Report}.

Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Re-view of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February..http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/pdfs/ISF_VietnamWASH.pdf

Giltner, S and I. Arianto (2011) Rural Latrine Costs in Indo-nesia, UNICEF, Plan Indonesia, ADB and WSP, World Bank, October

Government of Indonesia (1962), Law No 5/1962 on Water Companies (PDAM).

Government of Indonesia (1974), Presidential Decree No. 5/1974 on Household Water and Latrines (SAMIJAGA) Na-tional Program.

Government of Indonesia (1997), Ministry of Health Decree No. 173/Men.Kes/Per/VIII/1977 on Surveillance of Water Polution Related to Health Issues.

Government of Indonesia (1999), Law No. 22/1999 on Local Autonomy.

Government of Indonesia (2004), Law No. 7/2004 on Water Resources.

Government of Indonesia (2005), Government Decree No. 16/2005 on Water Provision Systems. Government of In-donesia (2005), Indonesia Long-Term Development Plan (2005-2025).

Government of Indonesia (2006), Minister of Public Works Regulation No.20/2006 on Water System Management.

Government of Indonesia (2007), Government Decree No. 38/2007 on Demarcation of Roles Between National and Local Government.

Government of Indonesia (2008), Minister of Public Works Decree No. 16/2008 on Policy and National Strategy on Settlements; Sewerage Water System Development.

Government of Indonesia (2008), Minister of Health Decree No.832/2008 on National Community-Based Total Sanita-tion Program.


Government of Indonesia (2009), Law No. 18/2009 on Waste Management.

Government of Indonesia (2009), Law No. 32/2009 on the Protection and Management of Environment.

Government of Indonesia (2009), Presidential Regulation No.29/2009 on Guaranty and Interest Subsidy by National Government to Accelerate Provision of Water Supply. Government of Indonesia (2009), Minister of Finance De-cree No. 229/2009 on Implementation Guideline on the Guaranty and Interest Subsidy by National Government to Accelerate Provision of Water Supply.

Government of Indonesia (2010), Indonesia Mid-Term De-velopment Plan (2010-2014).

Government of Indonesia (2010), Minister of Public Works Decree No. 12/2010 on Water System Business Manage-ment.

Government of Indonesia (2010), Minister of Health Regula-tion No. 736/2010 on Guideline for Water Quality Surveil-lance.

Government of Indonesia (2012), Minister of Public Works Regulation No. 18/2012 on the Guidance for the Manage-ment of Water Provision System Development.

Government of Indonesia (2013), Ministry of Public Works Decree No. 13/PRT/M/2013 on the National Policy and Strategy on Development of Water Provision System.

Government of Indonesia (2013), Minister of Health Regula-tion No. 32/2013 on the Management of Work of the Sani-tarians.

Government of Indonesia (2013), Minister of Home Affairs Decree No. 23/2013 on Guideline on Planning, Controlling and Evaluating Local Development Workplan. Joint Moni-toring Programme (2013), Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.

Joint Monitoring Programme (2009), Report on Intercountry Workshop on Water Supply and Sanitation, Indonesia.

Joint Monitoring Programme (2012), Estimates for the Use of Improved Drinking-Water Sources, Indonesia. Report available at www.wssinfo.org.

Joint Monitoring Programme (2013), Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.

Ministry of Finance (2012), The Indonesian Budget Overview 2011: Sekilas APBN, Dinamika Penganggaran di Indonesia.

Ministry of Health (2010), PHLN Dalam Disparitas Pemban-gunan Kesehatan. Ministry of Health (2011), Indonesia Basic Health Survey 2010.

Ministry of Health (2013), Main Findings of Indonesia Basic Health Survey 2013.

Ministry of Public Works and World Bank (2012), Indonesian Water Investment Roadmap (2011-2014).

Pokja AMPL (2010), Handbook of Water and Environmental Health Policy.

Pokja AMPL (2013), Pokja AMPL Decree No. Kep.38/D.VI/07/2013 on the Establishment of Water and Sanitation Technical Working Group.


Qipra Galang Kualita (2012), Sanitation Personnel: Capacity Development Strategy, Report was prepared for Bappenas, WSP, and AusAID.

United Nations (2012) World Statistics Pocketbook, Depart-ment of Economic and Social Affairs, UN, New York.

Urban Sanitation Development Program (2012) National Sanitation Demand Assessment 2012, Draft report, Novem-ber.

Utomo, Nugrono Tri (2010), Water Investment, published at www.ampl.or.id.

Winara, A., G. Hutton, Oktarinda, E. Purnomo, K. Hadi-wardoyo, I. Merdykasari, T. Nurmadi, B. Bruinsma, D. Gu-nawan, D. Fadilah and M. Albrecht (2011) Economic As-sessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.

WIRA Study team (2012), Indonesia Water Investment Roadmap 2011-2014, World Bank, Ministry of Public Works and Water Partnership Program, January.

World Bank and AusAID (2013), Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study.

World Bank (2013) World Development Indicators, available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF.

WSP (2006), Pathways to Progress, Transitioning to Coun-try-Led Service Delivery Pathways to Meet Africa’s Water Supply and Sanitation Targets. Report available at http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/CSO-Syn-thesis-Report.pdf

WSP (2013), Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia.

WSP (2013), Review of Fecal Sludge Management in 12 Cit-ies, Draft Report.


Water Supply and Sanitationin IndonesiaTurning Finance intoService for the Future

May 2015Service Delivery Assessment

Documents

Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia · and sustainable water supply and sanitation service delivery. The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership, part of the