83877
SEPTEMBER 2013
THE WORLD BANK
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of
the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................................................ iii
Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... vii
1 Overview of the Urban Wastewater Management Sector in Indonesia ........................................................................ 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Sanitation Policy ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Wastewater Management Technology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Social Considerations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Financing........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
1.6 Institutional Arrangements for Sanitation ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
2 Sector Performance Issues Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Drivers and Barriers to Sanitation in Indonesia ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1 Current Drivers to Sanitation Development in Indonesia ................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.2 Current Barriers to Sanitation Development in Indonesia ................................................................................................................ 14
2.2 Key Issues Impacting on Sanitation Provision in Indonesia ........................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Political Economy ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
2.2.2 Financing .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.3 Implementation Capacity ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
2.2.4 Management and Regulation of Sanitation Systems ........................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.5 The Interface between Community-managed and Institutionally-managed Services .................................................. 23
2.2.6 Septage Management ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................... 29
3.1 Policy Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
3.2 Institutional Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Technology Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
3.4 People Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34
3.5 Financing Recommendations........................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
i
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Annex 1: Sector Performance in Indonesia ............................................................................................................................................................................ 39
Annex 2 – City Case Studies............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 41
Annex 2.1 -- Case Study: Banjarmasin Municipality ............................................................................................................................................ 43
Annex 2.2 -- Case Study: Medan Municipality ........................................................................................................................................................ 45
Annex 2.3 -- Case Study: Surakarta Municipality ................................................................................................................................................... 47
Annex 2.4 -- Case Study: Palembang Municipality .............................................................................................................................................. 50
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 51
BOXES
Box 2.1 Comparison of Indonesian Experience with that of Selected Latin American Countries ............................................ 16
Box 2.2 Political Economy of Sanitation in Indonesia ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Box 2.3 Investment in Indonesia’s Water Sector ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
Box 2.4 Decentralized Sewerage Systems in Malang ........................................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURES
Figure 1: Wastewater and Septage Flow in Urban Indonesia ............................................................................................................................. viii
Figure 1.1: History of Sanitation Development in Indonesia .................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 1.2: Individual, Community and Institutional-based Sanitation Approaches ............................................................................... 4
Figure 1.3: Wastewater and Septage Flow in Urban Indonesia ............................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 1.4: Total National Government Sanitation Budget (2006-2012) .......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.1: Weaknesses in Local Government Sanitation Service Delivery .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.2: Proposed Arrangements for Local Governance of Sanitation Systems ................................................................................... 22
TABLES
Table 1.1: Sewerage Systems in Indonesia ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 1.2: Sewerage Coverage in Asia ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Table 1.3: Projected Financing Allocations for Sanitation ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Table A1.1: Indonesia Urban Wastewater Sector Performance ............................................................................................................................... 39
Table A2.1: Overview of Select Urban Centers in Indonesia ..................................................................................................................................... 41
ii
Acknowledgments
This country report on Indonesia provides the background have been provided by the following staff from the Bank and
for the Urban Sanitation Review for the East Asia and Pacif- the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP): Victor Vazquez Al-
ic Region. The country report was prepared through a con- varez, Irma Magdalena Setiono, George Soraya, Fook Chuan
sultative process in Indonesia which included meetings with Eng, Richard Pollard, Demilour Reyes Ignacio, Almud Weitz,
central and local government authorities, review of sanitation Eduardo Perez, Alexander Danilenko, and Isabel Blackett. Im-
operations in the cities of Medan, Surakarta, Palembang, and portant contributions were also made by a team of consul-
Banjarmasin, and a workshop that was held in Jakarta on Feb- tants, including: Enrico Rahadi Djonoputro, Risyana Sukarma,
ruary 21, 2013. This report has been prepared with the finan- Eric Buhl-Nielsen, and Mara Baranson. The peer reviewers for
cial support of an AusAID grant. this report were Eduardo Perez and Michael John Webster.
The Task Team Leader (TTL) for this task is Sudipto Sarkar and The task team for this report greatly appreciates the technical
the Sector Managers for the product are Charles Feinstein and contributions made by the various stakeholders who were
Nathan Belete. The previous TTL was Alan Coulthart. The main consulted during the preparation of the report and the finan-
author of this report is Ross Kearton (consultant) and inputs cial support provided by AusAID.
iii
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
iv
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADB Asian Development Bank IDR Indonesian Rupiah
AKKOPSI Asosiasi Kabupaten Kota Peduli Sanitasi IPLT Instalasi Pengolahan Lumpur Tinja (Septage
(Association of Cities and Districts Concerned Treatment Plant)
about Sanitation) ITB Institut Teknologi Bandung (Bandung Institute of
AMPL Air Minum dan Penyehatan Lingkungan Technology)
(National Steering Committee for Drinking IUIDP Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development
Water and Environmental Health Program
APBD Anggaran Pendapatan Belanja Daerah (Local IUWASH Indonesia Urban Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Government Budget) Project
APBN Anggaran Pendapatan Belanja Negara (National ISSDP Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development
Budget Funding) Program
AusAID Australian Agency for International JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
Development JMP Joint Monitoring Program
BAPPEDA Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah JWSRB Jakarta Water Supply Regulatory Body
(Regional Agency for Planning and KLH Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (Ministry of
Development) Environment)
BAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional MCK/MCK+ Mandi Cuci Kakus (communal toilets)/MCK +
(National Development Planning Agency) primary treatment system
BLH Badan Lingkungan Hidup (Local Environmental MDG Millennium Development Goals
Agency) MLD Megaliters (or Million Liters) Per Day
BLUD Badan Layanan Umum Daerah (Local Service MOF Ministry of Finance
Delivery Agency) MOH Ministry of Health
BPLHD Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup Daerah MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs
(Provincial Environmental Agency) MPW Ministry of Public Works
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand MSMIP Metropolitan Sanitation Management
BORDA Bremen Overseas Research and Development Investment Project
Association NGO Non-Government Organization
Cipta Karya Directorate General of Human Settlements ODF Open Defecation Free
DAK Dana Alokasi Khusus (Special Budget Allocation O&M Operation and Maintenance
for Local Government) PDAM Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (Local
DEWATS Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems Government Owned Water Utility)
DK Dinas Kebersihan (City Cleaning Department) PD PAL Perusahaan Daerah Pengelolaan Air Limbah
GDP Gross Domestic Product (Local Government Owned Wastewater
GOI Government of Indonesia Utility)
HIS Health Information System POKJA Working Group
IDB Islamic Development Bank PP Peraturan Pemerintah (Government Regulation)
v
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
PPP Public Private Partnerships
PPSP Program Percepatan Pembangunan Sanitasi
Perkotaan (Road Map for Acceleration of Urban
Sanitation Development)
PROKASIH Program Kali Bersih (Clean River Program)
PROPER Program for Pollution Control Evaluation and
Rating
RBC Rotating Biological Contactor
RPJMN Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah
Nasional (Medium Term Development Plan)
sAIIG Australia Indonesia Grant for Sanitation
SANIMAS Sanitasi Oleh Masyarakat (Sanitation by
Communities)
SDO Service Delivery Organization
SKPD Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah (Regional
Working Unit)
SS Suspended Solids
SSK City Sanitation Strategy
STBM Sanitasi Total Berbasis Masyarakat (National
Strategy for Community Based Total Sanitation)
UASB Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UPTD Unit Pelaksana Teknis Daerah (Regional
Technical Implementation Unit)
USAID United States Agency for International
Development
USD US Dollar currency
USDP Urban Sanitation Development Program
WASPOLA Water and Sanitation Sector Policy Formulation
and Action Planning Project
WHO World Health Organization
WSP Water and Sanitation Program
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
vi
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary is organized into three sections: Sec- the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program estimates that
tor Performance Overview, Sector Analysis (covering people Indonesia lost IDR56 trillion (USD6.3 billion) in 2007 due to
aspects, technology, governance, and finance), and Recom- poor sanitation and hygiene, equivalent to about 2.3 percent
mendations. of the country’s gross domestic product.
A. Sector Performance Overview Beginning in 2000, the central government, coordinated
by BAPPENAS,2 embarked on a series of initiatives to re-
This Indonesia Country Study forms part of the East Asia form water supply and sanitation sector policies. These
Urban Sanitation Review. The Review focuses on three of reforms were aligned with decentralization which devolved
the emerging middle income countries of East Asia: Indone- responsibility for sanitation to the local government. The fol-
sia, Philippines and Vietnam. The Reviewwill develop a region- lowing has been achieved:
al strategic framework to help guide national urban sanitation
programs and their implementation in these emerging mid- • establishment of the Acceleration of Urban Sanitation De-
dle income countries. velopment Program (PPSP) to assist local governments in
comprehensive citywide sanitation planning through the
Almost half of Indonesia’s population of 245 million peo- preparation of City Sanitation Strategies (SSK). As of mid-
ple lives in urban areas and their need for safe wastewa- 2012, 240 cities and regencies have prepared SSKs, and 330
ter management services are growing rapidly. The majori- of the 496 local governments in Indonesia are expected to
ty of urban households and businesses in Indonesia use septic complete them by 2014;
tanks for wastewater disposal, and the use of water-flush toi-
lets is common. About 14 percent of urban dwellers still prac- • inclusion in the 2010-2014 Medium Term Development
tice open defecation. Although access to improved sanitation Plan of sanitation targets: (a) Indonesia to be 100 percen-
in urban Indonesia was about 73 percent in 2010, this only tOpen Defecation Free; (b) 10 percent of the total popula-
considers the basic criteria of access to a facility as defined tion to be using off-site wastewater management systems;
by the World Health Organization (WHO) Joint Monitoring and (c) 90 percent of the population to have improved on-
Program (JPM) and not safe collection and disposal of waste- site or shared facilities;
water and septage, which is only 1 percent and 4 percent, re-
spectively. This coverage is significantly lower than in other • a total of approximately 1700 decentralized wastewater
East Asian countries despite Indonesia having experienced treatment systems (DEWATS) constructed countrywide
significant economic growth in recent years, surpassing many with another 4,000 DEWATS systems planned to be imple-
of its neighboring countries. The economic impacts of poor mented by 2015;
sanitation1 in Indonesia are significant. A study carried out by
1
Note that in the context of Indonesia, sanitation covers wastewater management, solid waste and urban drainage.
2
The National Development Planning Agency.
vii
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
• centralized sewerage systems planned for an additional tage is treated despite almost 150 septage treatment
five cities such that 32 million people or 15 percent of the plants having been constructed during the past 20 years.
population in 16 cities will be covered by centralized sew-
erage systems; • The urban poor suffer disproportionately from the low
sanitation coverage, having less coping mechanisms than
• national government expenditure on sanitation increased those with higher incomes – open defecation is still 14
eightfold between 2006 and 2012, from IDR540 –IDR4,200 percent in urban communities.
billion; and
• Over 300 city sanitation strategies (SSKs) and sanitation in-
• the Association of Cities and Districts Concerned about vestment plans have now been prepared by local govern-
Sanitation in Indonesia (AKKOPSI, established in 2011) now ments and these plans will require an exponential increase
comprises over 200 cities. Members of AKKOPSI have com- in financing over the next five years to implement.
mitted to allocating at least 2 percentof their budget to
sanitation in the future. • The governance arrangements for sanitation service deliv-
ery at local government level are not well developed with
Despite these impressive initiatives, urban sanitation no clear service provider and no organization to regulate
(particularly wastewater management) continues to per- the equitable delivery of services.
form inadequately and faces critical issues that need to
be urgently addressed, as follows: • Development of the centralized sewerage systems in
the 12 towns with sewerage has been problematic with
• The total amount of urban wastewater being treated is a seeming mismatch of demand and supply. There are a
only 115 million liters per day (MLD), or approximately 1 total of less than 200,000 connections and the rate of in-
percent of the total urban wastewater produced (Figure 1). creasing connections has been extremely slow; treatment
plants are less than 50 percent utilized and collection ef-
• While over 60 percent of the urban population has flush ficiency in some cities is as low as 30 percent,with only
toilets discharging to septic tanks, only 4 percent of sep- Bandung and Jakarta achieving cost recovery.
FIGURE 1: Wastewater and Septage Flow in Urban Indonesia
Direct Sewerage
(No Septic Tank)
<1% Total
Wastewater Wastewater
Safely Collected Treated
Septic Tanks 1%
with Sewerage
<0.5%
Communal
Toilets
0%
Septage Safely
Septage
Urban Disposed/Treated
Safely Collected
Septic Tanks 4%
Population
110 Million No Sewerage
62%
Septage and
Wastewater
Other On Site Unsafely
<23% Disposed
Open
Defecation
14%
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The many Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems B.2 Technology
(DEWATS) constructed across the country have been well
received by communities, but the public facilities suffer The support needs at the interface between communi-
from reduced utilization over time, the systems do not ty-managed and institutionally-managed services have
produce a high quality effluent, and the community man- not generally been addressed. The Road Map for Acceler-
agement lacks expertise to address technical issues. There ation of Urban Sanitation Development (Program Percepatan
is also some concern with the sustainability of the DEWATS Pembangunan Sanitasi Perkotaan, or PPSP strategy of invest-
as the revenue generated from customer fees is usually ing in small communal systems that can eventually be inte-
inadequate to cover major costs. Furthermore, these DE- grated with a central piped sewerage network makes good
WATS cannot be scaled up to meet the huge demand to economic sense in principle, but it is not simply a matter of
treat more wastewater and septage. local governments divesting responsibility to community
groups until a sewerage system is developed. The DEWATS
B. Sector Analysis program requires substantial investment in facilitation and
technical collaboration between local government agencies
Given the commitment of the Indonesian government to im- and communities to ensure that the systems are effectively
prove sanitation and meet its ambitious targets in the sector, used and sustainably maintained.
consideration has been given to what is needed to address
the issues that are constraining development of the sector. On a citywide basis, there are a range of sanitation solu-
The findings are presented in terms of people, technology, tions appropriate for different socio-economic, topo-
governance and finance. graphic and demographic areas across the city. Compre-
hensive, citywide planning through the SSKswill outline areas
B.1 People Aspects suitable for centralized sewerage, those areas where DEWATS
is appropriate, those where on-site solutions will remain for
Public awareness of the broader public health and envi- the foreseeable future as well asidentify the low income com-
ronmental benefits of more comprehensively and effec- munities where immediate support is needed. The current
tively managing wastewater is limited. In consonance with DEWATS program under PPSP in principle offers communities
long-standing Indonesian government concepts, wastewater a choice of options: MCK+ (Mandi Cuci Kakus [i.e., communal
management is popularly understood to be a private rather toilets] plus primary treatment system) with a communal sep-
than a public responsibility. This has resulted in substantial in- tic tank or simplified sewer systems connected to a commu-
vestments by people at the household level through on-site nal septic tank. In the longer term, simplified sewer systems
infrastructure such as septic tanks but there is unwillingness are more easily adapted to conventional sewer networks, and
to pay for wastewater services that benefit the community as they offer a level of service – house connections and the elim-
a whole. ination of household septic tanks – that households want.
However, the use of DEWATS systems should be evaluated in
There are capacity constraints at all levels. Increasing terms of the comparative costs with centralized systems, the
sanitation coverage will require far more resource mobiliza- suitability of the quality of effluent produced and the labor-in-
tion than simply increasing budget allocations and donor tensive project preparation and operating requirements. For
investment in sanitation. There are major gaps between the poor communities residing in areas where conventional sew-
demand and supply of facilitators forcommunal DEWATS sys- erage is difficult to provide, such as in low lying areas along
tems and for hygiene behavior (STBM),3 both in the short term river banks or mountainous terrain, innovative on-site solu-
and in the medium-term. Shortages of personnel will also tions need to be developed.
emerge for operators to run and maintain both the central-
ized and decentralized sanitation facilities across the country. Increasing coverage in highly urbanized areas with sep-
While graduates from environmental engineering programs arate, centralized systems requires huge investment
can be expected to fill the demand for technical personnel, and is also constrained by the difficulty in encouraging
environmental engineering does not attract a large number households to connect. This can be addressed through a
of university students. More comprehensive training courses phased approach. Initially, the septic tanks would be retained,
are required to make the sector more attractive and to ad- and a combined systems approach adopted, intercepting ex-
dress the gaps in competencies. isting drains through storm overflow interceptors and treat-
3
Sanitasi Total Berbasis Masyarakat which is the National Strategy for Community Based Total Sanitation.
ix
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
ing the combined flows before the wastewater enters the • use of evidence-based analysis to create demand for
major water bodies. Over time the combined systems could sanitation at the central and local government levels and
be upgraded to separate systems as further finance becomes with civil society and the private sector as well as within
available and as community awareness and behavior change the community;
approaches increase the willingness to connect.
• creating demand and accountability for sanitation, a
Septic tanks will continue to be the primary means of slow public demand for sanitation is usually cited as a criti-
household wastewater disposal for the foreseeable fu- cal factor in the slow development of sanitation infrastruc-
ture. However, previous attempts at implementing septage ture in Indonesia. The PPSP and SSK have assisted in de-
management programs in Indonesia have not been suc- veloping awareness and helped to create ‘champions’ for
cessful primarily due to the lack of incentive for residents to sanitation development. Deliberate linking of wastewater
have their tanks de-sludged and for the operators to correct- with drainage and solid waste also helps to create demand
ly dispose of septage at treatment facilities. There are many as historically these have been greater drivers of communi-
constraints to the development of an effective septage ty demand than wastewater;
management program -- from lack of enforcement of septic
tank design and construction standards to the lack of a legal, • building effective partnerships. Ensuring high levels of
institutional or financing framework for septage collection, national and local government ownership of both the pro-
treatment and disposal. Some of the areas that need to be cess and investments through a flexible and collaborative
addressed in the development of a more effective septage approach increases the appropriateness and sustainability
management program are: of investments. At the local level, civil society involvement
can increase commitment and sustainability of local gov-
• policy framework and enforcement through the pass- ernment and the communities; and
ing and enforcement of local government ordinances
for proper design, construction and regular desludging • public debate and communication. Effective communi-
of septic tanks, accompanied by a charging regime that cation is needed to generate demand for sanitation across
removes the disincentives both at the householder and all socio-economic groups within cities or communities.
operator level; Media interest in covering sanitation could be increased
further by reframing it as a public interest issue (e.g., em-
• institutional arrangements and capacity, involving es- phasizing risk and benefits) rather than as a technical issue
tablishment of sustainable institutional arrangements at and providing solid, appropriate evidence of the impact of
the local government level for septage management, in- poor sanitation.
cluding private sector participation, accompanied by ca-
pacity building; and Currently, there is no clear approach to ensuring profes-
sional management and regulation of wastewater sys-
• funding for septage management. After demonstrating tems. In order to encourage increased demand from the pub-
the financial viability of septage management programs, lic for the provision of sanitation services, management needs
local governments should be encouraged to fund septage to be more about service delivery than providing infrastruc-
management programs either through local budgets or ture. This requires the establishment by local government of a
low interest loans. Service Delivery Organization (SDO), autonomous from local
government operating with a ‘performance agreement’ that
B.3 Governance will set out their authority and accountability with respect
to the local government, how performance is assessed, how
The decision-making process has been sub-optimal lead- they are paid, the consequences of failing to perform and
ing to the current status of sanitation in Indonesia. Eco- how accountability will be enforced. This SDO should be re-
nomic evidence of the cost of poor sanitation has played a sponsible for management of all sanitation components in-
key role in influencing BAPPENAS, the Ministry of Public Works cluding DEWATS, sewerage and septage management.
(MPW) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) in particular to take
a more proactive role in sanitation. And, the SSK preparation B.4 Finance
process has resulted in strong political buy-in in many munic-
ipalities. Nevertheless, achieving progress has been challeng- Although both national and local budget allocations for
ing. Some of the key issues are: urban sanitation have risen dramatically since 2010, the
needs are very large. This will be particularly critical during
• sequencing of investments and operations to ensure that 2015-19 when investment plans prepared by over 200 cities
appropriate institutional arrangements are in place before under their SSKs will need to be implemented. The total invest-
contemplating major investment in the sector; ment required to achieve “full” sanitation coverage over twenty
x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
years in the 330 cities and urbanized districts targeted under lation and ordinances, institutional arrangements, local
PPSP is estimated to be USD29 billion.4 Clearly, an incremental financing and charging mechanisms.
approach will be required. Central government needs to devel-
op an investment framework that defines central government • Conduct comprehensive citywide sanitation planning to
grant contribution to sanitation and the expectations of financ- identify areas for centralized sewerage, DEWATS, on-site
ing by local government. Local governments need to be more solutions and introducing innovative approaches to pro-
proactive in accessing finance, including borrowing, and may vide services for the urban poor. The options selected
need technical assistance in these areas. should be justified on economic grounds, taking into ac-
count the capital and operating expenditures.
Currently, most central government funding is directed
towards DEWATS. Since central government grant funding is • To increase coverage, the central government needs to
likely to remain as the major source of financing, it will need to re-direct financing to the implementation of centralized
be directed towards centralized systems in highly urbanized systems in highly urbanised areas, while ensuring priority
areas, including low income areas, if coverage is to increase is given to sanitation for the urban poor.
significantly. Support for DEWATS and on-site systems should
continue, but there should be a clear plan on how the issues • The DEWATS program should be considered in the con-
of DEWATS would be addressed, especially issues related to text of comparative costs with other alternatives, effluent
achieving sustainable sanitation operations and scaling-up quality produced and operations and maintenance (O&M)
services to meet the needs of the country. arrangements.
Cost recovery from centralized sewerage systems is poor • Wastewater service providers need to aim for cost recov-
and from DEWATS systems rarely sufficient for sustain- ery by implementation of ‘polluter pays’ principles through
able operations. The poor cost recovery is related to low uti- appropriate wastewater tariff structures, effluent discharge
lization of the systems and it is probably most effective in the fees or through other means such as property taxes or oth-
short term to require all households with access to a sewer- er utility fees (e.g., water and electricity).
age system to pay the same tariff, whether connected or not.
There is a need to assess and consider alternative approaches • Central government needs to develop a public expendi-
to wastewater tariffs such as the introduction of a ‘polluters ture framework for sanitation and assist local governments
pay’ policy or including a sanitation fee as part of the water in raising finance for sanitation interventions. An insti-
supply or power charges. tutional framework for managing sanitation by the local
government needs to be established that will separate the
C. Recommendations roles of Owner, Service Provider and Regulator. This frame-
work should cover all sanitation services associated with
The following outlines recommendations to address the wastewater; DEWATS, septage management and sewer-
critical issues that face wastewater management in Indo- age.
nesia. Ways to address specific sector issues are outlined in
the matrix below: • Demand by the community for wastewater management
needs to be increased by improved focus on service de-
• All local governments need to develop septage manage- livery, awareness campaigns to promote behavior change
ment programs through introducing appropriate legis- and appropriate tariff structures.
4
USDP Presentation on the PPSP, of which 40 percent is for wastewater.
xi
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
Summary of Key Issues and Recommendations
Issue Recommendations to Address Issues
64 percent of urban house- 1. Implement program to conduct advocacy on effective septage management, possibly through
holds have septic tanks, but AKKOPSI/CSS.
only 4 percent of septage is 2. Local government to prepare and implement septage management plans and develop viable
treated. For the foreseeable fu- operations for septage management.
ture, about 90 percent of urban 3. Local government to prepare city ordinances requiring regular de-sludging, septic tank retrofit-
households will have on-site ting, proper disposal of septage.
sanitation. 4. Local government to establish septage management institutional arrangements.
5. Local government to introduce an environmental fee on households to cover the cost of desludg-
ing services and septage treatment.
6. Provide financial support for septic tank retrofitting, where required, through Service Provider,
micro-financing, etc.
Less than 1 percent of urban 1. Conduct citywide sanitation planning through SSK, focusing on the development of centralized
wastewater is currently treated systems in highly urbanized areas while ensuring that low income communities and eradication of
open defecation are prioritized.
2. Continue DEWATS program in locations where centralized systems not viable, but with consider-
ation of comparative costs, required effluent quality and O&M constraints.
3. Focus future DEWATS approach on provision of decentralized systems with sewerage networks
rather than on MCKs.
4. Expand coverage of centralized sewerage more rapidly through a staged approach initially using
combined sewerage and interceptors before transitioning to separate systems.
5. Design treatment facilities and set effluent standards to take account of influent and receiving
water quality.
Huge investment is 1. Central government to develop a well-defined public expenditure framework and clearly articulat-
needed for 2014-2019 to ed financing policy with sources of financing identified.
implement current local 2. Provide technical assistance to local governments to assist in accessing finance for sanitation.
government sanitation 3. Central government budget to transition to funding primarily centralized systems.
investment plans and for long 4. DEWATS should be primarily financed by local government.
term
No clear institutional framework 1. Central government to develop guidelines for local government management of wastewater
for wastewater management at services focusing on service delivery to customers.
local government level 2. One Service Provider to have overall responsibility for wastewater infrastructure including central-
ized sewerage, DEWATS and septage management.
3. Regulatory arrangements to be developed for wastewater services, including tariff structures
whereby consumer fees cover operating costs.
4. Professionalize the sector by developing additional training and licensing programs for specific
skills areas.
5. Private sector to be encouraged to take on the role of Service Provider for all or part of a wastewa-
ter system.
Low utilization of existing 1. Feasibility studies for wastewater management to include real demand surveys.
sanitation systems – mismatch 2. Build public awareness on sanitation benefits to influence behavior change through government
of demand and supply. and civil society interventions.
3. Tariff or environmental fee structure to be adopted requiring all households to pay whether con-
nected or not, but allowing cross-subsidies for low income households.
4. Low income households to be supported with connection fees, including through micro-financ-
ing.
5. Service Provider to undertake intensive demand creation campaign to accelerate the connection
rate (Banjarmasin example).
xii
I. Overview of the Urban Wastewater
Management Sector in Indonesia
1.1 Background nesia is that sanitation or sanitasi is understood to cover solid
waste and drainage, as well as wastewater management. The
With a population of about 245 million people, Indo- terms ‘sanitation’ and ‘wastewater management’ therefore
nesia is the world’s fourth most populous country. Al- need to be understood in this particular context.
most half of the population lives in urban areas; with an
urban growth rate averaging 3.3 percent per year in 2011, Coverage of wastewater in urban centers in Indonesia is
the proportion of urban dwellers and their need for waste- still very low. Despite increasing interest in sanitation, pub-
water management services are growing rapidly. Although lic investment in the sector has remained extremely low.Be-
Indonesia is on track to meet the Milennium Development tween 1970 and 2000, government spending on sanitation
Goal (MDG) targets, collection and treatment of septage and averaged just IDR200/person/year (USD0.021/person/year).
wastewater need attention. Sanitation sector performance Before 1980, only four cities had centralized sewerage systems
is shown in Annex 1. that were constructed during the Dutch colonial period. By
2012 still only twelve cities5 out of Indonesia’s 98 municipali-
Historically, wastewater management in Indonesia has ties6 had centralized systems (Table 1.1). Most of these cover
been viewed as a household or private sector responsi- only a small fraction of the urban areas and are under-used.7
bility; as a consequence, public investment in sanitation infra- For example, in Jakarta, the nation’s capital and largest city,
structure or services was negligible. Following independence with an official population exceeding 10 million inhabitants
in 1945, the primary focus of government was on building the (Metro Jakarta is over 28 million), the city’s sewerage system
nation and achieving economic growth, while the provision covers only about 2 percent of the city population,8 with a
of basic services was not a priority for public expenditure. In focus on commercial connections to hotels, apartments and
the 1970s concern about health and welfare impacts on eco- offices in the central business district.
nomic development led to increased investment in health
programs, with limited investment in top-down projects for The history of sanitation development in Indonesia is shown
sanitation infrastructure. One important distinction in Indo- in Figure 1.1.
5
These are Balikpapan, Banjarmasin, Bandung, Batam, Cirebon, Jakarta, Medan, Prapat, Surakarta, Tanggerang, Yogyakarta, and Denpasar).
6
In 2012_ Indonesia had a total of 529 “autonomous regions”: 33 provinces, 398 regencies, and 98 municipalities.
7
The twelve municipal sewer systems plus a limited number of private housing estates have an estimated 200,000 connectionsin 2012, potentially serving approximately 1.1 million
people.
8
Concept and Strategy for Wastewater Management of Jakarta; PD PAL Jaya.
1
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
TABLE 1.1: Sewerage Systems in Indonesia (2012)
City System Total Capacity (m3/day) Used Capacity (m3/day) House Connections
Medan UASB (Upflow Anaerobic 10,000 5,650 12,370
Sludge Blanket)
Prapat Aerated Lagoon 2,000 115 253
DKI Jakarta Aerated Lagoon 38,880 704 1,407
Bandung Anaerobic, Facultative & 243,000 49,769 99,538
Maturation Pond Installed 80,835
Cirebon Anaerobic, Facultative & 24,566 9,667 13,165
Maturation Pond Installed 20,547 waiting list 14,585
Yogyakarta Aerated Lagoon 15,500 7,314 11,000
Surakarta Aerob Facultative & 9,504 6,325 11,978
Biofilter
Bali Aerated Lagoon 51,000 31,185 8,647
on DSDP II target 15,000
Banjarmasin RBC 10,000 2,568 8,968
Balikpapan Extended Aeration 800 800 1,452
Tangerang Oxidation Ditch 2,700 600 1,200
Batam Oxidation Ditch 2,852 150 300
FIGURE 1.1: History of Sanitation Development in Indonesia
Building the nation Project Implementation without
Increased national-level
and achieving involving or considering LG Medium Term Development Plan
interest in sanitation.
economic growth. capacity or community needs. 2004-2009: expressed direction for the WSS
sector. Priority minimum service and reform
packages were defined, as were
responsibilities.
ISSDP PPSP/USDP
1945 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Sanitation $0.02/cap $0.2/cap $0.5/cap Target $5.0/cap
Investment
Sewerage 4 systems +2 systems +6 systems
System
Indonesia Sanitation Summit City Sanitation Conference: Collaboration Central government financing for
is an important event to with local government strengthened to the sector started to increase
improve services accelerate sanitation achievement
9
Prapat is shown separately in the table, although it is operated by the same utility as Medan, PDAM Tirta Nadi which is the only provincial water authority in the country. Medan and
Prapat are therefore considered to be one system in some documents.
2
OVERVIEW OF THE URBAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SECTOR IN INDONESIA
The majority of urban households and businesses in In- stormwater and wastewater drains and treatment machinery.
donesia use septic tanks10 for wastewater disposal, and Solid waste management is an important issue that must be
the use of manual water-flush toilets is common. About 14 addressed in any comprehensive sanitation strategy for Indo-
percent of urban dwellers still practice open defecation. Over- nesia.
all, access to improved sanitation11 in urban Indonesia was
about 73 percent in 2010 with an additional 10 percent of the The economic impacts of poor sanitation in Indonesia
population sharing improved facilities. This coverage is sig- are significant. A study carried out by the World Bank’s Water
nificantly lower than other East Asian countries. In Southeast and Sanitation Program (WSP) estimates that Indonesia lost
Asia, only Cambodia and Timor-Leste are on a par with Indo- IDR56 trillion (USD6.3 billion) in 2007 due to poor sanitation
nesia (see Table 1.2 below). Even these figures likely overstate and hygiene, which is equivalent to about 2.3 percent of the
the limited extent of ‘improved sanitation’ in urban Indonesia gross domestic product (GDP).13 In urban areas, the per cap-
because the term ‘improved’ only refers to types of sanita- ita cost of poor sanitation and hygiene amounts to about
tion facilities used but not to methods for sludge or effluent IDR275,000 (USD31.10) per annum. In recent years, awareness
management. Many improved toilets may provide little or no of the economic importance of wastewater management
effective septage treatment and therefore retain most of the and government interest in investing in improvements have
harmful public health, economic, and environmental impacts risen significantly, as described in the following sections of
of unimproved sanitation. this Study.
TABLE 1.2: Sewerage Coverage in Asia 1.2 Sanitation Policy
Percentage of Populations Connected to a Sewer System
Selected Cities in Asia12
Following Indonesia’s return to democracy in the late
1990s and subsequent decentralization, the responsibil-
Vientiane 0 ity for investment in municipal infrastructure and pro-
Jakarta 2.0 vision of services was transferred to local governments.
Current laws specify the responsibilities of local governments
Manila 7 (Law 32/2004 on regional governance) and outline the prin-
cipal mechanisms for fiscal transfers (Law 33/2004 on fiscal
Ho Chi Minh City 29
balance). A more specific allocation of functions can be found
Dhaka 30 in Government Regulation (PP)14 38/2007, and the role of
provinces is clarified in PP 19/2010.
Phnom Penh 41
Delhi 60 Beginning in 2000, the central government, with donor
support, embarked on a series of initiatives to analyze
Kuala Lumpur 80 and reform water supply and sanitation sector policies
aligning these with decentralization mechanisms. This
In Indonesian cities, improvements to wastewater man- led to a sectoral and departmental dichotomy with func-
agement and drainage are inseparably linked with solid tions based on responsibilities rather than administrative
waste management. In Jakarta alone, the city estimates that boundaries or population density. By 2006, separate but
6,500 tons of solid waste is produced daily, of which about 70 complementary draft policies for community-managed and
percent is collected. Most of the remainder,and some collect- institutionally-managed services were prepared and these
ed waste, ends up in the wastewater and stormwater drains are still under discussion. The approaches for individual,
of Jakarta. This jeopardizes the very limited wastewater collec- community, and institutionally managed services are shown
tion and treatment systems that are in place by obstructing in Figure 1.2 below.
10
As discussed further in these reports many of these ‘septic tanks’ are open bottomed pits or cubluks, often with direct connection to waterways. Even correctly designed septic tanks
do not usually have absorption trenches but discharge directly to the stormwater drainage system.
11
Access to improved sanitation is defined as access to facilities that hygienically separate human excreta from human contact, consistent with the Joint Monitoring Program for the
MDGs.
12
Asian Development Bank, 2007
13
Economic Impacts of Sanitation in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, 2008
14
A Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) is a national government regulation, but not a law.
3
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
FIGURE 1.2: Individual, Community and Institutional-based Sanitation Approaches15
Approach Community Based Institutional Based
Level Neighborhood City Wide Regional/National
Adequate Sanitation: Wastewater infrastructure services Wastewater infrastructures
1. Rural based on deman responsive approach development support inter cities/region
2. Slum Area coordination to protect watershed
from human waste pollution
· Metropolitan & Large Cities
On-site Sanitation: Off-site/sewerage system
Small Scale
Clean River Program
Community Sewerage · Medium & Small Cities
(PROKASIH) or other similar program
System (SANIMAS) - Integrated system of existing on-site
and new off-site sanitation
- Improved Setage Treatment Plant
(IPLT) and sludge services
- Shallow/small bore sewer or small
scale sewerage integrated to municipal
sewage system to support
revitalization program for old cities
· New Town
- Develop a small sewage system for
Low Cost Housing Area
- Encourage sewerage development for
new town
The national Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMN) average of 78 percent of inhabitants to have access to
for 2010–2014 outlines key constraints to be addressed improved sanitation in urban areas by the year 2015. This
during the planning period. These are: inadequate regula- is reflected in the National Policy and Strategies on Domestic
tory instruments, low awareness of the importance and value Wastewater Management issued by the MPW in 2008 (Per-
of good wastewater management, limited local capacity to MenPU 16/2008) andrepresents roughly a 10 percent increase
manage wastewater, lack of strategies and master plans, and in coverage from the 2009 estimates. To help achieve the RP-
limited funding. The Plan provides the following targets to be JMN and MDG targets, in 2010 the Government launched the
achieved by the end of 2014: Roadmap for Acceleration of Urban Sanitation Development
(PPSP) for the period 2010-2014, prepared by the inter-sec-
a. Indonesia is to be 100 percent Open Defecation Free (ODF); toral National Working Group for Drinking Water and Sanitation
(POKJA-AMPL) under the leadership of the National Develop-
b. Ten percent of the total population is to use off-site waste- ment Planning Agency (BAPPENAS).
water management systems, either conventional piped
sewer systems with treatment plants, or community-man- The basic planning and policy tool for implementing
aged simplified sewer systems with communal septic PPSP is the City Sanitation Strategy (SSK), which is pre-
tanks (DEWATS); and pared by local governments through a highly consultative
process that lays out a process for strategic planning, financ-
c. The remaining 90 percentof the total population will have ing, and implementation of sanitation improvements. As of
access to improved on-site private or shared sanitation fa- mid-2012, 240 cities and regencies have prepared SSKs, and
cilities. 330 of the 496 local governments in Indonesia are expected
to complete them by 2014. There are 160 local governments
Indonesia’s Millennium Development Goal target for designated as “priority SSKs” that are in an advanced stage for
sanitation is somewhat less ambitious, with a targeted investment and implementation from 2012 onward.
15
Directorate General Cipta Karya, Ministry of Public Works, 2012
4
OVERVIEW OF THE URBAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SECTOR IN INDONESIA
Other PPSP targets include the complete elimination of public institutions, building the capacity of local agencies to
open defecation in Indonesia, and increasing the number of implement programs, and by improving the service supply
sewer connections and associated sewerage and wastewa- chain, mainly in the private sector.
ter treatment capacity to reach an additional 5 percent of the
total urban population (or five million people) in 16 cities. In While there are national-level initiatives in place, they are
addition, the ongoing DEWATS/SANIMAS16 program to ex- not yet underpinned by sufficient national or local legis-
pand community-managed sanitation facilities will build an lation to allow them to be effectively enforced. No formal,
estimated 5,000 additional community-managed simplified comprehensive national policy on sanitation has been pro-
sewer systems, each serving about 80 households (about 2 mulgated in Indonesia, although a de facto policy is defined
million people in total) in 226 priority cities. in the RPJMN (prepared by the Government every five years)
and in PerMenPU 16/2008 issued in 2008 by MPW. The only
Under PPSP, ten to fifteen million people are anticipat- national law pertaining to wastewater policy is Law Number
ed to be served by community-managed DEWATS and 7/2004 on Water Resources. Article 21 of the law states that
the remaining urban dwellers are expected to have private the protection and conservation of water resources should
on-site services using effectively functioning septic tanks. The be achieved through management of sanitation facilities and
target for DEWATS assumes an average of 80-100 households infrastructure. The MPW regulation states that any local gov-
will be served by each system. This will require about 30,000 ernment that has not issued local regulations on wastewater
DEWATS/SANIMAS (primary treatment systems) be built in management must do so, and local regulations, whether ex-
330 cities and urbanized districts over five years, or about 20 isting or new, must be consistent with the ministerial regu-
DEWATS in each city or district per year. There are, however, lation. The regulation proposes joint responsibility between
issues related to institutional and financial matters that need MPW and local governments for financing sanitation infra-
to be addressed for DEWATS to scale up and to have sustain- structure development. However, in practice, these regula-
able operations. tions have limited effect since they are not promulgated as
laws and they are not binding on local governments. Inade-
The PPSP targets are ambitious, representing an increase quate legislation has resulted in a low level of treatment for
in coverage of about 20 million people by the end of wastewater and septage, although access to improved sani-
2014. Increasing the coverage of the urban population by tation facilities is high (Figure 1.3).
5 percent with centralized sewerage and treatment will re-
quire additional services to about five million people; this will 1.3 Wastewater Management Technology
be based on a combination of an expansion of house con-
nections and networks in the twelve cities that already have The predominant wastewater management technology
centralized sewerage and treatment with excess capacity, in urban Indonesia is the septic tank. About 65 percent of
and additional construction of new systems. The estimated households and commercial enterprises use them, and in Ja-
population in the 16 cities that either already havecentralized karta alone there are estimatedto be more than one million
sewerage or are planned to be included in PPSP, is project- septic tanks. Although the MPW has established minimum
ed to be about 32 million people in 2014. The target would design and effluent quality standards for septic tanks, these
bring sewerage coverage in these cities to about 15 percent are rarely enforced. Due to negligible enforcement of design
on average. criteria, many septic tanks often leak and are in direct con-
tact with groundwater. Moreover, most of the septic tanks
PPSP is complemented by the National Strategy for Com- in Indonesia are in fact cubluks (i.e.,one-compartment, lined
munity Based Total Sanitation (Sanitasi Total Berdasar- but open bottomed pits) that rely on wastewater absorption
Masyarakat, STBM) issued by the Ministry of Health in the subsoil and overflow to water bodies. More than 60
(MOH) under Decree No. 852/2008. The STBM strategy percent of households with wells also have a septic tank (ei-
focuses on increasing demand for sanitation improvements ther their own or the neighbor’s) located within less than ten
through education, public awareness and the promotion of meters of the well, posing a potential contamination hazard.
hygiene behavior change. The strategy also aims to create There are no national or local regulations governing septic
a conducive institutional environment through advocacy in tank sludge management or disposal.
16
SANIMAS (Sanitasi Oleh Masyarakat or Sanitation by Communities) refers to the GOI program of decentralized community managed wastewater systems which may include public
facilities or decentralized sewerage systems with a communal treatment facility. DEWATS is a more generic term for decentralized wastewater systems which includes SANIMAS and
other decentralized systems.
5
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
FIGURE 1.3: Wastewater and Septage Flow in Urban Indonesia
Direct Sewerage
(No Septic Tank)
<1% Total
Wastewater Wastewater
Safely Collected Treated
Septic Tanks 1%
with Sewerage
<0.5%
Communal
Toilets
0%
Septage Safely
Septage
Urban Disposed/Treated
Safely Collected
Septic Tanks 4%
Population
110 Million No Sewerage
62%
Septage and
Wastewater
Other On Site Unsafely
<23% Disposed
Open
Defecation
14%
The MPW embarked on an ambitious construction pro- Blanket (UASB) systems, and rotating biological contact sys-
gram in the 1990s, constructing septage treatment plants tems (RBCs). In almost all cases, either the treatment facili-
(Instalasi Pengelolahan Lumpur Tinja, IPLTs) throughout ties or the sewer network, or both, are much underused. A
Indonesia. This resulted in the installation of about 140 IPLTs, study by USAID in 200618 found that, on average, 47 percent
of which 90 percentare now either not operational or are run- of treatment plant capacityand 50 percent of sewer network
ning on very low volumes. Most of these IPLTs were not com- capacity was being used. Large amounts of idle capacity leads
plemented by an adequate collection system. Consequently, to excessive fixed costs. Poor sewer network quality in some
only 4 percent of septage17 is collected and treated at an IPLT. locations, due either to poor construction or to age, causes
Instead, the city cleansing departments (Dinas Kerbersihan) substantial seepage of groundwater into the network, which
dispose ofseptage into sewers -- or wastewater treatment dilutes the sewage resulting in increased volume of flow to
plants in the cities that have centralized sewer systems -- and the treatment works. This disrupts the treatment process and
to solid waste dumpsites or directly into the water stream- limits the number of connections that a plant can effectively
sin cities which have no sewerage system. This can adversely manage.
affect the treatment process at the plants and the hydraulic
performance of the sewer system. Private operators often Wastewater effluent standards in Indonesia are currently
dump indiscriminately in fields or rivers. not stringent. The national standard for wastewater effluent
is a maximum of 100mg/L Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Centralized sewerage is currently limited to twelve cities and 100mg/L suspended solids (SS). Nutrient removal crite-
(see Table 1.2 above). A very small number of housing estates ria are not included in the national standards. However, most
have their own sewerage and treatment systems, primarily on local governments apply provincial standards which vary
the fringes of Jakarta. Treatment technologies that are com- between provinces, but are generally 50 mg/L for both BOD
monly in use include aeration ponds, mechanically aerated and SS. This standard is proposed by the ongoing Asian De-
lagoons, activated sludge systems, Upflow Anaerobic Sludge velopment Bank (ADB)-funded Metropolitan Sanitation Man-
17
Refers to proportion of septage treated at septage treatment plants, not that disposed of into sewers or wastewater treatment plants.
18
“Comparative Study: Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plants in Indonesia”. USAID, 2006
6
OVERVIEW OF THE URBAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SECTOR IN INDONESIA
agement Investment Program (MSMIP) for treatment facilities The majority of DEWATS constructed so far have been
in the five project cities.19 Neither nutrient removal, nor the MCK+.21 The recent WSP assessment of DEWATS found that
quality of the receiving water is considered in the standards, usage of MCK+ declines quickly over time22 and is far lower
although they may have been considered in the design of in- than originally planned, with only 20-30 households regularly
dividual facilities. The Indonesian standards are less stringent using them compared with an average of 100 households per
compared with the other neighboring countries, although site that was used for the PPSP planning purposes. However,
they may be strengthened in the future. where the DEWATS comprise simplified sewer systems, they
maintain usage with about 50 households at each site since
The MPW, local governments, and a number of non-gov- they incorporate house connections. If actual usage rates are
ernmental organizations (NGOs) have experimented with applied, meeting the PPSP target for DEWATS coverage will
a range of technical options for both decentralized sew- require over 52,000 systems to be constructed by 2014, which
erage (DEWATS) and on-site wastewater management as is almost twice the already ambitious estimate.
interim solutions, since expanding coverage with conven-
tional sewerage will take time. Through the Government of In recent years, MPW and other agencies have been re-
Indonesia (GOI)-sponsored SANIMAS Program, the MPW de- searching improved, affordable septic tank designs. One
veloped a community-led approach to installing communal popular development is the biofilter, a baffled fiberglass sep-
sanitation systems that serves 50 -100 households. In 2006, tic tank with aeration and a simple chlorinating device. The
the concept was adopted and has since been rapidly expand- biofilter is produced in Indonesia and is now used in local
ed by MPW, local governments, donor agencies and NGOs. government programs that promote septic tank rehabilita-
Three types of basic SANIMAS systems are currently con- tion, and in some community sanitation facilities. It is also
structed: (a) community sanitation centers comprising public available commercially and is priced competitively compared
toilets, bathing and washing facilities constructed over a pri- with a concrete or masonry septic tank that meets MPW de-
mary treatment system (known as MCK+); (b) shallow sewer- sign standards. The USAID-funded Indonesia Urban Water,
age systems connected to a communal anaerobic digester; Sanitation and Hygiene Project (IUWASH) program is funding
and (c) combined systems with both shallow sewers with the replacement of 4,000 septic tanks with biofilter installa-
house connections and a public facility at the digester site. tions in Medan.
As of mid-2012,about 1700 DEWATS have been construct- 1.4 Social Considerations
ed (including some 500 under the SANIMAS program).
A recent evaluation of DEWATS20 found that the technical Indonesia has a strong and long established local so-
performance of most systems is satisfactory. Of 120 DEWATS cio-political structure based on neighborhood cells,
sampled, 92 percent were in compliance with MPW effluent wards, and sub-districts in urban areas. These entities each
standards for septic tanks (<100 mg/l BOD). However, it is as have popularly elected leadership and can be used to plan
yet unclear if these community-managed systems will be and manage community-level sanitation initiatives. In conso-
de-sludged on a sufficiently regular basis to maintain perfor- nance with long-standing government concepts and policy,
mance. Communities are satisfied; however,the collected rev- wastewater management is popularly understood to be a pri-
enue is not adequate to cover the cost of de-sludging as well vate rather than a public responsibility.
as major repair. The majority of DEWATS that were construct-
ed before 2010 were built under NGO-supported programs In urban areas, investment in improved sanitation by
with extensive facilitation during the planning, design, and households has been substantial, with many households
construction supervision process. Since the start of the recent paying for septic tank construction and periodic pit emp-
scale-up such a high level of facilitation may not take place. tying. In Jakarta alone, investment by households in septic
Accordingly as PPSP is implemented, close attention will need tanks is estimated at USD150 million. However, awareness
to be paid to ensuring that adequate social and technical su- of the broader public health and environmental benefits of
pervision is provided through MPW and local governments. more comprehensively and effectively managing wastewa-
19
MSMIP is supporting the development of centralised sewerage systems in the cities of Cimahi, Pekanbaru, Palembang, Jambi and Makassar.
20
Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, June 2012 (Draft).
21
MPW data indicate that 77% of all systems installed up to 2011 are MCK+. Of these, 16 percent are simplified sewer systems and 66% are combined systems.
22
A major reason seems to be that the presence of an MCK+ raises awareness of and demand for improved sanitation; MCK+ users that can do so, then construct private facilities at
their homes.
7
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
ter has been low. Consequently, popular demand for public projected that donor resources will finance about 12 percent
investment and willingness to pay for wastewater manage- of the total financing requirement (63 percent grants and 37
ment services has, until recently, also been low. This is com- percent loans) over the PPSP implementation period.
pounded by low expectations by the public of the ability of
public institutions to deliver high quality services. In recent The national budget allocation for urban sanitation has
years, partly as a result of the efforts made under the PPSP risen dramatically since the launch of the PPSP in 2010,
and STBM initiatives, attitudes and with it political pressure but the needs are very large. The total investment required
to invest in wastewater management seem to be changing. to achieve ‘full’ sanitation coverage over twenty years in the
330 cities and urbanized districts targeted under PPSP is esti-
There is evidence that people are willing to pay at least mated by the Urban Sanitation Development Project (USDP)
some of the costs of improved sanitation, if they can see at about USD29 billion (of which 40 percent is for wastewa-
clear benefits (i.e., in convenience or privacy or prestige).23 ter24). The PPSP investment costs through to 2014 are estimat-
Increasing community involvement in decision-making pro- ed by BAPPENAS and MPW at about USD6.8 billion (IDR62
cesses and financing also increases ownership and willing- trillion).25 In 2006, the total national development budget
ness to pay. There is evidence that lower and middle income allocation (APBN) for sanitation amounted to 540 billion rupi-
families in high-density neighborhoods with limited sanita- ah, or about USD57 million. Virtually all sanitation investment
tion options have a relatively high willingness to pay for san- was from the central government via MPW, but it amounted
itation improvements in comparison with better off house- to less than 0.1 percent of the total national development
holds that have already invested in sanitation solutions that budget. By 2010, sanitation investment had risen to over two
remove the problem from their immediate property. trillion rupiah, or about 0.2 percent of the total development
budget. In 2012 the national sanitation budget allocation (see
A feature of urban areas in Indonesia is that poor and Figure 1.4 below) is almost 3.9 trillion rupiah (about USD422
non-poor live in close proximity and the entire popula- million) of which about 26 percent comes from special bud-
tion has poor sanitation. The poor sanitation in neighbor- get allocations (DAK) channeled through local government
hoods negatively affects the poor and non-poor, given the budgets.
large environmental externalities related to inadequate col-
lection and treatment of septage and wastewater. FIGURE 1.4: Total National Government Sanitation Budget
(2006-2012)26
1.5 Financing
Total Budget for Sanitation
Decree No. 16/2008 on the National Policy and Strate- (billion rupiah)
7,000.00
gy for the Development of Domestic Wastewater Man-
agement outlines central government sector financing
6,000.00
responsibilities. These are: (a) provisions to encourage the
mobilization of funds for household wastewater manage-
5,000.00
ment; (b) the facilitation of private-public participation (PPP)
for wastewater services; and (c) the initial investment in piped
4,000.00
sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities, which can fur-
ther be developed by regional governments.
3,000.00
There are three main sources of national financing for 2,000.00
sanitation: national budget funding (APBN), special
grant allocations from the national budget to local gov- 1,000.00
ernments (DAK), and local government budgets (APBD).
Since 2010 there has been a DAK dedicated to sanitation to 0.00
support implementation of the PPSP. In addition, there is sub- 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
stantial donor funding in the form of loans and grants. It is
Source: USDP
23
Global and Economic Sector Work on the Political Economy of Sanitation, Oxford Policy Management, 2010
24
USDP Presentation on the PPSP.
25
This amount includes investment requirements for all aspects of the PPSP, including solid waste management and drainage in addition to wastewater management. It was not
possible to obtain reliable disaggregated figures during the limited time of the study.
26
National budget includes loans and grants
8
OVERVIEW OF THE URBAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SECTOR IN INDONESIA
Local governments have also increased budget alloca- design capacities, almost all of the 12 existing wastewater
tions for sanitation. In 2008, local governments allocated only operators are burdened with very high depreciation costs
about 0.5 percent of their APBD funds for sanitation. Sanitation per connection; they are also unable to collect adequate
awareness campaigns and, in particular, evidence of the eco- tariffs to fully recover costs. The low collection efficiency
nomic costs of poor sanitation have led to a marked increase in is compounded by the low coverage of households with
financing by local governments. In 2012, APBD allocations for piped water supplies. Only households with water connec-
sanitation (“pure” APBD excluding DAK) ranged between two tions can be charged an adequate tariff based on water
and four percent, with some cities allocating much more.27 consumption. Other households are charged a low, flat fee
which, even then, is not collected systematically. A study
Overall, as shown in Figure 1.4 above, there has been an published by USAID in 200628 found that only Bandung and
almost ten-fold increase in national government financ- Jakarta29 were able to achieve full cost recovery, including
ing for sanitation since 2006 (including loans and grants), depreciation. Banjarmasin is able to cover operating costs,
but it is still far from the projected investment needed to but all other cities operate the wastewater treatment sys-
achieve the 2014 targets. Projected financing allocations tems at a loss, supported by subsidies from the water utility
from all sources are summarized in Table 1.3 below. The na- and/or local government.
tional budget (APBN) amounts for 2010 to 2012 refer to actual-
budget allocations while other years are projections. Although 1.6 Institutional Arrangements for Sanitation
budget allocations in 2010 and 2011 were substantially high-
er than the PPSP projected requirements, and about equal The decentralization of political and fiscal power in 1999
in 2012, there are projected deficits for 2013/2014. However, radically altered institutional roles for implementing
while the budget allocation has been substantially increased, sanitation strategies and programs. Central ministries
effectiveness of the expenditures to scale-up sanitation and transferredmost sanitation planning, development, financing,
provide services in a sustainable way remains unclear. and management responsibilities to local governments and
focused on policy development, standard setting, and capac-
At the utility level cost recovery is very low. Due to the ity building. BAPPENAS assumed a coordinating role with re-
extremely low connection rates in comparison with system sponsibility for policy developmentin the sector.
TABLE 1.3: Projected Financing Allocations for Sanitation (2010-2014)
Projected/Actual financing for PPSP (IDR billions)
Source of Financing
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Projected financing requirements (PPSP Roadmap) 4,247 7,146 10,657 23,297 17,277 62,625
Financing sources:
National budget (APBN, DAK) 1,883 3,795 4,022 4,302 4,766 18,768
Provincial budgets (APBD-P) 357 407 766 909 997 3,436
Municipal/District budgets (APBD-KK) 2,816 3,703 4,540 5,944 7,795 24,798
Donors (based on current commitments) 1,096 2,097 1,224 1,633 1,454 7,503
Communities and Private Sector (CSR) 18 55 105 234 171 583
Total projected allocations: 6,170 10,058 10,656 13,021 15,184 55,088
Surplus/Deficit: 1,922 2,912 -2 -10,276 -2,093 -7,537
Surplus/Deficit (%): 45% 41% 0% -44% -12% -12%
Source: USDP
27
In 2012 Probolinggo is holding a record with 7 percent of the APBD budget applied to sanitation.
28
Comparative Study of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Indonesia, USAID/ESP, 2006.
29
The Jakarta system serves primarily hotels and commercial establishments in the CBD where collection efficiency is high. Operating costs of the Jakarta system are relatively low.
9
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
A large number of national level government depart- In conjunction with MPW and MOE, MOH also administers
ments and ministries30 are stakeholders in sanitation in- and enforces regulations for domestic wastewater including
vestment and provision of sanitation services to urban wastewater treatment plants, IPLTs, and community-based
populations. These include BAPPENAS, the Ministry of Health systems but has very limited capacity to do so effectively.
(MOH), MPW, Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA), Ministry of
Public Housing (MPH), the Ministry of Environment(MOE), and Ministry of Home Affairs. MOHA haslead responsibility for
the Ministry of Finance (MOF). With no single national level development of the capacity of local governments, and for
ministry officially responsible for sanitation policy, and re- supporting provincial and city/district level POKJA-AMPLs.
sponsibilities shared among at least five ministries, urban san- MOHA maintains a direct line of communication between
itation has no distinct ‘institutional home.’ As a consequence, central and local governments. As such, it influences how lo-
there are varying degrees of interest in providing sanitation cal governments respond to GOI policies and programs for
services among the involved institutions. wastewater management.
BAPPENAS and the Sector Working Group. The principal Provinces. Initially after decentralization, the role of provincial
national body for coordinating the implementation of sani- governments was not well defined. Government Regulation
tation strategy is the National Steering Committee for Drinking No. 19/2010 states that the provinceis required to monitor
Water and Environmental Health (Air Minum dan Penyehatan the development of local goverment (Kabupaten/Kota) reg-
Lingkungan, AMPL). The executing body for AMPL is an in- ulations. The budget for this task is charged to the National
ter-sectoral Working Group, POKJA-AMPL. The POKJA com- Budget (APBN) through the deconcentration budget.Current-
prises director level and sub-directorlevel representatives, ly, provinces receive substantial budget allocationsfrom cen-
and provides policy and implementation guidance. Both the tral government, andMPW’s technical departments as well
Steering Committee and the POKJA are chaired by BAPPENAS as other ministries channel their support for local sanitation
and comprise members from the ministries of Public Works, programs through their respective provincial offices.
Health, Home Affairs, Finance, Industry, Environment, Public
Housing, Education, and the Central Statistics Bureau. Many Local Governments. Municipal and district local govern-
of the POKJA members have been collaborating closely on ments have responsibility for delivering public services in-
water and sanitation policy issues for more than a decade. cluding wastewater management to their constituents. In
The group shares a common vision of the PPSP and the STBM most cases, the municipal or district cleansing department
strategies and meets frequently to maintain momentum and (Dinas Kebersihan) is responsible for arranging septic tank
direction in the implementation process. There are also work- sludge emptying services and management of IPLTs. Sewer-
ing level “implementation units” supporting city sanitation age systemsare usually managed by a department of local
strategies ledby MPW, city/district AMPL working groups led government, the local government owned water utility orga-
by MOHA, and sanitation/health promotion groups led by nization (Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum, PDAM) or a separate
MOH with the goal ofachieving the PPSP objectives. local government owned sanitation utility (Perusahaan Daer-
ah Penanganan Air Limbah, PD PAL). While PDAMs generally
Ministry of Public Works. Whereas BAPPENAS provides coor- have systems in place, including for billing and collection,
dination and planning support, MPW’s Directorate General of to enable them to manage both water and wastewater in-
Human Settlements (CiptaKarya) provides local governments frastructure, most view the wastewater system as an addi-
with infrastructure development and rehabilitation, technical tional burden and cost centerdue to the difficulty of earning
assistanceand technical and service performance standards. revenue from wastewater activities. Two cities, Jakarta and
MPW also collaborates with the Ministry of Finance adminis- Banjarmasin, have chosen to establish a PD PAL which has
tering budgets for wastewater management facilities at the the advantage of being independent from local government
national, regional, provincial, local, and project levels. and the PDAM. However, less reliance on technical and/or fi-
nancial support from the PDAM or the local government car-
Ministry of Health. MOH is responsible for hygiene and sani- ries risks. The two PD PALs that have been established feature
tation promotion, capacity building and sanitation emergen- strong and competent management and they have been
cy response systems, especially in low income communities. able to retain combined billing arrangements with their re-
MOH also sets standards and monitors drinking water quality. spective PDAMs.
30
There are two types of ministry lines: technical departments and state ministry. The former have technical resources at national and provincial level while at district level, they mostly
have partnering offices. The state ministries, on the other hand, do not have sufficient technical resources and need to work together with technical departments to implement their
programs. MPW is also a state ministry and not technical department.
10
OVERVIEW OF THE URBAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SECTOR IN INDONESIA
AKKOPSI. The Association of Cities and Districts Concerned
about Sanitation in Indonesia (AKKOPSI) was established
in 2011 as an initiative by the mayors of the cities that had
completed SSKs at that time. Initially, about 120 cities joined
AKKOPSI, which now comprises over 200 cities.AKKOPSI is an
advocacy group supporting the achievement of the PPSP tar-
gets through the sharing of experiences. The group is very ac-
tive, meeting on a quarterly basis and convening annual City
Sanitation Summits with an objective of achieving a target
allocation of at least two percent of local government budget
for sanitation. AKKOPSI promotes implementation of the PPSP
program through Advocacy and Horizontal Learning (AHL) to
members and non-members of AKKOPSI. AKKOPSI has re-
cently initiated City Sanitation Rankings, as a means for bench-
marking and measuring performance for the implementation
of City Sanitation Strategies.
11
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
12
II. Sector Performance
Issue Analysis
2.1 Drivers and Barriers to Sanitation in sive, although there are concerns about how these plans will
Indonesia be effectively implemented. Through the establishment of
POKJAs at local government level engaged in preparing the
A number of factors are driving the progress of urban SSKs, a better understanding of sanitation issues has been de-
sanitation in Indonesia, as a result of which the sector veloped throughout the city and district governments lead-
has seen a significant increase in investment since 2006. ing to increased demand for improved sanitation. Economic
These drivers to date have generally been supply driven from losses caused by poor sanitation may have been a major fac-
central government. The key to improve sanitation coverage tor in driving national government support for the sector.
is to increase the demand from the community and from lo-
cal government. At the same time, further progress is con- FOREIGN DONOR PROGRAMS
strained by several barriers that need to be overcome if the
sector is to successfully meet not only the MDG and PPSP Foreign Donor programs have been major contributors
targets, but result in sustainable infrastructure. Effective and to the expansion of sanitation in Indonesia, especially for
efficiently managed sanitation infrastructure will lead to im- municipal sewerage systems. Most of the 16 cities that ei-
proved health, reduce economic losses and produce an im- ther have, or are proposed to have, sewerage systems have
proved environment for the urban population. been recipients of donor funding. This includes Medan and
Yogjakarta (ADB), Surakarta and Banjarmasin (World Bank),
2.1.1 Current Drivers to Sanitation Development in the proposed ADB supported program in Cimahi, Pekanbaru,
Indonesia Jambi and Makassar, Australian Agency for International De-
velopment (AusAID) funding for Palembang, and Japan Inter-
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMING national Cooperation Agency (JICA) support in Denpasar and
Jakarta. Although this support mostly consists of loans taken
The primary driver for the development of sanitation, in by national government and on-granted to the local govern-
particular since 2006, has been the prioritization of san- ments, foreign donors have had a key influence in driving
itation by national government. This was initially based on the programs. Otherpast and current donors include: AusAID
the implementation of the Indonesia Sanitation Sector Devel- through the Hibah and Infrastructure Enhancement Grant
opment Program (ISSDP) and is currently through PPSP. Al- (IEG) Programs,31 the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) through
though largely supply driven, this has contributed to an eight- the Community Based Sanitation Project, the ADB through
fold increase in funding for sanitation since 2006, so that the the Urban Sanitation and Rural Infrastructure (USRI) project,
sanitation budget now exceeds the budget for water supply USAID for its institutional support, Netherlands, UNICEF, World
systems. The program to prepare SSKs in 330 cities is impres- Bank, WSP, and other organizations.
31
In the Hibah program, AusAID is providing support to local governments to provide sewerage house connections on an output based aid basis; in the Infrastructure Enhancement
Grant, an output based aid modality is also used to provide sewerage infrastructure for local governments.
13
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION requiring the construction of properly designed septic tanks
and proper disposal of septage, these are rarely enforced ef-
Pollution of water bodies and water resources as a result fectively. There are no effective legal penalties for local gov-
of inadequate sanitation is a serious issue in Indonesia and ernments that fail to meet their obligations in provision of
will be a driver to improve sanitation practices. There are sanitation to residents. The service providers for sanitation are
examples where specific environmental conditions have mo- generally government agencies or state owned enterprises
tivated local governments to address sanitation, and this trend that do not have performance criteria in-built into their con-
is likely to increase as awareness for the environmental impacts tracts with government.
grows. In Banjarmasin, a flat, low lying city at the confluence
of two major rivers, the local government started focusing on 2.1.2 Current Barriers to Sanitation Development in
sanitation as a result of increasing local awareness that its riv- Indonesia
ers, which are vital for basic needs and tourism, were becoming
more polluted and that the fundamental causes needed to be LACK OF REGULATION AND PENALTIES
addressed (see Annex 2). In Denpasar, the local government
realized that the tourism industry could be impacted by pol- MPW does require local governments to issue local reg-
lution of beaches and the City’s problematic drainage facilities, ulations on wastewater management, consistent with
particularly, during the monsoon season. In Cimahi, the local ministerial regulations,32 but these regulations are not
government intended to attract clean industries to the city but promulgated as law and are therefore not binding on
realized that polluted drains and rivers discouraged potential local governments. Nevertheless, some local governments
investment. The local government of Pekanbaru recognized have passed legislation related to septic tank design and
that their reputation as one of the cleanest and greenest cities construction, mandatory requirements for new developers
in the country was at risk from increasing pollution of rivers and to install septic tanks or sewer connections, and in some
an unsatisfactory drainage system. cases requirements for correct disposal of septage. However,
these requirements are rarely enforced. There is no national
POLITICAL SUPPORT AND SANITATION ‘CHAMPIONS’ regulator that may require local governments to meet their
obligations to provide sanitation for residents and no inde-
The presence of ‘champions’ who act as trusted facili- pendent regulator at local or provincial level to regulate the
tators and negotiators has strengthened partnerships performance of sanitation service providers. The Ministry of
and relationships between key stakeholders in the ur- Environment (Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup, KLH)
ban sanitation sector in Indonesia. The establishment of and the provincial and district/city environmental agencies
the POKJA-AMPL at national level brought together a core set the standards for effluent disposal and may penalize those
group of sector professionals with a common view of sanita- who fail to meet those standards. However, this applies to
tion sector priorities and development approaches that were point discharges from treatment facilities or industries and
instrumental in developing inter-ministerial collaboration for not for failure of local governments to implement wastewater
national programs such as PPSP. This initiative was led by BAP- systems that prevent the pollution of water bodies.
PENAS providing a ‘champion’ in the sanitation sector which
was instrumental in mobilizing support across the various FINANCING
departments with some responsibility for sanitation. ‘Champi-
ons’ at the local government level are equally important and Given the significant financingrequired to provide uni-
supportive Mayors/Bupatis and utility heads in cities such as versal sanitation coverage in urban centers in Indone-
Banjarmasin, Palembang, Pekanbaru, Denpasar, Cimahi and sia, mobilizing financing is a barrier. Most cities still have
Jambi have been instrumental in promoting sanitation im- borrowing capacity, but few cities have been willing to raise
provements in their cities. funds to finance wastewater related activities, including re-
habilitation of their septage treatment facilities and devel-
Other potential sanitation drivers such as legislative and opment of a septage management program.33 The charging
executive arrangements, legal and contractual require- of appropriate tariffs for sanitation services and increasing
ments, health impact and potential business opportuni- collection efficiency would impact on the viability of opera-
ties have not had significant impact on the sector. Health, tions and the willingness of local governments and utilities to
while undoubtedly a critical reason to invest in sanitation, has invest in sanitation. Finance could also be provided through
not been a motivator for communities or governments to PPP arrangements, but to date the private sector has shown
prioritize sanitation. There is no national policy on sanitation, limited interest in sanitation, most likely due to inadequate
and while some local governments have enacted legislation governance and low tariffs in the sector.
32
In accordance with PerMenPU 16/2008
33
USAID studies in the Philippines have shown that the establishment of a septage management program, including construction of a septage treatment facility, can be a viable
operation for a local government or utility.
14
SECTOR PERFORMANCE ISSUES ANALYSIS
LACK OF AWARENESS compounded by the inability of BAPPEDA to prepare sanita-
tion plans and feasibility studies. If sanitation is not included
Sanitation continues to be a low priority formost local in the local government plans, funding is not forthcoming.
governments despite increased attention paid at the na- However, this has improved under PPSP where BAPPEDA has
tional government level. The reason given is that awareness been generally responsible for coordinating the POKJA, re-
within communitiesis low and, as a result, local governments sultingin sanitation becoming of a much higher priority. The
have not emphasized sanitation. To change this, campaigns low capacity at regional and national government levels com-
to raise awareness among local legislators, executives, the pounds the problem for, as a direct consequence, suitable-
private sector, civil society and the community will be need- guidance to local government can therefore not be provided.
ed with a focus on improving the environment and reducing The lack of capacity also is a determining factor for the poor
health risks. Within national Government, the responsibilities enforcement of the Sanitation Code and the Building Code
for raising awareness are distributed across four ministries, related to septic tank construction and design. This situation
viz. MOE, specifically for environmental pollution; MOH, spe- is a vicious cycle in the sense that without investment in san-
cifically for health impact; MOHA, specifically for awareness itation, limited demand for the necessary skills will be created
raising within the local governments; and MPW for techni- resulting in little incentive for professionals to gain these skills.
cal guidance, with BAPPENAS in acoordinating role.The US-
AID-funded IUWASH, currently supports sanitation in over 50 Capacity in the private sector is also generally very low.
cities, and is working closely with each of these ministries in Most consultants have very limited experience, especially in
order to help develop awareness to improve the sustainability design of sewerage systems, although experience in the com-
of projects that are delivered through both national govern- munity-managed DEWATS systems is more widespread. Given
ments and donor programs. There is also an important role the limited coverage of sewerage, there are few local contrac-
for civil society in working with local communities to increase tors who have constructed sewerage systems in Indonesia.
demand and in holding the local government to account for
poor performance in the sector. One of the drivers for plac- LOW CONNECTION RATES AND COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
ing higher priority on sanitation by high levels of the national
government was reported to be caused by the involvement In the twelve cities where sewerage systems have been con-
of women’s groups in raising awareness on the issue. structed, it has been difficult for service providers to recover
costs due to slow build-up of connections and the consequent
HUMAN RESOURCE CAPACITY under utilization of the system as well as low collection efficien-
cies. Only in Jakarta and Bandung has full cost recovery report-
Human resource capacity within the agencies responsible for edly been achieved – in Jakarta due to the system primarily
the sanitation sector is extremely limited at all levels,and thisis cateringto hotels and commercial establishments with a high
a key constraint to the further development of the sector. At demand for connections and in Bandung because it appears
the national level, the MPW Sub-Directorate for Sanitation to have reached a scale (with about 100,000 connections) to
responsible for administering the technical aspects of PPSP support effective O&M. In the other cities, wastewater inflows
with a potential budget of USD6.3 billion until 2015 in 330 to the treatment facilities are generally less than 50 percent of
local governments onlyhas a workforce of about 15 staff. The capacity due to the low demand for connections. Collection
MOH and MOHA responsible for setting of standards/creating efficiency in Banjarmasin and Surakarta is on the order of 30
awareness and local government institutional development percent. Collection of tariffs in Surakarta, where the system
respectively have even less human resources available for as- is operated by the PDAM, is reported to be only feasible for
pects related to sanitation. Provincial and local governments, those households that have a connectionto the water supply
while responsible for implementing sanitation programs, system. In Medan, collection efficiency is 90 percent as most
have very little expertise. At the local government level, gen- households with a sewer connection also have a water con-
erally the Public Works Departmentand the Regional Agen- nection (PDAM operated). Even in Denpasar, which is gen-
cy for Planning and Development (BAPPEDA) offices do not erally regarded to have been a relatively successful project,
have specific expertise related to sanitation. Personnel from the uptake of connections has been slow. This is now being
the city cleaning departments are largely engaged in manag- addressed to some extent through the hibah projects funded
ing solid waste. Local government personnel involved in san- under AusAID. However, solutions to increase community de-
itation are in most cases sanitarians under the Department of mand need to be developed and implemented if sanitation
Health who more often than not are inadequately qualified. operations are to be sustainable.The degree of hesitance of
community members to connect to the sanitation system
The key impact of the lack of capacity to manage sani- is not only related to the connection fees. Often to connect
tation has been that sanitation programs have not been a household to the system, significant construction within
developed at the local government level in the past due houses is required, which is expensive and inconvenient for
to limited understanding of the associated issues. This is the families.
15
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO SANITATION gets; how to address deficiencies in human resource capacity
to implement and manage wastewater infrastructure; what
There are physical constraints in many Indonesian cities arrangements should be established for the management
that make it difficult or expensive to construct sewerage and regulation of wastewater systems at the local govern-
systems. There are numerous large cities in Indonesia such ment level; where is the interface between community and
as Jakarta, Banjarmasin, Palembang and Pekanbaru, which are institutionally managed systems; and, given that septic tanks
characterized by flat, low-lying topography adjacent to major will remain the primary means of wastewater disposal for the
rivers and with a high water table. It is expensive to provide foreseeable future, what are the most appropriate septage
traditional, separate sewerage in these cities due to the need management approaches. Some of these issues are illustrated
to construct pipelines below the water table and the many below in Figure 2.1. Drivers and barriers for change in Indone-
pumping stations required to maintain the required slopes sia were compared with the development of the sanitation
and self-cleansing velocities. The often narrow streets, high sector in Latin American countries and the findings are sum-
traffic volumes and densely populated inner suburban areas marized below (Box 2.1)
make the construction of piped sewerage system extremely
difficult and expensive. Alternative systems such as simplified BOX 2.1: Comparison of Indonesian Experience with that
or small bore sewerage may need to be considered in some of Selected Latin American Countries
locations within these cities. A staged approach of initially
constructing interceptors to collect and convey combined
stormwater, sullage and sewage from local drains to sewage A World Bank prepared paper entitled “Evolution of Urban
treatment plants will improve the quality of major water bod- Sanitation in Latin America” describes the historical back-
ies at a lower cost than providing for separate sewerage. ground to the development of urban sanitation in five
major Latin American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
There are also challenges associated with septage man- Colombia and Mexico. The paper also outlines the drivers
agement. Most of the on-site facilities are open bottomed and constraints that have impacted urban sanitation in
cubluks that rely on absorption of effluent by the subsoilin- these countries and the experience in implementing in-
stead of appropriately designed and sealed septic tanks. This vestments on sanitation over a 20 year period. Given that
can potentially result in pollution of the groundwater, but ret- increased investment in sanitation by the Indonesian cen-
rofitting these pits to convert them into septic tanks would tral government commenced only about seven years ago,
be a major undertaking. Routine de-sludging of septic tanks is the experience of these Latin American countries following
desirable, but many septic tanks in Indonesian cities are locat- the central government intervention may hold some les-
ed beneath the house which makes it expensive and incon- sons to be considered by Indonesia.
venient to provide access to the tank.
Common drivers for investment in the sanitation sector in
Provision of land for sewage and septage treatment facil- the five Latin American countries and Indonesia included:
ities is an additional constraint when planning sewerage (a) the increase in urban densities in those cities that even-
and septage systems. Land is at a premium in most Indone- tually rendered septic tanks ineffective without a sewerage
sian cities and often changes to the optimum system need to system tocollect effluent; (b) employment and business
be made to accommodate the land which is available for the opportunities that construction and management of san-
treatment facility. itation systems provided; and (c) environmental concerns
regarding the pollution of water bodies. Common barriers
2.2 Key Issues Impacting on Sanitation Provision included: (a) poor regulation of sanitation service delivery
in Indonesia with no obvious penalties for local governments that fail
the meet their responsibilities to provide sanitation; (b) in-
Several key issues that need to be addressed to progress adequate attention to training and professionalism in the
development of the wastewater sector in Indonesia are sector resulting in a serious lack of trained sanitation spe-
described in the following sections. These include the po- cialists; and (c) lack of access to capital finance for sanita-
litical economy and how and why stakeholders, institutions tion, although in Indonesia the situation may be under-in-
and economic processes influence each other in wastewater vestment rather than lack of access to finance.
management policy decision-making processes; how can the
sector best be financed to meet the national planning tar-
16
SECTOR PERFORMANCE ISSUES ANALYSIS
FIGURE 2.1: Weaknesses in Local Government Sanitation Service Delivery34
Candidates do not campaign Local government lack effective
on water and sanitation relationship with PDAM
Politician promise
delivery service
Local
Government
Citizens lack information
Consumers elect politicians Local government makes Local government
and deman better service PDAMS deliver service invests in water suppy
PDAM delivers the services
Consumer demand
Public
Consumers PDAM
Consumers do not voice out PDAM is often
their demands unresponsive
2.2.1 Political Economy sanitation andwater supply sectors. From within the central
government, the POKJA-AMPL members have been able to
Indonesia has made very substantial advances in creat- generate support for a national urban sanitation program at
ing awareness of the need for sanitation improvements the ministerial level.
throughout the country. It has been able to generate the
political will, especially at the national government level, to Within the national government, decision makers are in-
allocate more resources for sanitation. This has involved a pro- creasingly using, and acting on, evidence related to the
cess spanning more than a decade which also involvedcon- negative impact of poor sanitation to drive their prior-
siderable trial and error. The political economy of sanitation itization of sector investments. Economic evidence has
is summarized below (Box 2.2). With technical assistance fi- played a key role in influencing BAPPENAS, MPW and MOH
nanced by AusAID through the Water and Sanitation Sector staffin particular. The WSP study on the economic impacts of
Policy Formulation and Action Planning Project (WASPOLA), sanitation is consistently mentioned among government and
a dialogue on water and sanitation sector policy reform en- donor partners as a key document in spurring government
sued among working level (sub-directors) staff in several min- interest. This put figures on the economic losses caused by
istries with interests in the sector, which eventually evolved poor sanitation and as a country seeking to maintain its status
into the POKJA-AMPL. The POKJA-AMPL remains an influen- as a regional economic leader, this had a significant impact on
tial inter-ministerial coordinating and planning body for the government interest in sanitation.
34
Investment in Indonesia’s Water Sector: Evidence of Capacity, Governance and Financing Effects, David Ehrhardt, Melissa Rekas, Kevin Richards.
17
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
BOX 2.2: Politcal Economy of Sanitation in Indonesia
In 2010, the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) conducted a global study on the Political Economy of Sanitation
using Indonesia as a case study. The study was intended to address: (a) why are sanitation investments and service provision not
given adequate priority; and (b) why are sanitation investments not strategically targeted towards increasing access to sanita-
tion for the poor.
The study outlined some of the past and current political economy challenges faced in increasing urban sanitation investment
levels such as the cultural and political context, the impact of decentralization, financing constraints, institutional arrangements,
the prioritization processes of local government and willingness to pay of consumers. The key operational implications for un-
derstanding, addressing and managing the political economy constraints and opportunities of urban sanitation investment in
Indonesia were outlined in the study and are summarized below.
Sequencing of investments and operations: work on improving institutional multi-sectoral planning capacity has been a
necessary first step before local investments for physical infrastructure in order to ensure they are more appropriate, effective and
efficient.
Use of evidence based analysis to create demand for sanitation: a key factor in the increasing central government inter-
est in sanitation has been evidence of the economic impacts of sanitation. There is potential to apply evidence based analysis to
increase demand at the sub-national level.
Creating demand and accountability for sanitation: low public demand for sanitation is usually cited as a critical factor in
the slow development of sanitation infrastructure in Indonesia. However, one outcome of the PPSP and SSK has been increased
community awareness which has pushed the issue up the political agenda. Sanitation strategies have to be based on the actual
demand from the community members, and so while this is often initially low, awareness raising is a key part of increasing de-
mand.
Building effective partnerships: collaborative partnerships, between government, donors and civil society, that recognize
national and local government ownership of the process and investments, have proven to be a more sustainable approach for
sanitation development in Indonesia. Identifying and supporting appropriate ‘champions’ who are also trusted facilitators and
negotiators can help build and strengthen these partnerships.
Public debate and communication: effective communication is needed to generate demand for sanitation across all so-
cio-economic groups within cities or communities. At the local level civil society organizations have been involved only to a very
limited degree, but when this has occurred it has often been effective in increasing commitment and sustainability. Media interest
in covering sanitation could be increased further by reframing it as a public interest issue rather than as a technical issue and
providing solid, appropriate evidence of the impact of poor sanitation.
Another key development resulting from the estab- budgeting process. A creative approach was also followed
lishment of the POKJA-AMPL and the shifting of power by government involving SIKIB (Cabinet Ministers’ Wives Sol-
structures following decentralization was the concept of idarity) in fostering sanitation awareness. Several sanitation
City Sanitation Strategies (SSKs). SSK is an evidence-based, related activities have been conducted by SIKIB, such as the
bottom-up strategic planning process that responds well to inauguration of SANIMAS facilities, SIKIB Peduli Sanitasi (SIKIB
increased power and mandates of local governments follow- Care with Sanitation), scientific writer contribution and village
ing decentralization and democratization.SSK requires the patronage.
establishment of a city-level working group (POKJA), and to
follow a six-stage process that includes:secondary data anal- The SSK preparation process has resulted in a stronger
ysis, preparation of a White Paper, an Environmental Health political buy-in in many municipalities, which has been
Risk Assessment, and professional evaluation by members of demonstrated by the increased role of AKKOPSI in sharing ex-
the POKJA -- which all together results in the identification of periences from the SSK implementation process, awareness-
geographic priorities and the development of an indicative raisingand demand for better sanitation services.The Associ-
Sanitation Development Plan. SSKs are then underpinned by ation also works closely with the POKJA-AMPL in developing
a Program Memorandum that provides an investment plan monitoring tools for assessing progress in PPSP implementa-
and links the SSK with the national “bottom-up” planning and tion.
18
SECTOR PERFORMANCE ISSUES ANALYSIS
The SSK process is strongly supported by MPW. The Most national and local government funding has been
completion of an SSK is a prerequisite for access to finance directed to DEWATS/SANIMAS projects in many cities
for selected projects within the PPSP. However, significant fi- and districts across the country, but this has hadonly
nancing, capacity and institutional challenges remain. Given negligible effect on the overall environment. By providing
the ambitious program for preparing SSKs under PPSP and a few small systems across many cities, the impact has not
the limited resources for preparation, the quality of the doc- been significant, as it affects only very small populations in
uments remains uneven. However, the undisputed value in each city. The larger centralized sewerage schemes are being
mobilizing interest across departments within local govern- supported through donor grants and loans such as the ADB
ment through participation in the POKJA responsible for pre- Metropolitan Sanitation Management Investment Program
paring the SSK has maintained sanitation at the forefront of (MSMIP), the AusAID-supported Indonesia Infrastructure Ini-
the local government agenda. tiative (IndII), and the JICA projects in Jakarta; and these will
have a more significant impact through the construction of
2.2.2 Financing centralized sewerage systems in 16 cities covering about 5
million people. In these larger projects, the local government
Although national government funding for sanitation provides support through land acquisition, compensation
has increased about ten-fold since 2006, it still falls short payments for land acquisitions, and house connections.
of the actual requirements to significantly increase ur-
ban sewerage coverage. While the PPSP estimated a re- The PPSP through the Urban Sanitation Development
quirement of USD29 billion over the next 20 years for sani- Project (USDP) is now developing scenarios for a combi-
tation, this may be a low estimate given that the provision nationof centralized, decentralized and on-site systems,
of wastewater services for a population of 172 million (esti- along with the investment requirements to achieve these
mated for the year 2025) would cost some USD42.7 billion. scenarios within the next 25 years. The scenarios that are
This based on an investment cost of USD250 per capita35 to being considered range from 15 percent to 32 percent of cen-
improve sewers, construct wastewater treatment plants, and tralized sewerage coverage, with a corresponding significant-
make other improvements on septage management. Some ly broad range in required investment. It is expected that the
of the findings related to the financing of the water sector in analysis will enable the national government to develop an
Indonesia are also applicable to the sanitation sector and they overarching policy for financing the sector. There are selected
are summarized below (Box 2.3). guidelines available on elements of a sewerage scheme that
BOX 2.3: Investment in Indonesia’s Water Sector
A study conducted in 2008 (Investment in Indonesia’s Water Sector – Evidence of Financing, Capacity and Governance Effects,
Castalia) reviewed data from 42 cities and conducted in-depth analysis of another 6 cities to determine if there was under-invest-
ment in the water sector and, if so, what were the reasons for this under-investment. Although the study focused on the local gov-
ernment and the PDAMs and their role in the provision of water supply, some of the conclusions could be reasonably applied to
sanitation. The study showed there was an under investment by local governments in water supply to meet the targets specified
by the national government. The study analyzed several possible reasons for the funding shortfall in water supply, including prof-
itability of the utility, borrowing capacity, governance, technical and managerial capacity and population. The most significant
reason for higher investment in the sector was profitability which indicated that good governance through setting appropriate
tariffs and controlling costs leading to profitability tended to result in more investment in the sector by local government.
Interestingly, most local governments did not lack financial or borrowing capacity, but it was more about prioritization of the
water sector over other competing needs. In order to increase investment in the sector, the report suggested that there would be
value in focusing on water sector problems at a local level, and concentrating on good governance to help improve performance.
The report concluded on the need for performance contracts between local government and utilities to improve accountability
relationships and sector governance. Governance was also impacted upon by lack of information on the part of consumers to
enable them to hold local government accountable for poor service delivery.
35
Based on Master Plans of Metro Manila and Feasibility Studies for Ho Chi Minh City.
19
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
can be financed by central government (e.g., trunk pipelines, those areas where households have not made connections to
treatment facilities) and those elements that must be financed the system. This approach is also proposed as part of a solu-
by local government (e.g., laterals, connections, land acquisi- tion to Jakarta’s sanitation problems.
tion). These guidelines, however, tend to be more arbitrary rath-
er than based on a firm policy regarding national government 2.2.3 Implementation Capacity
grants or loans to be raised by borrowings by local government
such as has been recently developed in the Philippines.36 Cur- Implementing the PPSP will require the mobilization of
rently in Indonesia, despite formal budget processes at both far more resources than simply increasing budget allo-
local and national levels of government, informal institutions, cations and donor investment. A sanitation training and
relationships and processes still influence the budget process- capacity study,40 developed under the Water and Sanita-
es, decisions and allocations. A mayor (or bupati) can petition tion Sector Policy Formulation and Action Planning Project
ministers directly and decisions on policy and service delivery (WASPOLA), was completed in early 2012 which assessed the
could be influenced through this informal route. national capacity to implement PPSP and developed recom-
mendations for a capacity building strategy to fill knowledge
The government lacks a financial policy that otherwise gaps. The main findings of the study with regard to human
could shape investment and planning. One of the reasons resource development in the wastewater sector were:
for this is that urban development activities continue to be di-
vided among several ministries and local government when • Major gaps were identified between demand and sup-
there is no urban planning or clear policy support for Cipta- ply of facilitators forcommunal DEWATS and for hygiene
Karya. behavior (STBM), both in the shortterm and in the me-
dium-term (next five-year development plan cycle). For
The utilization of the centralized systems currently im- example, the current SANIMAS program funded by the
plemented in the 12 cities is low, with only about 50 national government (350 installations/year), the Islamic
percentof the treatment capacity being used (see Table Development Bank (1600 installations) and ISRA (1350 in-
1.1, earlier). The same applies for many of the decentralized stallations) will require about 8,000 facilitators;
systems. The primary reason for this has been difficulty in en- • In the medium-term, personnel shortages will also emerge
couraging residents to make connections to the system and with respect to operators that can operate and maintain
to pay the connection fee and ongoing tariffs. Innovative fi- the sanitation facilities across the country;
nancing approaches with respect to alleviating the burden of • In the future, graduates from environmental engineering
the connection fee are being undertaken under the IndII pro- programs are expected to fill the demand for technical
gram through the sanitation hibah37 and the sanitation grants personnel. However, the reality is that environmental engi-
(Australia Indonesia Grant for Sanitation, or sAIIG) programs.38 neering does not attract a large number of university stu-
Issues relating to tariff structure needs to be addressed by dents. Graduates are more interested in seeking employ-
implementing awareness programs for the wider public, al- ment in high-earning industrial sectors, rather than in the
though it is probably more effective in the short term to re- sanitation sector;
quire all households with access to a sewerage system to pay • The number of students enrolling in sanitation related
the same tariff, whether connected or not. In Metro Manila, fields of study is far smaller than the intake capacity of
after many years of low utilization of sewerage systems due most universities. Hence, there is significant potential for
to low connection rates, a common tariff was applied to all expanding enrolments without major investments to in-
residents irrespective of whether or not they had a sewerage crease academic training capacity; and
connection.39 For households without a sewerage connec- • To attract new graduates, the image of the sector and
tion, the fee covers septic tank de-sludging. However, Metro technological vision must be made more appealing and
Manila’s current policy is to use combined systems with in- relevant to current youth aspirations. Furthermore, job op-
terceptors collecting wastewater from the drainage system in portunities in the sector should be better disseminated.
36
The National Sewerage and Septage Management Master Plan in the Philippines determined that development of sewerage systems in the highly urbanised cities should be
supported by a 40 percent national government grant, and that it was feasible for the remaining 60 percent to be financed by the local government or Water District either based on
revenue or borrowings.
37
Under the sanitation hibah, sewerage connections made by the local government are reimbursed by the program on an output-based aid basis upon verification that the connec-
tions have been made. Connections for 90,000 households are projected under the current phase of the program. Some local governments waive the connection fee; others may
require payment but either discounted or on an instalment basis.
38
Under the sanitation grants program, up to 40 cities will be supported during 2012-2015 with installation of sewerage systems for up to 400 households. Local governments will be
reimbursed for the cost of construction of the systems based on the number of connections made. The intent is that the systems will managed by the city utility and will eventually
become part of a centralized system.
39
Originally, in Metro Manila a tariff of 50 percent of the water bill was applied as a sewerage tariff for those with connections and 10 percent of the water bill charged to those without
connections to cover septic tank de-sludging. This has more recently been amended to 20 percent for all residents irrespective of whether or not they have a sewerage connection.
40
Sanitation Personnel: Capacity Development Strategy; WASPOLA Facility (BAPPENAS/AusAID/WSP-EAP), March 2012
20
SECTOR PERFORMANCE ISSUES ANALYSIS
With regard to competencies, the study identified the likely lead to an increased demand for specific courses; it
following gaps: would also motivate training institutions to develop new
training modules, cooperate with international training in-
• Shortcomings in knowledge, skills, and attitude among stitutions (or sanitation institutions) and offer new courses
sanitation personnel relate to: to the public.There are a number of professional associa-
o limited understanding of sanitation technologies tions where sanitation personnel can build and expand
among non-technicalfacilitators for DEWATS and city their network. However, their specific roles are not clearly
sanitation planning; defined and associations are not used to the full potential.
o low level of knowledge of current policies and ap- Their involvement in the sanitation sector is still incidental,
proaches on sanitation development among technical- and not designed to support current sanitation capacity
consultants; development.
o limited knowledge of the appropriate procedures for
wastewater, solid waste, and drainage facilities among A sanitation human resources action plan has been pre-
the respective operators; and pared for the 2012-2014 period. Some activities have been-
o limited writing and communication skills. recommended for immediate action due to their urgency.
These include: (a) advocating the need to expand Indonesia’s
• There may also be a discrepancy in the understanding of human resources capacity broadly to implement the PPSP; (b)
the required level of competencies between sanitation widely promoting jobs in sanitation; (c) carrying out promo-
personnel and key stakeholders (employers/managers). tional visits for operators in the sanitation sector to education-
Mutually agreed competency criteria can reduce this gap. al institutions; (d) developing a unified job titling system for
Using competency criteria, training needs assessments of the sanitation sector; (e) developing a strategy for sanitation
the sanitation personnel will produce more objective re- professionals to advance their skills and to get certified for
sults; sanitation professions; and(f ) creating an Indonesian Network
for Sanitation Personnel.
• Competence is only one of many factors that influence a
person’s work performance. A competent person will not Some institutions are now starting to respond to the
be able to perform well in his/her position if the work- needs of the sanitation sector. For example, the Institute
ing conditions are not conducive to good performance. of Technology in Bandung (ITB) is planning a new study pro-
Among the working conditions that are often lacking in gram for water and sanitation engineering. This was planned
sanitation are the availability and adequacy of equipment for mid-2012, but has been delayed until 2013. Furthermore,
and materials, funds, timeframe, support personnel, data the International Water Association (IWA) is proposing coop-
and information; eration between international sanitation experts, sanitation
sector trainees, facilitators and university staff teaching san-
• There is a clear deficiency in capacity development for itary and environmental engineering with a view to signifi-
sanitation professionals. The availability of training courses cantly upgrading knowledge and skills related to sanitation.
(and training providers) by technical institutions on sani-
tation subjects arelimited. Moreover, the existing training 2.2.4 Management and Regulation of Sanitation Systems
modules/courses are not designed in acomprehensive
manner in the sense that it is difficult for potential trainees Management and O&M of urban sanitation services are
to attend a phased training program that matches their the responsibility of the local government. However,
professional interests. Sequenced training courses (e.g., a wide range of modelsis currently being used. These
basic, intermediate, advanced) are not offered by local pro- include a local government Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah
viders; and (SKPD, a Regional Working Group) or Dinas (e.g., Dinas Kim-
praswil in Yogjakarta), an autonomous unit of a local govern-
• The existing sanitation-related professional certification ment agency such as a UPTD/BLU47 as in Denpasar and cur-
systems require certificate holders to continually improve rently proposed for Yogjakarta, or a PDAM such as in Medan,
their competence. However, this requirement has not been Surakarta and potentially Surabaya. There are also many com-
followed through by a concerted effort (e.g. by participat- munity-managed facilities constructed under the DEWATS/
ing in a well-structured training program). To provide ac- SANIMAS programs which the local government sometimes
credited sanitation sector related training programs would supports, but for which it receives no income and therefore
41
A UPTD (Unit Pelaksana Teknis Daerah) is a Regional Technical Implementation Unit attached to a local government agency that has a degree of automony in the sense that it can
charge for services and retain income for expenses, although it is not profit-making. A BLUD (Badan Layanan Umum Daerah) is also a technical operation unit of a local government
agency that is allowed to operate with flexibilities or exemptions from rules applicable to the Dinas. It has some additional degree of autonomy to a UPTD, but is more complicated
to establish.
21
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
does not consider it has a formal obligation. In addition, there mance agreement’. This agreement would set out their roles,
are some 140 septage treatment facilities country-wide, most responsibilities and accountability with respect to the local
of which do not function; the management of these facilities government, describe performance standards, payment
is generally assigned to the local government (typically the mechanisms and schedules, as well as consequences deriv-
Cleansing Department, Dinas Kebersihan), and is more often ing from failure to perform; it would also have regulations
not integrated with the collection system. In addition, differ- on accountability and its enforcement. Other features of
ent organizations are often responsible for the sewerage and this proposed management model illustrated in Figure 2.2
septage management systems. include:
The institutional arrangements for the provision of san- • separation of policy making, operations and regulation
itation, particularly wastewater management services functions. The overall responsibility for policy and design
are not clearly defined. The providers act as monopolies; shall be with the local government;
they are often policy-makers and regulators at the same time. • responsibility for mechanisms to encourage efficiency
They tend to operate under the control of the government shall be with the service provider;
as government entities with very little incentive to operate • increased autonomy for service providers, but more ac-
efficiently or to adopt commercial business practices that countability based on clear roles and responsibilities which
would provide good customer care. There are no regulatory are supported by performance standards; and
arrangements to impose standards and targets and to mon- • the service provider would need to support poor commu-
itor performance. These service providers operate in a legal nities through a Public Service Obligation arrangement
and regulatory framework that does not clarify roles and re- and would be entitled to receive subsidies from govern-
sponsibilities, improve predictability in allocation of resources ment for this purpose.
nor bear the consequences for good or poor performance.
The ideal situation would be to have competent and reliable The most appropriate institutional arrangement for a
organizations (owner, service provider and regulator) with Service Provider may be the PDAM, a PD PAL, a UPTD or
clear relationships between each other based on the different a BLUD. The UPTD/BLUD option retains the services within
roles and responsibilities. government but provides the unit with a certain degree of
autonomy which allows them to ring-fence part of their rev-
For best management, the service providers would act as enue for O&M, thereby contributing to enhanced sustainabil-
autonomous entities, working in accordance with a ‘perfor- ity.
FIGURE 2.2: Proposed Arrangements for Local Governance of Sanitation Systems
Policy & Regulations DPRD
Local Government
(Local Legislative Assembly)
LG as owner to establish
Regulator
Stakeholders’
Public Service Obligation (PSO)
(for Environment,
Committee
Public Health, Infrastructure)
Administering
Information on service quality
Autonomous Service Provider
(PD PAL, PDAM, others)
Service based on Standard Service
PSO contract (Regular/on-call basis)
payment
Subsidized Customers
Non-subsidized Customers
(low income customers)
22
SECTOR PERFORMANCE ISSUES ANALYSIS
The PDAM is an attractive option as the required oper- interests of local government stakeholders. Environmental
ational regulations and the fee structure are already in regulation usually is the role of the local government envi-
place. However, the downside is that sanitation experience ronmental agency, Badan Lingkungan Hidup (BLH). However,
within PDAMs is limited, and there is little interest or will to it may be beneficial if the Provincial Environmental Agency,
take over the management of wastewater systems which is Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup Daerah (BPLHD), takes
considered to be not profitable and since many PDAMs are on the role of environmental regulator, given that effluent
not financially strong. In the case of Banjarmasin, initially the standards are set by the Province, and the BLH at the local
wastewater system was managed by the PDAM, but over government level may have less authority to enforce the stan-
time it became clear that the wastewater division was not re- dards.
ceiving the desired support from management. This led to a
separation of the wastewater division from the PDAM and the It is unlikely that in the short term an ostensibly inde-
formation of a PD PAL, which is now one of the more effective pendent regulator for the wastewater sector will be es-
wastewater institutions in the country. tablished unless the private sector becomes involved
substantially. In this case, a body similar to the JWSRB may
A BLUD provides a higher degree of autonomy and also be formed for a particular local government. The proposed
management accountability, human resource manage- expansion of the Jakarta sewerage system may include pri-
ment and operational and financial performance. How- vate sector operators for the treatment facility. In this case,
ever, the establishment of a BLUD requires approval by local it might be appropriate to expand the charter of JWSRB to
legislation (Perda), which may prolong the process. The UPTD, include regulation of wastewater services. In time, consider-
which is usually attached to a particular Dinas, also has a cer- ation might be given to the establishment of a National Water
tain degree of autonomy allowing it to collect and retain reve- Supply and Sanitation Regulatory Board that, in terms of sanita-
nue for O&M expenses but has less flexibility than a PDAM, PD tion, would be independent of local government, regulating
PAL or a BLUD. However, a UPTD can be established relative- the performance of the sanitation Service Providers around
ly quickly and even if the ultimate intention is to establish a the country. This model has been adopted for several Latin
BLUD, a PDAM or a PD PAL, then the UPTD can be an effective American countries, such as Chile, Brazil and Colombia42 with
solution in the interim. some functions, such as economic regulation, delegated to
the State level. In Indonesia, it might be appropriate for a na-
The most common approach currently is to form a UPTD tional regulatory authority to be represented at the provincial
with the intention that it will later on transition into a level.
BLUD. Although some PDAMs (Medan, Bandung, Surakarta,
and Palembang in the future) and PD PALs (Jakarta, Banjarma- 2.2.5 The Interface between Community-managed and
sin) are operating wastewater systems, four of the five cities Institutionally-managed Services
that will be supported under the ADB-funded MSMIP, Cimahi,
Pekanbaru, Jambi and Makassar, will adopt the UPTD/BLUD The original SANIMAS concept was aimed at develop-
strategy and Yogyakarta expects to establish a UPTD by 2013. ing community-managed simplified sewer systems as
The IUWASH project is assisting with the establishment of a cost-effective medium term solution for wastewater
sanitation management strategies in 54 cities, most of which management in high density residential areas. This strat-
will establish UPTDs. egy of quickly investing in small communal systems that can
eventually be integrated with a central piped sewage net-
Although consensus is starting to develop with respect workis not simply a matter of local governments divesting re-
to the Service Provider, less has been achieved in terms sponsibility to community groups until a sewerage system is
of determining the most effective means to regulate developed. A program of DEWATS facilities requires substan-
sanitation services. In the water supply sector, PDAMs are tial investment in facilitation and long term technical collabo-
generally regulated by the local government in terms of tariffs ration between local government agencies and communities
and performance. Only in Jakarta, where the private sector is to ensure that the systems are effectively used and sustain-
providing water services,does a separate regulatory body, the ably maintained. The early SANIMAS systems for the most part
Jakarta Water Supply Regulation Body (JWSRB), exist although were established with technical guidance from the NGO BOR-
it still essentially reports to DKI Jakarta. In the sanitation sec- DA43 and its local partners. Institutional and technical facilita-
tor, regulation in terms of tariffs and performance is expected tion was extensive. The program has expanded rapidly under
to be a local government function for the foreseeable future, the leadership of MPW and the range of local NGOs that assist
although this is not an ideal arrangement due to the vested in facilitation has expanded correspondingly.
42
The Evolution of Urban Sanitation in Latin America, World Bank 2012.
43
Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association (BORDA) is a non-profit international development organization headquartered in Bremen, Germany and regional offices
in India, Indonesia, and Tanzania.
23
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
The current PPSP strategy assumes that, in the longer system. While sAIIG has experienced initial difficulties, pri-
term, many DEWATS systems would be connected to larg- marily in shifting from the traditional SANIMAS approach,
er scale sewer networks. At the same time, complementary over time the sAIIG approach may prove to be more sustain-
systems would serve areas that are uneconomic to reach with able.
conventional sewerage. In principle, communities are offered
a choice of options: MCK+ with a communal septic tank, or Nevertheless, it is expected that by 2015 over 6,000 DE-
simplified sewer systems connected to a communal treat- WATS will be operating across the country, continuing
ment facility. In practice, surveys indicate that many local gov- to be a component of Indonesia’s wastewater infrastruc-
ernments are promoting the MCK+ option, perhaps because ture. The original SANIMAS concept also assumed that, with
it is faster and less complicated to construct. However, in the adequate facilitation measures provided, communities would
longer term simplified sewer systems are more easily adapted be able to finance and manage O&M of communal facilities
to conventional sewer networks; they also offer the specific without much external support. The experience, however, so
level of servicethat households want (i.e., connections). Re- far has been mixed. Perhaps the most significant finding from
cent findings from the WSP study on community managed the WSP review of the DEWATS related to O&M, in particular
decentralized systems also show that the MCK+ installations the need for greater local government support to maintain-
are less sustainable. the systems either by government arrangement or through
contracting out of the services. Key areas of support include:
At this stage, it is not clearif using DEWATS as an interim effluent quality monitoring and regular de-sludging, assis-
measure until they become part of a larger centralized tance with major repair, and ongoing promotional and edu-
system approachis occurring in practice. There are a few cational support.
cases where this happens but it is probable that most DE-
WATS would be abandoned once households areincluded in Several cities under PPSP are providing O&M support for
the service area of a centralized system. The public facilities DEWATS. In Makassar, mobile “Technical Management Units”
may continue to be used, although experience has shown (UPTDs) are being established to provide community-level
that utilization of the community facilities reduces with time, technical support to maintain both the DEWATS and the con-
particularly when piped water becomes available and when ventional sewer network. The PD PAL in Banjarmasin is devel-
households start to install their own flush toilets. This raises oping a similar program in cooperation with Cipta Karya. The
the question of the economics of providing DEWATS as these experience in operating a decentralized sewerage system in
may soon be superseded by a centralized piped system. Malang is also summarized below (Box 2.4).
Current and future effluent quality standards for Indo- 2.2.6 Septage Management
nesia also have an impact on the efficacy of the DEWATS
approach. While 90 percent of DEWATS facilities are reported In Indonesia’s urban centers,more than 70 percentof
to meet the prescribed standards of less than 100mg/L BOD44, households currently discharge wastewater (often by
due to receiving water quality improving over time, effluent use of pour flush toilets) to septic tanks or more com-
quality standards are likely to become more stringent – in line monly cubluks, which are essentially open bottom pits
with standards used in other countries in the region. Sanita- or soakaways. Septic tanks, where utilized, do not usually
tion strategies should therefore carefully consider the effica- incorporate absorption trenches; the effluent is generally
cy of providing DEWATS in areas where centralized sewerage discharged either directly or indirectly into the local drainage
may be provided in the short to medium term. The DEWATS system which effectively acts as a combined sewer. While
programs may be best restricted to discrete locations outside the wastewater sector is attracting increasing amounts of fi-
the likely service area of a sewerage system. nancing through the PPSP, this will still only result in about
a 5 percent centralized sewerage coverage by 2015 with an
The current Australia Indonesia Grants for Sanitation45 additional 2 percent being covered by DEWATS and commu-
(sAIIG) program,46 funded by AusAID under INDII, may nal systems. In Jakarta, the development of the first stage of
be a more appropriate model. Under this program, decen- sewerage expansion will focus on interceptors and, therefore,
tralized simplified sewerage systems, intended to be man- septic tanks or cubluks will still be utilized. Clearly, septic tanks
aged by the local government wastewater utility, would be (or cubluks) will remain the primary means of wastewater dis-
developed as an ‘embryo’ of a future centralized wastewater posal for many years to come.
44
Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia. WSP, June 2012
45
http://indii.co.id/contents.php?id_contents=66&id_ref_menu=70
46
It is proposed that this grant will support up to 40 local governments develop piped sewerage facilities during the period 2013-2015.
24
SECTOR PERFORMANCE ISSUES ANALYSIS
BOX 2.4: Decentralized Sewerage Systems in Malang
In the early 2000s, with support from the USAID-financed CLEAN Urban project, the City of Malang initiated a decentralized
sewerage pilot project aiming to demonstrate effective collaboration between communities and the city cleansing department
(Dinas Kebersihan, DK). With donor financing, and joint planning between the community and DK a site was identified and land
contributed by the community for a wastewater treatment plant with the capacity to serve about 10,000 people in two wards
within the city. A plan for a network of shallow sewers was developed and neighborhood groups were formed to provide labor for
the tertiary network construction and subsequent maintenance. The local government was expected to finance expansion of the
trunk sewers to allow more neighborhoods to be connected. The neighborhood groups collect regular fees from the connected
households to finance periodic pipe de-clogging and repairs to the tertiary network. In the first years of the pilot connections
rapidly expanded to about 1,000 households, but further expansion requires extensions of the trunk lines by DK, which manages
the treatment plant with financing from the municipal government. Thus far, financing has not been made available by the local
government to expand the trunk network to allow additional neighborhoods to be connected.
The Malang experience provides a good example of a model for local government and community collaboration. A very large
proportion of the households in the original service area have connected to the sewer system, and they pay regular tariffs for the
sewage service. DK has proven capable of managing the small treatment plant, but it is dependent on local government financ-
ing rather than on tariffs to cover the operating costs. If the local government invested in expanding the sewage network to allow
additional connections up to the capacity of the treatment plant, it is likely that the system could achieve financial sustainability
without local government financing.
During the 1990s, the national government initiated the gand no legal, institutional or financing framework for sep-
installation of about 140 septage treatment facilities tage collection, treatment or disposal. Densely populated
(IPLT) under the Integrated Urban Infrastructure Devel- communities, mostly households owning septic tanks, are
opment (IUIDP) program, of which less than ten are now common in Indonesian cities; these tanks are often located
functioning effectively. The problem was not necessarily under the housewith no access to a manhole needed for
poor design, construction or even operation but rather the de-sludging. Few septic tanks have absorption trenches so
lack of incentives for residents to have their tanks de-sludged47 most septic tanks discharge directly to the drainage system,
and for the de-sludging operators to dispose of septage at while effluent from open bottom cubluks permeates into the
treatment plants instead of discarding septage indiscrimi- subsoil or water table. While septic tanks can remove as much
nately on land, in waterways or into the sewerage system.48 as 30-40 percent of BOD, to operate effectively, they need to
These septage management projects lacked local support as be de-sludged every three to five years.
well as the associated policies, monitoring and enforcement,
operations training and public outreach to make them sus- The common institutional arrangement for septage man-
tainable. Moreover, the decentralization policy of 2001 trans- agement isthrough a local government Dinas that also
ferred management responsibilities to the local agencies operates the solid waste facility. Even in cities such as Sura-
without adequate training and ongoing technical assistance. karta, Medan and Banjarmasin, where wastewater systems
As a result, it is now estimated that only 4 percent of septage are managed by the PDAM or a PDPAL, septage management
is treated; furthermore, septage treatment facilities are either remains the responsibility of alocal government agency and
severely under utilized or in a state of disrepair. It is estimat- not the PDAM/PDPAL. Commonly, de-sludging of tanks is on
ed that as much as 70 percent of the country’s groundwater demand with and residents paying the de-sludging operator
pollution stems from leaking septic tanks or cubluks (which a service fee; the service operator in turn pays a tipping fee to
are designed to ‘leak’) and septage disposed in waterways.49 dispose of the septage at an IPLT. This creates a disincentive
from the perspective of the resident who will only request for
The Indonesian Standard Code for Planning Septic Tank- septic tank de-sludging when it overflows and also for the
sis relatively comprehensive, but it is generally not en- operator (if a private de-sludging company) who may choose
forced by local government and few facilities are built in to discharge the septage indiscriminately (rather than paying
accordance with the Code. In addition, there are no national a tipping fee or transporting the septage over even longer
or local laws that require regular or scheduled de-sludgin- distances to the IPLT).
47
In Lampung it is estimated that 22 percent of sludge generated is removed, but probably much less due to the watery nature of the sludge.
48
Wastewater treatment plants are not designed to accept septage, which will reduce the operational efficiency of the plant. Dumping wastewater into the sewerage system reduces
the hydraulic efficiency of the piped network.
49
A Rapid Assessment of Septage Management in Asia, USAID, January 2010
25
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
WSP and IUWASH are working with the GOI to develop Septage Management Policy Framework and Enforcement.
business models for septage removal, transport and Currently few local governments have an ordinance in
treatment and, if possible, reuse. These studies, which draw the building regulations that requires proper design and
the lessons learned from field investigations in a number of construction of septic tanks for all housing and develop-
Indonesian towns and cities, are still ongoing with initial re- ments where separate sewerage is not provided. These
sults available from the WSP study in Lampung, Tegal and septic tanks should be located such that they are accessible for
Jombang. In each of these locations, septage management regular de-sludging. More importantly, the appropriate design
is undertaken by the local government, with de-sludging and construction of septic tanks needs to be effectively en-
operations carried out by a mix of government and private forced by building inspectors. Retrofitting of poorly designed
sector operators. However, the current operations by private and constructed septic tanks or cubluks is recommended, but
de-sludging operators are only marginally viable and prob- this is a major task and should be restricted to areas where it
ably only remain so by taking short cuts for the disposal of is unlikely that centralized sewerage systems will be built or
septage. As a result, the IPLTs have low utilization and septage where cubluks are likely to pollute the water table. A local gov-
treatment operations are not viable given the limited quantity ernment ordinance should also be enacted requiring house-
of septage delivered to the plants. holds to de-sludge septic tanks at least every three to five years.
In addition, monitoring and enforcement policies are necessary
The WSP study suggests that the imposition of a regu- that require operators to dispose of septage only in authorized
lar charge on all households to cover the cost of septage locations. However, to be effective these policies need to be
treatment could produce a viable operation and remove accompanied by a charging regime that would remove the
the disincentives for both the residents and the opera- currently existing disincentives both at the householder and
tors. Under this scenario, the residents would receive regular operator level. This is best achieved by imposing an environ-
de-sludging while the private operators would be paid for mental fee on all households that would cover the costs of
services by the local government, so that it would not have to de-sludging septic tanks and treating the septage.
pay a tipping fee at the IPLT. The study highlights the need for
improved management capacity, particularly for systems that Institutional Arrangements and Capacity. The ambitious
aim to finance on-call or regular pit emptying through regular program to install septage treatment facilities in 140
charges levied on all households. Monitoring and recording towns during the 1990s failed, essentially because the in-
systems for septage collection and disposal also need to be stitutional arrangements were not in place to implement
established or improved. a septage management program. Removal of the disin-
centives for the householder and the operators, as discussed
There are opportunities for the private sector to be in- above, will create the necessary environment for a septage
volved in septage management through sludge collec- management program to operate effectively. However, this
tion and transport or treatment facility operation under requires the necessary local government ordinances to be
either a management or a lease contract. Private sector in place and the management of these services by a suit-
operators could be hired based on service contracts to pro- able organization. Although septage programs are currently
vide a sludge collection and transport service on behalf of the linked to solid waste management programs managed by lo-
municipality or the IPLT operator rather than offering a service cal government, septage management is more aligned with
in parallel to the municipality’s own service. This would tend wastewater management,and is more logically managed by a
to formalize the involvement of the private sector contractors, wastewater utility. The studies being undertaken in Indonesia
something that is arguably desirable in the medium to longer by WSP and IUWASH should be widely disseminated within
term. local governments and wastewater service providers in In-
donesia to create an awareness that septage management
In order to increase the viability of septage management does not need be a drain on financial resources and that re-
operations, sludge re-use is also being considered. In habilitation of the existing septage plants (or construction of
Metro Lampung, an entrepreneur is producing soil-condi- new plants) can be financed with the expectation of obtain-
tioning material from solid waste on a site adjacent to the ing financial returns. There are certainly opportunities for the
Metro Lampung solid waste dumpsite; the same approach is private sector to become involved in septage management,
underway at around six other sites in Indonesia. Mixing fecal at the very least as de-sludging operators, but ideally also as
waste with the solid waste should increase the organic con- operators of IPLT facilities.
tent of the bagged soil conditioner and this might increase its
sales potential. Even if this proves to be the case, a challenge While private sector de-sludging services and treatment
may remain in sourcing sufficient treated sludge to make facilities are preferred, these services still need to be
commercial use viable. managed, monitored and supervised by local govern-
26
SECTOR PERFORMANCE ISSUES ANALYSIS
ment. In particular, local governments will need assistance Studies carried out by USAID in the Philippines50 have
in developing strategies for improved septage management shown that with appropriate local legislation and ordi-
that will include the development of information systems nances in place, septage management can be a viable
that establish sludge quantities, demand patterns, operation- operation that can cover the investment as well as O&M
al and financial arrangements. costs. With some support from national government, local
governments should be encouraged to fund septage man-
Funding for septage management. Currently, little national agement programs, including the rehabilitation of septage
government capital funding is being allocated to sep- treatment facilities. Private de-sludging companies can be
tage management. National government allocations for engaged by local government or the sanitation utility under
wastewater management are focused on DEWATS projects service contract arrangements which will improve monitor-
or supporting a few donor funded sewerage projects. Some ing and enforcement of septage disposal. However, this will
donor funded programs incorporateseptage management require local government to increase demand by requiring
as part of the wastewater management improvements. Lo- households to regularly de-sludge their septic tanks and pay
cal governments provide some support for operation and a fee to the local government agency or utility that is respon-
maintenance of septage collection and disposal but far less sible for sludge management. Payment to private operators
than is actually required and very limited capital funding for would be made on delivery of septage to the treatment fa-
rehabilitation of facilities. In Jakarta, JICA intends support the cility, thereby encouraging these operators to dispose of sep-
implementation of the initial stage of the Jakarta Wastewa- tage at the appropriate location. This will most likely be suc-
ter Master Plan based on combined flows and interceptors; cessful based on adequate campaignsthat address both local
septage management will remain an integral part of this pro- government officials and the wider public to raise awareness
gram. Funding for this program should therefore include a of the importance of regular de-sludging of septic tanks and
substantial component for septage management. the impact of poor sanitation on the community.
50
Business Model for a Water District Septage Management Program, Philippine Water Revolving Fund Support Program, USAID, 2010
27
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
28
III. Recommendations
Although until 2000, urban sanitation (particularly sew- The following outlines recommendations to address the
erage) in Indonesia was extremely limited, international critical issues that face wastewater management in Indo-
projects starting with the ISSDP and followed by PPSP nesia. The key messages are:
have provided a suitable framework and process for ur-
ban sanitation planning. The program has been supported • All local governments need to develop septage manage-
by the central government as well as by international donors ment programs through introducing appropriate legis-
and was aided by the establishment of POKJAs at provincial lation and ordinances, institutional arrangements, local
and city/district level. Local government also has taken re- financing and charging mechanisms.
sponsibility in implementing sanitation programs. Notwith-
standing the progress, tremendous challenges remain; this • Conduct comprehensive citywide sanitation planning to
concerns particularly the scaling up of a small program, that identify areas for centralized sewerage, DEWATS, on-site
was essentially a pilot program in ISSDP covering 12 cities, to solutions and the introduction of innovative approaches
a vastly accelerated programsupporting 330 cities by 2014. to provide services for the urban poor.
Challenges include access to finance for the program at the
national and local government levels, the need for regulating • To increase coverage, central governments need to re-di-
policies to formalize processes, the need to develop human rect financing to the implementation of centralized sys-
resource capacities to implement the program, mobilizing tems in highly urbanized areas, while ensuring priority is
the private sector and civil society to support sanitation pro- given to sanitation for the urban poor.
grams, identifying institutional arrangements to manage the
wastewater systems, and developing technical solutions that • The DEWATS program should be considered in the context
optimize coverage with available resources while addressing of comparative costs with other alternatives, effluent qual-
the environmental degradation caused by poor sanitation. ity produced and O&M arrangements. Financing should be
While the policy framework is now starting to be put in place primarily by local government.
to better plan and implement urban sanitation programs, the
arrangements to actually manage the systems and regulate • Wastewater service providers need to aim for cost recov-
the sector have not yet been established. There are certain ery by implementation of ‘polluter pays’ principles through
key activities required that will build on the considerable appropriate wastewater tariff structures, effluent discharge
progress made to date which will result in improved perfor- fees or through other means such as property taxes or oth-
mance of the wastewater sector. Recommendations that will er utility fees (e.g., water and electricity).
lead to improved performance are outlined below. For con-
venience, the recommendations are divided into policy, insti- • Central government needs to develop a public expendi-
tutional,technical, social and financial aspects although there ture framework for sanitation and assist local governments
may be many overlapping features. in raising finance for sanitation interventions.
29
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
• An institutional framework for managing sanitation by the cies and not underpinned by legislation or an administrative
local government needs to be established that will sep- order that would require all levels of government follow the
arate the roles of Owner, Service Provider and Regulator. PPSP process.
This framework should cover all sanitation services associ-
ated with wastewater: DEWATS, septage management and National laws on environmental protection, housing and
sewerage. settlement, water resources and water supply that pre-
scribe requirements related to sewerage and sanitation
• Demand by the community for wastewater management have not been replicated at the local government level
needs to be increased by improved focus on service de- where enforcement needs to take place. Planning, espe-
livery, awareness campaigns to promote behavior change, cially at the local level, tends to have a short term horizon
and appropriate tariff structures. displaying limited vision relating to sanitation as part of a
longer term city development plan. There is also a need to
3.1 Policy Recommendations establish or assign an effective sanitation (and water) regula-
tory office that has the authority to ensure that sewerage and
Currently no formal, comprehensive national policy on sanitation service providers fulfill their mandate to provide
sanitation has been promulgated in Indonesia. Neverthe- sanitation services within their jurisdiction. While much has
less, a de facto policy is defined in the medium term develop- been achieved during the past five years regarding the de-
ment plans (RPJMN) issued every five years,the National Policy velopment of an approach that has the potential to substan-
and Strategies on Domestic Wastewater Management, and tially improve the coverage of urban sanitation, this approach
the policy on minimum service standards issued by MPW. The needs to be underpinned by policy development at the pro-
current policy approach to sanitation is clearly captured by vincial and local government levels. Policy recommendations
the PPSP, yet this is based on an arrangement between agen- are outlined below:
o The national government to issue at least an Administrative Order confirming PPSP as the preferred approach to urban sanita-
tion, requiring all agencies and local governments to follow this approach.
o The POKJA at local government level shall propose the enactment of enabling local government legislation/regulations on
sanitation covering at least the following:
– the role of the local government to provide the community with the means by which wastewater can be safely disposed of and defining
the duty of the residents to pay for these services;
– the role of the private sector and the community in the provision and management of sanitation and wastewater facilities;
– the requirements for all new housing that are not connected to a sewerage system to have a properly designed and constructed septic
tank;
– a requirement for developers to provide an acceptable wastewater system for all new developments, including a wastewater treatment
facility - unless connected to an existing wastewater system;
– a requirement for all households to de-sludge septic tanks within a fixed period (or alternatively the imposition of an environmental levy
on all households that covers the cost of regularly de-sludging septic tanks);
– regulations and their enforcement regarding the requirement to discharge septage in an approved location such as an IPLT;
– establishment of an entity as a service provider responsible for the management and operation of the sanitation and wastewater sys-
tem, with the right to collect fees from users of the system; and
– establishment of a regulatory body to regulate the performance of the service provider, including the setting of appropriate tariffs.
o In accordance with the PPSP/USDP Mid-Term Review,some adjustments to be made to the PPSP modules and manuals to en-
sure that the planning process leads to implementation at the scale necessary to achieve short, medium and long term targets.
This will require:
– development by cities/districts of a long term vision for sanitation with a 20-25 year perspective, with respect to centralized and decen-
tralized sewerage systems as well as on-site systems;
– targets for coverage with different forms of sanitation to be developed and agreed upon, and budget expenditure requirements deter-
mined to meet these targets and incorporated in planning documents;
– PPSP to develop a framework that provides objectives, outcomes, outputs and indicators in accordance with the planning targets; and
– the planning processes adopted by PPSP - such as the SSK, White Book and Program Memorandum - need to be in a format such that
these documents can be prepared within a time frame commensurate with the planning targets. Now that the planning process is
completed or underway across the country, there needs to be more emphasis on the stages required for implementation including
master planning, design, procurement and financing. The planning targets need to take into account the human resource capacity to
implement sanitation programs and the availability of financing.
30
RECOMMENDATIONS
3.2 Institutional Recommendations institutional arrangement to manage wastewater systems,
both centralized and decentralized; (c) lack of any regulation
The institutional arrangements for the sector reflect the of the sector service providers; and (d) difficulty in achieving
decentralization process, whereby the national govern- cost recovery from the wastewater installations. There are
ment focuses on policy development, setting of stan- many institutional arrangements in place in different cities/
dards and capacity building, while local governments districts but the key requirement is to establish a Service Pro-
are responsible for sanitation planning, development, vider that is able to charge and retain tariffs for services and
financing and management of the infrastructure. Sector use the revenue for O&M and system expansion. There is also
coordination is undertaken by BAPPENAS but in reality there a need to establish an independent regulatory body that is
is no single department responsible for sanitation -- with var- independent from the Service Provider.
ious functions being shared by BAPPENAS, Ministry of Public
Works, Health, Home Affairs, Environment and Finance. The The following recommendations largely address the insti-
primary institutional issues relate to: (a) lack of capacity at tutional arrangements that need to be put in place for the
the central, provincial and city/district level to implement the sector to operate more effectively and also to successfully im-
PPSP targets; (b) lack of a consensus on the most appropriate plement the PPSP:
o The national government needs to develop a recommended approach for local government to establish a formal entity (Ser-
vice Provider), responsible for the management of wastewater services at the local level, that is able to retain revenue for op-
eration and maintenance and system expansion. This should be supported by technical assistance programs in cities/districts
where PPSP implementation is ongoing.
– The decision on the preferred model to be adopted for this Service Provider will need to be taken by the municipality/district. Part of the
technical assistance should be to assist the proposed Service Providers to develop tariffs for sanitation and wastewater services that
enable cost recovery but that do not place poor segments of the community at a disadvantage.
o The Service Provider should be responsible for all sanitation and wastewater systems in the city/district. This includes direct
O&M of centralized sewerage systems and septage management programs, and at least a support function for communi-
ty-managed DEWATS. The roles of the Service Provider and the local government in the provision of sanitation services should
be prescribed based on performance. Close coordination with POKJA AMPL at the province and municipality/district level must
be developed.
o The private sector should be encouraged to take on the role of Service Provider to deliver all or part of the sanitation and waste-
water services. Provision of de-sludging and septage transport services is a basic service that can be provided by the private
sector, but management contracts and concessions for delivery of all services can be considered.
o The national government should develop a recommended approach for an independent regulatory body that can monitor the
performance of local government and service providers in delivering sanitation services, including the evaluation of appropri-
ate tariff structures. There should be a single regulatory body for water supply and sanitation services. It may be appropriate to
locate the regulatory office at the Provincial level to provide a degree of separation from the city/district.
o There is a need to upgrade capacities in the sector by developing training and licensing programs for specific skills areas. There
is also a need to work with higher education institutions, the private sector and experienced NGOs to modernize courses and
provide training in environmental engineering as well as to develop incentives (such as internships or scholarships for top stu-
dents) for students interested in a career in wastewater management. These steps are needed given that capacity is a constraint
at all levels (e.g., central and local government, private sector, and civil society).
31
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
3.3 Technology Recommendations systems will be decisions on whether to introduce staged de-
velopment, using combined systems and interceptors prior
City wide approaches to address sanitation are needed to developing separate systems in order to more rapidly in-
which also help the poor. Untreated wastewater or septage crease coverage; how to improve the current low utilization
is a concern for all in a city and the positive environmental of the sewerage systems; which appropriate treatment tech-
externalities of sanitation interventions are large. Thus, a com- nologies are cost effective but at the same time are able to
prehensive citywide approach should be taken to ensure that address the probable increase in effluent standards; and the
priority investments are addressed by the local government technology required to construct sewers in highly congested
or the utility. The poor often live next to contaminated wa- areas.
terways but the waste is often discharged to the water bod-
ies elsewhere and from upstream locations. Thus, while the The current focus on rapid expansion of DEWATS will
poor should receive assistance on sanitation, human waste need to be critically examined. Considerations include the
also needs to be collected and treated from other parts of resource intensive requirements for implementation, the rela-
the city. Consequently, citywide approaches to sanitation tive cost against the cost for constructing sewerage systems,
should be taken which includes assigning clear responsibility the observed decline over time in usage of the public facilities,
and resources to a local government entity for the delivery of the difficulties in recovering costs for appropriate O&M, and
services. the effluent quality of the treatment facilities which may not
be suitable as effluent standards will become stricter over time.
Greater emphasis will need to be placed on the develop-
ment of centralized sewerage systems if the percentage Cities/districts need to develop effective septage man-
of wastewater treated is to be increased significantly. agement programs. Even after the current phase of PPSP is
As the primary planning tool for the development of urban completed, some 90 percent of residents will still rely on on-
wastewater systems, the SSK is critical for identifying the ap- site sanitation.Septage management programs are required
propriate combination of wastewater technologies adopted that include suitable regulations requiring standards of septic
in the cities/districts. Analysis contained in the SSK should tank design and construction, regular de-sludging of septic
determine the extent of centralized sewerage systems (com- tanks, and proper disposal of septage.
bined or separate), areas where decentralized systems are
appropriate, and those where on-site systems will continue The following recommendations address the technological
to be used for the foreseeable future. Some of the issues that needs to scale up sanitation development in a significant
need to be addressed in developing centralized sewerage way:
o The experiences with inefficient wastewater treatment facilities and decentralized systems must be critically considered. A fea-
sibility study should be conducted prior to any design, including at least a study on the real demand, willingness to pay, will-
ingness to connect, real septic tank condition in the coverage area, and numbers of de-sludging service providers. Technical
feasibility study guidelines should be prepared for use by the local governments.
o Different approaches to sanitation are to be used, depending on the respective service areas. There are primarily three general
categories of wastewater and sanitation systems that need to be implemented to increase coverage in a city:
– These comprise: (a) centralized sewerage systems for city centers and other high density areas; (b) decentralized systems for discrete high-
ly populated areas not adjacent to the centralized system; and (c) community-based systems, such as SANIMAS, for more low income or
peri-urban areas. Although these may merge over time, cities need to do careful analysis of costs and benefits of comparative sanitation
interventions in the SSK and planning and investment documents need to identify the various zones for budgeting and implementation.
o A staged approach to sewerage – with the first stage being combined sewerage and drainage using the drainage system with
storm overflow interceptors, is an appropriate approach for larger cities with limited sanitation coverage, given the huge in-
vestment required to increase sewerage and sanitation coverage to acceptable levels.
– This approach also may increase the quantity of influent to fully utilize the treatment capacity prior to the system being converted to
a fully separate system. However, it will result in a more dilute sewage reaching the treatment facility which will require an appropriate
design approach. Sewerage laterals collecting separate sewerage can be adopted gradually as funding permits. The SSK should include
a careful analysis of the options of providing separate and combined sewerage systems.
32
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continued...
o Careful consideration should be given in SSKs to the efficacy of continuing with the scale of development of DEWATS that is pro-
posed in the current PPSP planning phase. Analysis should include the resources required for planning and implementation of
the systems, the comparative costs versus centralized sewerage systems, the institutional capacity to operate and maintain the
systems, and the effluent quality produced, giving consideration to likely future effluent standard requirements in the country.
– While community-managed DEWATS projects have formed a central role in meeting the Government’s sanitation targets to date, and
will continue to do so under PPSP, the ambitious target for DEWATS projects under PPSP also carries some risk. DEWATS are unlikely to
provide the up-scaling in wastewater coverage required to meet future targets.
o Planners need to carefully consider suitable locations for public facilities, such as MCK, and where to provide a decentralized
system with a sewerage network, given that a recent study shows that the utilization of many MCK installations had declined.
These decentralized schemes should have the potential to tie into future or current centralized networks.
o It is critical that the local government, and preferably the wastewater Service Provider, enter into an arrangement with the
community to provide ongoing support to the community-managed facilities.
– Recent surveys of DEWATS projects have shown that: income levels are often too low to pay for proper operation and maintenance,
many community management systems do not function adequately, treatment facilities are often not de-sludged, and there is limited
post-construction support.
o Where separate sewerage systems are utilized, residents must be encouraged to make connections so that the sewers and treat-
ment facilities are fully utilized and the investment is justified.
– The local authority/service provider has several means to achieve this, namely through: (a) a policy of enforcing connections for any
household with access to a sewerage system; (b) charging of an environmental fee where all households pay a charge for sanitation
which covers either a sewer connection or regular de-sludging of septic tanks; (c) the implementation of a ‘hibah’ approach where the
cost of the connection is funded externally; (d) information, education and communication (IEC) campaigns so that the citizens are
aware of the benefits to connect to a sewerage network; and (e) financial assistance to poor households to connect to the network so
that wastewater is removed away from the population in a safe manner .
– Septage management plans should include a financial analysis that will establish a charging mechanism for de-sludging. The impo-
sition of an environmental fee that includes the cost of septic tank de-sludging may be considered, as it will improve the willingness of
residents to have tanks de-sludged. This is likely to lead to a more regular use of de-sludging services rather than an on-call basis as the
current practice. Regular de-sludging services will also contribute to better maintenance of septic tanks.
o Design of the treatment facilities should take sewage influent conditions into account, so that they are able to operate efficient-
ly under variable conditions. The effluent standards adopted should also take into consideration the impact on the receiving
waters and whether the national or provincial standards are applicable for different situations.
– Sewage influent at treatment facilities is often dilute with low BOD and of a lower volume than the design capacity of the treatment
facilities due to the slow build up of connections (if separate sewers are utilized).
– Although over time it may become desirable to adopt stricter effluent standards, this is unnecessary at this point in time as it would
significantly increase the cost of providing wastewater treatment, which is not appropriate given the general poor condition of the
receiving waters.
o It is critical that septage management practices be improved, given that the use of septic tanks will continue for the foreseeable
future in all cities. This will require enforcement of local regulations for design and construction of proper septic tanks and
septage management and disposal. Furthermore, septage management plans should be developed for each city/district com-
prising arrangements for collection, transport and disposal.
o Innovative sanitation technologies need to be implemented for poor urban communities living in coastal areas, where the
terrain is unsuitable for conventional technology, or where the communities are extremely densely populated. These may take
the form of public facilities, individual latrines such as eco-san toilets, or shallow sewerage technology.
33
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
3.4 People Recommendations the sector or holding government to account for poor sani-
tation; this leaves the government itself as the primary driver
A key to understanding the social issues related to sanita- of wastewater management improvements. In the past few
tion in Indonesia is that wastewater management is com- years through the efforts of PPSP, awareness for sanitation was
monly understood to be a private rather than a public re- developed due to SSK preparation,the presence of ‘champions’
sponsibility. As such, residents are willing to spend money on at the central and local government level, associated attitudes,
removing wastewater from their immediate environment but and with it the political pressure to invest in wastewater man-
the level of awareness of the broader public health and envi- agement. The challenge now is to maintain and increase this
ronmental benefits of more comprehensively and effectively impetus so that it reaches the local communities.
managing wastewater is low. To date, even civil society has
not been particularly active in generating public awareness in The recommendations to address people issues are as follows:
o Increase community buy-in to decentralized small sewer schemes and sewerage systems based on raised public awareness, so
that communities understand the broader sanitation strategy challenges. This will require a coordinated approach between
central, provincial and local government with MPW in the lead, supported by the Ministry of Environment with respect to en-
vironmental pollution, DOH with respect to health impacts, and MOHA with respect to raising awareness within local govern-
ment staff. This approach will require considerable additional resources from each of these departments and local government
to be able to expand reach via local organizations.
o Review and improve systems for collection and dissemination of information on sanitation coverage, health and environmen-
tal impacts to assist in awareness raising.
– Department of Health to use health information systems (HIS) to collect data on water borne diseases and use the HIS to educate com-
munities on the impact and the costs of water borne diseases for the public.
– Provincial and City BLH to use the PROKASIH and PROPER programs to disseminate data on pollution of water bodies, so that aware-
ness raising activities can be included in city/district government programs.
– Establish programs to publicize water quality of coastal and river waters and the extent to which they are safe for recreational purposes,
to demonstrate the impact that poor sanitation has on tourism.
– MPW, in conjunction with the Department of Education, to develop programs on the negative impacts of poor sanitation for dissemi-
nation in schools.
o Society needs to play a more active role showing its concerns with respect to the link between sanitation and the environment;
this may be conducive to developing a heightened awareness among communities of the negative impacts and costs of poor
sanitation, which would trigger feedback of communities on the performance of the local government organizations manag-
ing the provision of sanitation services. The involvement of women’s groups, such as(PKK/Dasawisma), in raising awareness at
the local government level should be encouraged.
34
RECOMMENDATIONS
3.5 Financing Recommendations ed funding responsibilities of central provincial and local
governments. In particular, studies have shown that local
While national government funding for sanitation has government can afford to invest more in the sector, but that
increased significantly since 2006, it is still far short of wastewater management in general is not a priority. Cost
what is required to meet PPSP targets or to significant- recovery also continues to be an issue for utility providers
ly increase urban sewerage coverage. Most national and for a range of reasons,including unwillingness or inability
local government funding is directed towards DEWATS/ of communities to pay tariffs and/or connection fees or, in
SANIMAS projects with loan funding being directed at the some cases, a reluctance to charge.
larger centralized sewerage projects in selected cities. It is
advisable to adopt a more structured approach to funding Recommendations to secure financing for the wastewater
based on priorities, sector development plans, and expect- sector are as follows:
o The estimated cost to provide sanitation to Indonesia’s urban population in 2025 is USD42.7 billion, and capital needs should
be secured through a sanitation expenditure framework.
– The framework should be well-defined with sources of financing identified. It would: outline the costs to improve sanitation; define
priorities, mechanisms for the flow of funds, and arrangements for financial management; outline plans to prepare projects along with
expected targets and monitoring plan; and identify sources of financing for viable projects.
o The central government needs to develop a clearly-articulated financing policy in accordance with the planned program from
PPSP.
– This may be in terms of central government budgeting to fund certain elements of the works, such as sewers and treatment, with local
government funding connections (possibly supported through a hibah program) and land acquisition or it may be a formula for a fixed
percentage of the cost. An analysis needs to be undertaken of the investment needs and the contribution required from central, provin-
cial and local government for planning purposes.
o There is a need to develop incentives for local government to invest and borrow funds for sanitation as a priority. Further anal-
ysis may be required to determine the local budget required. AKKOPSI may be mobilized to assist in encouraging local govern-
ments to provide funding for sanitation.
o Financing should be channelled through the APBD, except for major projects that may span administrative boundaries - in
which case funding may be channeled through the province. This will provide a sense of ownership for the local government –
as they will be implementing projects that provide sanitation systems which they will then operate and maintain themselves.
In any case, the MPW will continue to provide technical support (e.g., design, quality assurance and technical performance
monitoring).
o Consumer fees should be used to meet operating costs.
– Ideally, national and city authorities need to raise consumer fees to meet operating costs, if not immediately then as part of a tariff
increase plan over time, while ensuring affordability for the poor. Block tariffs can work where there are piped water systems. For areas
that do not have them, other methods of support to the poor, such as direct transfers, should be provided. Where the tariffs do not meet
operating costs, subsidies should be available to make up the difference between income and expenses. Other possible models include
application of the “polluter pays” principle through effluent discharge fees, or inclusion of a sanitation fee as part of the property tax or
combined with other utility billings (water or electricity, etc.).
35
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
36
Annexes
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
38
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Sector Performance in Indonesia
Data on Indonesia’s current performance in the wastewater sector is shown below in Table A1.1.
TABLE A1.1: Indonesia Urban Wastewater Sector Performance
Year
Indicator
2000 2005 2010
Population and Growth Rates
Population (million)(BPS, 2012) 206 238 245
(2010) (approximation of
2012)
Population, total annual growth rate (%) (Index Mundi, 2012) 1.04%
Urban share (% of total) (GSO, 2010) 42.0 43.1 45.0
Urban annual growth rate (%) (GSO, 2010) 3.0
Rural share (% of total) (GSO, 2010) 58.0 56.9 55.0
Rural annual growth rate (%) (GSO, 2010)
Population and Growth Rates Value Note
Urban sanitation coverage access to toilet. Joint Monitoring Program 73 83% if shared facilities included. Increased
(JMP) access, 2010 (%) (WHO – UNICEF, 2010) from 64% (not shared) in 2000
Urban access through sewerage connections (USAID,2006, WB Indo- About 1% of urban 200,000 connections in 12 cities
nesia Sanitation Review, 2012) population
Installed capacity of Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) (MLD)- 246 12 WWTPs
(USAID,2006, WB Indonesia Sanitation Review, 2012)
WWTP volume treated (MLD) - (USAID,2006, WB Indonesia Sanitation- 115 (47% of the 12 WWTPs
Review, 2012) installed capacity)
Urban wastewater treated (%) - (USAID,2006, WB Indonesia Sanitation Approx 1%
Review, 2012)
Proportion of systems that are combined waste water and drainage 10%
systems (%) –(WB Indonesia Sanitation Review, 2012)
Proportion of systems that are separate wastewater and drainage 90%
systems (%) (WB Indonesia Sanitation Review, 2012)
Urban proportion of septage treated (%) – (USAID,2010) 4% Refers to proportion of septage treated,
not that disposed of into sewers or waste-
water treatment plants.
Urban water supply coverage, JMP access (%) (WHO – UNICEF, 2010) 92
Share of urban population with 24/7 water supply (%) (WB Indonesia >90% in major urban centers
Sanitation Review, 2012)
Share of urban water supply samples meeting water quality standards (%) N.A
Rural water supply coverage, JMP access (%)(WHO – UNICEF, 2010) 74
Rural sanitation coverage, JMP access (%)(WHO – UNICEF, 2010) 39% 51% if shared facilities included.
2010 value, increased from 30% in 2000.
39
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Targets Value Note
MDG urban water supply target coverage (%) by 2015 (WHO – 75.3 Baseline 1993: 50.6% - 2009 – 49.8%
UNICEF, 2010)
MDG urban sanitation target coverage (%) by 2015 (WHO – UNICEF, 76.8 Baseline 1993: 53.6% - 2009:69.5%
2010)
Infant mortality (per 1000 live birth) by 2015 (WHO – UNICEF, 2010) 23 Baseline 1991: 68 - 2007: 34
Financial Performance Value Note
Per capita GDP, 2011 (USD) – (World Bank data) 2,940
Economic Growth Rate (%) – (World Bank data) 6.1%
Poverty Rate (%) by 2012 (World Bank data) 12.5% National poverty rate is the percentage of
the population living below the national
poverty line. National estimates are based
on population-weighted subgroup esti-
mates from household surveys
Poverty gap at USD2 a day (%) by 2010 (World Bank data) 14.3%
Total annual water investments (USD million)
Total annual sanitation sector investments (USD million) -2011 (USDP, 920 Annual sanitation investments from all
2012) sources increased from 420 million in
2010
Sanitation sector investments as percentage of GDP (%) – (USDP, 0.1%
2010)
Representative WSS Tariffs (IDR per m3) (WB Indonesia Sanitation 725 – 1,835 Tariff for household connection in Medan
Review Case Studies, 2012) (the lowest) and DKI Jakarta (the highest)
Representative WWT Tariffs (IDR per m3)- (USAID/ESP, 2004) (WB Indo- 500 – 7,500
nesia Sanitation Review Case Studies, 2012)
De-sludging fee (IDR per trip) (WB Indonesia Sanitation Review Case 250,000 – 500,000 Fee depends on distance
Studies, 2012)
Non-Revenue Water (%)by 2010 - (WB Indonesia Sanitation Review 40%
Case Studies, 2012)
Typical CAPEX costs/capita of sewerage51 350-600
Typical CAPEX costs/capita of decentralized wastewater treatment 350-400
systems (DEWATS)
51
Based on the East Asia Urban Sanitation Review analysis using sources including USAID Study of Centralized Treatment Plants in Indonesia (2006), Wastewater Master Plans for eight
cities in Indonesia, Indii (2010) and data gathered from field visits.
40
ANNEXES
Annex 2: City Case Studies
The following cities were visited for this study: Medan, Surakarta, Palembang and Banjarmasin. Medan and Surakarta were cho-
sen as pilot activities under an ongoing Septage Management Study under the USAID IUWASH Project. Palembang is one of eight
cities where a Sewerage Master Plan was prepared under IndII and where a centralized sewerage system is currently in the pro-
cess of detailed design. Banjarmasin has recently received grant assistance from IndII for the expansion of the sewerage system
and has a successful operating PD PAL. Medan, Surakarta, and Banjarmasin all have existing sewer systems and should be able
to provide useful insights on how wastewater systems are planned and managed in Indonesia. Palembang is known to have a
well-managed PDAM, and the city has plans to develop a sewer system. All four cities have developed a City Sanitation Strategies
(SSKs), and can provide insights into to how the Road Map for Accelerated Urban Sanitation is being implemented.
The Table below presents specific information on these urban centers.
TABLE A2.1: Overview of Select Urban Centers in Indonesia
City Population Location/Province City Importance Current Sanitation On-going
(2009) Situation Study
Medan 2,124,080 North Sumatera Provincial capital, third larg- Has sewerage system built Septage study
est city in the country, hub under ADB’s Medan UDP,
for western region serving about 3% of city
population
Surakarta 529,059 Central Java Medium size city, city with Sewerage system exists, Septage study,
cultural heritage, second hertigaed from collonial ex-ISSDP
largest in Central Java after period, expanded under
Semarang WB’s SSUDP
Palembang 1,442,529 South Sumatera Provincial Capital, hub for No sewerage system Indll-Master
southern Sumatera Plan, USDP
Banjarmasin 640,828 South Kalimantan Provincial capital, city with Has sewerage system ex-ISSDP
many canals, close to the built under WB’s KUDP
sea but not really coastal and expanded on its own,
city known for good perform-
ing PD PAL
41
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
Annex 2.1 Case Study: Banjarmasin Municipality
MCKs in Banjarmasin
Population: 641,000
Number and type(s) of WWTPs: 6 completed, 1 planned for completion by 2013, all Rotating
Bio-Contact systems. 26 SANIMAS systems
Percentage of households with some form of septic tank 55%
Number of sewer connections (2012): 10,000
Percent coverage with sewerage: 4%
Percent coverage with improved on-site or communal systems: 1%
Total sanitation coverage, 2012: 5%
Wastewater tariff collection rate: 30%
Piped water supply coverage (PDAM): 98%
42
ANNEXES
The provincial capital of South Kalimantan Province, Banjarmasin is a flat, low-lying city at the confluence of the Barito and Marta-
pura Rivers. Until 2000, the city had no sewer system and most of the population along the rivers disposed of wastewater directly
into the rivers. In the late 1990s, the World Bank funded Kalimantan Urban Development Project provided a limited sewerage
system through an investment of IDR50 billion
At the outset, Banjarmasin adopted a strategy to install and promote sewerage in the city center among commercial enterprises
and high income households toimprove cost recovery.. Subsequently, the city’s sewerage coverage expanded including a wider
range of income groups, also in outlying areas of the city.
The sewer system and the treatment plant were managed by PDAM from 2000-2006, but by 2004,out of 3,000 PDAM customers
only 200 households were connected. In 2007, it was decided to form a separate public enterprise for wastewater manage-
ment (PD PAL). This approach also aimed at raising the profile of sanitation to become a higher priority among PDAM staff,who
commonly saw their main focus as water supply. The key objectives for establishing the PD PAL were to attract competent and
professional staff,maintain separate revenue and cost accounting for wastewater management, and to secure financing for san-
itation that could not be diverted to other purposes. Its status as a public enterprise permits PD PAL to operate on commercial
principles and raise professionalism by providing staff incentives. For example, PD PAL offers bonuses to its staff for each of the
1,000 connections installed.
The separation from PDAM was not complete as billing was still combined, with 25 percentof the water usage bill going to
wastewater services. For households with sewer connections that did not have PDAM water connections, a flat monthly tariff
was charged in line with the following schedule:
PDPAL Banjarmasin
Monthly sewer fee charged for customers without water connections
Customer category Monthly sewer tariff (IDR)
Social services:
Public services 5,000
Special social services (NGOs) 10,000
Non-commercial connections:
Neighborhood Class A1 5,000
Neighborhood Class A2 10,000
Neighborhood Class A3 25,000
Neighborhood Class B 25,000
Commercial connections:
Small-scale enterprise class I 5,000
Small-scale enterprise class II 20,000
Small-scale enterprise class III 35,000
Medium-scale enterprise 50,000
Large-scale enterprise 100,000
Industrial connections:
Small-scale/neighbourhood industry 20,000
Medium-scale industry 30,000
Large scale and special industry 100,000
Market vendors:
Micro-vendors (selling from buckets) 5,000
Table vendors 5,000
Kiosks 10,000
Stores 15,000
Grocers 20,000
PDPAL is currently able to recover its O&M costs but not the depreciation of assets. Tariffs are adequate but collection efficiency
remains very low, at only about 30 percent.
Banjarmasin has benefited from strong political support for sanitation improvement and strong leadership within the PDAM and
PDPAL. The Director of Wastewater Services within PDAM, who later became the director of PDPAL, is highly motivated and has
a strong vision for the future of sanitation in Banjarmasin. The Mayor of Banjarmasin also is a strong advocate for sanitation, and
has been a leading political figure in the promotion of implementing PPSP.
43
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
The main challenge to expanding the sanitation program in Banjarmasin is the relatively low demand. With flowing water bodies
nearby and a long tradition of using them for waste disposal, demand and willingness to pay for sanitation improvements are
low. Consequently, PDPAL has a very active public awareness program that includes childhood education, TV shows and ad-
vertisements, and web-based information. In addition to this, private enterprises through their Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) programs are financing the construction of public rest rooms in tourism development areas, primarily along the riverfront.
Banjarmasin was an early participant the preparation of the PPSP concept, and aSanitation Working Group (POKJA) was estab-
lished already in 2006.
By the use of funds from national and local revenues, the Banjarmasin’sCity government started to promote PDPAL’s service,
financing a ‘promotion’ program, which in effect was a subsidy – to encourage households to connect. The promotion provides
free connections and six months exemption from fee payments. After six months, the payment will revert to 25 percentof the
water bill. By 2009,the total connections had increased to 3,000 (including 1,000 new connections in 2009 alone). The city cur-
rently has about 10,000 connections with anambitious plan to achieve 65,000 connections over the next five years.
PDPAL currently operates four treatment plants and sewer networks; it is planning to construct an additional three schemes by
2013. Current coverage of connections to the sewer network comprises about 4 percent of the population with about 1 per-
centcoverage with SANIMAS systems and improved household septic tanks. The city has a target of 50 percent coverage with
adequate sanitation services by 2028. Local regulations now require all new housing developments to include sewer service and
house connections rather than septic tanks.
For wastewater treatment, Banjarmasin has opted for rotating biological contact filters due to their relatively compact design,
suitability for high water table areas, and low maintenance requirements. Because of the high water table and flat topography
throughout the city, much of the sewer network lies below the water table. Construction quality is variable, and there is signifi-
cant infiltration of groundwater, which increases volumetric loads at the treatment plants and reduces the capacity for treating
pure wastewater. The INDII Project’s Hibah Sanitasi output-based grant program is financing an expansion, upgrades to the
sewer network to reduce groundwater inflows, and a vacuum system to augment flows within the network.
In addition, PDPAL operates a septic tank emptying service with Dinas Kebersihan that services all areas within the municipality
that have not yet been reached by sewers. Fees charged for de-sludging are as follows:
PDPAL Banjarmasin
Septic Tank emptying fee schedule
Customer Category Price per cubic meter Minimum charge (IDR/2 M3)
Business enterprises IDR125,000 IDR300,000
Government Agencies IDR125,000 IDR250,000
Private residences IDR100,000 IDR200,000
The collected sludge is brought to PD PAL’s treatment plants and is included in the sewage treatment process. A separate sludge
treatment facility (IPLT) existsbut it is at a remote location next to the solid waste disposal site, and it is currently closed.
The SANIMAS Program has been implemented in Banjarmasin since 2006 by the Department of Human Settlements (Dinas Cipta
Karya). Four to five schemes are constructed annually, primarily financed from the DAK Sanitasi. In total, 22 SANIMAS schemes
have been completed to date, of which 18 are MCK+ and four are simplified sewer systems. Costs average about IDR300 million
for MCK+ and IDR700 million for simplified sewer systems. Financing is provided by DAK, APBD, and about 30 percent APBN in
2012. SANIMAS is targeted at high density, low income areas near the rivers.
In addition, the Environment Department has constructed four MCK+ in public locations. Although referred to as SANIMAS, they
differ in that they are not community-based. Sites are pre-determined by local government, primarily in or near markets and
public housing. Facilitators then work with the community in the vicinity to organize local management of the facilities.
44
ANNEXES
Annex 2.2 Case Study: Medan Municipality
MCK++ at Belawan (Medan)
Population: 2,125,000
Total annual growth rate 0.97% (BPS Medan)
Urban sanitation coverage (%) 94%
Urban on-site sanitation system (%) 90 % (BPS Medan)
Urban sewerage connections (%) 4%
Number and types of sewerage systems One system: IPAL Cemara (Pulau Brayan);treatment capacity of
10,000 M3/day; used capacity of 5,650 m3/day; system Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor
Number of sewer connections 12,370 connections (serve 74,200 people )
Number and types of communal system SANIMAS : 2,000 communal biofil septic tanks built by IUWASH
(2012) plus 4,000 units (in 2013).
Numbers of WWTPs One unit : IPLT Terjun is not functioning
Installed capacity of WWTP 10,000 M3/day
Sewerage system managed by: PDAM Tirtanadi
Septage management by: Dinas Kebersihan. Collected septage is discharged to IPAL Cemara.
Wastewater/sewerage tariff : IDR22,000 (USD2.44)
Tariff collection rate: 96%
Medan, with a population exceeding two million people, is one of Indonesia’s major cities, located on the flat coastal plain of
Northwest Sumatra. A sewerage master plan was developed in the 1980s and a wastewater treatment plant was constructed in
two phases in the early 1990s. The plant uses upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) technology. The long-term plan anticipat-
ed the construction of a series of UASBs with a total treatment capacity of 60,000 m3/day. Only one UASB has been constructed
thus far, with a capacity to treat about 10,000 m3/day of wastewater, but a facultative pond has also been constructed that is
sufficient for the planned 60,000m3/day flow. The WWTP now receives about 18,000 m3/day of sewage and the single UASB is
unable to effectively treat this volume of wastewater. During the mission’s site visit it was observed that there was insufficient
retention time and the UASB was operating aerobically.
45
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
Currently, there are about 12,370 connections52 to the sewer system covering less than 1 percent of the population. Motivation
to connect to the system among households and commercial establishments has been low, in part because of their sunk invest-
ment in septic tanks. All connections established thus far have been provided free of charge.
The sewer system and WWTP is managed by the provincial water utility organization, PDAM TirtaNadi. Wastewater services for
Medan and for a neighboring city (Parapat) are managed by a Wastewater Division under the Director for Planning and Produc-
tion. Under PPSP, the PDAM plans to expand the sewer system and add 3,000 to 4,000 new connections from 2013 onward, with
financing from the Hibah Sanitasi program and ADB’s MSMH Project. PDAM has established a dedicated team for the sewerage
expansion program, and is working in partnership with Malaysia’s Indah Water Consortium implementing a marketing campaign
to promote sewer house connections.
Like most cities in Indonesia, Medan currently relies almost entirely on septic tanks for wastewater treatment and there are an es-
timated 400,000 septic tanks in the metropolitan area. There is no effective regulation of their management such as for ensuring
regular de-sludging and compliance witheffluent standards. The city cleansing department (Dinas Kebersihan) operates a small
number of emptying trucks, and an unknown number of private operators also provide septic tank emptying services. A sludge
treatment facility, operated by Dinas Kebersihan, was built adjacent to a solid waste landfill site on the outskirts of the city but
the sludge treatment basins are damaged and affected by leachate from the landfill site. Therefore, the sludge treatment facility
was closed some years ago. The sludge collected by Dinas Kebersihan is now treated at the IPAL Cemara. About 60 truckloads of
sludge are delivered to the IPAL every month. It is estimated that provided that all of Medan’s septic tanks were emptied every
two years, this would result in over 200 truckloads per day of sludge being delivered for treatment. Almost all sludge is currently
being disposed of illegally into rivers and streams.
USAID’s IUWASH Project is supporting a sludge management pilot program in Medan, with a target to replace 4,000 malfunc-
tioning septic tanks with improved biofilter tanks by 2014. As in other Indonesian cities, many areas are very densely populated
without any structured urban planning. As a result, many householdscan only be reached by narrow pathways, which makes pit
emptying by conventional suction trucks difficult or impossible. To address this, the IUWASH pilot project is adapting a sludge
management model that was originally conceived by the NGO Mercycorps in Jakarta. Local sludge collection operators are
selected by the community, then trained by IUWASH and provided with small de-sludging machines that can fit in narrow path-
ways. Collected sludge is then deposited in communal septic tanks and later removed by Dinas Kebersihan for final treatment
at the IPLT. A local management group is formed that ensures that households make regular monthly payments for sanitation
services covering the salary of the sludge collectors as well as the cost of sludge disposal by Dinas Kebersihan.
52
Based on data from Ministry of Public Works: Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant in Indonesia 2012.
46
ANNEXES
Annex 2.3 Case Study: Surakarta Municipality
IPAL Mojosongo
Population: 501,000 (BPS Surakarta, 2011)
Total annual growth rate 0.46%
Urban on-site sanitation system (%) Coverage of Households with septic tank will be decreased from
72.2 % (2007) to 70.56 % (2015)
Urban sewerage connections (%) 12.45%. MDGs target: 20% by 2015
Number and types of sewerage systems Two systems: IPAL Mojosongo & IPAL Semanggi.
Plan: One system in Pucang Sawit (financed by DGCK and PDAM) 5%
Number of sewer connections 12.000
Number and types of communal system SANIMAS system: 24 sites (by DAK & WASAP D) + 9 sites under-con-
struction (by USRI)
Numbers of WWTPs 1 WWTP: Putri Cempo (not functioning)
Sewerage system managed by: PDAM Kota Surakarta
Septage management by: Dinas Kebersihan
Wastewater/sewerage tariff : USD0.55 – USD0.77
Tariff collection rate: 30%
Piped water supply coverage (PDAM): 60%
Surakarta is the second largest city in Central Java Province, located some 600 km from Jakarta; it consists of five sub-districts
and 51 villages, with an average density of 11,340 population/km2. The population in 2012 was 530,000 (equal to 122,462 house-
holds).
Surakarta city is one of the cities included in the ISSDP. Surakarta is located adjacent to the Bengawan Solo River, one of the
largest rivers in Central Java Province. Many communitiy activities are carried out along this river, including open defecation
practices directly or through toilets without any treatment processes (about 8 percent of the population). Initiatives have been
undertaken by the Government of Surakarta to improve environmental health conditions in the region by constructing a sew-
erage system and the construction of a wastewatertreatment plant (WWTP). There are currently two sewerage systems, located
in Mojosongo and Kemanggi, that were rehabilitated in 1990 with assistance from the World Bank. Both WWTPs are managed
by PDAM Surakarta.
47
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
Access to improved sanitation coverage in Surakarta is more than 90 percent, and approximately 12.5 percent of households
are served by a sewerage system that currently has a total of 12,000 connections. The Mojosongo WWTP is functioning well and
treats 5,100 m3/day of domestic wastewater, while WWTP Kemanggi treats about 4,300 m3/day of wastewater. Approximately
80% of the population use septic tanks and communal systems.
The targets for sanitation coverage, as stated in Surakarta’s Mid-Term Development Plan (RPJM) 2005-2010, will be difficult to
achieve. The target is that 20 percent sanitation service coverage would be provided through the sewerage system. The target
will be difficult to achieve due to the rapid population growth rate, lack of budget, absence of clear policies to implement sani-
tation management at the local level and institutional capacity.
SANIMAS is one of the main programs to help households gain access to improved sanitation coverage in Surakarta based on a
communal system. 24 SANIMAS schemes had been built since 2005, which are financed from the Special Allocation Fund (DAK),
WASAP D, and local government budgets. In the coming years, it is planned to build another 22 SANIMAS schemes.
Surakarta has one Septage Treatment Plant (STP) in Putri Cempo village, along with a solid waste disposal facility, managed by
the Sanitary Office (Dinas Kebersihan). Recently, the plant has stopped operations since the road has been blocked by piles of
garbage. This condition results in poor septage management and creates the risk of households illegally discharging septage
into the environment.
Surakarta also does not have adequate policies for effective sanitation management. The current prevailing regulations are
Surakarta Mayor Decree No. 5 of 2004 dated June 7, 2004 and Decree No. 10/DPRD/VI/2004 Surakarta City Council on June 7,
2004, regarding the Approval of Amendment of Surakarta Mayor Decree No. 15 Year 2002 on Determination of Wastewater Man-
agement Tariff and Wastewaster Customer Category. The fee collection rate is about 30 percent and focuses on those consumers
that are connected to the water supply systems. At the present time, the cost to collect the fees for PDAM staff is higher than the
revenues collected, making the operation of the sewerage system dependent on subsidies from PDAM and city government
budget.
Monthly sewer fee charged for customers in Surakarta (IDR9.000 per USD)
Customer Category Monthly Sewer Tarriff (USD)
Household I 0.55
Household II 0.83
Commercial I 2.22
Commercial II 3.33
Industrial I 5.55
Industrial II 11.11
48
ANNEXES
Annex 2.4 Case Study: Palembang Municipality
Settlements along the riverside
Population: 1,481,000
Total annual growth rate 1.76%
Urban sanitation coverage (%) 69%
Urban on-site sanitation system (%) 69% (only 30% of septic tanks are of solid construction and work-
ing properly)
Urban sewerage connections (%) 0%
Number and types of sewerage systems 5 housing estate sewerage systems
Number of sewer connections 559 connections
Number and types of communal system Public Toilet: 69 units (DAK), 2 SANIMAS (DPW Province fund) + 7
SANIMAS (AusAID & Worldbank fund)
Numbers of WWTPs One unit at Sukawinatan
Sewerage system managed by: Housing estate authority
Septage management by: Housing estate authority
Piped water supply coverage (PDAM): 80%
Palembang is located in a flat and mostly swampy area with a total area of 102.47 km²; the average elevation is eight meters
above mean sea level. Palembang is divided by the Musi River which is the largest in Sumatera.
Palembang does not have a centralised sewerage system due to its geographic constraints and the high groundwater level; also
the swamps make it difficult to install stable pipe systems andto maintain a slope for gravity flow. However, decentralized sys-
tems in Palembang have been provided forfive new real estate areas where communal septic tanks equipped with absorption
system are used. In 2009, a piped sewerage system was constructed by DGCK (PPLP is implemented by Provincial PIU) for 1.000
household connectionsbut no record is available on its current status.
The city constructed several communal septic tanks, mostly under the DAK budget and with 10percentAPBD counterpart funds.
The land is usually voluntarily provided by the community. Under the community-based environmental sanitationprogram (sa-
nitasi lingkungan berbasis masyarakat, SLBM), the City Council installed 69 units of communal toilets (MCK), between 2010 and
2012. In 2011, two SANIMAS schemes were constructed by the province with the land provided by the city.IndII has provided
assistance to Kota Palembang in preparing a Wastewater Master Plan (2011); this is being followed up through the preparation
of Detailed Engineering Design.
49
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
The city does not yet have adequate local regulations for the sanitation sector. This situation may weaken the environmental
pollution control, especially since the Musi river is subject to pollution by domestic sewage. This raises concerns about public
health and potentially water borne diseases, as the river is also used for domestic purposes, including bathing, washing clothes,
washing dishes (user conflict). The city has regulations forthe management and fees for solid waste/sanitary service and septic
tank de-sludging services; these regulations, however, in reality donot provide proper wastewater and septage management.
Palembang does not have a septage treatment plant,and no official septage disposal facility. The tariffs for septage collection
are as follows:
No Septic Tank Size Tariff (IDR) Unit Additional Cost for Out of Town (after the border)
3
1 0–3m 200,000 Trip 1 0 – 30 km 100,000
2 3 – 6 m3 300,000 Trip 2 30 – 70 km 150,000
3
3 6–9m 400,000 Trip 3 > 70 km 250,000
4 > 9 m3 500,000 Trip
Tariff to Discharge the Septage to sPT (IPLT)
1 1 – 1,500 Liter 50,000 Trip
2 1,500 – 3,000 Liter 100,000 Trip
3 3,000 – 5,000 Liter 150,000 Trip
4 > 5,000 Liter 200,000 Trip
50
References
Studies Completed until 2008
R 01 Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Working Group, A Case Study of Aid Effectiveness in Indonesia, Soft copy
Final Draft #3, WSP-EAP, November 2008
R 02 Economic Impacts of Sanitation in Indonesia, A five-country study conducted in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao Soft copy
PDR, the Philippines and Vietnam under the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI), WSP-EAP Research Re-
port, August 2008
R 03 Making Urban Sanitation Strategies of Six Indonesian Cities more Pro-poor and Gender-equitable: the case Soft copy
of ISSDP, A case study on social inclusion of SWITCH, May 2008
R04 Indonesia: Urban Water and Sanitation Improvement and Expansion Project (UWSIEP), Report on Sanitation Soft copy
Workshop, World Bank, April 2005
Studies Completed until 2009
R 05 Independent Evaluation of Australian Aid to Water Supply and Sanitation Service Delivery in East Timor and Soft copy
Indonesia, Working Paper 2: Indonesia, December 2009
R 06 Program Percepatan Sanitasi Permukiman (Sanitation Roadmap), POKJA Sanitasi , June 2009 Soft copy
R 07 Urban Sanitation in Indonesia: Planning for Progress, A Field Note, WSP, April 2009 Soft copy
Studies Completed until 2010
R 08 Proposed Loan and Technical Assistance Grants: Metropolitan Sanitation Management and Health Project, Soft copy
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors, ADB, June 2010
R 09 Business Model for A Water District Septage Management program, Philippines Water Revolving Fund Sup- Soft copy
port program, USAID, February 2010
R 10 A Rapid Assessment of Septage Management in Asia, Policies and Practices in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Soft copy
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam, USAID, January 2010
51
URBAN SANITATION REVIEW: INDONESIA COUNTRY STUDY
Studies Completed until 2011
R 11 Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, A six-country study conducted in Cambodia, Hard copy
China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, the Philippines and Vietnam under the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI),
WSP, November 2011
R 12 Wastewater Investment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, a six-country study conducted in Cambo- Soft copy
dia, China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, the Philippines and Vietnam under the Economic of Sanitation Initiative (ESI),
WSP, November 2011
R 13 Wastewater Investment Master Plan Package III, Volume 5, Final Capacity Building Report – Cimahi, Activity Soft copy
W005, IndII, September 2011
R 14 Institutional Environmental Analysis: Surabaya, IndII Activity 216, Final Version, June 2011 (Hickling Corpora- Soft copy
tion, project 80-403: Institutional Analysis in Three Cities)
R 15 Wastewater Investment Master Plan Package I: Surabaya, Final Capacity building Plan (LIDAP and FOPIP), Soft copy
IndII, June 2011 (Mott MacDonald)
R 16 Lessons in Urban Sanitation Development, Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program 2006-2010, Soft copy
WSP, May 2011
R 17 The Political Economy of Sanitation: how can we increase investment and improve service for the poor? Hard copy
Operational experiences from case studies in Brazil, India, Indonesia and Senegal, February 2011, WSP (full
report and summary)
Studies Completed until 2012
R 18 Capacity Development Strategy, Final Report of the Sanitation Training and capacity Study, March 2012 (PT. Soft copy
Qipra Galang Kualita)
R 19 USDP Mid-term Review, The Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for Indonesia, January 2012 Soft copy
List of Other Publications
P 01 Community based sanitation (SANIMAS) in Indonesia Power point presentation,
MOPW, 2010
P 02 Improvement of Sanitation in Indonesia (Achieving in IYS and Next Step) Power point presentation,
MOPW, 2010
P 03 Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors Project Report, ADB, 2010
P 04 Prakarsa Issue No 7 on Urban Sanitation Journal, IndII, 2011
P 05 Presentation from the 2009 World Water Week in Stockholm Power point presentation, WSP,
2009
P 06 Working Paper 2: Indonesia, Independent evaluation of Australian Aid to WSS Service Deliv- Report, AusAID, 2009
ery in East Timor and Indonesia
P 07 Poor sanitation costs Indonesia over IDR58 trillion per year Leaflet, WSP,
P 08 Planning for Urban sanitation in the Asian Context Textbook, Gerald McManus,
P 09 Review of National Wastewater Management Options for Small Town in China Textbook, MenahemLibhaber,
2010
P 10 The WATSAN National Working Group Power point presentation,
POKJA AMPL, 2011
P 11 It’s Not a Private Matter Anymore! Booklet, POKJA AMPL, 2007
P 12 Managing Transformation Sanitation Development in Indonesia 2006-2011 Power point presentation,
BAPPENAS, 2012
52
THE WORLD BANK