1

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

Facilitator: Alfred Lambertus, WSP-EAP Consultant

13. Ir. Amrie Ramli – Bappeda Jambi

Courtesy: Risyana Sukarma

In the beginning most of the participants does not know what was meant with Community Based Sanitation (CBS). An introduction by the resource person, Mr. Syurur from BORDA was useful for the participants to have a better picture about the CBS initiative. Three key questions were discussed by the participants in order to meet the broad issue of How can stakeholders help the project cities learn about CBS? The three key questions prepared were: 1. CBS, What are its characteristics?; 2. CBS Stakeholders, Who are they? And what are their roles?, and; 3. How to promote CBS? Question 1. CBS, What are its characteristics? To the participants, in the start community based sanitation initiative could be triggered either from the community itself or from outside intervention. However, in the case of outside intervention the initiator should come with sanitation options and provide the community with comprehensive information about advantages and disadvantages of all options in order for the community to decide which option is best to their local condition. Communities who does not show any demand for CBS services should not be part of a CBS development initiative. Community demand should be proven by their efforts to reach what they really want. This is key for sustainability of the system in the future which they believe could provide them with a better environment. Once demand is ensured, starting from preparation to implementation, operation and maintenance the community are responsible make decisions of all development stages. This will create a strong sense of belonging by the community toward the system. Willingness of the community to contribute in cash, time, and make necessary decisions should be part of the CBS development process. However, the institutions formed by the community to construct and maintain the system should be legal (which should be proven by a formal SK/Surat Keputusan signed by the appointed authority) and accountable. This is important since these

2

community organization will manage possible funding from different resources, government, donor, including the users. A community based sanitation initiative should go as far as possible strengthen local resources and potentials. This includes the knowledge of improved health indicators such as: how to identify diarrhea cases within the community, the ability of the community to choose and decide the most appropriate system for them and the ability to operate and maintain the system Question 2. CBS Stakeholders, Who are they? And what are their roles? The participants identified several potential parties as CBS stakeholders. Stakeholders was understood as people or entity who has interest in CBS development which would work hand in hand to reach its objective. It could be communities as an individual or organizations or entities like: user/s, community self-help organization/s, PKK, and others. The government, another remarkable stakeholder supported by all related sectors such as: Dinas PU, Bappeda/ko, Cleansing Division, Health, City Planning Division, DPRD and the Mayor himself. Not forgotten the universities, the private sector, like: de-sludging firms and developers, donor and NGOs.The role of the community either as individual or entity should be responsible for proofing its CBS demand and provide necessary funding and time in accordance with their ability to share. This is important since they should take the initiative in all development stages until operation & maintenance. In many cases the community could not provide all CBS development capital. For this part the government should take a significant role. Besides funding, the government should provide the sanita tion strategy/plans for communities to follow and coordinate all related sectors in the development and act as good facilitator. Other important role are: control and clear regulation for community based sanitation development should be in place and enforced. The private sector role is provide CBS initiatives and put it in their plans. NGOs could be strong partners who could provide technical assistance and funding. Like NGO’s, Donor,s could provide funding but it also could help government prepare policies and regulation who could enhnce development of CBS. Question 3 How to promote CBS? There are 2 important objectives for the promotion of CBS:

1. Build a same perception and understanding on CBS by government executives and legislative. They should have a clear definition of CBS.

2. Adopt, formalized and legalized CBS as a potential option

Some effective promotion methods

1. In cities workshops on CBS should be intensively conducted. All stakeholders should participate at make necessary plans.

2. Cross visit to successful sites by stakeholders 3. Disseminate available CBS publications to all stakeholders 4. CBS campaign at all levels. From government sectors to grass root levels

3

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

Who are they? Its role How to promote

- Planned, implemented, operated & maintained by the community

- Demanded by the community & community able to pay

- Community involved in planning, implementation and maintenance

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

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

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

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

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

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

- From and for communities

- Apropriate technology opion/fit to users need

- O&M from the comunity

- CBS Institution should be: legal & accountable

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

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

organizations - Urban: sub-district,

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

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

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

(capacity building) - User - O&M

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

Technology - Desiminate use of

CBS to communities - Behavioural change:

consume clean water, community education

- Promotion through local government system

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

Conclusion: CBS caractéristiques

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

4

Stakeholders No Who Role 1 Community - Mobilize funding

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

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

3 Private Sector/NGO - Funding - Pembina - Fasilitator

4 Mass Media - Desimenation - Promotion/campaign

How to promote

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

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

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

Courtesy Risyana Sukarma

Ada 3 key question yang didiskusikan dalam kelompok II antara lain:

1. Apakah kelebihan dan kekurangan dari sistim CBS dan sistim sewerage kota ? 2. Apakah yang dimaksud dengan stepping up to city-wide sanitation? Apakah pembangunan

sanitasi akan diarahkan pada pembanguna sistim sewerage saja atau CBS saja? Atau campuran keduanya? Unbundling.

3. Apa yang perlu dilakukan untuk menuju pembangunan sanitasi bersakala kota? Hasil diskusi pertanyaan 1: Apa kelebihan dan kelemahan sistim CBS dan Sewerage ?

5

Sistim Kelebihan Kelemahan CBS (Community Based Sanitation 1. Investasi dan Biaya O & M

rendah. 2. Pembiayaan bisa share 3. Pengelola bisa siapa saja

(masyarakat, Pemerintah dan swasta)

4. Mudah pengoperasiannya 5. Effisiensi lahan (tidak

membutuhkan lahan yang luas)

6. Tarif lebih murah 7. Partisipasi Masyarakat tiggi 8. Sense of belonging tinggi 9. Sustainability tinggi 10. Lahan lebih flexible

1. Skala kecil 2. Kepemilikan kurang jelas 3. Pembiayaan O & M sulit 4. Waktu Pelaksanaan lebih

lama (perlu ada transfer knowledge dan technology dan desain)

5. Lokasi sulit didapat 6. Skema pembiayaan harus

lebih beragam 7. Penanggung jawab yang

baik sulit didapat 8. Sustainability sulit

diprediksi.

Sewege sistem 1. Cakupan layanan lebih besar 2. Peningkatan kesehatan

masyarakat lebih kelihatan 3. Perbaikan kualitas air tanah

bisa lebih baik 4. Lebih terkoordinasi 5. Pengelola jelas 6. Limbah kota bisa dipantau

satu pengelola 7. Dalam Jangka Panjang

Investasinya lebih murah 8. Sustainability bisa diprediksi 9. Lebis effisient dalam

transportasi air limbah

1. Investasi tinggi 2. Pro – kontra sosial dalam

pembangunan (ada yang setuju ada yang tidak setuju)

3. Cost recovery sulit 4. Biaya O&M tinggi 5. Membutuhkan lahan yang

luas 6. Tarif lebih tinggi 7. Membutuhkan expert. 8. Perencanaan lama 9. Belum tentu mencakup

seluruh masyarakat 10. Pembangunannya makan

waktu lama.

Hasil Diskusi pertanyaan 2 : Apakah yang dimaksud dengan stepping up to city-wide sanitation? Apakah pembangunan sanitasi akan diarahkan pada pembangunan sistim sewerage saja atau CBS saja? Atau campuran keduanya? Unbundling. Seluruh Peserta menyatakan pembangunan sistim sanitasi skala kota harus menggunakan sistim kombinasi atara sistim on site (CBS) dan off site (sewerage) sesuai dengan kondisi pelayanan dan dana yang tersedia. Hasil diskusi pertanyaan 3 : Apa yang perlu dilakukan untuk menuju pembangunan sanitasi skala kota?

1. Promosi sanitasi kepada pemda, masyarakat dan stakeholder lainnya 2. Dukungan regulasi (perda dan tata ruang) dan kesiapan masyarakat. 3. Perlu melakukan Feasibility Studi dan Sanitation Map dan Amdal 4. Mempersiapkan dan meningkatkan fungsi badan pengelola 5. Perlu ada kejelasan sumber dana 6. Menyusun skala prioritas 7. Pilot project

6

8. Monitoring dan evaluasi. Group 3. Facilitator: Lina Damayanti, Resource Person: Risyana Sukarma Group Members: 1. Zainal Arifin - PDAM Banjarmasin 2. Agus Sunara - PDAM Jambi 3. Drs. Komara Afandi - PDAM Bandung 4. Drs. Hasanuddin - Dinas LH, Kendari 5. H. Agus Abdullah - Bappeda, Kendari 6. Alwi - Ketua Komisis D DPRD Kendari 7. Nastain Gasba - WASPOLA 8. Ir. Rasyid Kasinong, MM - PDAM Makasar 9. Ferry Boyke, AS - USAID ESP 10. Risyana Sukarma - World Bank 11. Ir. Herning Wahyuningsih - PU Jakarta 12. Wuri Hastuti S.Sos - Dep. Keuangan 13. Agus Saryono - PDAM Solo 14. H. Sabarudin – Jambi

Courtesy: Risyana Sukarma

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advantages Disadvantages - Wastewater can’t be separated from water

consumption - directly related (water in water out)

- Integrated management information (database)

- Integrated system management (water and

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

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

7

piped sanitation system are similar) - Human resources capacity and

sustainability (internal reshuffling) - PDAM’s role on water resources protection

(polluter pay principle) - Tariff charging efficiency (for water and

wastewater)

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

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

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

with cooperation lowest community organization (RT or RW) Illustration: Q#4: What’s PDAM role in planning for O&M cost recovering city-wide sanitation? - Provide related information or data for city wide planning --> minimize cost - Provide standard operating procedures (SOP) for wastewater/sanitation (SOP for water and

wastewater are similar) - Provide necessary experts, infrastructure, etc - Initial subsidy from water to wastewater for the first stage operation - Identification of potential demand --> feasibility study

CBS

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

for OM

NGO’s roles: - Contribute fund - Technical assistance

& facilitation - Capacity building

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

agency <--- PDAM

8

Group 4. Facilitator: Jim Woodcock, Resource Person: Group members 1. Jan Drozdz 2. Isabel Blackett 3. Eduardo Perez 4. Dorai Narayana 5. Russell Abram 6. Sriningsih 7. Ruth Waluyan 8. Foort Bustraan

Courtesy: Risyana Sukarma

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

9

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