Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia · and sustainable water supply and sanitation service...
Transcript of Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia · and sustainable water supply and sanitation service...
Water Supply and Sanitationin IndonesiaTurning Finance intoService for the Future
May 2015Service Delivery Assessment
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
This report is the product of extensive collaboration and information sharing between many government agencies, and organizations in Indonesia. The core team of the Directorate of Settlements and Housings in the Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) has been key partners with the Water and Sanitation Program in analyzing the sector. The authors ac-knowledge the valuable contributions made by the Members of the Technical Working Group on Water and Sanitation (Pokja AMPL): Bappenas, Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Housings, National Statistical Bureau, and the provincial technical working group of the province of West Sumatra; by the development partners (UNICEF and ADB) and the National Water Supply Association of Indonesia (PERPAMSI).
The Task Team Leader for the Service Delivery Assessment (SDA) in East Asia and Pacific is Susanna Smets. The follow-ing World Bank staff and consultants have provided valuable contributions to the service delivery assessment process and report: Martin Albrecht, Rahmi Kasri, Maraita Listyasari, Deviariandy Setiawan and Almud Weitz. The peer reviewers were George Soraya and Fook Chuan Eng from the World Bank, Aidan Cronin from UNICEF and Julian Syah from the ADB in Indonesia.
The SDA was carried out under the guidance of the World Bank’s Wa ter and Sanitation Program and local partners. This re-gional work, implemented through a country-led process, draws on the experience of water and sanitation SDAs conduct ed in more than 40 countries in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. An SDA analysis has three main components: a review of past water and sanitation access, a costing model to as sess the ad-equacy of future investments, and a scorecard that allows diagnosis of bottlenecks along the service de livery pathways. SDA’s contribution is to answer not only whether past trends and future finance are sufficient to meet sector targets for infrastructure and hardware but also what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure that fi nance is effectively turned into accelerated and sustainable water supply and sanitation service delivery.
The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership, part of the World Bank Group’s Water Global Practice, sup-porting poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. WSP’s donors include Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nor-way, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and the World Bank.
WSP reports are published to communicate the results of WSP’s work to the development community. Some sources cited may be informal documents that are not readily available.
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations, or to members of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The bound-aries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank Group concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to [email protected]. WSP encourages the dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. For more information, please visit www.wsp.org.
© 2015 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia
Service Delivery Assessment
Turning Finance into Services for the Future
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesiaiv
Indonesia has made modest progress in recent years to help people gain access to improved water and sanitation ser-vices. In 2011, around 55% of the population had access to improved water supply services, and 56% of the population had access to improved sanitation services. Compared to 1993, this is an increase of 17 percentage points for water supply, and 31 percentage points for sanitation. Increasing political priority for sanitation in recent years, and the result-ing increase in budget allocation for the sanitation subsec-tor, suggests that Indonesia is on the right track to scale up access to improved sanitation services. It remains unlikely, however, that the Millennium Development Goals for sanita-tion will be met by 2015. Similarly, the sector targets of uni-versal access by 2019 remain ambitious, and the increasing efforts will need to continue to achieve these targets.
Despite the moderate gains in water supply and sanitation as a whole, a closer look at the urban and rural disaggrega-tion of access rates reveals wide disparities. For water sup-ply, most access gains were achieved in rural areas, where 58% of the rural population had access to improved facili-ties in 2011, compared to only 32% in 1993. In urban areas, almost no nominal increase in access rates can be deter-mined in the last two decades, which is mainly attributed to the high urban population growth that absorbs most of the relative gains in access rates.
For sanitation, both urban and rural areas have seen quite an increase in access rates over the past two decades. However, despite an increase of 28 percentage points to 39% access to rural sanitation services in 2011, the low starting point of only 11% in 1993 suggests that still more
Strategic Overview
than 100 million people have to gain access to improved sanitation services to reach the sector targets. Urban ar-eas have had higher access rates to improved services, but similar to water supply, the absolute number of people that need to gain access is also still high due to the high rates of urban population growth.
From an institutional point of view, Indonesia has made good progress in the past decade in setting up the framework for a well-functioning service delivery pathway. This is reflected in the Service Delivery Assessment (SDA) scorecard, which identified a sound institutional and policy framework. Laws, policies and strategies regulate and guide the service deliv-ery and distribute general roles and responsibilities between line ministries and different levels of government, resulting in improved coordination between stakeholders involved. Since decentralization in 2001, local governments have made good progress in building capacity to provide water supply and sanitation services in their districts and cities, and being consistent in reducing inequality by providing ac-cess to low income communities in both rural and urban areas. Budget allocation to the water supply and sanitation sector has increased significantly in recent years, proving the increase in political priority to the sector.
While this policy and institutional framework is in place, the Service Delivery Assessment process also revealed that the bottlenecks in the service delivery pathway mainly describe the lack of effectiveness with which policies and finance is turned into access to improved services. The gaps in the planning and budgeting building block, as well as in the out-put and uptake and use building blocks provide evidence
Service Delivery Assessment v
that Indonesia still faces challenges in turning finances into services in an effective way.
The focus in the future will be to strengthen the existing system, improve the implementation of policies and strate-gies into actual outputs, improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the systems and sustain the achieved services through strong ownership, operation and mainte-nance. Bottlenecks in the developing and sustaining pillars suggest that high political will needs to be translated into improved investment plans that are linked with local gov-ernment work plans and budgeting processes. At the same time, priority has to be given to the sound and integrated planning to ensure the future availability of water resources.
Comparing the number of people who still need to gain ac-cess to services to achieve the sector targets of universal access with the financial commitments made by the Gov-ernment for the near future, the SDA costing tool calculates the financial requirements in capital expenditures until 2019
to be very significant: The Government needs to allocate an additional US$3.1 billion per year for water supply, and an additional US$1.4 billion per year for sanitation. In absolute numbers, this translates into almost 24 million people per year to gain access to water supply, and 16 million people per year to gain access to sanitation services.
In summary, in order for Indonesia to achieve universal ac-cess to improved water supply and sanitation services by 2019, the Government not only has to significantly raise their financial commitments to the sector, but also find so-lutions of how to best utilize the funds through the existing sector institutions to improve the performance and increase access rates at scale.
Concretely, the agreed priority actions to tackle these chal-lenges, and ensure finance is effectively turned into ser-vices, are:
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesiavi
Sector-wide
Recommended Priority Actions Who to take action
• Identify support structures for local governments to assess and improve the quality of their strategic planning processes.
• Scale up development of human resources through institutionalized capacity building.
• Urge development of sound investment plans and their endorsement and incorporation into local government work plans for immediate implementation.
• Investigate how local accountability mechanisms are functioning and potential ways to improve this.
• Actively seek involvement of private sector cooperation in the sector. • Engage local governments to improve their planning processes to secure
future availability of water resources.
POKJA AMPL (Water and Sanitation Technical Working Group),Ministry of Public Works,Ministry of Health,Ministry of Planning and Development (Bappenas), Ministry of Finance,Ministry of Home Affairs.
Equity
Recommended Priority Actions Who to take action
• Clearly define poor households at the bottom 40% of the income distribution and design targeted support to ensure inclusive service-delivery.
• Improve greater coordination between water supply and sanitation programs and poverty programs to increase the effectiveness of service delivery for the bottom 40% households.
Bappenas, Menkokesra (Coordinating Ministry for Community Welfare), National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction (TNP2K).
Monitoring and evaluation
Recommended Priority Actions Who to take action
• Link monitoring and evaluation systems to budgeting and planning processes.
• Strengthen the National Water Supply and Sanitation Information Services System (NAWASIS) to become an integrated portal for sector-wide M&E.
• Improve local capacity for use of M&E data for sector planning, budgeting and targeting implementation support.
Bappenas,Ministry of Finance,BPS (National Statistics Agency), National and Local POKJAs.
Service Delivery Assessment vii
Rural water supply
Recommended Priority Actions Who to take action
• Establish a clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities within the local governments after the hand-over of assets on managing and maintaining the water supply systems.
• Continue to facilitate and support community organizations in accessing commercial finance from local banks.
• Establish comprehensive technical support structures for communities to ensure sustainability of water and sanitation schemes.
• Improve capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and implementation support.
Ministry of Public Works, Bappenas, Ministry of Home Affairs.
Urban water supply
Recommended Priority Actions Who to take action
• Continue to assist ‘unhealthy’ Local Government Water Utilities (PDAMs) to improve their overall business management condition and become and remain ‘healthy’, by improving asset management, implementing cost-recovery tariffs, reduce non-revenue water and improving the management of human resources.
• Intensify assistance to PDAMs to access financial sources such as commercial financing or government-assisted schemes.
• Continue supportive incentive schemes such as Water Hibah to realize financial commitments by local government into the sector.
• Identify further incentives for PDAMs to increase access into low-income communities.
• Engage local governments into a sound planning to secure future availability of water sources, e.g. by developing sound water safety plans.
Ministry of Public Works, BPPSPAM (Support Agency for the Development of Drinking Water Supply Schemes) Ministry of Finance, Bappenas.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesiaviii
Rural sanitation and hygiene
Recommended Priority Actions Who to take action
• Strengthen the capacity of the secretariat of the Community-based Total Sanitation Strategy (STBM) to coordinate and assist the implementation of STBM in Indonesia.
• Continue efforts to increase the number and capacity of sanitation entrepreneurs and sanitation personnel to support STBM scaling up nationwide.
• Improve capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and implementation support.
• Ensure sufficient funding on software components to ensure leverage of household contributions.
Ministry of Health,Bappenas.
Urban sanitation and hygiene
Recommended Priority Actions Who to take action
• Improve technical and managerial performance of urban sanitation treatment facilities by building managerial capacity and increasing the efficiency of the treatment facilities.
• Provide technical assistance to intensify the development of fecal sludge management systems in urban areas including private sector participation.
• Institutionalize the clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities for regulation and service provision at local level to ensure more effective service delivery.
Ministry of Public Works, Bappenas.
Service Delivery Assessment ix
Contents
Strategic Overview .............................................................................................................................................................ivContents .............................................................................................................................................................................ixAbbreviations and Acronyms ...............................................................................................................................................x
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 12. Sector Overview: Access Trends ................................................................................................................................. 33. Reform Context .......................................................................................................................................................... 104. Institutional Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 125. Financing and its Implementation .............................................................................................................................. 186. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 217. Subsector: Rural Water Supply .................................................................................................................................. 238. Subsector: Urban Water Supply ................................................................................................................................ 269. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene .................................................................................................................. 2910. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene ................................................................................................................. 3211. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 35
Annex 1: The Score of SDA in Indonesia .......................................................................................................................... 38Annex 2: Key Inputs for the Required and Anticipated Capital Expenditures .................................................................. 63Annex 3: Comparison with Alternative Estimates of Investment Requirements .............................................................. 69
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesiax
ADB Asian Development BankAKKOPSI Association of Districts and Cities that Care about SanitationAMPL Water and SanitationBappenas Ministry for National Planning and Development BPKP Finance and Development Controller BureauBPPSPAM Support Agency for the Development of Drinking Water Supply SystemsBPS National Statistics AgencyCAPEX Capital ExpenditureCBO Community-Based OrganizationCLTS Community-Led Total SanitationCSR Corporate Social ResponsibilityDAK Special Allocation FundDAU General Budget AllocationDEWATS Decentralized Waste Water Treatment Systems DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia. DPSP Domestic Private Sector Participation ProjectESI Economic of Sanitation InitiativesGDP Gross Domestic ProductJMP WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring ProgrammeMenkokesra Coordinating Ministry for Community WelfareMDG Millenium Development GoalMoE Ministry of EnvironmentMoF Ministry of FinanceMoH Ministry of HealthMoHA Ministry of Home AffairsMoPH Ministry of People’s HousingMoPW Ministry of Public Works (or Pekerjaan Umum/PU)NAWASIS National Water and Sanitation Information ServicesO&M Operation and MaintenancePDAM Local Government Water UtilityPAMSIMAS Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities Project 3PERPAMSI National Water Supply Association of IndonesiaPokja AMPL Water and Sanitation Technical Working GroupPPP Public Private PartnershipPPSP Sanitation Acceleration ProgramRiskesdas Indonesia Basic Health SurveyPRIJM Local Government Mid-Term Investment PlanRPJMN Mid-Term Development PlanSAIG Sanitation Australian Indonesian Grant
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Service Delivery Assessment xi
SDA Service Delivery AssessmentSSK City Sanitation StrategySTBM Community-Based Total Sanitation StrategySUSENAS National Socio-Economic SurveyTNP2K National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty ReductionUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUSAID U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentUSDP Urban Development Sanitation ProgramWSP Water and Sanitation ProgramWSSLIC Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities Project
Service Delivery Assessment 1
1. Introduction
Water and Sanitation Service Delivery Assessments (SDA) are being carried out in eight countries in East Asia and the Pacific region under the guidance of the World Bank’s Wa-ter and Sanitation Program and local partners. This regional work, implemented through a country-led process, draws on the experience of water and sanitation SDAs conduct-ed in more than 40 countries in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia.1
An SDA analysis has three main components: a review of past water and sanitation access, a costing model to as-sess the adequacy of future investments, and a scorecard that allows diagnosis of bottlenecks along the service de-livery pathways. SDA’s contribution is to answer not only whether past trends and future finance are sufficient to meet sector targets for infrastructure and hardware but also what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure that fi-nance is effectively turned into accelerated and sustainable water supply and sanitation service delivery. Bottlenecks can in fact occur throughout the service delivery pathway – all the institutions, processes, and actors that translate sec-tor funding into sustainable services. Where the pathway is well developed, sector funding should turn into services at the estimated unit costs. Where the pathway is not well developed, investment requirement may be needed to “un-block” the bottlenecks in the pathways.
The scorecard looks at nine building blocks of the service de-livery pathway, which correspond to specific functions classi-fied in three categories: three functions that refer to enabling conditions for putting services in place (policy development, planning new undertakings, budgeting), three actions that re-
late to developing the services (expenditure of funds, equity in use of these funds, service output), and three functions that relate to sustaining these services (facility maintenance, expansion of infrastructure, use of the service). Each building block is assessed against specific indicators and is scored from 0 to 3 accordingly. The scorecard uses a simple color code to indicate building blocks that are largely in place, act-ing as a driver for service delivery (score >2, green); building blocks that are a drag-on service delivery and that require at-tention (score 1-2, yellow); and building blocks that are inad-equate, constituting a barrier to service delivery and a priority for reform (score<1, red).
The SDA analysis relies on an intensive, facilitated consulta-tion process, with government ownership and self-assess-ment at its core. The SDA in Indonesia was led by the Na-tional Water and Sanitation Technical Working Group (Pokja AMPL) under the guidance of its chair, Ministry of National Planning and Development (Bappenas), and with sup-port from the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP). Data collection of relevant sector documents served as the basis for the following facilitated process. Parallelly, financial data on government and donor budgets and ex-penditures were collected and used to calculate required and anticipated investments through the SDA costing tool. In a consultation workshop held in June 2013, preliminary results of the SDA were reviewed and verified by sector stakeholders, and areas for priority actions were identified.
Despite the efforts of the SDA to provide an evidence-based analysis of the sector, the methodology does have limitations. In highly decentralized countries an assess-
1 For example, refer to the Africa CSO synthesis report available at http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/CSO-Synthesis-Report.pdf
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia2
Jakarta
INDONESIA
ment at national level will inevitably lead to generalizations of the performance at local level. This is especially true in the Indonesian context, where water supply and sanitation service delivery is the responsibility of districts and cities, of which there are more than 500. Among local govern-ments, performance level varies substantially between well-performing ones and those that still have a long way to go to meet the sector targets. The SDA does not claim to be representative of the diversity of this decentralized country, but rather seeks to give a general impression of the sector performance from a national level point of view. However, interest was expressed by several Indonesian provincial governments to have the SDA methodology applied for an analysis at the provincial level.
The Service Delivery Assessment in Indonesia has been aligned with the preparation process of the third five-year mid-term development plan (RPJMN) 2015-19. This pro-cess also requires adjusting the targets for water supply and sanitation coverage by the end of the RPJMN period. Currently, the idea of how to achieve universal access to
improved water and sanitation services is being circulated among senior government officials involved in the sector. While a final decision is pending upon official approval of the RPJMN, it is likely that targets will be set at 100% ac-cess by 2019. It was therefore decided to use these num-bers for the calculations of investment requirements and for references made in this report.
The discussions within the structured SDA framework in-cluding the scorecard exercise as well as discussing sub-sector targets and identifying funding requirements and gaps informed ongoing discussion forums, technical stud-ies and briefings to higher echelons. Ultimately, this report aims to support the Indonesian government in their assess-ment and evaluation of the water and sanitation service de-livery pathway, locate bottlenecks and present the agreed priority actions to help address them.
The Water and Sanitation Program in collaboration with the Pokja AMPL and other valuable stakeholders produced this SDA report.
Figure 1: Map of Indonesia
Service Delivery Assessment 3
Access: Assessing Past Progress
Data from the Joint Monitoring Programme2 (JMP) suggest that Indonesia made modest gains in terms of increasing access to improved water supply and sanitation (see Figure 2.1). Access to improved water supply, which was already quite high in 1990 at 70%, rose to 84% in 2011 and is ex-pected to meet, albeit barely, the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target by 2015. Most of the gains are in rural areas, where access rates increased from 61% of the popu-lation in 1990 to 76% in 2011. Access to improved facilities in urban areas changed very little between 1990 (90% of the population) and 2011 (93%). The JMP also estimates that only a small proportion of the population (21%) had access to piped facilities.
Government estimates of access to improved water sup-ply, which are based on the national socio-economic survey (SUSENAS), use more stringent criteria and indicate lower access rates compared to the JMP3. Trends in government indicators suggest that, despite the relatively sharp increase in access rates from 2009 to 2011, considerably higher ef-forts are needed to achieve the target of 100% access to improved water supply by 2019.4
As of 2011, JMP estimates indicate that only 59% of the Indonesian population had access to improved sanita-tion facilities (Figure 2.2). Compared to the past two de-cades, progress in increasing access in recent years has been more rapid, suggesting that the country is on the right path towards scaling up access to sanitation services by 2015. However, there is still a wide disparity in access to
2. Sector Overview: Access Trends
improved sanitation facilities between the rural (44%) and urban (73%) population. The amount of treated wastewater is also still low, with only about one percent of the urban population having access to sewerage systems.5 Therefore, continuous high efforts will be needed to achieve the tar-gets of 100% access to improved sanitation by 2019.
Government and JMP estimates generate similar conclu-sions with respect to the low access rates and wide disparity in access rates between rural and urban areas. Government statistics further indicate that, if current trends continue, the country is likely to miss government targets in 2019 by a wide margin.
2 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.3 Based on the JMP Report on Intercountry Workshop (2009), there are some major discrepancies between JMP and national data in Indonesia: differences in data sources, methodologies, population estimates, urban/rural definitions and definitions of ‘adequate’ and ‘sustainable’. 4 The targets for water supply and sanitation are currently being considered by Bappenas for the third Medium-term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2015-19. 5 See Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February. Also see World Bank and AusAID (2013) Urban Sanitation Review: A Call for Accelerating Action, Draft report, May.6 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Acce
ss to
impr
oved
sa
nita
tion
cove
rage
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Acce
ss to
impr
oved
w
ater
sup
ply
cove
rage
JMP improved estimates MDG target JMP improved estimates MDG target
Figure 2.1 Progress in water supply access
SDA Costing tool, JMP (2013)6, and Bappenas
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia4
Equity of Access
Assessing access to improved services disaggregated by wealth levels in Indonesia provides a more nuanced and less positive picture than national averages. For water sup-ply, access to improved services is relatively equally dis-tributed between the four higher wealth quintiles, while the lowest quintile is lagging slightly behind (Figure 2.3). In ur-ban areas, 74% of the people in the lowest quintile have access to improved water supply, compared to 86% - 96% in the higher quintiles. In rural areas, the situation is more severe, with only 57% of the people in the poorest quintile having access to services, compared to 75% - 93% in the higher quintiles.
While progress has been made within each of the quintiles, access to piped water supply is still very low for people in the poorest urban quintile (9%) and in the lowest three rural quintiles (3% - 11%). The rest of the people with access to improved water supply is serviced through protected wells, rainwater or refill water.
The picture for sanitation is less optimistic. Both in urban and rural areas there is a big gap between access to im-proved sanitation within households in the lowest two quintiles in urban (40% and 65%) and in rural areas (36% and 65%), and the higher three quintiles (82% - 100% in both urban and rural areas). Moreover, there is still a huge number of people practicing open defecation both in urban (37%) and rural areas (43%). This provides evidence that sanitation programs should re-validate and possibly recon-sider their strategy of how to target the bottom 40% of the population.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Acce
ss to
impr
oved
sa
nita
tion
cove
rage
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Acce
ss to
impr
oved
w
ater
sup
ply
cove
rage
JMP improved estimates MDG target JMP improved estimates MDG target
Figure 2.2 Progress in sanitation access
SDA Costing tool, JMP (2013)7, and BPS
7 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th Richest
% o
f the
pop
ulat
ion
Access to urban water supply by quintile
0
20
40
60
80
100
Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th Richest
% o
f the
pop
ulat
ion
Access to rural water supply by quintile
Surface water
Other unimproved
Other improved
Piped on premises
9
65
23
3
18
68
13
23
68
9 8
62
30
4
46
50
0 0 0 0
Surface water
Other unimproved
Other improved
Piped on premises
3
54
31
112
23
68
7
1
17
72
11
13
71
16
6
64
29
0 0
National quintiles
Figure 2.3 Access to urban and rural water supply by quintile
Service Delivery Assessment 5
Recommended priority actions for equity
Cleary define poor households at the bottom 40% of the income distribution and design targeted support to ensure inclusive service-delivery
Improve greater coordination between water supply and sanitation programs and poverty programs to increase the effectiveness of service delivery for the bottom 40% households
Figure 2.3 Access to urban and rural sanitation by quintile
0
20
40
60
80
100
Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th Richest
% o
f the
pop
ulat
ion
Access to urban sanitation by quintile
0
20
40
60
80
100
Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th Richest
% o
f the
pop
ulat
ion
Access to rural sanitation by quintile
40
23
37
65
719
82
16
113
2
95 100
0
Open Defecation
Unimproved
Improved
36
21
43
22
14
65
85
87
22
96
00
100
National quintiles
Open Defecation
Unimproved
Improved
Investment Requirements: Testing the Sufficiency of Finance
In line with the current preparations of the third Mid-term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2015-2019, the SDA costing tool estimates the investments required to meet the tar-gets of universal access to improved water and sanitation services by 2019. It also facilitates a comparison of these requirements with sector investments in order to provide a sense of funding situations.
The analysis derives capital expenditure (CAPEX) require-ments, representing hardware costs of new facilities as well as replacement costs of existing facilities at the end of their economic life cycle. Estimated CAPEX requirements are fur-ther disaggregated between publicly funded, donor funded and investments contributed by households8. Key inputs in the estimation of investment requirements are (a) base year and target year access rates, (b) population projections, (c) unit costs of different facilities and (d) technology mix at the base year and target year. Access rates for the base year (2011), which were based on the SUSENAS survey, were ob-tained from the National Statistics Agency (BPS) and Bappe-nas. The analysis assumes government targets of universal access to improved water supply and sanitation by 2019. It also assumes that 6% of the urban population will have ac-cess to sewerage systems by 2019.
Investment data were collected from publicly available doc-uments and websites, and subsequently validated through visits to the various stakeholders. The collected information was divided between recent and anticipated investments, which represent the average annual budgets of govern-ment, development partners and users from 2009 to 2011 and 2012 to 2014, respectively. Expenditures were also dis-aggregated as follows: (a) sector - water supply or sanita-tion, (b) location – rural or urban, (c) nature – hardware or software, (d) year, and (e) budget versus actual.
8 Investments of utilities, NGOs and the private sector were excluded in the analysis because of the lack of summary information.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia6
Information on government investments was obtained from the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Public Works and Bap-penas. Central government funding captures expenditures under the regular budget for water and sanitation and the Special Allocation Fund (DAK).
Local government funds capture their share of contribu-tions to DAK funding from national level as well as rough estimates of expenditures for water supply and sanitation in provincial and district budgets. Based on interviews with government officials, local governments are expected to contribute 10% of DAK-funded projects.
The analysis also assumes that the following shares of pro-vincial budgets were allocated to water supply and sanita-tion: 0.15% for rural drinking water supply, 0.15% for urban water supply, 0% for rural sanitation, and 0.2% for urban sanitation. Additionally, the following shares of district and city budgets are allocated to water supply and sanitation: 1% for rural water supply, 1% for urban water supply, 0% for rural sanitation, and 0.7% for urban sanitation. These proportions were derived by examining documents from the World Bank9, Waspola and consultations with various ex-
perts. Provincial and district budgets for 2009 to 2011 were provided by the World Bank. Budgets for 2012 and 2013 were extrapolated using the available data.
Funds from development partners represent the invest-ments/loans coming from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Australian Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) and the World Bank.
Figure 2.4 shows estimates of anticipated and recent ex-penditures for the water and sanitation sector of Indonesia based on the methodology discussed above. It indicates that nearly two-thirds of anticipated investments are ex-pected to come from local governments. The large share of local government units, which in the current analysis was only estimated rather than based on published documents, stresses the importance of reviewing the budgets and ac-tual expenditures of these institutions in a recommended follow-up activity.10
A more detailed description of the sources and limitations of the information used in the analysis is presented in Annex 2.
Figure 2.4 Estimated investments for water and sanitation by source of funding
9 World Bank (2013) Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study, World Bank Group, Washington D.C., September.10 One recommended follow-up activity would be a more detailed analysis of government budgeting and spending. The World Bank is currently in the process of conducting a Water and Sanitation Public Expenditure Review.
Box 1.1 Special Allocation Fund - DAKDAK grants represent central government transfers to lo-cal governments for specific purposes that are of interest to the central government. Sectors, geographical locations that receive these grants as well as the total grant amount are identified in the Government Annual Work Plan and are decided on a yearly basis. For water and sanitation, these funds are intended for providing (a) drinking water and sani-tation for the improvement of health conditions, (b) house-hold and communal connections for the poor, and (c) access to safe water for remote areas difficult to reach. A condition of the DAK provision is that the recipient local governments should match at least 10% of DAK funds through their own budget. Challenges linked to the DAK include insufficiency of funds to meet the specific requirements and the difficulty to track and monitor the use of the funds.
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Anticipated expenditures(2012-2014)
mili
on U
S$/y
ear
Water and Sanitation Total
Recent expenditures(2009-2011)
Development partners
Central government
Local government
Service Delivery Assessment 7
Table 2.1 presents the annual averages of the CAPEX re-quirements and anticipated investments that were estimat-ed for Indonesia. It indicates that national targets will be met if about 24 million people per year gain access to improved water supply, and 16 million people per year gain access to improved sanitation facilities. Relatively rapid population growth also implies that a larger proportion of the required beneficiaries are located in urban areas.
The people that will need access to improved water supply and sanitation facilities translate to CAPEX requirements of US$4.7 billion per year and 2.8 billion per year, respectively. Higher per capita costs and number of people requiring ac-cess explain the higher investment requirements for water supply. The required CAPEX for urban areas is also higher than for rural areas mostly as a result of higher per capita costs.11
Table 2.1 also shows that anticipated public CAPEX are about US$1.6 billion per year for water supply and US$496 million per year for sanitation. Accounting for about 0.2% of 2012 GDP, most of these funds are expected to come from domestic sources.
Subtracting the sum of anticipated CAPEX contributions of the public and households from CAPEX requirements suggests deficits of US$2.4 billion per year for water sup-ply and US$1.4 billion per year for sanitation. This implies that projected investments for 2012 to 2014 fall far short of the amounts required to meet targets, especially for water supply. The expected deficits from 2012 to 2014 suggest the need for higher expenditures from 2015 to 2019 if the country wishes to achieve its targets for water supply and sanitation.
11 There are other studies that present alternative estimates of investment requirements for the water supply and sanitation sector of Indonesia. The estimates from these studies and short comparison with the estimates presented here are provided in Annex 3.12 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.
Table 2.1 Coverage and Investment Figuresa
Coverage (base year)
Target 2019
Population requiring access
Annual CAPEX requirement
Anticipated public CAPEX2012-2014
Anticipated household
CAPEX
Annual surplus (deficit)Total Public Domestic External Total
% % ‘000/year US$ million/year
Rural water supply 58% 100% 9,283 772 315 733 58 791 457 476
Urban water supply 52% 100% 14,637 3,975 2,868 747 25 771 298 -2,906
Water supply total 55% 100% 23,920 4,748 3,183 1,480 83 1,563 755 -2,430
Rural sanitation (on-site)
39% 100% 8,380 414 4 39 29 69 410 65
Urban sanitation (waste treatment)
73% 100% 7,384 2,341 1,439 400 28 427 439 -1,475
Sanitation total 56% 100% 15,764 2,755 1,443 439 57 496 848 -1,411
Notes: a Columns may not add up due to rounding. Sources: SDA costing, JMP (2013)12 , BPS, Bappenas.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia8
Figure 2.5 Required vs anticipated (public) and assumed (household) expenditure for water supply
Figure 2.6 Required vs anticipated (public) and assumed (household) expenditure for sanitation
13 Recent investments do not include the contribution of households.
There is some uncertainty over the estimated deficits. Ag-gregate and sector-specific deficits can be reduced by ac-counting for expenditures of utilities and the private sector. The implied reduction in the deficits may also be partially or wholly offset when one considers the fact that the antici-pated household CAPEX is no more than a rough estimate of the amounts that the households are expected to con-tribute. However, it is important to note that encouraging households to invest in improved facilities also entails costs in terms of efforts by government and other agencies in so-cial outreach and demand creation.
Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 indicate that anticipated invest-ments (excluding the contribution of households) for 2012-14 in water supply and sanitation are higher than recent
investments13 from 2009-11. While this is a good sign, an-ticipated investments still fall short of investment require-ments.
Annual operation and maintenance expenditures for wa-ter supply and sanitation facilities are important consider-ations. These expenditures impose pressure on the budgets of households in the case of private facilities like toilets. It is also a burden on utilities in terms of the need to gener-ate income for their daily operations. Table 2.2 shows that water supply and sanitation service provision requires an-nual operation and maintenance funds of US$538 million and US$262 million, respectively. Most of these funds are expected to be used in urban areas.
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Total investmentrequirement
Ann
ual i
nves
tmen
t in
mili
on U
S$
Total sanitation
Anticipatedinvestment 2012-2014
3,000
Recent investment2009-2011
Household
External
Domestic
Seweragesystem
Replacement
New
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Total investmentrequirement
Ann
ual i
nves
tmen
t in
mili
on U
S$
Total water supply
Anticipatedinvestment 2012-2014
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Recent investment2009-2011
Household
External
Domestic
Replacement
New
Source: SDA costing. Note: Recent investments do not account for the contribution of households.
Source: SDA costing. Note: Recent investments do not account for the contribution of households.
Service Delivery Assessment 9
Table 2.2 Annual operation and maintenance requirements
Subsector O&MUS$ million/year
Rural water supply 64
Urban water supply 474
Water supply total 538
Rural sanitation 31
Urban sanitation 231
Sanitation total 262
Source: SDA Costing. Note: Columns may not add up due to rounding.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia10
3. Reform Context
In the decades between the 1970s and the 1990s, Indone-sia implemented an extensive water and sanitation devel-opment program that resulted in remarkable achievements in the sector: a tenfold increase in production capacity of piped water supply, reaching 94,000 liters per second in 1997, a full cost-recovery and low-income focused tariff policy and growing private sector participation in the de-livery of water supply services. However, the country ex-perienced a significant set-back in the economic and in-stitutional landscape when the Asian financial crisis hit in 1997. Further, a law was passed to implement nationwide decentralization reforms in 2001, which handed responsi-bilities from central to local city and district levels, including the provision of water and sanitation services. Local gov-ernments, being newly responsible for service provision fol-lowing decades of centralized structures, were lacking the
experience and skills needed in their new role. As a con-sequence of this lack of skills as well as of the inadequate availability of capital funding for investments and operation and maintenance, water supply services provided by local water utilities (PDAMs) and community groups suffered se-rious degradation in the following years. In several cases, the challenges in service provision continue onwards until today.
The situation in urban areas is further exacerbated by the fact that access rates to water supply services cannot catch up with high urban population growth rates of around 4%.14 Against this backdrop, the government’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 had a considerable impact on refocusing public investments on water and sanitation sector priorities.
Table 3.1 Key dates in the reform of the sector in Indonesia
Year Reform Context
1945 Independence
2001 1 January 2001 Law No. 22/1999 implemented; beginning of decentralization reforms and local autonomy period
2003 Establishment of the inter-ministerial technical water supply and sanitation working group (Pokja AMPL)
2004 Law No. 7/2004 on water resources
2005 Government Decree No 16/2005 on development of water service systems
2008 Ministry of Health Decree No 832/2008 on national community based total sanitation program
2009 Presidential Regulation No.29/2009 on Guaranty and Interest Subsidy by National Government to Accelerate Provision of Water Supply
14 Bappenas, “Perkembangan Kebijakan Penyediaan Air Minum”, http://perkim-Bappenas.info/index.php?prm_page_id=1&prm_id=21&prm_type_id=4&prm_parent_id=20&prm_doc_cat_id=4&prm_text=air_sejarah.php&prm_lbl=Sejarah
Service Delivery Assessment 11
As a response, the Indonesian government strengthened the responsibilities for the water and sanitation sector de-velopment within five line ministries: Bappenas, the Min-istries of Public Works, Home Affairs, Health and Finance. In line with political decentralization reforms, the service provision shifted from central government to local govern-ments, from projects to programs, from government of-ficers to communities, from infrastructure construction to sustainable infrastructure and behavior change, and from loans to increasing financial contributions from govern-ment, communities and the private sector. A number of supporting laws and regulations were issued to enable a conducive environment for sector development (see Table 3.1).
The reform history puts the service delivery pathway into a broader historical context that allows the report to explore the progress of different pillars of service provision. The
SDA scorecard tool was developed to provide a snapshot of the reform progress along the service delivery pathway. The scorecard was designed to assist the government in consolidating information on the status of water supply and sanitation based on subsector development progress. It does so by grouping the service delivery pathway into three pillars, each of which comprising of three building blocks: developing services (policy, planning and budget), enabling services (expenditure, equity and output) and sustaining services (maintenance, expansion, user outcome). The re-sults of the scorecard are then interpreted in the light of progress, past spending, future funding needs and com-mitments.
Section 4 to 6 highlight challenges across three thematic areas: the institutional framework, finance, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The scorecards for each subsector are presented in their entirety in sections 7 to 10.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia12
Decentralization and Coordination
With the implementation of decentralization in 2001, roles and responsibilities for water and sanitation service deliv-ery changed. Central government including the line minis-tries responsible for water and sanitation service provision now focuses on policy and strategy development as well as oversight of implementation rather than direct control of service delivery. At the sub-national level, districts and cities carry the authority to ensure service delivery, while provincial governments provide technical support to their respective cities and districts. A critical challenge for the sector is for sub-national government to develop the ca-pacity to fulfil its devolved role in the planning, development and management of services; and for effective instruments to be in place to hold it accountable for doing so.
Technical working groups for water and sanitation (Pokja AMPL) have been established both at national as well as sub-national levels to support the implementation of poli-cies and strategies, and the coordination of day to day
4. Institutional Framework
Priority actions for institutional framework
• Identify support structures for local governments to assess and improve the quality of their strategic planning pro-cesses.
• Clarify roles and responsibilities for regulation and operation of urban sanitation service provision at local govern-ment level.
• Ensure efficient implementation of agreed commitments on water and sanitation sector development. • Scale up development of human resources through institutionalized capacity building. • Establish a comprehensive technical support structure for communities to ensure sustainability of water and sani-
tation schemes.
activities. The national Pokja is headed by Bappenas and comprises representatives of 8 line ministries engaged in the sector, such as the Ministries of Home Affairs, Health, Public Works, Finance, Environment, Education and Na-tional Bureau of Statistics. The national Pokja is also sup-ported by various projects, NGOs, donor agencies, univer-sities, etc. At local level, Pokjas comprise the respective local government agencies responsible for water supply and sanitation. When meeting on a regular basis, Pokjas have proved to be a very effective forum to support and coordinate sector development. To date, Pokjas have been established in all provinces, and in more than 400 district and city governments.
While provision of water and sanitation services since de-centralization in Indonesia has been divided up between central government for policy making and overviewing, and local governments for implementation, the actual responsi-bilities for particular subsectors lie with individual line minis-
Service Delivery Assessment 13
tries and their corresponding offices at local level. The Min-istry of Public Works is the lead agency for providing water and sanitation infrastructure to urban and rural areas, while the Ministry of Health is responsible for behavior change and setting standards for drinking water quality. Bappenas is in charge of setting sector targets and policy develop-ment. The Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for capac-ity building for local governments
Water Supply Service Provision
Drinking water supply in Indonesia is carried out through different ways and organizational structures, and can be broadly divided into utility-managed and community-man-aged systems. As part of the utility-managed systems, local water utilities in urban areas (PDAMs) are in charge of providing water to households through piped systems. Owned by the respective local governments, management of PDAMs – including budget and tariff approvals, as well as investment decisions – is usually undertaken in close co-operation with other departments at local government level, and local parliament. Typical challenges PDAMs are facing include providing equity investment for their PDAMs to ex-pand into low-income areas or accessing debt restructuring programs. The lack of revenues due to tariffs below cost-recovery level is another frequent challenge PDAMs are fac-ing. Failure to increase tariffs to a cost-recovery level, how-ever, is only the symptom of deeper issues. Since laws and regulations for appropriate, cost-recovery tariffs do exist, the main reason local government and PDAM management do not implement tariff increases reflects a lack of political will and support for a sound management of the PDAMs.
One way to support the development of urban water supply services is through the Water Hibah program (a grant pro-gram), which the Government set up with assistance by the Australian government. Through the Water Hibah, the central government reimburses a large part of the capital investment costs to local governments or PDAMs for investments made
to low-income households, providing incentives to expand their networks into these areas. Another way to address these challenges is by accessing the government’s special budget allocation fund (DAK, see Box 1.1), which is granted from central government to cities and districts to reduce idle capacity of water supply in urban area or to serve low-in-come communities in urban slums and water scarce areas
Water utilities are being supervised and receive technical support through several channels. The Ministry of Finance monitors PDAM performance across a wide range of pa-rameters through semi-annual audits undertaken by its financial and development oversight agency, the Finance and Development Controller Bureau (BPKP). Under the Ministry of Public Works, BPPSPAM (Support Agency for the Development of Drinking Water Supply Systems) com-piles and disseminates a statistical summary of the BPKP performance data. Based on criteria derived from that data, BPPSPAM further establishes the PDAM rating system, categorizing the utilities into healthy, less healthy or sick. To date, around 375 PDAMs exist across the country, with 214 of them categorized as ‘healthy’.15 Setting water tariffs is under the responsibility of the district heads (Bupati) or mayors, who are guided by laws and regulations issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. PERPAMSI (the National Water Supply Association of Indonesia) is an association repre-senting all PDAMs in Indonesia with the objective of coor-dinating investment and support activities, demonstrating best practices, promoting professional business principles and motivating utilities to improve human resource man-agement.
In urban areas that are not served by piped water supply, households tend to access groundwater through deep wells and pumps, although groundwater quality has been deterio-rating in densely populated areas due to overuse and con-tamination by domestic waste. Laws and regulations exist to regulate the overuse of groundwater, but monitoring and enforcement are difficult due to a limitation of resources.
15 BPPSPAM conducts an assessment of PDAMs against a set of 30 indicators, including technical, financial, managerial ones, categorizing the utilities as healthy, less healthy or sick. The target is that all 375 PDAMs are in a healthy condition by 2014.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia14
Developing community-based water supply systems in ru-ral and peri-urban areas has been on the Government’s pri-ority agenda since the late 1990s. Through large programs such as Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities 1 and 2 (WSSLIC) and the successor Water and Sanitation for Low Income Communities Project 3 (PAMSIMAS), the central government is supporting the development of lo-cal community-based water and sanitation systems. The program is aimed at attracting local government funding to set up, support, and scale up community-based systems throughout the country. This approach is working quite suc-cessfully in Indonesia: access rates to rural water supply services have increased from 61% in 1990 to 76% in 2011.16 Further, community-based organizations (CBOs) managing water supply schemes are formally recognized by the cen-tral government as official providers of water supply sys-tems as stated in Government Regulation No.16/2005. It is estimated that around 13,000 CBOs exist to date.
Challenges remain such as how to attract support from local governments to enable CBOs expand their services since in reality, CBOs are still facing many challenges to do so: (a) a lack of capacity to maintain and expand services; (b) a lack of access to finance that would provide much-need-ed capital; and (c) an unclear legal framework in relation to the expansion of services across more than one village administration area. Commercial banks remain reluctant in granting credits to CBOs, mainly due to poor accountabil-ity mechanisms within the CBOs, a lack of collaterals, poor financial management of the CBOs or simply a lack of un-derstanding of the local water and sanitation service mar-ket by the banks. Some initiatives to improve and expand community-managed water schemes have been carried out by the Ministry of Public Works with support from WSP and DFAT (formerly AusAID). The aim of these initiatives is to build partnerships among CBOs, local governments and the private sector in supporting the development of rural water supply in Indonesia.17
Altogether, management of the water supply schemes over-all has become more effective in recent years. The work of institutions and large-scale programs are backed up by supportive regulations, planning processes coordination mechanisms, finance and audit mechanisms and monitor-ing and evaluation systems. Many recommendations from evaluations are being followed up if financial and human resources allow. Performance evaluations for PDAMs are done regularly by BPPSPAM according to standards laid out in PDAM performance indicators
Sanitation Service Provision
For urban sanitation services, institutional challenges are much more severe than that for water supply systems, so several large gaps remain. Despite good overall progress made in recent years in increasing access to sanitation ser-vices, coverage of centralized wastewater systems in urban areas in Indonesia remains very low – estimates range from 1-2% for altogether only 12 cities (Jakarta, Banjarmasin, Denpasar, Medan, Cirebon, Bandung, Prapat, Yogyakarta, Surakarta, Balikpapan, Tangerang, Batam). According to a recent study, only 1% of the sewerage is actually being treated.18 These centralized systems are managed by local utilities19 that are owned by local governments. They require heavy subsidization mainly due to low wastewater tariffs as potential source of revenues and a low number of house-hold connections to the systems. Several initiatives have been carried out by central government to reduce idle ca-pacity in the existing sewerage systems, which some stud-ies quantify to around 50%. Some cities are also preparing feasibility studies and detailed engineering designs to build new sewerage systems. Further, the Government through the Sanitation Australian Indonesian Grant (SAIG) project is intensifying its effort to develop simplified centralized sewerage systems in many cities. However, despite these efforts, national targets for centralized sewerage systems are only 5% by 2014, which is still far from being realized.
16 In comparison, access to urban water supply services has only increased from 90% to 93% between 1990 and 2011. While pointing out successes in rural water supply development, the report does acknowledge that the different increase in access rates between urban and rural areas is majorly influenced by the high urban population growth rate of around 4%. 17 Several projects such as the Multi Village Pooling Project, the Second Generation Project and the Domestic Private Sector Participation Project (DPSP) have been implemented by MPW to facilitate partnerships among local governments, CBOs and local banks in order to improve provision of rural water supply services. 18 World Bank & AusAID (2013): EAP Urban Sanitation Review, Indonesia Country Study: Only 1% of sewerage and 4% of sludge is being treated, while 95% of waste water is not disposed safely.19 These utilities are either specific waste water utilities (PDPAL), or combined with water supply utilities (PDAM) or own an own utility for this system only (BLUD in Denpasar, Bali).
Service Delivery Assessment 15
Hence, the majority of urban areas in Indonesia will con-tinue to depend on decentralized and on-site sanitation systems in the foreseeable future.
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (DEWATS) are one of the available options to bridge the gap between onsite sanitation and centralized sewerage systems, par-ticularly in dense, low-income urban areas. A growing num-ber of DEWATS have been built in Indonesia over the past years, with over 80% of them functioning well. However, challenges within a number of DEWATS systems remain, especially in relation to ineffective community management structures, lack of local government support, and a short-age of skilled project facilitators to train residents about the long-term operation and maintenance of the systems.20
One of the key aspects of introducing both centralized or decentralized wastewater systems to urban settings is the willingness of households to connect to the system. Pre-liminary findings of a WSP study show that households can be reluctant to conduct physical work on their premises, mainly due to financial, institutional, technical and/or so-cial reasons, e.g. who whould bear the cost for installing the pipe to the house or unclear land and asset ownership. Different solutions are currently being considered, e.g. in-terceptors that capture gray and black water at the cor-ner of the premises or from a canal. This also allows for better functioning system through sufficient inflow into the treatment plants and the possibility of a gradual upgrade of household connections to the wastewater system.
Recent studies show that around 60% of the urban popula-tion have access to onsite sanitation facilities, which mostly consist of enforced pit-latrines or septic tanks.21 These facil-ities do count as ‘access to improved sanitation’ according to the JMP but that masks the fact that the management of septage is not functioning well – only around 4% of septage
is treated properly.22 This is caused by several issues com-monly found in cities, such as low demand for pit and tank emptying service; lack of enforcement to ensure septage from tanker is treated safely; and under-performance of septage treatment plants. Efforts are currently ongoing un-der the leadership of the Ministry of Public Works—with support from USAID and WSP—to support local govern-ment to improve their urban septage management systems. Some cities are starting to pilot regular desludging in order to lower the risk of groundwater and surface water pollution. In response to the growing demand of desludging within the city, private sector operator engagement is sporadically available. But often, sludge is not disposed safely into the treatment plant, but illegally dumped into the environment.
Compared to urban sanitation services, rural sanitation, on the other hand, has seen some remarkable progress in re-cent years. Following the introduction and success of the Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach in 2005, the Government under the leadership of the Ministry of Health has developed the Community-based Total Sanita-tion Strategy (STBM), which takes the CLTS approach as basis and complements it with hand washing with soap, hy-giene and safe food and water treatment, safe wastewater management as well as solid waste management at house-hold level. At the same time, the Government is actively en-couraging the private sector to deliver affordable sanitation products and services, with local sanitarians and health cadres taking a key role in behavior change and demand creation. Since rolling out in 2008, STBM is now accepted as the standard approach for sanitation across Indonesia. Responsibilities for implementation are with local health of-fices and their sanitarian staff to carry out the program in their respective communities with strong support of local government, local and international NGOs, as well as de-velopment partners.
20 WSP (2013): Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia. 21 World Bank & AusAID (2013): EAP Urban Sanitation Review, Indonesia Country Study. 22 WSP (2013): Review of Fecal Sludge Management in 12 Cities, Draft Report.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia16
Hygiene Practices
Although hygiene programs had been introduced and im-plemented nationally since 1970s together with the provi-sion of latrines and the establishment of official schools for sanitation, the outcomes of the programs have only re-sulted in limited success. In 2007, hand washing with soap practice was still low with only 23% of the population regu-larly washing their hands at ‘critical times’.23 The Commu-nity-Based Total Sanitation (STBM) strategy adopted by the Government in 2008 also includes a hygiene component focusing on behavior change as basis for communities to adopt safe hygiene practices. According to the RISKESDAS survey, by 2013 the rate of people washing their hands with soap at critical times has risen to around 47%.
To successfully scale up hygiene promotion in Indonesia, the most important link necessary is a strong partnership with the private sector. Using mass media to communicate hygiene-related messages to a large number of people, or combining sales strategies for hygiene products with the persuasive messaging are areas where the private sector has a comparative advantage over government. Further, the collaboration with midwives to communicate hygiene be-havior messages is a way to reach scale.
Human Resources Development
Despite the progress made in recent years, institutional challenges are to deliver at-scale services throughout the country and to provide the human resources required to do so. Scaling up water and sanitation service provision in or-der to reach sector targets will require a large number of skilled personnel. For the water supply sector, however, no aggregated data on number and status of human resources needed or those available exist yet. The sanitation subsec-tor, on the contrary, has estimated in a recent study24 that around 18,000 personnel are needed to meet the national
target in medium term. Only around 9,000 sanitation per-sonnel are currently available, though, indicating a gap of 50%.
Different training institutions exist within the Ministries of Public Works and Health, which follow standard govern-ment curricula aligned with existing government programs such as STBM. However, the amount of graduates that fi-nally support the sector development in the districts and provinces – especially facilitators, project managers and technicians – continue to fall short of the demand through-out the country. Since 2013, MoH connects the STBM ca-pacity building program to the ministry’s human resource development schemes through accredited training, individ-ual government officer’ performance credit mechanisms, e-learning, and by including it into the health schools cur-ricula.
Sustainability and Asset Transfer
Sustainability of community-operated water supply schemes is often weakened by an unclear transfer process of assets from government programs or projects to com-munities. In theory, existing laws and regulations define how ownership of assets is handed over by national government and projects to local governments and communities after the completion of an intervention to operate, maintain and manage the systems. In reality the operational process of handing over assets bears a number of challenges: For ex-ample, monitoring and registration of assets is required on a voluntary basis and therefore not conducted diligently; at handover, the registry of the assets as well as their func-tionality is not clear; and subsequently, responsibilities after handover are often disputed with communities or local gov-ernments refusing to allocate budget for repairs, operation and maintenance. Furthermore there is a lack of support structures for communities to request assistance for the
23 Hand washing at five critical times includes after defecation, after babies and children defecate, before eating and preparing food, before breastfeeding and after contact with animals.24 Qipra Galang Kualita (2012): Sanitation Personnel: Capacity Development Strategy.
Service Delivery Assessment 17
proper operation and management of their newly acquired systems. Assistance is required to help both parties monitor and register the quantity and functionality of the assets at the point of transfer, as well as to technical support to com-munities on how to manage the new systems in the time after handover. Government programs and projects are fur-ther to engage more actively already from an early stage with the community representatives, who will be part of the operation and maintenance teams after transfer.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia18
Investment Planning
Investment planning in the water and sanitation sector in Indonesia is still not done systematically throughout the sector and lacks coordination among key stakeholders. For the water supply subsector, the Ministry of Public Works has developed the Water Investment Roadmap (WIRA),25 which includes an assessment of issues in the water supply subsector and proposes specific investment packages and programs to reach sector targets. For sanitation, Bappenas coordinates the Sanitation Acceleration Program (PPSP), which includes an overview of investment requirements based on the stages of the program.
At local government level, a mid-term investment plan (RPI-JM) is developed to coordinate funding from the Ministry of Public Works at national level as well as from provincial and local level budgets. Cities and districts participating in PPSP have to develop city sanitation strategies (SSK), which includes mid-term investment plans and is also in-cluded into the RPIJM. For water supply, local water utilities (PDAMs) develop investment plan as part of their business plans, which is a requirement to participate at the debt re-structuring program.
5. Financing and its Implementation
While these investment planning exercises cover large parts of the water supply and sanitation sector, it does not cover ru-ral sanitation development. In fact, the investment roadmaps and plans are mainly focusing on infrastructure development in the sector, which is why they have not yet been fully applied to the rural sanitation sub-sector with its behavior change ap-proach that is aimed at leveraging household contributions. Even though the PPSP roadmap covers both rural and urban sanitation development nationwide, it does lack the depth and detail of a comprehensive investment plan.
In order to achieve sector targets by 2019, the raising rate of budget allocation to the sector over recent years has to be increased even further. It is therefore crucial to continuously optimize the processes of how finances are turned into ac-cess to services. For that, a sound and comprehensive in-vestment planning process is key so that available funds can be utilized in an efficient way. It is further important to link investment planning processes at central level with the more detailed, specific investment planning processes at local level, to ensure that local sector development also contributes to national targets.
Priority actions for financing and its implementation
• Urge development of sound investment plans and their endorsement and incorporation into local government work plans for immediate implementation.
• Establish a clearly defined public financing policy for urban sanitation with sources well identified.• Actively seek involvement of private sector participation in the sector. • Continue to develop alternative financing schemes to leverage sector investment.
25 MoPW, World Bank (2012): Indonesia Water Investment Roadmap 2011-14.
Service Delivery Assessment 19
Budget Transparency
Despite clear mandates and regulations, it remains difficult to get a comprehensive picture of the total budget and ex-penditures in the water and sanitation sector. The Indone-sian law requires a three-party consensus for budget plan-ning, including the Ministry of Finance, Bappenas, and the according line ministry. A number of criteria have been set up to develop the budget, such as consistency with tar-geted performance indicators, accountability of users and source of funds. The formula used to calculate the budget might be revised every year depending on national and lo-cal revenues, the share of tax allocation for the sector, the population growth and technical conditions. The Ministry of Finance releases a detailed mechanism and formula every year as guidance for developing budget allocations. For transparency and accountability reasons, a national gov-ernment accounting system is implemented jointly between the Ministry of Finance and the line ministries. Budget and financial audit reports are available for the public, although most of those documents are not accessible online but only upon request.
There has been great improvement in recording govern-ment budgets and auditing expenditures, including catego-rizing budgets and expenditures by source of funds. The disaggregation of data, however, stops at the sector-level—reports do not disaggregate the water and sanitation sector further into urban and rural areas. This complicates specific accountability of sector performance to individual agencies, especially because the water and sanitation budget is held by several ministries involved with particular parts of the sector, and can even be spread out within several depart-ments within one ministry. So despite the fact that the data do exist in one form or another, due to a variety of different forms and templates used by different ministries or local government agencies, no consolidated report is available at national level for the sector as a whole, neither at national nor at local level.
Utilization of Budgets
It is difficult to get a real picture of the budget utilization given the unreliability of data as described above. In fact, the lack of compiled data reports in the water and sanitation sector continues into the auditing mechanisms. Audits are mostly done for individual ministries or projects, but do not cover a disaggregation between rural and urban areas. Au-dit reports do exist but are scattered among different agen-cies or projects. Stakeholders estimate that the rate of bud-get utilization is more than 75% for the sector as a whole and in some cases reaches almost 100%. In the review of the RPJMN 2010 – 2014, the ADB estimated a 75% utiliza-tion of the development budget for the water and sanitation sector, which is why many ministries work hard to ensure a maximum utilization of their budgets.
Private Sector Participation
Private involvement through public-private partnerships (PPP) or by utilizing corporate social responsibility funds for the water sector does exist, although it’s still limited. Two presidential regulations26 to strengthen partnerships with the private sector and to provide a guarantee fund mecha-nism for viable PPP schemes have been developed and need to be intensified in its implementation to provide ac-cess to new and large sources of investment funds for local governments. Currently, the Indonesia Water and Sanitation Investment Facility is under preparation. This initiative, led by Ministry of Finance, Bappenas, and the Ministry of Pub-lic Works with support from World Bank is aimed at provid-ing financing in combination with technical assistance when required, to help PDAMs access non-government sources of funding, in case they are not ‘healthy’ enough to borrow from commercial banks.
Another idea to leverage increased private sector funding would be to establish a pooled Municipal Development Fund, aimed to mobilize funds from different sources for
26 Perpres 13/2010 and Perpres 78/2010.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia20
investment in infrastructure. This would then have to be combined with a project preparation facility to support lo-cal governments in developing good, bankable investment projects.
Budget Adequacy
Figure 5.1 shows the different sources of finance for the four sectors. As a whole, there are deficits in the urban wa-ter and sanitation sector, as can be seen in orange color in the diagram. However the reverse seems to be the case in rural areas, where water supply and sanitation are projected to be fully funded.
It is clear from Figure 5.1 that households and other do-mestic stakeholders27 are expected to be a major source of investments in both rural and urban areas. In rural sanita-tion, removing anticipated household investments leads to a deficit rather than a fully funded subsector. This raises a question of whether rural sanitation is actually fully fund-ed. The reason is that the household anticipated expen-ditures were modeled rather than based on documents or expressed intentions of stakeholders, which was the case for Government and donor agencies. In other words, there is no assurance that households will actually make these investments.
Domestic anticipated investment
External anticipated investment
Household anticipated investment
De�cit
Urban water supplyRural water supply Urban sanitationRural sanitationTotal : US$772,000,000Per capita (new): US$35
Total : US$3,980,000,000Per capita (new): US$180
Total : US$414,000,000Per capita (new): US$28
Total : US$2,340,000,000Per capita (new): US$184
Figure 5.1 Overall annual and per capita investment requirements and contribution to anticipated financing by source
Source: SDA costing
27 Domestic stakeholders are represented in this case mostly by the national government. The basis of the Figure 3 contains limited information on local governments and no information on utilities and the private sector.
Service Delivery Assessment 21
6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation
Most monitoring efforts in the Indonesian water and sanita-tion sector are still being undertaken at a program or project level with limited coordination across the sector. Decentral-ization and the new responsibilities of local governments to provide water and sanitation services has not made this ef-fort easier. Many local governments still lack the capacity, full understanding and incentives to regularly conduct monitor-ing and utilize the data for planning purposes. In fact, many local governments are reaching their capacity limits with the multitude of reports they already have to submit every year for numerous programs and projects they participate in.28
Despite these difficulties, there has been significant improve-ment in sector monitoring and evaluation in recent years, both regarding coordination mechanisms and technical as-pects. Line ministries, local governments and other stake-holders have conducted regular monitoring and evaluation exercises, formulated follow up actions, and implemented corrective actions based on the results. The national Pokja undertakes a coordinated regular annual review for the sec-tor, involving several main government agencies related to water and sanitation.
While this is a very useful and welcomed exercise, the re-sults of these reviews are not sufficiently shared and agreed corrective actions of respective agencies at national and local level are not always followed through diligently. De-spite annual review mechanisms, development partners and projects continue to carry out their own internal M&E reviews, but do not necessarily share the findings with other line ministries or the Pokja. Communities also conduct M&E reviews on a voluntary basis, but there is no clear reporting requirement to share their reports with their respective dis-trict offices. M&E studies done by line ministries and part-ners, even though available, are also not always shared or published. Above all, consolidated reports based on com-parable sets of data are not yet available, either, making it difficult to find reliable data, except for project M&E sys-tems such as PAMSIMAS, which now operates in 220 out of 440 districts in Indonesia. Similarly, other large programs that fund for example water schemes, such as PNPM, have their own program M&E system.
NAWASIS as a national level M&E platform would facilitate consistent targets and indicators derived from a compre-
Priority actions for sector monitoring and evaluation
• Link monitoring and evaluation systems to budgeting and planning processes. • Strengthen the National Water Supply and Sanitation Information Services System (NAWASIS) to become an inte-
grated portal for sector-wide M&E.• Improve local capacity for use of M&E data for sector planning, budgeting and targeting implementation support.
28 Some local governments report that they have to submit up to 27 reports annually to various donors and projects that are active in their areas.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia22
hensive results framework. So far, the RPJMN 2009-2014 does not differentiate between targets and indicators for ru-ral and urban areas, and each ministry or sector partner has their own specific indicators and targets for their part of the sector – which are not always in line with national indicators in mid-term or long-term development plans. The Ministry of Public Works has developed an online M&E tool for water supply named SIMSPAM. The number, condi-tion, and location of water utilities are constantly kept up-dated. At this moment, the system covers about 6 million people. MoH is also developing an online reporting system for sanitation, through SMS and web-based M&E. This sys-tem currently covers 9 provinces. It is planned that it will be implemented nationally in 2014. It remains to be discussed
in detail how this system can be incorporated into the NA-WASIS umbrella.
Despite increased efforts to carry out monitoring and evalu-ation in the water and sanitation sector, the data collected are not always analyzed and compiled in a systematic sec-tor review. Furthermore, recommendations and priority ac-tions, if available, are not always followed up to improve the quality of services. It is therefore recommended to improve the Government’s capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and implementation support. This should be linked to a system-atic incentive structure tailored to local circumstances, that combines rewards and punishments.
Service Delivery Assessment 23
Figure 7.1 shows access rates and targets for rural water supply. Government estimates from Bappenas, which are based on the SUSENAS survey, indicate that only about 58% of the rural population had access to improved wa-ter supply in 2011. Progress between 1993 and 2011 has been moderate, with about 0.7 percentage points per year on average. However, following years of large rural wa-ter supply projects,29 and an increase in the Government’s commitment into the sector in recent years, a more rapid increase in access rates can be witnessed between 2009 to 2011, amounting to around 5% per year on average. If this accelerated trend continues to rise, it might be pos-sible for the Government to meet the 2019 targets of uni-versal access.
JMP estimates, which have a less stringent standard for defining improved water supply compared to the Govern-ment, indicate that a much higher proportion (76%) of the rural population had access to improved sanitation.
7. Subsector: Rural Water Supply
However, JMP and government indicators both suggest modest increases in access rates over time and, if current trends continue, a strong likelihood that country targets for 2019 will not be reached.
Priority actions for rural water supply
• Establish a clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities within the local governments after the hand-over of as-sets on managing and maintaining the water supply systems.
• Continue to facilitate and support community organizations in accessing commercial finance from local banks.• Establish comprehensive technical support structure for communities to ensure sustainability of water and sanita-
tion schemes. • Improve capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and imple-
mentation support.
Sources: SDA costing, Bappenas, and JMP (2013)30
Figure 7.1 Access to rural water supply
29 Three Water Supply and Sanitation for Low-Income Communities Projects have been implemented in the past two decades (WSSLIC 1 and 2, PAMSIMAS).30 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.
Acce
ss to
impr
oved
ru
ral w
ater
sup
ply
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Govt. estimates (1993-2011) Government target
Govt. estimates (2009-2011)
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia24
ment has to be treated with caution. As explained earlier, this has to do with household investments being modeled in the analysis rather than reflecting an expressed desire of households to fund expenditures for water supply facili-ties.
Figure 7.4 shows the scorecard results of the rural water supply service delivery pathway. The development of the rural water supply subsector reflects positive scores as a result of a supportive policy, shared roles and responsibili-ties among major stakeholders, good coordination among government institutions, and improving quality of scheme management and financial record keeping. At the same time the red scores and those on the lower end of the yel-low blocks, particularly equity, output, expansion and user outcomes, give reason for concern: It is especially the focus on equity, ensuring that the money is spent effectively on developing new services, as well as expanding and sustain-ing performance of existing schemes that need to function well in order to increase access rates especially for low-income areas.
Figure 7.2 Rural water financing (required, anticipated and recent investments)
Source: SDA costing
Figure 7.3 Rural water supply financing, anticipated and gaps
31 JMP (2012) Estimates for the use of Improved Drinking-Water Sources: Indonesia, wssinfo.org.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
Total investmentrequirement
Ann
ual i
nves
tmen
t in
mili
on U
S$
Rural water supply
Anticipatedinvestment 2012-2014
1,200
Recent investment2009-2011
1,400Household
External
Domestic
Replacement
New
The SUSENAS survey for 2010, as presented in the JMP,31 indicates that protected wells were the most common (33% of the rural population) drinking water source in the rural Indonesia. Other common sources were tubewells/boreholes (13%) and protected springs (14%). Private ac-cess to piped water remains low at less than 5% of the rural population.
The country needs to raise an estimated US$772 million per year in order to meet its rural water supply targets for 2019 (Figure 7.2). About 57% of this amount is needed to replace worn-out facilities over the period of analysis. Anticipated investments ($1.2 billion per year), which rep-resent projected annual investments from 2012-14, are much higher than requirement investments. This finding is consistent with the earlier projection that the sector is likely to meet its target. It also suggests that government and donors should continue with current efforts to fund the sector. While funds from government and donors seem sufficient to fund requirements, the fully funded budget re-sulting from the inclusion of household anticipated invest-
Rural water supplyTotal : US$772,000,000Per capita (new): US$35 Domestic anticipated
investment
External anticipated investment
Household anticipated investment
De�cit
Service Delivery Assessment 25
In order to improve the service delivery pathway for ac-cess to rural sanitation, a series of priority actions can be identified. Since most systems are built through national programs or projects, problems – if there are any – most-ly occur after the projects are finished. There is no clear division of roles and responsibilities within local govern-ments on who does what in terms of providing assistance to communities. Although a Ministry of Home Affairs De-cree32 is being issued that aims to increase the priority of supporting CBOs as part of the expansion and improve-ment of existing rural water supply schemes, it is not clear yet on how this will be implemented. The capacity of many CBOs to manage existing water supply schemes, on the other hand, is still limited.
To address these gaps in capacity of CBOs, the challenge is how to reach the large number of CBOs in the country with only limited resources. In that regard, two approaches are being carried out: In the first approach, the Ministry of Public Works with support from WSP through the Domes-tic Private Sector Participation project (DPSP) is strength-ening the role of local governments to provide assistance to CBOs, in order to improve community-managed service provision through public and private investment funds.
The second approach includes CBO Associations (Asso-siasi BPSPAM), both at central and at district levels, that
Figure 7.4 Rural water supply scorecard
have been established with support from the Ministry of Public Works. These associations are a forum for CBOs to engage in knowledge sharing and horizontal learning amongst each other. Further, the associations are used as vehicle to carry out performance monitoring. Finally, the Government is strengthening the capacity of the asso-ciations to provide technical assistance to their member CBOs, and serve as a supportive link between the CBOs and other potential partners, such as the private sector.
Aside from the level of capacity of CBOs, the amount of public funds available is not sufficient to cover the de-mand for access to services in the rural areas. However, facilitating CBOs to access finance from local banks has proved to improve the capacity of the CBOs to improve and expand services. It is therefore recommended to iden-tify well functioning, alternative financial sources as well as alternative financial schemes, and scale them up more widely across the country.
In terms of sustaining services, the monitoring and infor-mation system developed through PAMSIMAS has been widely used to provide updates on the functionality of local water systems. Moreover, this monitoring system could be used as a tool for local governments to track their achieve-ments compared with the targets stated in their individual development plans.
32 Ministry of Home Affairs Decree No. 23/2013 regarding the Local Government Development Plans (RKPD).
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
1.5
Policy
2.5
Budget
1.5
Output
1
Expenditure
3
Maintenance
1.5
Equity
1
Expansion
0.5 1
Use
Source: SDA scorecard
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia26
8. Subsector: Urban Water Supply
Priority actions for urban water supply
• Continue to assist ‘unhealthy’ PDAMs to improve their overall business management condition and become and remain ‘healthy’, by improving asset management, implementing cost-recovery tariffs, reduce non-revenue water and improving the management of human resources.
• Intensify assistance to PDAMs to access financial sources such as commercial financing or government assisted schemes.
• Continue supportive incentive schemes such as Water Hibah to realize financial commitments by local government into the sector.
• Identify further incentives for PDAMs to increase access into low-income communities.• Engage local governments into a sound planning to secure future availability of water sources, e.g. by developing
sound water safety plans.
Figure 8.1 shows access rates and targets for urban water supply. Government estimates from Bappenas, which are based on the SUSENAS survey, indicate that only about 52% of the urban population had access to improved water supply in 2011. Access rates have significantly improved since 2010 due to strong political commitment to prioritize the achievement of the MDGs, as stated in RPJMN 2010-2014. However, in order to reach the more ambitious target of universal access by 2019, more efforts than in the recent past are needed.
The JMP uses less stringent standards compared to the Government and estimates that 93% of the urban popula-tion had access to improved water supply sources in 2011. Despite this difference, JMP and government estimates are similar in the sense that access rates have changed very slowly over the past two decades and that 2019 targets are unlikely to be met if the current changes in access rates continue.
The SUSENAS survey for 2010, as presented in the JMP,33 indicates that access to private piped water supplies (18% of the urban population) as a source of drinking water in the urban areas of Indonesia is quite low. There remains a heavy reliance on tubewells/boreholes (19%), protected wells (22%), bottled water (9%) and water refillers (16%).
33 JMP (2012) Estimates for the use of Improved Drinking-Water Sources: Indonesia, wssinfo.org.34 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.
Figure 8.1 Access to urban water supply
Sources: SDA costing, Bappenas. JMP (2013)34
Acce
ss to
impr
oved
ur
ban
wat
er s
uppl
y
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Govt. estimates (1993-2011) Government target
Govt. estimates (2009-2011)
Service Delivery Assessment 27
Figure 8.2 Urban water supply financing (required, anticipated and recent investments)
The country needs to raise an estimated US$4 billion per year in order to meet its targets for 2019 (Figure 8.2). More than half (66%) of these requirements are for providing access to people who did not have facilities (new invest-ments) in the base period. The remaining investments are required for replacing facilities at the end of their economic life (replacement investment). Recent investments, which are mostly from domestic sources, are very low. Anticipated investments, which are also projected to come mostly from domestic sources, are estimated to be higher than recent investments. However, this only amounts to about 10% of investment requirements. Funding issues are compounded by the findings in Section 2 that an additional US$474 mil-lion per year needs to be generated for O&M expenditures.
The high deficit of almost US$3 billion per year is mainly due to the high targets for piped water supply in urban ar-eas (projected to be for 90% of all households with access to improved water supply by 2019), and the associated high unit costs for these piped systems.35 Considering the urban population growth, reaching these targets will require con-siderable investments into the subsector.
Figure 8.3 Urban water supply financing (anticipated and gap)
Source: SDA costing
35 For more information on unit costs, see Annex 2.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Total investmentrequirement
Ann
ual i
nves
tmen
t in
mili
on U
S$
Urban water supply
Anticipatedinvestment 2012-2014
3,000
Recent investment2012-2014
3,500
4,000
4,500
Household
External
Domestic
Replacement
New
Domestic anticipated investment
External anticipated investment
Household anticipated investment
De�cit
Urban water supplyTotal : US$3,980,000,000Per capita (new): US$180
The service delivery pathway for urban water supply achieves overall higher scores than the other subsectors (Figure 8.4), which can mainly be attributed to better policy and legal guid-ance on well-defined responsibilities, coordination mecha-nisms, recording and reporting, as well as organization and management of the utilities. While there is high commitment by the central government to provide access to water sup-ply in urban areas, local governments continue to face chal-lenges to increase access rates. One major gap identified by stakeholders remains the Government’s ability to commit an adequate budget necessary to reach the sector targets. This is exacerbated by the limited resources available to PDAMs to invest and expand coverage.
In comparison, expansion in the sustaining pillar receives a medium score of 1.5, indicating autonomy and the avail-ability of business plans. This is an important basis, but – as can be seen at the low output block – does not automati-cally translate into effective results if the quality of these business plans is not sufficient and not enough funds are available to implement them. Closely related to the low score of the output building block is the medium score of
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia28
Figure 8.4 Urban water supply scorecard and results (0 = lowest; 3 = highest)
1.5 given to planning and budgeting within the enabling pil-lar. In order to meet the target of universal access by 2019, the effectiveness of producing outputs and expanding ser-vices needs to be increased.
Of specific concern is the low score of 0.75 attributed to the maintenance building block of the sustainability pillar. Many of the issues that prevent PDAMs from more efficiency are compiled in this building block: non-revenue water losses (NRW), cost-recovery and tariff reviews. The national aver-age for NRW is still as high as 38% in 2012, just two per-centage points below a red score in the scorecard; the ratio between operational revenues and costs is below 0.8, in-dicating insufficient collection of revenues and high losses (e.g. due to NRW); and tariffs are reviewed regularly with regards to cost-recovery level, as required by law, but often no tariff adjustment is made. This underlines the important point that well managed water provision through utilities is not only a technical or managerial matter, but heavily de-pendent on the dynamics of the political economy at local level. With a strong political leader understanding the need for sustainable service provision by the water utility, tariff re-views and adjustments are expected to happen faster and more frequently.
In order to strengthen efforts to serve low-income com-munities, active participation of communities facilitated by
local government, CSOs and projects, as well as realizing equity funds from local budgets, should be continuously advocated and encouraged. Support and participation of private sector such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) should also be strengthened.
Water Resources Security
High population growth, and continuous high rate of urban-ization, combined with widespread water pollution and de-creasing water conservation areas are increasingly stress-ing the availability of water resources for domestic use. Linked with rising economic growth and increased prosper-ity, the volume of water used is also rising. At the same time, the development and implementation of technologies to reclaim water has started although its use is still limited. Leaking latrines and the lack of a properly functioning fecal sludge management system also contributes to pollution of water sources, which is why the synergy between sanitation and water has to start from the planning stage. For future security of water sources in view of the projected demo-graphic and climate change scenarios, local governments need to be engaged into a rigorous discussion to improve resilience and improve their capability to adjust service pro-vision accordingly. Continuous focus on an integrated and coordinated water safety planning process at local level is crucial for this challenge.
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
1.5
Policy
3
Budget
1.5
Output
0.5
Expenditure
3
Maintenance
0.75
Equity
2
Expansion
1.5 1
Use
Service Delivery Assessment 29
Figure 9.1 shows access rates and targets for rural sanita-tion. Government estimates from BPS, which are based on the SUSENAS survey, indicate that only about 39% of the rural population had access to improved sanitation in 2011. While the 2011 access rate is about three times higher com-pared to 1993, the rate of increase (1.5 percentage points per year) is not fast enough to meet the target of universal access in 2019.
The JMP operates on less stringent standards compared to the Government and estimates that 44% of the urban population had access to improved sanitation in 2011. De-spite this difference, JMP and government estimates are similar in the sense that 2019 targets are unlikely to be met it the current trends in access rates continue.
The SUSENAS survey for 2010, as presented in the JMP,36 indicates that flush-toilets/gooseneck pans are very com-mon in rural Indonesia (64%). However, government defini-tions for improved facilities are much lower because these
also require that the toilets be private and have access to either a septic tank, a sewerage system or a pit. The JMP37 also estimates that more than a third (35%) of the rural pop-ulation still practiced open defecation in 2011.
9. Subsector: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene
Priority actions for rural sanitation and hygiene
• Strengthen the capacity of the STBM secretariat to coordinate and assist the implementation of STBM in Indone-sia.
• Continue efforts to increase the number and capacity of sanitation entrepreneurs and sanitation personnel to sup-port scaling up STBM nationwide.
• Improve capacity to scale up M&E at local level and use it as resource for sector planning, budgeting and imple-mentation support.
• Ensure sufficient funding on software components to ensure leverage of household contributions.
36 JMP (2012) Estimates for the use of Improved Sanitation Facilities: Indonesia, wssinfo.org.37 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.38 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.
Acc
ess
to im
pro
ved
san
itatio
n
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Govt. estimates (1993-2011) Government target
Govt. estimates (2009-2011)
Figure 9.1 Access to rural sanitation
SDA costing, BPS and JMP (2013)38
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia30
Indonesia needs to raise an estimated US$414 million per year in order to meet its rural sanitation targets for 2019 (Figure 9.2). About 43% of these requirements are need-ed for replacing facilities at the end of their economic life (replacement investment). Anticipated investments are ex-pected to meet requirements, indicating that targets for rural sanitation might even be reached earlier than 2019. However, care must be exercized in interpreting the results for two reasons. First, current trends presented earlier sug-gest that the access rate in 2019 is likely to be way below the target. Second, the anticipated contribution of house-holds (US$410 million per year) is the primary reason for the existence of the surplus. Recalling that such investments were simply modeled rather than based on documents/budgets suggests a significant amount of uncertainty. The surplus could very well be a deficit if households decide to spend less than projected here. The fact that access to im-proved sanitation in rural areas remains low suggests that a significant amount of investment for demand creation (soft-ware) will also be necessary to induce households to invest in hardware facilities.
Figure 9.2 Rural sanitation financing (required, anticipated and recent investments)
Source: SDA costing
Figure 9.3 Rural sanitation financing (anticipated and gap/surplus)
Rural sanitation has received a significant increase in po-litical priority over the past years, following the National Community-Based Total Sanitation Strategy (STBM) issued in 2008 and the definition of sector targets including ‘open defecation free’ status by 2014. Meeting these targets, however, remains challenging for various reasons. First, the magnitude of the problem. With still 100 million people still not having access to improved sanitation facilities (and 58 million people still practicing open defecation in 2011), In-donesia will need to help 16 million people per year gain access to improved sanitation facilities, current population growth rates considered. Second, the type of approach used for sector development. The methodology underlying STBM is based on a community-participatory, non-subsidy approach triggering behavior change, ultimately leveraging household contributions as main source of financing, and aiming for collective outcomes. This means a higher focus on software compared to hardware expenditures, such as capacity building through training and institutionalization in schools or the development of real-time SMS and web-based monitoring.
0
100
200
Total investmentrequirement
Ann
ual i
nves
tmen
t in
mili
on U
S$
Rural sanitation
Anticipatedinvestment 2012-2014
300
Recent investment2012-2014
400
500
600
Household
External
Domestic
Replacement
New
Domestic anticipated investment
External anticipated investment
Household anticipated investment
De�cit
Rural sanitationTotal : US$414,000,000Per capita (new): US$28
Service Delivery Assessment 31
In this regard, the scorecard reveals a quite realistic pic-ture of the current situation of the rural sanitation subsector (Figure 9.4): The green building blocks policy and up-take reflect the existence of the STBM program, a sound policy framework including sector targets and clearly established roles and responsibilities, embracing a high degree of com-munity participation and equity, with a number of incentives and focus on behavior change.
The challenges now focus on the next step in the process, the implementation of the policy at national level, and sus-tainability of the services created. Here, the scorecard re-sults show some bottlenecks. The planning and budgeting building blocks, including creating investment plans, estab-lishing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, assessing number and capacity of human resources, as well as having sound budget and financial planning mechanisms in place, are maturing, although are still in need of development to achieve full nation-wide implementation. A number of initia-tives, activities and mechanisms have been implemented in numerous provinces and now being replicated across the wide-spread rural population in Indonesia.
Promising improvements as well as large remaining gaps are both combined in the sustainability level of the program. Acceptance of the approach among the community, willing-ness to bear the cost of improved sanitation services, and improved health and hygiene outcomes were confirmed by an impact evaluation in 2012.39 The local private sector of sanitation enterprises is seen as an important partner in de-livering services, as well as contributions through corporate social responsibility programs, all of which are contribut-ing towards better sector performance.40 At the same time, the use building block still shows a score of 0, indicating that great efforts are still required to meet the 2019 sector targets, the effectiveness of the equity focus still needs to be strengthened, and the use of improved facilities is still quite low.
At central government level, a secretariat in the Ministry of Health has been set up to assist the implementation of the STBM program. This is key to scale up STBM to a nation-wide level. The secretariat, however, requires continued as-sistance to build capacity and coordinate the implementa-tion of the strategy.
39 WSP (2013): TSSM Impact Evaluation, Field note.40 According to the Association for Sanitation Entrepreneurs (APPSANI), more than 3000 private sanitation entrepreneurs exist in Indonesia to date.
Figure 9.4 Rural sanitation and hygiene scorecard and results (0 = lowest; 3 = highest)
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
1.125
Policy
3
Budget
1
Output
1
Expenditure
1.5
Markets
1.125
Equity
2
Up-take
2.5 0.5
Use
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia32
Figure 10.1 shows access rates and targets for urban sani-tation. Government estimates from the BPS, which are based on the SUSENAS survey, indicate that about 73% of the urban population had access to improved sanitation in 2011. Access rates have improved modestly since 1993 and the changes do not seem large enough to meet the tar-get of universal access in 2019. The JMP access rates for 2011 are very close to government estimates.
The SUSENAS survey for 2010, as presented in the JMP,41 indicates that flush toilets/gooseneck toilet pans are com-mon in rural Indonesia (88%). However, government defini-tions for improved facilities are much lower than JMP defi-nitions, because they require that the toilets be private and have access to either a septic tank, a sewerage system or a pit. Access to sewerage systems and sewerage treatment in urban areas is still very low, covering only about 1% of the urban population, according to studies by the USDP
10. Subsector: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene
Priority actions for urban sanitation and hygiene
• Improve technical and managerial performance of urban sanitation treatment facilities by building managerial ca-pacity and increasing the efficiency of the treatment facilities.
• Provide technical assistance to intensify the development of fecal sludge management systems in urban areas including private sector participation.
• Institutionalize the clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities for regulation and service provision at local level to ensure more effective service delivery.
41 JMP (2012) Estimates for the use of Improved Sanitation Facilities: Indonesia, wssinfo.org.42 Urban Sanitation Development Program (2012) National Sanitation Demand Assessment 2012, Draft report, November. 43 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.44 JMP (2013) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.
Figure 10.1 Access to urban sanitation
Acc
ess
to im
pro
ved
san
itatio
n
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20200%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Govt. estimates (1993-2011) Government target
Govt. estimates (2009-2011)
Source: SDA costing44
and Eales et al.42,43 The JMP also estimates that as of 2011, about 14% of the urban population still practiced open def-ecation.44
Service Delivery Assessment 33
The country needs to raise an estimated US$2.3 billion per year in order to meet its 2019 targets for urban sanitation (Figure 10.2). About 24% (US$560 million per year) of this amount is for providing access to sewerage systems, with a national target of 6% of the urban population by 2019. Anticipated investments are less than investment require-ments, suggesting that planned expenditures for 2012-14 are not enough to meet the targets. This implies that achiev-ing the targets for 2019 may require substantial increases in investments starting now. The deficits for 2012-14 might actually be higher than what is estimated here. The reason is that 51% of the anticipated expenditures are projected to come from households. Funding issues are compounded further by the finding in Section 2 that an additional US$214 million per year needs to be generated for maintenance and operating expenditures
The results of the urban sanitation scorecard (Figure 10.4) show that it is evident that Indonesia has developed a sound basis for urban sanitation service delivery: Policy and budget building blocks receive quite high scores, followed
by medium scores for planning, expenditure and equity. However, the performance of how services are implement-ed and sustained still show major weaknesses, especially regarding the rate of expansion and quality of treatment, described through the low output score. For example, in the past, a number of urban sanitation facilities were construct-ed throughout the country, but as recent studies show,45 many of the facilities still have substantial issues regard-ing the quality of their performance. Although regulations (including norms and standards) are available, but ensuring high quality technical and managerial performance is one of the biggest challenges Indonesia faces in the urban sanita-tion sector.
Another major bottleneck is the markets building block, which reveals the shortcomings in fecal waste collection and treatment (score = 0) and the lack of cost recovery of treatment systems (score = 0). Given the large prevalence of pit latrines and septic tanks in urban areas, the lack of fecal sludge management is of particular concern. Studies have shown46,47 that the majority of facilities, which are com-
45 Refer to WSP (2013), Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, World Bank and AusAID (2013), Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study.46 Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study. The World Bank, 2013. 47 Urban Sludge Management, WSP [reference]
Figure 10.2 Urban sanitation financing (required, anticipated and recent investments)
Figure 10.3 Urban sanitation financing (anticipated and gap)
0
500
1,000
Total investmentrequirement
Ann
ual i
nves
tmen
t in
mili
on U
S$
Urban sanitation
Anticipatedinvestment 2012-2014
1,500
Recent investment2012-2014
2,000
2,500Household
External
Domestic
Seweragesystem
Replacement
New
Domestic anticipated investment
External anticipated investment
Household anticipated investment
De�cit
Urban sanitationTotal : US$2,340,000,000Per capita (new): US$184
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia34
monly called ‘septic tanks’, do not actually include a prop-erly functioning sealed tank and treatment system; in most cases, they are merely latrine facilities with an enforced pit as sub-structure. Households in urban areas – many of them are tenants with unclear land ownership structures – are not aware of the potentially improperly functioning sub-structures, hence operation and maintenance is poor, pits are leaking and often discharging directly into the ground-water. As a consequence, only a few households request their tanks to be emptied regularly by calling either public or private service providers for desludging. Once the sludge is collected from the households, these providers then further lack a regulatory mechanism and incentives to safely dis-pose the fecal sludge into the septage treatment plants. As a result, a large portion of the collected sludge is disposed unsafely directly into the environment.48 The Government is aware of the issue and with support from USAID and WSP is currently developing a program of fecal sludge manage-ment to improve the services.
Further bottlenecks in the service delivery pathway of the urban sanitation and hygiene subsector is the lack of prop-er management of decentralized wastewater treatment sys-tems (DEWATS systems), as well as septage and wastewa-ter treatment plants. Tariffs collected do not cover costs for operation and maintenance, which leads to dysfunctional facilities. In particular for DEWATS systems, studies have shown that external monitoring and support for technical and non-technical problem solving is highly necessary to keep infrastructure in a well functioning shape and ensure good treatment performance on the long term. Further-more, this management issue is also related with institu-tional arrangements due to the unclear distinction between regulator and service provider – in numerous cases at local government level, one entity resumes both roles. To tackle this issue, central government has started some initiatives, such as the Ministry of Public Works and the Ministry of Home Affairs, with support from development partners.
Figure 10.4 Urban sanitation and hygiene scorecard and results (0 = lowest; 3 = highest)
48 It is estimated that only 4% of septage in urban areas is being treated (Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study, The World Bank, 2013).
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
1.5
Policy
2.5
Budget
2
Output
0.5
Expenditure
1.5
Markets
0.375
Equity
1.5
Up-take
1 1
Use
Service Delivery Assessment 35
Both Government and JMP data sources indicate that In-donesia has made significant progress in the overall in-crease of access to water and sanitation services in recent years. However, sector targets of 100% coverage by 2019, as set out in the development plans, are very ambitious, even though they can be interpreted as a reflection of the increased political priority the sector is receiving as result of years of strong sector development. Nonetheless, the strong political support to the sector needs to be continued, and budget allocations need to be increased even more than they already have over the recent years to reach these targets. At the same time a focus on reducing the overall bottlenecks in the sector through more accurate planning, effective implementation and a focus on sustaining the ser-vices is required to improve the service delivery pathway
Reaching universal access by 2019 will require a total an-nual investment into the sector amounting to more than US$4.7 billion per year for water supply and US$2.8 bil-lion per year for sanitation. These numbers constitute a 4.5-fold and 7.5-fold increase in investment into the water supply and sanitation subsector, respectively, compared to recent years, when progress was already at an all-time high level. However, the anticipated investments over the three years between 2012 and 2014 still fall far short of the requirements, with projected deficits of US$2.4 million for water supply and US$1.4 billion for sanitation. On top of this, approximately US$538 million is required for the operation and maintenance of water supply services, and US$244 million for sanitation. This money is necessary when considering the number of people that have to gain
access in the coming years to achieve universal access by 2019; about 24 million people per year have to gain ac-cess to water supply services and 16 million per year for sanitation services.
The financial analysis reveals that most of the money is needed for the development of urban water supply facili-ties (US$4 billion per year) as well as urban sanitation fa-cilities (US$2.3 billion per year). The reason for these high costs associated with urban services is attributed to the high rate of urbanization and population growth as well as the higher unit costs associated with urban services.
The scorecard analysis shows that overall, Indonesia is progressing reasonably well in the enabling and develop-ing pillars of the service delivery pathway. This results from a supportive institutional environment, improved coordina-tion between line ministries, and consistency in reducing inequality by providing access to low income communities in both rural and urban areas. The focus in the future will be to strengthen the existing system, improve the implementa-tion of policies and strategies into actual outputs, improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the systems and sustain the achieved services through strong ownership, operation and maintenance. Bottlenecks in the developing and sustaining pillars suggest that high political will needs to be translated into improved investment plans that are linked with local government work plans and budgeting processes. Considering the high investment requirements to develop urban water supply services, the need for wa-ter utilities to generate revenues and expand access to the
11. Conclusion
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia36
poor is rising as well. This includes a supportive political economy environment at local government level and its in-fluence on achieving cost-recovery tariffs. It further includes strengthening the equity focus by developing clear sub-sector strategies for reaching the poor, including specific incentives or subsidies for the poor.
At the same time, priority has to be given to the sound and integrated planning to ensure the future availability of wa-ter resources. Without this, many existing weaknesses in the performance of the water supply and sanitation service delivery will be exacerbated and investments and solutions required will increase significantly.
The big task for Indonesia in the near future will be to find ways to address these challenges. In addition to detailed subsector priority actions identified in section 6 to 10, the following sector-wide priority actions have been identified by stakeholders:• Identify support structures for local governments to as-
sess and improve the quality of their strategic planning processes.
• Scale up development of human resources through in-stitutionalized capacity building.
• Develop sound investment plans and ensure their en-dorsement and incorporation into local government work plans for immediate implementation.
• Investigate how local accountability mechanisms are functioning and potential ways to improve this.
• Actively seek involvement of private sector and devel-op alternative financing mechanism.
• Engage local governments in water management and planning to secure future availability of water resources.
• Cleary define poor households at the bottom 40% of the income distribution and design targeted support to ensure inclusive service-delivery.
• Improve greater coordination between water and sanitation sector programs and poverty programs to increase the effectiveness of service delivery for the poor.
• Improve local capacity for using M&E systems to in-form sector planning, budgeting and targeting imple-mentation support.
• Strengthen the National Water Supply and Sanitation Information Services System (NAWASIS) to become an integrated portal for sector-wide M&E.
Service Delivery Assessment 37
Figure 11.1 Scorecard of the service delivery pathway for all four subsectors
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
1.5
Policy
2.5
Budget
2
Output
0.5
Expenditure
1.5
Markets
0.375
Equity
1.5
Up-take
1 1
Use
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
1.125
Policy
3
Budget
1
Output
1
Expenditure
1.5
Markets
1.125
Equity
2
Up-take
2.5 0.5
Use
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
1.5
Policy
3
Budget
1.5
Output
0.5
Expenditure
3
Maintenance
0.75
Equity
2
Expansion
1.5 1
Use
Enabling Developing SustainingPlanning
1.5
Policy
2.5
Budget
1.5
Output
1
Expenditure
3
Maintenance
1.5
Equity
1
Expansion
0.5 1
Use
Rural Water Supply
Urban Water Supply
Rural Sanitation and Hygiene
Urban Sanitation and Hygiene
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
38
Ann
ex 1
: Th
e S
core
of S
DA
in In
done
sia
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
RURA
L SA
NITA
TION
ENAB
LING
Enab
ling
Polic
ySe
ctor
targ
ets
Are
ther
e RW
S ac
cess
ta
rget
s in
the
natio
nal
leve
l dev
elop
men
t pl
an?
Yes,
ther
e ar
e ta
rget
s fo
r rur
al
wat
er s
uppl
y in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t pl
an
Ther
e ar
e na
tiona
l ta
rget
s in
the
deve
lopm
ent
plan
but
non
e fo
r ru
ral w
ater
.
No ta
rget
s in
the
deve
lopm
ent
plan
1M
id-t
erm
Dev
elop
men
t pla
n: 6
7% a
cces
s fo
r w
ater
by
2014
(no
sepa
rate
targ
et b
etw
een
rura
l an
d ur
ban)
. Ind
ones
ia M
DG ta
rget
: 54%
rura
l pi
ped
wat
er. L
ong-
term
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n: a
cces
s fo
r wat
er fo
r all
popu
latio
n by
202
5. R
enst
ra o
f th
e M
PW in
clud
es s
ub-s
ecto
ral t
arge
ts fo
r rur
al
wat
er s
uppl
y.
Indo
nesi
a M
id-t
erm
De
velo
pmen
t Pla
n (2
010-
2014
), In
done
sia
Long
-ter
m
Deve
lopm
ent P
lan
(200
5-20
25).
Indo
nesi
a M
DG T
arge
t.
Enab
ling
Polic
ySe
ctor
Pol
icy
Is th
ere
a ru
ral w
ater
po
licy
that
is a
gree
d by
sta
keho
lder
s,
appr
oved
by
gove
rnm
ent,
and
is
publ
icly
avai
labl
e?
Polic
y of
ficia
lly
appr
oved
and
pu
blic
ly av
aila
ble
Polic
y dr
afte
d an
d ag
reed
but
no
t offi
cial
ly ap
prov
ed
No p
olic
y1
Law
No.
7/20
04 o
n W
ater
Res
ourc
es. A
rticl
e 40
st
ated
that
pro
visio
n of
wat
er s
uppl
y is
a s
hare
d re
spon
sibi
lity
amon
g na
tiona
l gov
ernm
ent,
loca
l go
vern
men
t, co
mm
unity
and
priv
ate
sect
or to
en
sure
qua
lity
serv
ice
at a
fford
able
pric
e. L
aw
No.3
2/20
09 o
n pr
otec
tion
and
man
agem
ent
of e
nviro
nmen
t give
s m
anda
te to
Min
istry
of
Envir
onm
ent t
o co
ntro
l bal
ance
of e
nviro
nmen
t an
d pr
otec
t wat
er re
sour
ces.
Gov
ernm
ent
Decr
ee N
o. 1
6/20
05 o
n sy
stem
for p
rovis
ion
of
wat
er. A
rticl
e 65
of t
his
Decr
ee a
ckno
wle
dges
co
mm
unity
-bas
ed w
ater
org
aniza
tions
as
a le
gal
body
to m
anag
e pr
ovis
ion
of w
ater
in ru
ral a
reas
. Al
so R
enst
ra a
vaila
ble
in th
e M
PW.
Rela
ted
law,
agr
eem
ent,
decr
ee o
n w
ater
(pub
licly
avai
labl
e on
inte
rnet
).
Buku
Sak
u Re
gula
si A
MPL
- Ai
r Min
um d
an P
enye
hata
n Li
ngku
ngan
(han
dboo
k of
w
ater
and
env
ironm
enta
l he
alth
pol
icy)
, Pok
ja A
MPL
, 20
10
Polic
yIn
stitu
tiona
l Ro
les
Are
the
inst
itutio
nal
role
s of
rura
l wat
er
subs
ecto
r pla
yers
(n
atio
nal/s
tate
& lo
cal
gove
rnm
ent,
serv
ice
prov
ider
, reg
ulat
or
etc)
cle
arly
defin
ed
and
oper
atio
naliz
ed?
Defin
ed a
nd
oper
atio
naliz
edDe
fined
but
not
op
erat
iona
lized
Not d
efine
dNo
t defi
ned
0.5
Clea
rly d
efine
d in
sev
eral
law
s, d
ecre
es a
nd
agre
emen
ts s
uch
as W
ater
and
Env
ironm
enta
l He
alth
Nat
iona
l Stra
tegy
(200
3), L
aw N
o.
32/2
004
on lo
cal a
uton
omy,
Gove
rnm
ent D
ecre
e No
. 38/
2007
on
dem
arca
tion
of ro
les
betw
een
natio
nal a
nd lo
cal g
over
nmen
t, M
inis
ter o
f Hea
lth
Decr
ee N
o. 7
36/2
010
on w
ater
sur
veilla
nce,
M
inis
ter o
f Pub
lic W
orks
Dec
ree
No. 1
2/20
10 o
n w
ater
sys
tem
bus
ines
s m
anag
emen
t, Go
vern
men
t De
cree
No.
72/
2005
on
villa
ges.
How
ever
, the
re
are
som
e op
erat
iona
l iss
ues
whe
n th
e ru
ral
wat
er s
yste
m h
as b
een
hand
ed-o
ver t
o ru
ral
com
mun
ities
/villa
ge g
over
nmen
t reg
ardi
ng a
sset
m
anag
emen
t and
mai
nten
ance
.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t39
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Fund
flow
co
ordi
natio
nDo
es g
over
nmen
t ha
ve a
pro
cess
for
coor
dina
ting
mul
tiple
in
vest
men
ts in
the
subs
ecto
r (do
mes
tic
or d
onor
, eg.
Nat
iona
l gr
ants
, sta
te b
udge
ts,
dono
r loa
ns a
nd
gran
ts e
tc.)?
Coor
dina
tion
proc
ess
defin
ed a
nd
oper
atio
naliz
ed
Coor
dina
tion
proc
ess
defin
ed b
ut n
ot
oper
atio
naliz
ed
Not d
efine
d/ n
o pr
oces
s0.
5Cl
early
defi
ned
proc
ess
and
equi
pped
with
rela
ted
supp
ortin
g pl
anni
ng, i
mpl
emen
tatio
n, m
onito
ring
and
repo
rting
doc
umen
ts. B
udge
ting
proc
ess
was
don
e by
thre
e pa
rties
: Min
istry
of F
inan
ce,
Bapp
enas
, and
sec
tor m
inis
try/a
genc
ies.
The
re
is v
ery
few
off-
budg
et, o
ff re
cord
s in
the
sect
or.
Budg
etin
g pr
oces
s is
gui
ded
by th
e la
w, b
ut th
ere
are
still
issu
es w
ith q
ualit
y of
bud
getin
g.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Inve
stm
ent p
lan
Is th
ere
a m
ediu
m
term
inve
stm
ent p
lan
for r
ural
wat
er b
ased
on
nat
iona
l tar
gets
th
at c
oste
d, p
riorit
izes
inve
stm
ent n
eeds
, is
publ
ishe
d an
d us
ed?
Inve
stm
ent p
lan
base
d on
prio
rity
need
s ex
ists
, is
publ
ishe
d an
d us
ed
Exis
ts b
ut n
ot
used
, or u
nder
pr
epar
atio
n
Does
not
exis
t1
Ther
e is
an
Indo
nesi
an W
ater
Inve
stm
ent
Road
map
(201
1-20
14) d
evel
oped
by
Min
istry
of
Publ
ic W
orks
and
a M
aste
r Pla
n fo
r Dev
elop
ing
Com
mun
ity B
ased
Wat
er P
rovis
ion
Syst
em
(BPP
SPAM
) for
a p
erio
d of
15-
20 y
ears
(sta
rting
in
200
7). R
oadm
ap a
nd m
aste
r pla
n ar
e te
chni
cal
docu
men
ts (G
over
nmen
t Wor
k Pl
ans
- RK
P)
that
con
sist
of d
etai
led
cost
est
imat
es a
nd
deta
iled
impl
emen
tatio
n pl
ans.
Inve
stm
ent p
lan
impl
emen
tatio
n is
bei
ng p
repa
red.
Indo
nesi
an W
ater
Inve
stm
ent
Road
map
(201
1-20
14).
Mas
ter p
lan
for D
evel
opin
g W
ater
Pro
visio
n Sy
stem
(B
PPSP
AM).
Rur
al W
ater
W
orks
hop
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Annu
al re
view
Is th
ere
an a
nnua
l m
ulti-
stak
ehol
der
revie
w in
pla
ce to
m
onito
r sub
sect
or
perfo
rman
ce, t
o re
view
pro
gres
s an
d se
t cor
rect
ive a
ctio
ns?
Revie
w o
f pe
rform
ance
an
d se
tting
of
corre
ctive
act
ions
Revie
w o
f pe
rform
ance
bu
t no
setti
ng o
f co
rrect
ive a
ctio
ns
No re
view
or
set
ting
of
corre
ctive
act
ions
0.5
Ther
e ar
e re
gula
r rev
iew
s co
nduc
ted
by
stak
ehol
ders
and
pro
ject
s. R
egar
ding
tech
nica
l is
sues
, Min
istry
of P
ublic
Wor
ks h
as a
n on
line
M&E
sys
tem
(SIM
SPAM
) to
acce
lera
te c
orre
ctive
ac
tion.
Nec
essa
ry c
orre
ctive
act
ions
exis
t fo
r som
e pr
ojec
ts (e
.g. P
AMSI
MAS
), bu
t not
sy
stem
atic
ally.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
HR C
apac
ityHa
s an
ass
essm
ent
been
und
erta
ken
of
the
hum
an re
sour
ce
need
s in
the
sub
sect
or to
mee
t the
su
bsec
tor t
arge
t and
is
the
actio
n pl
an
bein
g im
plem
ente
d?
Asse
ssm
ent
unde
rtake
n an
d ac
tions
bei
ng
impl
emen
ted
Asse
ssm
ent
unde
rtake
n bu
t no
act
ion
bein
g ta
ken
No a
sses
smen
t un
derta
ken
0No
spe
cific
ass
essm
ent m
ade
on th
is a
rea.
Ru
ral W
ater
Wor
ksho
p
Enab
ling
Budg
etAd
eque
ncy
(of
finan
cing
)Ar
e th
e pu
blic
fin
anci
al c
omm
itmen
ts
to th
e ru
ral w
ater
su
bsec
tor s
uffic
ient
to
mee
t the
nat
iona
l ta
rget
s fo
r the
su
bsec
tor?
Mor
e th
an
75%
of w
hat i
s ne
eded
Betw
een
50-
75%
of n
eeds
Less
than
50%
of
nee
ds1
Mor
e th
an 7
5%. T
he S
DA c
ostin
g an
alys
is
estim
ates
that
if fu
ndin
g co
ntin
ues
as a
ntic
ipat
ed,
the
sect
or w
ill be
fully
fund
ed to
mee
t the
targ
ets
by 2
019.
SDA
cost
ing
anal
ysis
.
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
40
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Enab
ling
Budg
etSt
ruct
ure
Does
the
budg
et
stru
ctur
e pe
rmit
the
inve
stm
ents
and
su
bsid
ies
(ope
ratio
nal
cost
s, a
dmin
istra
tion,
de
bt s
ervic
e, e
tc)
for t
he ru
ral w
ater
se
ctor
to b
e cl
early
id
entifi
ed?
Yes
for
inve
stm
ent a
nd
for s
ubsi
dies
Yes
for
inve
stm
ent b
ut
not s
ubsi
dies
No0.
5Th
ere
is a
sep
arat
ion
betw
een
subs
idy
and
inve
stm
ent i
n th
e bu
dget
stru
ctur
e, b
ut n
ot
betw
een
rura
l and
urb
an. T
his
is s
tate
d in
Pr
esid
entia
l Reg
ulat
ion
No.2
9/20
09 o
n Gu
aran
ty
and
Inte
rest
Sub
sidy
by
Natio
nal G
over
nmen
t to
Acc
eler
ate
Prov
isio
n of
Wat
er S
uppl
y. It
is
also
gui
ded
in M
inis
ter o
f Fin
ance
Dec
ree
No.
229/
2009
on
Impl
emen
tatio
n Gu
idel
ine
on
the
Guar
anty
and
Inte
rest
Sub
sidy
by
Natio
nal
Gove
rnm
ent t
o Ac
cele
rate
Pro
visio
n of
Wat
er
Supp
ly.
Pres
iden
tial R
egul
atio
n No
.29/
2009
, Min
iste
r of
Fina
nce
Decr
ee N
o. 2
29/2
009,
an
d Ru
ral W
ater
Wor
ksho
p.
Enab
ling
Budg
etCo
mpr
ehen
sive
Does
the
gove
rnm
ent b
udge
t co
mpr
ehen
sive
ly co
ver d
omes
tic
and
offic
ial d
onor
in
vest
men
t/sub
sidy
to
rura
l wat
er?
Mor
e th
an 7
5%
of fu
nds
to
subs
ecto
r on
budg
et
Betw
een
50-
75%
of f
unds
to
sub
sect
or o
n bu
dget
Less
than
50%
of
fund
s to
su
bsec
tor o
n bu
dget
0No
t all
budg
ets
are
regi
ster
ed, e
spec
ially
co
mm
uniti
es' c
ontri
butio
n in
the
com
mun
ity
base
d ru
ral w
ater
sup
ply.
Min
istry
of F
inan
ce
keep
s re
cord
of a
ll go
vern
men
t bud
get o
n w
ater
, ho
wev
er, t
his
does
not
pro
vide
the
over
all b
udge
t of
this
sec
tor s
ince
it is
est
imat
ed o
nly
70%
of
the
budg
et c
omes
from
gov
ernm
ent,
whi
le th
e ot
her 3
0% fr
om p
rivat
e se
ctor
. Als
o no
sep
arat
ion
betw
een
urba
n an
d ru
ral i
s av
aila
ble.
Seki
las
APBN
, Din
amik
a Pe
ngan
ggar
an d
i Ind
ones
ia
(201
1), D
raft
repo
rt on
revie
w
of m
idte
rm d
evel
opm
ent p
lan
2010
-201
4 (A
DB, 2
013)
, PH
LN D
alam
Dis
parit
as
Pem
bang
unan
Kes
ehat
an
(201
0), a
nd R
ural
Wat
er
Wor
ksho
p
DEVE
LOPI
NG
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Utiliz
atio
n of
dom
estic
fu
nds
Wha
t per
cent
age
of d
omes
tic fu
nds
budg
eted
for r
ural
w
ater
are
spe
nt (3
ye
ar a
vera
ge)?
Over
75%
Betw
een
50%
an
d 75
%Le
ss th
an 5
0%1
ADB
Mid
term
Rev
iew
of t
he M
idte
rm D
evel
opm
ent
Prog
ram
sta
ted
that
mor
e th
an 7
5% b
udge
t has
be
en u
tilize
d. H
owev
er, n
o se
para
te d
ata
on ru
ral
and
urba
n.
ADB
Mid
term
Rev
iew,
Rur
al
Sani
tatio
n W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Utiliz
atio
n of
ext
erna
l fu
nds
Wha
t per
cent
age
of e
xter
nal f
unds
bu
dget
ed fo
r rur
al
wat
er a
re s
pent
(3
year
ave
rage
)?
Over
75%
Betw
een
50%
an
d 75
%Le
ss th
an 5
0%1
Mos
tly a
lmos
t 100
% w
hen
the
proj
ects
/act
ivitie
s fin
ish.
Ru
ral W
ater
Wor
ksho
p
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Repo
rting
Is ru
ral w
ater
ex
pend
iture
ver
sus
budg
et a
udite
d an
d re
porte
d on
in a
co
nsol
idat
ed fo
rmat
fo
r all
sour
ces
of
dom
estic
and
offi
cial
do
nor e
xpen
ditu
re?
Yes
for d
omes
tic
and
dono
r ex
pend
iture
Yes
for d
omes
tic
expe
nditu
reNo
1Al
l gov
ernm
ent b
udge
t fro
m a
ll so
urce
s ar
e au
dite
d an
d re
porte
d in
a c
onso
lidat
ed
gove
rnm
ent f
orm
at, b
ut in
-line
with
PM
K 59
/PM
K06/
2005
, the
re is
no
requ
irem
ent f
or a
se
para
te a
ccou
nt fo
r pur
e go
vern
men
t and
pr
ojec
t's e
xpen
ditu
res
as a
ll ar
e co
nsid
ered
as
gove
rnm
ent.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t41
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Loca
l par
ticip
atio
nAr
e th
ere
clea
rly
defin
ed p
roce
dure
s fo
r in
form
ing,
con
sulti
ng
with
and
sup
porti
ng
loca
l par
ticip
atio
n in
pl
anni
ng, b
udge
ting
and
impl
emen
ting
for r
ural
wat
er
deve
lopm
ents
?
Yes
and
syst
emat
ical
ly ap
plie
d
Yes,
but
not
sy
stem
atic
ally
appl
ied
No0.
5Pl
anni
ng a
nd im
plem
enta
tion
of w
ater
and
sa
nita
tion
in In
done
sia
are
botto
m u
p fo
rwar
ding
lo
cal p
artic
ipat
ion.
Thi
s is
cle
arly
stat
ed in
pr
ogra
m's
and
pro
ject
’s g
uide
line,
whi
ch w
as
deve
lope
d by
loca
l im
plem
ente
r, an
d co
ncre
tely
real
ized
in p
rogr
am's
or p
roje
ct's
cos
t sha
ring.
Th
ough
, cle
arly
proc
edur
e is
exis
t, re
aliza
tion
of
com
mitm
ent i
s st
ill w
eak.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Budg
et a
lloca
tion
crite
riaHa
ve c
riter
ia (o
r a
form
ula)
bee
n de
term
ined
to a
lloca
te
rura
l wat
er fu
ndin
g eq
uita
bly
to ru
ral
com
mun
ities
and
is
it b
eing
app
lied
cons
iste
ntly?
Yes,
app
lied
cons
iste
ntly
Yes,
but
no
t app
lied
cons
iste
ntly
No0.
5La
w N
o. 3
2/20
04 o
n lo
cal g
over
nmen
t and
M
inis
ter o
f Fin
ance
Reg
ulat
ion
No 1
65/2
012
on tr
ansf
er fu
nd s
tate
d th
at b
udge
t allo
catio
n is
con
duct
ed b
y M
oF w
ith s
peci
fic c
riter
ia.
MoF
con
sults
oth
er te
chni
cal m
inis
tries
and
lo
cal g
over
nmen
t, es
peci
ally
to g
et te
chni
cal
inpu
ts, w
hen
allo
catin
g th
e bu
dget
. How
ever
, th
e al
loca
tion
is n
ot a
pplie
d co
nsis
tent
ly by
loca
l go
vern
men
ts.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Redu
cing
ineq
ualit
yIs
ther
e pe
riodi
c an
alys
is to
ass
ess
whe
ther
allo
catio
n cr
iteria
and
loca
l pa
rtici
patio
n pr
oced
ures
set
by
gove
rnm
ent h
ave
been
adh
ered
to
and
are
redu
cing
di
spar
ities
in a
cces
s?
Yes
perio
dic
anal
ysis
pu
blis
hed
and
acte
d up
on
Yes
perio
dic
anal
ysis
pu
blis
hed
but n
ot
acte
d up
on
No0
No p
erio
dic
anal
ysis
is b
eing
con
duct
ed
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Quan
tity
Is th
e an
nual
num
ber
of n
ew s
yste
ms
built
(and
sys
tem
s re
plac
ed) s
uffic
ient
to
mee
t sec
tor t
arge
ts?
(incl
udin
g ou
tput
by
gove
rnm
ent d
irect
ly as
wel
l as
thro
ugh
cont
ract
ors
and
NGOs
)
Over
75%
of t
hat
need
ed to
reac
h se
ctor
targ
ets
Over
50%
of t
hat
need
ed to
reac
h se
ctor
targ
ets
Less
than
50%
of
that
nee
ded
to re
ach
sect
or
targ
ets
0In
telle
ctua
l gue
ss: l
ess
than
50%
. Tar
get r
ural
pi
ped
wat
er 1
9.76
% (2
015)
. Acc
ess
in 2
011
was
13
.94
(or 7
0.54
% fr
om 2
015
targ
et).
Non-
pipe
d w
ater
: no
relia
ble
natio
nal d
ata
(not
yet
fully
in
corp
orat
ed in
SIM
SPAM
dat
a). P
AMSI
MAS
pr
ojec
t rep
orte
d ac
cess
for 4
milli
on p
eopl
e.
Dit P
AM, D
irjen
Cip
ta K
arya
, M
insi
try o
f Pub
lic W
orks
dat
a,
PAM
SIM
AS d
ata,
and
Rur
al
Wat
er W
orks
hop.
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
42
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Capa
city
for
prom
otio
nAr
e th
ere
drin
king
w
ater
qua
lity
stan
dard
s fo
r rur
al
wat
er a
nd a
re a
ll ne
w
inst
alla
tions
test
ed?
Stan
dard
s ex
ist a
nd n
ew
inst
alla
tions
te
sted
Stan
dard
s ex
ist b
ut n
ew
inst
alla
tions
not
te
sted
No0.
5M
inst
er o
f Hea
lth R
egul
atio
n No
.736
/201
0 se
t up
guid
elin
e fo
r wat
er q
ualit
y su
rvei
llanc
e.
Min
iste
r of H
ealth
Reg
ulat
ion
No.4
92/2
010
set u
p m
ore
deta
il re
quire
men
t on
qual
ity o
f w
ater
. Ass
essm
ent r
epor
t is
avai
labl
e ev
ery
year
fo
r pub
lic in
a n
umbe
r of p
ublic
atio
n su
ch a
s Ba
sic
Heal
th S
urve
y, Na
tiona
l Soc
ial E
cono
mic
Su
rvey
, and
Indo
nesi
an H
ealth
pro
file.
Min
istry
of
Hea
lth d
ata
2011
: 90.
8% w
ater
can
fulfi
l ba
sic
requ
irem
ent f
or h
ealth
y w
ater
. How
ever
, co
nsid
erin
g th
at th
e su
rvei
llanc
e sy
stem
was
do
ne th
roug
h sa
mpl
ing
met
hod
and
not a
cen
sus,
th
en p
artic
ipan
ts a
t the
Rur
al S
anita
tion
Wor
ksho
p co
uld
not e
nsur
e m
ore
than
75%
has
bee
n te
sted
.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Repo
rting
Is th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew
sche
mes
and
thei
r lo
catio
ns re
porte
d in
a
cons
olid
ated
form
at
each
yea
r?
Yes
with
full
listin
g of
lo
catio
ns
Yes
but w
ithou
t a
full
listin
g of
lo
catio
ns
No0.
5M
ost p
roje
cts
and
prog
ram
s th
roug
h M
inis
try
of P
ublic
Wor
ks a
re w
ell d
ocum
ente
d an
d re
porte
d th
roug
h w
orki
ng g
roup
s. D
ata
incl
ude
loca
tion
and
stat
us. Y
et, n
atio
nal s
tatis
tic b
urea
u do
es n
ot in
clud
e lo
catio
n in
its
quar
terly
soc
ial
econ
omic
sur
vey.
Issu
es o
ccur
red
amon
g ot
hers
: da
ta re
port
and
mai
nten
ance
afte
r fac
ilitie
s be
ing
hand
ed o
ver t
o co
mm
uniti
es?
who
will
cont
inue
mai
ntai
ning
faci
litie
s m
ade
by g
roup
s of
co
mm
uniti
es?
hand
-ove
r iss
ues?
.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ng
Sust
aini
ngM
aint
enan
ceFu
nctio
nalit
yAr
e th
ere
regu
lar
asse
t reg
iste
r up
date
s of
rura
l w
ater
infra
stru
ctur
e in
clud
ing
thei
r fu
nctio
nal s
tatu
s?
Asse
t reg
iste
r an
d re
gula
r up
datin
g of
fu
nctio
nalit
y
Asse
t reg
iste
r bu
t no
upda
ting
of fu
nctio
nalit
y
Neith
er0.
5Pa
rtial
ly av
aila
ble.
Upd
atin
g is
con
duct
ed b
y pr
ojec
ts a
nd s
ome
min
istri
es c
oord
inat
ed b
y M
inis
try o
f Pub
lic W
orks
. For
exa
mpl
e, P
AMSI
MAS
up
date
s as
sets
in it
s 50
00 p
rogr
am v
illage
s,
Was
pola
doe
s in
3 d
istri
cts,
and
infra
stru
ctur
e un
it fin
ance
d by
Spe
cial
Allo
catio
n Bu
dget
(DAK
) do
es it
in 6
pro
vince
s. T
hrou
gh th
e go
vern
men
t au
dit s
yste
m, a
ll as
sets
fina
nced
by
gove
rnm
ent
are
regi
ster
ed a
nd th
eir s
tatu
s is
upd
ated
. Ho
wev
er, t
he q
ualit
y of
dat
a is
stil
l que
stio
nabl
e.
No in
form
atio
n on
the
reco
rd o
f ass
ets
prov
ided
by
com
mun
ities
and
priv
ate
sect
ors.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t43
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Sust
aini
ngM
aint
enan
ceCo
st re
cove
ryIs
ther
e a
natio
nal
polic
y on
O&M
cos
ts
and
are
O&M
cos
ts
know
n an
d co
vere
d fro
m s
ubsi
dies
and
/or
user
fees
?
O&M
pol
icy
exis
ts, c
osts
are
as
sess
ed a
nd
>75
% c
over
ed
O&M
pol
icy
exis
ts, c
osts
are
es
timat
ed a
nd
>50
% c
over
ed
No O
&M p
olic
y, co
sts
not k
now
n0.
5BP
PSPA
M s
tudy
: O&M
for c
omm
unity
ba
sed
wat
er s
yste
ms
is b
ased
on
cons
umer
co
ntrib
utio
ns. A
mou
nt o
f con
tribu
tion
is th
e av
erag
e of
tota
l cos
t. Ac
cord
ing
to n
atio
nal
polic
y, na
tiona
l gov
ernm
ent d
oes
not c
over
O&M
, it
is lo
cal g
over
nmen
t's re
spon
sibi
lity.
For p
iped
ru
ral w
ater
sch
emes
, O&M
will
be c
harg
ed to
co
nsum
ers
thro
ugh
the
PDAM
.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ngM
aint
enan
ceSp
are
parts
cha
inIs
ther
e a
syst
em
defin
ed fo
r spa
re
parts
sup
ply
chai
n th
at is
effe
ctive
in a
ll pl
aces
?
Syst
ems
defin
ed
and
spar
es
avai
labl
e in
>
50%
of v
illage
s
Syst
ems
defin
ed
but s
pare
s no
t av
aila
ble
up to
50
% o
f villa
ges
Syst
ems
not
defin
ed
0.5
Spar
e pa
rts a
re a
vaila
ble
near
big
ger s
ettle
men
ts.
It is
unl
ikel
y th
at p
eopl
e w
ill ha
ve to
go
mor
e th
an
a da
y tri
p to
acc
ess
the
spar
e pa
rt. Y
et, t
here
is n
o sp
ecifi
c sy
stem
in p
lace
to e
nsur
e th
e sp
are
part
avai
labi
lity.
Curre
ntly,
gov
ernm
ent w
ith s
uppo
rt fro
m a
num
ber o
f par
tner
s an
d as
soci
atio
ns is
se
tting
up
spar
e pa
rt m
arke
ting
syst
em.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ngM
aint
enan
ceM
anag
emen
t of
Disa
ster
Ris
k an
d Cl
imat
e Ch
ange
Do ru
ral s
ervic
e pr
ovid
ers
have
pla
ns
for c
opin
g w
ith n
atur
al
disa
ster
s an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
?
Yes,
the
maj
ority
of
rura
l ser
vice
prov
ider
s ha
ve a
pl
an fo
r dis
aste
r ris
k m
anag
emen
t an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
No. O
nly
som
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
have
a p
lan
for
disa
ster
risk
m
anag
emen
t an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
or m
ost
serv
ice
prov
ider
s ha
ve u
nder
take
n a
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent.
No s
ervic
e pr
ovid
er h
as a
cl
imat
e ac
tion
plan
or h
as
unde
rtake
n a
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent.
0.5
Soci
al s
afeg
uard
s ha
ve b
een
inco
rpor
ated
in
rura
l wat
er s
yste
m d
evel
opm
ent i
n so
me
area
s, in
par
ticul
ar th
ose
vuln
erab
le to
nat
ural
di
sast
er. M
ost o
f pro
ject
s ha
ve a
lso
inco
rpor
ated
pl
ans
to c
ope
with
nat
ural
dis
aste
r and
effe
cts
of c
limat
e ch
ange
. Con
side
ring
Indo
nesi
a’s
geog
raph
y, go
vern
men
t is
curre
ntly
prom
otin
g th
e im
porta
nce
to in
corp
orat
e th
is is
sue
in a
ll pr
ojec
t m
anag
emen
t pla
ns.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
ion
Inve
stm
ent s
uppo
rtAr
e pi
ped
syst
ems
in
rura
l are
as re
cogn
ized
as m
anag
emen
t en
titie
s an
d gi
ven
tech
nica
l and
fina
ncia
l su
ppor
t to
expa
nd
thei
r sys
tem
s ei
ther
by
gov
ernm
ent o
r la
rger
util
ities
?
Reco
gnize
d an
d su
ppor
ted
Reco
gnize
d bu
t no
t sup
porte
dNe
ither
0.5
Min
iste
r of P
ublic
Wor
ks R
egul
atio
n No
. 20/
2006
on
wat
er s
yste
m m
anag
emen
t has
reco
gnize
d ru
ral p
iped
wat
er s
chem
es a
s m
anag
emen
t en
titie
s, w
hich
are
give
n te
chni
cal a
ssis
tanc
e an
d hu
man
reso
urce
s, in
clud
ing
supp
ort g
iven
by
loca
l gov
ernm
ent.
How
ever
, no
syst
emat
ic fu
ndin
g is
give
n to
CBO
s af
ter h
and-
over
of a
sset
s to
ex
pand
thei
r ser
vices
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
ion
Plan
sAr
e th
ere
sche
me-
leve
l pla
ns fo
r the
ex
pans
ion
of p
iped
sy
stem
s in
rura
l ar
eas?
Yes
in m
ost r
ural
ar
eas
Yes
in a
roun
d ha
lf of
rura
l ar
eas
In a
sm
all
prop
ortio
n, o
r no
rura
l are
as
0In
telle
ctua
l gue
ss: l
ess
than
hal
f hav
e do
cum
ente
d pl
ans,
from
the
proj
ects
and
Sub
-Di
stric
t Citi
es p
rogr
am (I
KK).
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
44
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
ion
Inve
stm
ent fi
nanc
eAr
e ex
pans
ion
cost
s fo
r rur
al w
ater
bei
ng
cove
red
by u
ser f
ees
and/
or p
ublic
gra
nts?
Yes
in m
ost r
ural
ar
eas
Yes
in a
roun
d ha
lf of
rura
l ar
eas
In a
sm
all
prop
ortio
n, o
r no
rura
l are
as
0On
ly to
a v
ery
smal
l ext
ent.
Gove
rnm
ent a
nd
PAM
SIM
AS, f
or e
xam
ple
prov
ide
smal
l am
ount
of
fund
s fo
r exp
ansi
on. T
he re
st re
lies
on c
omm
unity
co
ntrib
utio
ns.
Rura
l Wat
er W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ngUs
eSu
bsec
tor
prog
ress
Is th
e su
bsec
tor o
n tra
ck to
mee
t the
st
ated
targ
et?
On-t
rack
Off-
track
but
ke
epin
g up
w
ith p
opul
atio
n gr
owth
Off-
track
0.5
In th
e rig
ht d
irect
ion,
but
incr
ease
d co
mm
itmen
ts
and
budg
ets
need
to m
ater
ializ
e to
reac
h th
e ta
rget
s.
SUSE
NAS
2011
, RIS
KESD
AS
2010
, Vic
e Pr
esid
ent R
epor
t (2
012)
, Rur
al W
ater
Wor
ksho
p.
Sust
aini
ngUs
eEq
uity
of u
seW
hat i
s th
e ra
tio o
f im
prov
ed d
rinki
ng
wat
er a
cces
s be
twee
n th
e lo
wes
t and
hig
hest
qu
intil
e in
rura
l are
as?
Less
than
2
times
Betw
een
2 an
d 5
Mor
e th
an 5
tim
es0
mor
e th
an 5
.BP
S da
ta. R
ural
Wat
er
Wor
ksho
p.
Sust
aini
ngUs
eQu
ality
of u
ser
expe
rienc
eOf
the
hous
ehol
ds
usin
g an
impr
oved
dr
inki
ng w
ater
sou
rce,
w
hat p
ropo
rtion
are
us
ing
pipe
d dr
inki
ng
wat
er in
the
dwel
ling
and
yard
/plo
t?
Mor
e th
an 5
0%
of h
ouse
hold
sM
ore
than
25%
of
hou
seho
lds
Less
than
25%
of
hou
seho
lds
0.5
40.2
% (N
atio
nal S
tatis
tical
Bur
eau
Data
)BP
S da
ta. R
ural
Wat
er
Wor
ksho
p.
URBA
N SA
NITA
TION
ENAB
LING
Enab
ling
Polic
ySe
ctor
Tar
gets
Are
ther
e UW
S ac
cess
ta
rget
s in
the
natio
nal
leve
l dev
elop
men
t pl
an?
Yes,
ther
e ar
e ur
ban
wat
er
supp
ly ta
rget
s in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t pl
an
Ther
e ar
e na
tiona
l ta
rget
s in
the
deve
lopm
ent
plan
but
non
e fo
r ur
ban
wat
er.
No ta
rget
s in
the
deve
lopm
ent
plan
1Se
cond
RPJ
MN:
67%
acc
ess
to im
prov
ed w
ater
su
pply
by 2
014
(no
sepa
rate
targ
et b
etw
een
rura
l an
d ur
ban)
. Ind
ones
ia M
DG ta
rget
: 69%
urb
an
pipe
d w
ater
. Thi
rd R
PJM
N: u
nive
rsal
acc
ess
by
2019
.
Indo
nesi
a M
id-t
erm
De
velo
pmen
t Pla
n (2
010-
2014
), In
done
sia
Long
-ter
m
Deve
lopm
ent P
lan
(200
5-20
25).
Indo
nesi
a M
DG T
arge
t.
Enab
ling
Polic
ySe
ctor
Pol
icy
Is th
ere
an u
rban
w
ater
pol
icy
that
is a
gree
d by
sta
keho
lder
s,
appr
oved
by
gove
rnm
ent,
and
publ
icly
avai
labl
e?
Polic
y of
ficia
lly
appr
oved
, and
pu
blic
ly av
aila
ble
Polic
y dr
afte
d an
d ag
reed
but
no
t offi
cial
ly ap
prov
ed
No p
olic
y1
Law
No.
5/1
962
on th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f loc
al
wat
er c
ompa
nies
(PDA
M).
Law
No.
7/20
04 o
n W
ater
Res
ourc
es. A
rticl
e 40
sta
ted
that
pro
visio
n of
wat
er is
a s
hare
d re
spon
sibi
lity
amon
g na
tiona
l go
vern
men
t, lo
cal g
over
nmen
t, co
mm
unity
and
pr
ivate
sec
tor t
o en
sure
qua
lity
serv
ice
with
af
ford
able
pric
e. L
aw N
o.32
/200
9 on
pro
tect
ion
and
man
agem
ent o
f env
ironm
ent g
ives
man
date
to
Min
istry
of E
nviro
nmen
t to
cont
rol b
alan
ce
of e
nviro
nmen
t and
pro
tect
wat
er re
sour
ces.
Go
vern
men
t Dec
ree
No. 1
6/20
05 o
n sy
stem
for
prov
isio
n of
wat
er.
Rela
ted
law,
agr
eem
ent,
decr
ee o
n w
ater
(pub
licly
avai
labl
e on
inte
rnet
).
Buku
Sak
u Re
gula
si A
MPL
- Ai
r Min
um d
an P
enye
hata
n Li
ngku
ngan
(han
dboo
k of
w
ater
and
env
ironm
enta
l he
alth
pol
icy)
, Pok
ja A
MPL
, 20
10
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t45
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Enab
ling
Polic
yIn
stitu
tiona
l Rol
esDo
es g
over
nmen
t ha
ve a
pro
cess
for
coor
dina
ting
mul
tiple
in
vest
men
ts in
the
subs
ecto
r (do
mes
tic
or d
onor
, eg.
Nat
iona
l gr
ants
, sta
te b
udge
ts,
dono
r loa
ns a
nd
gran
ts e
tc.)?
Coor
dina
tion
proc
ess
defin
ed a
nd
oper
atio
naliz
ed
Coor
dina
tion
proc
ess
defin
ed b
ut n
ot
oper
atio
naliz
ed
Not d
efine
d/no
pr
oces
s1
Law
No.
33/
2004
on
Fisc
al B
alan
ce g
ives
man
date
to M
oF to
coo
rdin
ate
fisca
l bal
ance
, in
clud
ing
trans
fer a
nd g
rant
s, a
nd w
ill be
aud
ited
by B
PK. T
he p
roce
ss is
cle
ar a
lread
y. Ho
wev
er, t
o da
te, t
here
are
stil
l som
e is
sues
on
off b
udge
t, su
ch a
s fu
nd p
rovid
ed b
y NG
Os o
r CSR
.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Fund
flow
co
ordi
natio
nIs
ther
e a
med
ium
te
rm in
vest
men
t pl
an fo
r urb
an w
ater
ba
sed
on n
atio
nal
targ
ets
that
is c
oste
d,
prio
ritize
s in
vest
men
t ne
eds,
is p
ublis
hed
and
used
?
Inve
stm
ent p
lan
base
d on
prio
rity
need
s ex
ists
, is
publ
ishe
d an
d us
ed
Exis
ts b
ut n
ot
used
, or u
nder
pr
epar
atio
n
Does
not
exis
t0.
5In
done
sian
Wat
er In
vest
men
t Roa
dmap
(201
1-20
14) d
evel
oped
by
Min
istry
of P
ublic
Wor
ks a
nd
Mas
ter P
lan
for D
evel
opin
g Co
mm
unity
Bas
ed
Wat
er P
rovis
ion
Syst
em (B
PPSP
AM) f
or a
per
iod
of 1
5-20
yea
rs (2
007)
. Roa
dmap
and
mas
ter
plan
are
tech
nica
l doc
umen
ts (R
KP-G
over
nmen
t W
ork
Plan
) tha
t con
sist
of d
etai
l cos
t est
imat
es
and
deta
il im
plem
enta
tion
plan
. Inv
estm
ent p
lan
impl
emen
tatio
n is
und
er p
repa
ratio
n.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Inve
smen
t pla
nsIs
ther
e a
med
ium
te
rm in
vest
men
t pl
an fo
r urb
an w
ater
ba
sed
on n
atio
nal
targ
ets
that
is c
oste
d,
prio
ritize
s in
vest
men
t ne
eds,
is p
ublis
hed
and
used
?
Inve
stm
ent p
lan
base
d on
prio
rity
need
s ex
ists
, is
publ
ishe
d an
d us
ed
Exis
ts b
ut n
ot
used
, or u
nder
pr
epar
atio
n
Does
not
exis
t0.
5In
done
sian
Wat
er In
vest
men
t Roa
dmap
(201
1-20
14) d
evel
oped
by
Min
istry
of P
ublic
Wor
ks a
nd
Mas
ter P
lan
for D
evel
opin
g Co
mm
unity
Bas
ed
Wat
er P
rovis
ion
Syst
em (B
PPSP
AM) f
or a
per
iod
of 1
5-20
yea
rs (2
007)
. Roa
dmap
and
mas
ter
plan
are
tech
nica
l doc
umen
ts (R
KP-G
over
nmen
t W
ork
Plan
) tha
t con
sist
of d
etai
l cos
t est
imat
es
and
deta
il im
plem
enta
tion
plan
. Inv
estm
ent p
lan
impl
emen
tatio
n is
und
er p
repa
ratio
n.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Annu
al re
view
Is th
ere
an a
nnua
l m
ulti-
stak
ehol
der
revie
w in
pla
ce to
m
onito
r sub
sect
or
perfo
rman
ce, t
o re
view
pro
gres
s an
d se
t cor
rect
ive a
ctio
ns?
Annu
al re
view
of
per
form
ance
an
d se
tting
of
corre
ctive
act
ions
Annu
al re
view
of
per
form
ance
bu
t no
setti
ng o
f co
rrect
ive a
ctio
ns
No re
view
or
set
ting
of
corre
ctive
act
ions
0.5
Vario
us m
ulti-
stak
ehol
der r
evie
w a
ctivi
ties
have
be
en c
ondu
cted
org
anize
d by
Pok
ja A
MPL
, BP
PSPA
M, P
ublic
Wor
ks, a
nd p
roje
cts.
The
re
is a
ded
icat
ed d
irect
orat
e fo
r eva
luat
ion
and
mon
itorin
g in
Pub
lic W
orks
(sec
tor b
ased
) an
d re
gion
dire
ctor
ate
in P
ublic
Wor
ks. S
ome
stak
ehol
ders
are
not
yet
invo
lved,
thou
gh.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
46
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
HR C
apac
ityHa
s an
ass
essm
ent
been
und
erta
ken
of th
e hu
man
re
sour
ce n
eeds
in th
e su
bsec
tor t
o m
eet
the
subs
ecto
r tar
get
and
is th
e ac
tion
plan
be
ing
impl
emen
ted?
Asse
ssm
ent
unde
rtake
n an
d ac
tions
bei
ng
impl
emen
ted
Asse
ssm
ent
unde
rtake
n bu
t no
act
ion
bein
g ta
ken
No a
sses
smen
t un
derta
ken
0Th
is is
at p
repa
ratio
n st
age.
PER
PAM
SI (w
ater
co
mpa
nies
ass
ocia
tion)
has
est
ablis
hed
a ne
w s
peci
al u
nit t
o or
gani
ze tr
aini
ng a
nd H
R as
sess
men
t. AD
B su
ppor
ts P
ublic
Wor
ks to
do
an a
sses
smen
t stu
dy to
est
ablis
h ce
nter
for
exce
llenc
e to
opt
imize
PIP
2B. A
t thi
s m
omen
t, tra
inin
g ne
eds
are
bein
g as
sess
ed.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Enab
ling
Budg
etAd
equa
cyAr
e th
e pu
blic
fin
anci
al c
omm
itmen
ts
to th
e ur
ban
wat
er
subs
ecto
r suf
ficie
nt
to m
eet t
he n
atio
nal
targ
ets
for t
he
subs
ecto
r?
Mor
e th
an
75%
of w
hat i
s ne
eded
Betw
een
50 a
nd
75%
of n
eeds
Less
than
50%
of
nee
ds0
Less
than
50%
. The
SDA
cos
ting
anal
ysis
es
timat
es th
at if
cur
rent
tren
ds c
ontin
ue,
antic
ipat
ed in
vest
men
ts a
re fa
lling
far s
hort
of re
quire
d in
vest
men
ts, w
ith o
nly
abou
t 25%
co
vere
d.
SDA
cost
ing
anal
ysis
.
Enab
ling
Budg
etSt
ruct
ure
Does
the
budg
et
stru
ctur
e pe
rmit
inve
stm
ents
and
su
bsid
ies
(ope
ratio
nal
cost
s, a
dmin
istra
tion,
de
bt s
ervic
e, e
tc)
for t
he u
rban
wat
er
sect
or to
be
clea
rly
iden
tified
?
Yes
for
inve
stm
ent a
nd
for s
ubsi
dies
Yes
for
inve
stm
ent b
ut
not s
ubsi
dies
No1
Ther
e is
a s
epar
atio
n be
twee
n su
bsid
ies
and
inve
stm
ents
in th
e bu
dget
stru
ctur
e, b
ut n
ot
betw
een
rura
l and
urb
an. T
his
is s
tate
d in
Pr
esid
entia
l Reg
ulat
ion
No.2
9/20
09 o
n Gu
aran
ty
and
Inte
rest
Sub
sidy
by
Natio
nal G
over
nmen
t to
Acc
eler
ate
Prov
isio
n of
Wat
er S
uppl
y. It
is
also
gui
ded
in M
inis
ter o
f Fin
ance
Dec
ree
No.
229/
2009
on
Impl
emen
tatio
n Gu
idel
ines
on
the
Guar
anty
and
Inte
rest
Sub
sidy
by
Natio
nal
Gove
rnm
ent t
o Ac
cele
rate
Pro
visio
n of
Wat
er
Supp
ly. M
inis
ter o
f Fin
ance
Reg
ulat
ion
No.
238/
2005
exp
lain
ed a
bout
gov
ernm
ent
acco
untin
g sy
stem
whi
ch s
et u
p ca
tego
rizat
ions
fo
r bud
get,
incl
udin
g su
bsid
y an
d gr
ant.
Pres
iden
tial R
egul
atio
n No
.29/
2009
, Min
iste
r of
Fina
nce
Decr
ee N
o. 2
29/2
009,
an
d Ur
ban
Wat
er W
orks
hop.
Enab
ling
Budg
etCo
mpr
ehen
sive
Does
the
gove
rnm
ent b
udge
t co
mpr
ehen
sive
ly co
ver d
omes
tic
and
offic
ial d
onor
in
vest
men
t/sub
sidy
to
urba
n w
ater
?
Mor
e th
an 7
5%
of fu
nds
to
subs
ecto
r on
budg
et
Betw
een
50-
75%
of f
unds
to
sub
sect
or o
n bu
dget
Less
than
50%
of
fund
s to
su
bsec
tor o
n bu
dget
0.5
Not a
ll bu
dget
s ar
e re
gist
ered
. Min
istry
of F
inan
ce
keep
s re
cord
s of
all
gove
rnm
ent b
udge
ts o
n w
ater
and
san
itatio
n w
hich
com
pute
d by
sec
tor i
n di
stric
ts/p
rovin
ces,
how
ever
, thi
s do
es n
ot p
rovid
e th
e ov
eral
l bud
get o
f thi
s se
ctor
and
spe
cific
br
eakd
own
of s
ourc
e of
fund
. It i
s es
timat
ed o
nly
70%
of t
he b
udge
t com
es fr
om g
over
nmen
t, w
hile
the
othe
r 30%
from
the
priva
te s
ecto
r. M
insi
try o
f Pub
lic W
orks
can
ens
ure
100%
pe
rcen
t reg
istra
tion
of u
rban
wat
er s
ecto
r und
er
revie
w, b
ut n
o fir
m e
xpla
natio
n av
aila
ble
abou
t bu
dget
man
aged
by
othe
r min
istri
es.
Seki
las
APBN
, Din
amik
a Pe
ngan
ggar
an d
i Ind
ones
ia
(201
1), D
raft
repo
rt on
revie
w
of m
idte
rm d
evel
opm
ent p
lan
2010
-201
4 (A
DB, 2
013)
, PH
LN D
alam
Dis
parit
as
Pem
bang
unan
Kes
ehat
an
(201
0), a
nd U
rban
Wat
er
Wor
ksho
p
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t47
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
DEVE
LOPI
NG
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Utiliz
atio
n of
dom
estic
fu
nds
Wha
t per
cent
age
of d
omes
tic fu
nds
budg
eted
for u
rban
w
ater
are
spe
nt (3
ye
ar a
vera
ge)?
Over
75%
Betw
een
50%
an
d 75
%Le
ss th
an 5
0%1
ADB
Mid
term
Rev
iew
of t
he M
idte
rm D
evel
opm
ent
Prog
ram
sta
ted
that
mor
e th
an 7
5% b
udge
t has
be
en u
tilize
d. H
owev
er, n
o se
para
te d
ata
on ru
ral
and
urba
n.
ADB
Mid
term
Rev
iew,
Urb
an
Sani
tatio
n W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Utiliz
atio
n of
ext
erna
l fu
nds
Wha
t per
cent
age
of e
xter
nal f
unds
bu
dget
ed fo
r urb
an
wat
er a
re s
pent
(3
year
ave
rage
)?
Over
75%
Betw
een
50%
an
d 75
%Le
ss th
an 5
0%1
Mor
e th
an 7
5% a
s re
cord
ed b
y M
inis
try o
f Pub
lic
Wor
ks. S
ame
goes
with
oth
er m
inis
tries
, usu
ally
utiliz
atio
n is
mor
e th
an 7
5% o
r alm
ost 1
00%
.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Repo
rting
Do u
rban
util
ities
(n
atio
nal o
r 3 la
rges
t ut
ilitie
s) h
ave
audi
ted
acco
unts
and
bal
ance
sh
eet?
Audi
ted
acco
unts
an
d ba
lanc
e sh
eet
Bala
nce
shee
t bu
t not
aud
ited
No b
alan
ce s
heet
1Al
l gov
ernm
ent b
udge
t fro
m a
ll so
urce
s ar
e au
dite
d an
d re
porte
d in
a c
onso
lidat
ed
gove
rnm
ent f
orm
at. 9
0% P
DAM
s ha
ve b
een
audi
ted
(PDA
M P
erfo
rman
ce R
epor
t 201
1), t
he
rem
aini
ng 1
0% o
f PDA
M a
re c
urre
ntly
in p
roce
ss
of b
eing
aud
ited.
PDAM
Per
form
ance
Rep
ort
2011
, Urb
an W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Loca
l par
ticip
atio
nAr
e th
ere
clea
rly
defin
ed p
roce
dure
s fo
r in
form
ing,
con
sulti
ng
with
and
sup
porti
ng
loca
l par
ticip
atio
n in
pl
anni
ng, b
udge
ting
and
impl
emen
ting
for u
rban
wat
er
deve
lopm
ents
?
Yes
and
syst
emat
ical
ly ap
plie
d
Yes,
but
not
sy
stem
atic
ally
appl
ied
No0.
5Co
mpo
sitio
n of
bud
get o
f wat
er s
uppl
y fo
r low
in
com
e co
mm
uniti
es is
40%
from
nat
iona
l go
vern
men
t and
60%
from
loca
l gov
ernm
ent.
Som
e is
sues
: low
util
izatio
n be
caus
e de
lay
in c
ost s
harin
g fro
m lo
cal g
over
nmen
t, so
me
polit
ical
con
side
ratio
n du
e to
bud
get a
vaila
bilit
y at
loca
l lev
el, a
nd c
hang
e of
com
mitm
ent/
polic
y di
rect
ion
due
to ra
pid
chan
ge o
f gov
erno
r/re
gent
. Pro
cedu
res
are
clea
r, co
mm
itmen
ts a
re
alre
ady
writ
ten
dow
n in
doc
umen
ts, b
ut b
udge
t di
sbur
sem
ent i
s of
ten
dela
yed.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Budg
et a
lloca
tion
crite
riaHa
ve c
riter
ia (o
r a
form
ula)
bee
n de
term
ined
to a
lloca
te
urba
n w
ater
fund
ing
equi
tabl
y to
urb
an
utilit
ies
or s
ervic
e pr
ovid
ers
and
amon
g m
unic
ipal
ities
and
is
it be
ing
cons
iste
ntly
appl
ied?
Yes,
app
lied
cons
iste
ntly
Yes,
but
no
t app
lied
cons
iste
ntly
No1
Law
No.
32/
2004
on
loca
l gov
ernm
ent a
nd
Min
iste
r of F
inan
ce R
egul
atio
n No
165
/201
2 on
tran
sfer
fund
sta
ted
that
bud
get a
lloca
tion
is c
ondu
cted
by
MoF
with
spe
cific
crit
eria
. MoF
co
nsul
ts o
ther
tech
nica
l min
istri
es a
nd lo
cal
gove
rnm
ent,
espe
cial
ly to
get
tech
nica
l inp
uts,
w
hen
allo
catin
g th
e bu
dget
.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
48
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Redu
cing
ineq
ualit
yHa
ve u
rban
ut
ilitie
s or
ser
vice
prov
ider
s (n
atio
nal
or in
3 la
rges
t citi
es)
deve
lope
d an
d im
plem
ente
d sp
ecifi
c pl
ans
for s
ervin
g th
e ur
ban
poor
?
Plan
s de
velo
ped
and
impl
emen
ted
Plan
s de
velo
ped
but n
ot
impl
emen
ted
No p
lans
do
cum
ente
d0.
5M
ain
targ
et o
f wat
er s
uppl
y de
velo
pmen
t is
low
in
com
e co
mm
uniti
es a
nd u
nser
ved
loca
tion.
Thi
s is
cle
arly
stat
ed a
nd g
uide
d in
nat
iona
l wat
er a
nd
sani
tatio
n po
licy
(200
3), P
AMSI
MAS
gui
delin
es
(201
2), W
ater
Inve
stm
ent P
lan,
Wat
er G
rant
, an
d m
oreo
ver M
inis
ter o
f Hom
e Af
fair
Decr
ee
No. 4
7/19
99 o
n PD
AM p
erfo
rman
ce g
uide
line.
Sp
ecia
l Bud
get a
lloca
tion
(DAK
) is
also
use
d to
fix
idle
cap
acity
wat
er s
uppl
y in
urb
an a
reas
. In
re
ality
, it i
s no
t im
plem
ente
d co
nsis
tent
ly. T
he
Wat
er H
ibah
pro
gram
is fu
rther
add
ress
ing
thes
e is
sues
with
in lo
cal g
over
nmen
ts a
nd P
DAM
s,
tryin
g to
ince
ntivi
ze in
vest
men
t int
o lo
w-in
com
e ar
eas.
Law
rela
ted
docu
men
ts, U
rban
W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Quan
tity
(acc
ess)
Is th
e an
nual
ex
pans
ion
of H
H co
nnec
tions
and
sta
nd
post
s in
urb
an a
reas
su
ffici
ent t
o m
eet t
he
subs
ecto
r tar
gets
?
Over
75%
of t
hat
need
ed to
reac
h se
ctor
targ
ets
Over
50%
of t
hat
need
ed to
reac
h se
ctor
targ
ets
Less
than
50%
of
that
nee
ded
to re
ach
sect
or
targ
ets
0JM
P es
timat
e: 3
6% p
iped
wat
er. M
inis
try o
f Pu
blic
Wor
ks a
s pe
r Oct
201
1: 4
1.88
%.
JMP
2012
, Urb
an W
ater
Di
scus
sion
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Quan
tity
(trea
tmen
t)Ar
e th
ere
drin
king
w
ater
qua
lity
stan
dard
s fo
r urb
an
wat
er th
at a
re
regu
larly
mon
itore
d an
d th
e re
sults
pu
blis
hed?
Stan
dard
s ex
ist,
ther
e is
a
surv
eilla
nce
prog
ram
, and
re
sults
are
pu
blis
hed
Stan
dard
s ex
ist
and
ther
e is
a
surv
eilla
nce
prog
ram
but
th
ere
is n
o pu
blic
atio
n of
re
sults
No s
tand
ards
, or
sta
ndar
ds
exis
t but
are
not
m
onito
red
0.5
Inte
rnal
PDA
M d
oes
the
qual
ity c
heck
ing
but
no re
sult
is p
ublic
ly av
aila
ble.
MoH
doe
s qu
ality
ch
eck
and
issu
e an
ann
ual r
epor
t.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Repo
rting
Is th
e nu
mbe
r of
addi
tiona
l hou
seho
ld
conn
ectio
ns m
ade
and
stan
d po
sts
cons
truct
ed re
porte
d on
in a
con
solid
ated
fo
rmat
for t
he n
atio
n ea
ch y
ear?
Yes
with
full
listin
g of
co
nnec
tions
Yes
but w
ithou
t a
full
listin
g of
co
nnec
tions
No0
The
repo
rting
sys
tem
is a
vaila
ble
but d
one
for
less
than
75%
of n
ew c
onne
ctio
ns. A
dditi
onal
ly,
PDAM
/Pub
lic W
orks
is s
till t
ryin
g to
incr
ease
the
upda
ting
syst
em a
s w
ell a
s so
me
tech
nica
l erro
rs.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
SUST
AINI
NG
Sust
aini
ngM
aint
enan
ceFu
nctio
nalit
yW
hat i
s th
e w
eigh
ted
aver
age
perc
enta
ge
of n
on-r
even
ue w
ater
ac
ross
urb
an u
tiliti
es
(nat
iona
l or 3
larg
est
utilit
ies)
(las
t 3 y
ears
av
erag
e)?
Less
than
20%
20%
to 4
0%M
ore
than
40%
0.5
2012
: 38%
http
://ci
ptak
arya
.pu.
go.
id/s
imsp
am/in
dex.
php/
reka
p#da
ta_k
euan
gan
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t49
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Sust
aini
ngM
aint
enan
ceCo
st re
cove
ryAr
e al
l O&M
cos
ts
for u
tiliti
es (n
atio
nal
or 3
larg
est u
tiliti
es)
bein
g co
vere
d by
re
venu
es (u
ser f
ees
and/
subs
idie
s) (l
ast 3
ye
ars
aver
age)
?
Oper
atin
g ra
tio
grea
ter t
han
1.2
Oper
atin
g ra
tio
betw
een
0.8
and
1.2
Oper
atin
g ra
tio
belo
w 0
.80
Big
PDAM
s ap
ply
full
cost
reco
very
. Sm
all P
DAM
s us
e m
oney
for O
&M. N
atio
nal a
vera
ge b
etw
een
all
PDAM
s es
timat
e ra
tio b
elow
0.8
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Sust
aini
ngM
aint
enan
ceTa
riff r
evie
ws
Are
tarif
f rev
iew
s re
gula
rly c
ondu
cted
us
ing
a pr
oces
s an
d ta
riffs
adj
uste
d ac
cord
ingl
y an
d pu
blis
hed?
Cond
ucte
d,
adju
sted
and
pu
blis
hed
Cond
ucte
d bu
t no
t adj
uste
dNo
t con
duct
ed0.
5Re
gula
r rev
iew
is c
ondu
cted
, how
ever
it ta
kes
time
and
polit
ical
sup
port
to in
crea
se ta
riffs
. Som
e PD
AMs
alre
ady
have
aut
omat
ic ta
riff i
ncre
men
t sy
stem
s an
d us
ually
pub
lish
this
on
thei
r web
site
an
d br
ochu
res.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Sust
aini
ngM
aint
enan
ceM
anag
emen
t of
Disa
ster
Ris
k an
d Cl
imat
e Ch
ange
Do u
tiliti
es (n
atio
nal o
r 3
larg
est u
tiliti
es) h
ave
plan
s fo
r cop
ing
with
na
tura
l dis
aste
rs a
nd
clim
ate
chan
ge?
Yes,
the
maj
ority
of
urb
an s
ervic
e pr
ovid
ers
have
a
plan
for d
isas
ter
risk
man
agem
ent
and
clim
ate
chan
ge
No. O
nly
som
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
have
a p
lan
for
disa
ster
risk
m
anag
emen
t an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
or m
ost
serv
ice
prov
ider
s ha
ve u
nder
take
n a
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent.
No s
ervic
e pr
ovid
er h
as a
cl
imat
e ac
tion
plan
or h
as
unde
rtake
n a
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent.
0To
dat
e, o
nly
very
few
util
ities
in e
spec
ially
di
sast
er p
rone
are
as s
uch
as W
est S
umat
ra o
r Ac
eh h
ave
deve
lope
d di
sast
er m
anag
emen
t pl
ans.
Con
side
ring
the
tota
l num
ber o
f PDA
Ms
(>35
0), t
his
is s
till v
ery
few.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
ion
Upta
keDo
util
ities
or s
ervic
e pr
ovid
ers
(nat
iona
l or
3 la
rges
t) ha
ve
oper
atio
nal d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
auto
nom
y in
in
vest
men
t pla
nnin
g,
HR, fi
nanc
e (s
epar
ate
bala
nce
shee
t) an
d pr
ocur
emen
t m
anag
emen
t?
Yes
in a
ll as
pect
sIn
all
aspe
cts
exce
pt
inve
stm
ent
plan
ning
No0.
5De
pend
s on
PDA
M. S
ome
are
alre
ady
auto
nom
ous
and
som
e ar
e st
ill de
pend
ing
on
loca
l gov
ernm
ent.
Enab
ling
polic
ies
are
avai
labl
e su
ch a
s La
w N
o. 7
/200
4 an
d Go
v. Re
gula
tion
No.
16/2
005.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
ion
Plan
sDo
ser
vice
prov
ider
s (n
atio
nal/s
tate
or 3
la
rges
t util
ities
) hav
e bu
sine
ss p
lans
for
expa
ndin
g ac
cess
to
urba
n w
ater
?
Busi
ness
pla
ns
for i
ncre
asin
g ac
cess
bei
ng
impl
emen
ted
Busi
ness
pla
ns
for i
ncre
asin
g ac
cess
bei
ng
prep
ared
No b
usin
ess
plan
s0.
5Al
l PDA
Ms
have
bus
ines
s pl
an a
s a
requ
irem
ent
of p
erfo
rman
ce e
valu
atio
n an
d to
get
sup
port
and
inte
rest
sub
sidy
from
nat
iona
l gov
ernm
ent.
The
qual
ity o
f the
bus
ines
s pl
ans
ofte
n re
mai
ns
ques
tiona
ble,
thou
gh.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
50
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
ion
Borro
win
gAr
e ut
ilitie
s al
low
ed
by la
w to
acc
ess
and
are
they
acc
essi
ng
com
mer
cial
fina
nce
for e
xpan
sion
?
Allo
wed
and
ac
cess
ing
Allo
wed
but
not
ac
cess
ing
Not a
llow
ed0.
5Su
ppor
ted
by P
resi
dent
Reg
ulat
ion
No. 2
9/20
09
on g
uara
nty
and
inte
rest
sub
sidy
pro
vided
by
natio
nal g
over
nmen
t for
wat
er s
uppl
y th
roug
h ba
nk lo
an. A
lthou
gh b
anks
hav
e pr
ovid
ed a
la
rge
amou
nt o
f fun
d, o
nly
abou
t IDR
200
bn
is a
cces
sed
by th
e PD
AMs
due
to is
sues
suc
h as
a d
elay
in th
e ap
prai
sal f
rom
the
Min
istry
of
Fin
ance
, can
cella
tion
of g
uara
ntee
s by
loca
l go
vern
men
ts,
conc
ern
that
DAU
(gen
eral
bud
get
allo
catio
n) w
ill be
forw
arde
d as
col
late
ral,
or s
ome
polit
ical
inte
rven
tions
.
http
://w
ww.
ditp
am-p
u.or
g/in
dex.
php?
optio
n=co
m_c
ont
ent&
view
=ar
ticle
&id=
120:
prog
ram
-pin
jam
an-p
erba
nkan
-ba
ntu-
pdam
-tin
gkat
kan-
pel
ayan
an&c
atid
=51
:ber
ita&I
tem
id=
148;
urba
n w
ater
di
scus
sion
Sust
aini
ngUs
eSu
bsec
tor
prog
ress
Is th
e su
bsec
tor o
n tra
ck to
mee
t the
st
ated
targ
et?
On-t
rack
Off-
track
but
ke
epin
g up
w
ith p
opul
atio
n gr
owth
Off-
track
0In
term
inis
trial
con
sens
us -
verifi
ed B
PS a
nd J
MP'
s da
ta: 5
2%. T
he s
ub-s
ecto
r is
stru
gglin
g to
kee
p up
with
hig
h po
pula
tion
grow
th in
man
y ur
ban
area
s.
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Sust
aini
ngUs
eEq
uity
of u
seW
hat i
s th
e ra
tio o
f im
prov
ed d
rinki
ng
wat
er a
cces
s be
twee
n th
e lo
wes
t and
hig
hest
qu
intil
e in
urb
an
area
s?
Less
than
2
times
Betw
een
2 an
d 5
Mor
e th
an 5
tim
es0
mor
e th
an 5
BPS/
Urba
n W
ater
Dis
cuss
ion
Sust
aini
ngUs
eQu
ality
of u
ser
expe
rienc
eW
hat i
s th
e av
erag
e nu
mbe
r of h
ours
of
ser
vice
per d
ay
acro
ss u
rban
util
ities
? (W
eigh
ted
by n
umbe
r of
HH
conn
ectio
ns p
er
utilit
y)?
Mor
e th
an 1
2 ho
urs
per d
ay6
to 1
2 ho
urs
per d
ayLe
ss th
an 6
ho
urs
per d
ay1
14 h
ours
ave
rage
/day
.ht
tp://
cipt
akar
ya.p
u.go
.id
/sim
spam
/inde
x.ph
p/re
kap#
data
_keu
anga
n
RURA
L W
ATER
SUP
PLY
ENAB
LING
Enab
ling
Polic
ySe
ctor
targ
ets
Are
ther
e RS
H ac
cess
targ
ets,
for
hous
ehol
ds a
nd/
or c
omm
uniti
es, i
n th
e na
tiona
l lev
el
deve
lopm
ent p
lan?
Targ
ets
for
rura
l hou
seho
ld
acce
ss a
nd
com
mun
ities
be
com
ing
ODF
in
the
deve
lopm
ent
plan
Targ
ets
for
rura
l hou
seho
ld
acce
ss in
the
deve
lopm
ent
plan
No ru
ral
sani
tatio
n ta
rget
s in
the
deve
lopm
ent
plan
1RP
JMN:
Ope
n De
feca
tion
Free
by
2014
, off-
site
se
wer
age
syst
em fo
r 10%
of p
opul
atio
n (5
%
sew
erag
e, 5
% c
omm
unal
), 90
% o
nsite
sew
erag
e sy
stem
. New
RPJ
MN:
uni
vers
al a
cces
s by
201
9.
Indo
nesi
a M
id-t
erm
De
velo
pmen
t Pla
n (2
010-
2014
), In
done
sia
Long
-ter
m
Deve
lopm
ent P
lan
(200
5-20
25).
Indo
nesi
a M
DG T
arge
t.
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t51
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Enab
ling
Polic
yIn
stitu
tiona
l Rol
esAr
e th
e in
stitu
tiona
l ro
les
of ru
ral
sani
tatio
n su
bsec
tor
play
ers
(nat
iona
l/sta
te
& lo
cal g
over
nmen
t, se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er,
regu
lato
r etc
) cl
early
defi
ned
and
oper
atio
naliz
ed?
Defin
ed a
nd
oper
atio
naliz
edDe
fined
but
not
op
erat
iona
lized
Not d
efine
d1
Clea
rly d
efine
d in
sev
eral
law
s, d
ecre
es a
nd
agre
emen
ts s
uch
as W
ater
and
Env
ironm
enta
l He
alth
Nat
iona
l Stra
tegy
(200
3), L
aw N
o.
32/2
004
on lo
cal a
uton
omy,
gove
rnm
ent d
ecre
e No
. 38/
2007
on
dem
arca
tion
of ro
les
betw
een
natio
nal a
nd lo
cal g
over
nmen
t, M
inis
ter o
f Hea
lth
Decr
ee R
egul
atio
n No
. 852
/200
8 on
Com
mun
ity
Base
d To
tal S
anita
tion,
Law
No.
18/
2009
on
was
te m
anag
emen
t.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Enab
ling
Polic
yFu
nd fl
ow
coor
dina
tion
Does
gov
ernm
ent
have
a p
roce
ss fo
r co
ordi
natin
g m
ultip
le
inve
stm
ents
in th
e su
bsec
tor (
dom
estic
or
don
or, e
g. n
atio
nal
gran
ts, s
tate
bud
gets
, do
nor l
oans
and
gr
ants
etc
)?
Coor
dina
tion
proc
ess
defin
ed a
nd
oper
atio
naliz
ed
Coor
dina
tion
proc
ess
defin
ed b
ut n
ot
oper
atio
naliz
ed
Not d
efine
d/no
pr
oces
s1
Clea
rly d
efine
d pr
oces
s an
d eq
uipp
ed w
ith re
late
d su
ppor
ting
plan
ning
, im
plem
enta
tion,
mon
itorin
g an
d re
port
docu
men
ts. C
oord
inat
ion
is le
d by
as
sign
ed le
adin
g ag
enci
es s
uch
as p
ublic
Wor
ks
for i
nfra
stru
ctur
e an
d M
oH fo
r beh
avio
r cha
nge.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Inve
stm
ent P
lan
Is th
ere
a m
ediu
m
term
inve
stm
ent p
lan
for r
ural
san
itatio
n ba
sed
on n
atio
nal
targ
ets
that
is c
oste
d,
prio
ritize
s in
vest
men
t ne
eds,
is p
ublis
hed
and
used
?
Inve
stm
ent p
lan
base
d on
prio
rity
need
s ex
ists
, is
publ
ishe
d an
d us
ed
Exis
ts b
ut n
ot
used
, or u
nder
pr
epar
atio
n
Does
not
exis
t0
Not a
vaila
ble
for r
ural
san
itatio
n in
vest
men
t pla
n.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Annu
al re
view
Is th
ere
a an
nual
m
ulti-
stak
ehol
der
revie
w in
pla
ce to
m
onito
r sub
sect
or
perfo
rman
ce, t
o re
view
pro
gres
s an
d se
t cor
rect
ive a
ctio
ns?
Revie
w o
f pe
rform
ance
an
d se
tting
of
corre
ctive
act
ions
Revie
w o
f pe
rform
ance
bu
t no
setti
ng o
f co
rrect
ive a
ctio
ns
No re
view
or
set
ting
of
corre
ctive
act
ions
0Re
view
s co
nduc
ted
by p
roje
cts
in in
terv
entio
n ar
eas
or in
are
as w
ith a
n ac
tive
Pokj
a. B
ut it
is n
ot
clea
r whe
ther
all
stak
ehol
ders
hav
e be
en in
volve
d.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
52
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
HR C
apac
ityHa
s an
ass
essm
ent
been
und
erta
ken
of
the
hum
an re
sour
ce
need
s in
the
sub
sect
or to
mee
t the
su
bsec
tor t
arge
t and
is
the
actio
n pl
an
bein
g im
plem
ente
d?
Asse
ssm
ent
unde
rtake
n an
d ac
tions
bei
ng
impl
emen
ted
Asse
ssm
ent
unde
rtake
n bu
t no
act
ion
bein
g ta
ken
No a
sses
smen
t un
derta
ken
0.5
Spor
adic
ass
essm
ents
hav
e be
en m
ade
but n
o cl
ear i
nfor
mat
ion
on fo
llow
up
actio
n or
onl
y fe
w is
bei
ng fo
llow
ed u
p. S
ome
asse
ssm
ents
: Ba
ppen
as a
nd W
orld
Ban
k St
udy:
san
itatio
n ca
paci
ty b
uild
ing,
MPU
HR
anal
ysis
. MoH
is tr
ying
to a
ccre
dite
d an
d in
stitu
tiona
lize
capa
city
bui
ldin
g fo
r san
itaria
ns a
nd re
late
d fa
cilit
ator
s.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Enab
ling
Budg
etAd
equa
cy (o
f fin
anci
ng)
Are
the
publ
ic
finan
cial
com
mitm
ents
to
the
rura
l san
itatio
n su
bsec
tor s
uffic
ient
to
mee
t the
nat
iona
l ta
rget
s fo
r the
su
bsec
tor?
Mor
e th
an
75%
of w
hat i
s ne
eded
Betw
een
50-
75%
of n
eeds
Less
than
50%
of
nee
ds0
Less
than
50%
. The
SDA
cos
ting
anal
ysis
es
timat
es th
at a
ntic
ipat
ed d
omes
tic a
nd e
xter
nal
fund
s fa
ll sh
ort o
f the
requ
irem
ents
. It i
s fu
rther
ca
lcul
ated
that
hou
seho
ld c
ontri
butio
ns w
ill be
su
bsta
ntia
l, ho
wev
er n
o gu
aran
tee
is g
iven
that
th
ese
hous
ehol
d co
ntrib
utio
ns w
ill be
mad
e.
Furth
erm
ore,
pub
lic fu
nds
are
nece
ssar
y to
le
vera
ge h
ouse
hold
con
tribu
tions
, and
give
n cu
rrent
est
imat
ions
, pub
lic fu
nds
are
also
in
suffi
cien
t for
this
obj
ectiv
e.
SDA
cost
ing
anal
ysis
.
Enab
ling
Budg
etSt
ruct
ure
Does
the
budg
et
stru
ctur
e pe
rmit
inve
stm
ents
and
su
bsid
ies
(ope
ratio
nal
cost
s, a
dmin
istra
tion,
de
bt s
ervic
e, e
tc) f
or
the
rura
l san
itatio
n se
ctor
to b
e cl
early
id
entifi
ed?
Yes
for
inve
stm
ent a
nd
for s
ubsi
dies
Yes
for
inve
stm
ent b
ut
not s
ubsi
dies
No0
Ther
e is
no
subs
idy
in th
e go
vern
men
t app
roac
h fo
r rur
al s
anita
tion.
The
re is
als
o no
bud
get f
or
prom
otio
n/m
arke
ting
of ru
ral s
anita
tion.
MoF
Fin
ance
Not
e 20
13; R
ural
Sa
nita
tion
Wor
ksho
p
Enab
ling
Budg
etCo
mpr
ehen
sive
Do
es th
e go
vern
men
t bud
get
com
preh
ensi
vely
cove
r dom
estic
an
d of
ficia
l don
or
inve
stm
ent/s
ubsi
dy to
ru
ral s
anita
tion?
Mor
e th
an 7
5%
of fu
nds
to
subs
ecto
r on
budg
et
Betw
een
50-
75%
of f
unds
to
sub
sect
or o
n bu
dget
Less
than
50%
of
fund
s to
su
bsec
tor o
n bu
dget
1Ye
s, o
n bu
dget
, on
treas
ury,
equi
pped
with
co
rrela
ted
audi
t pro
cess
. But
no
subs
idy
is
avai
labl
e
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
DEVE
LOPI
NG
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Utiliz
atio
n of
dom
estic
fu
nds
Wha
t per
cent
age
of d
omes
tic fu
nds
budg
eted
for r
ural
sa
nita
tion
are
spen
t (3
year
ave
rage
)?
Over
75%
Betw
een
50%
an
d 75
%Le
ss th
an 5
0%1
No re
liabl
e da
ta, b
ut e
stim
ated
at m
ore
than
75%
.Ru
ral S
anita
tion
Wor
ksho
p
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t53
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Utiliz
atio
n of
ext
erna
l fu
nds
Wha
t per
cent
age
of e
xter
nal f
unds
bu
dget
ed fo
r rur
al
sani
tatio
n ar
e sp
ent (
3 ye
ar a
vera
ge)?
Over
75%
Betw
een
50%
an
d 75
%Le
ss th
an 5
0%0.
5No
relia
ble
data
, how
ever
bas
ed o
n no
rmal
pr
actic
e th
e av
erag
e is
usu
ally
mor
e th
an 5
0%.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Repo
rting
Is ru
ral s
anita
tion
expe
nditu
re v
ersu
s bu
dget
aud
ited
and
repo
rted
on in
a
cons
olid
ated
form
at
for a
ll so
urce
s of
do
mes
tic a
nd o
ffici
al
dono
r exp
endi
ture
?
Yes
for d
omes
tic
and
dono
r ex
pend
iture
Yes
for d
omes
tic
expe
nditu
reNo
0No
con
solid
ated
repo
rtRu
ral S
anita
tion
Wor
ksho
p
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Loca
l par
ticip
atio
nAr
e th
ere
clea
rly
defin
ed p
roce
dure
s fo
r in
form
ing,
con
sulti
ng
with
and
sup
porti
ng
loca
l par
ticip
atio
n in
pl
anni
ng, b
udge
ting
and
impl
emen
ting
for r
ural
san
itatio
n de
velo
pmen
ts?
Yes
and
syst
emat
ical
ly ap
plie
d
Yes,
but
not
sy
stem
atic
ally
appl
ied
No1
Philo
soph
y an
d ap
proa
ch fo
r san
itatio
n:
com
mun
ity b
ased
(bot
tom
up
appr
oach
) em
phas
izes
on lo
cal p
artic
ipat
ion
and
guid
ed
with
sev
eral
regu
latio
ns a
nd g
uide
lines
. Bud
get
com
posi
tion,
at l
east
20%
loca
l par
ticip
atio
n.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Budg
et a
lloca
tion
crite
riaHa
ve c
riter
ia (o
r a
form
ula)
bee
n de
term
ined
to
allo
cate
rura
l sa
nita
tion
fund
ing
equi
tabl
y ac
ross
rura
l co
mm
uniti
es a
nd
is it
bei
ng a
pplie
d co
nsis
tent
ly?
Yes,
app
lied
cons
iste
ntly
Yes,
but
no
t app
lied
cons
iste
ntly
No1
Law
No.
32/
2004
on
loca
l gov
ernm
ent a
nd
Min
iste
r of F
inan
ce R
egul
atio
n No
165
/201
2 on
tran
sfer
fund
sta
ted
that
bud
get a
lloca
tion
is c
ondu
cted
by
MoF
with
spe
cific
crit
eria
. MoF
co
nsul
ts o
ther
tech
nica
l min
istri
es a
nd lo
cal
gove
rnm
ent,
espe
cial
ly to
get
tech
nica
l inp
uts,
w
hen
allo
catin
g th
e bu
dget
.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Redu
cing
ineq
ualit
yIs
ther
e pe
riodi
c an
alys
is to
ass
ess
whe
ther
allo
catio
n cr
iteria
and
loca
l pa
rtici
patio
n pr
oced
ures
set
by
gove
rnm
ent h
ave
been
adh
ered
to
and
are
redu
cing
di
spar
ities
in a
cces
s?
Yes
perio
dic
anal
ysis
pu
blis
hed
and
acte
d up
on
Yes
perio
dic
anal
ysis
pu
blis
hed
but n
ot
acte
d up
on
No0
Ther
e is
no
data
on
whe
ther
a p
erio
dic
anal
ysis
is
bei
ng c
ondu
cted
regu
larly
. Ana
lyses
are
bei
ng
carri
ed s
pora
dica
lly b
y pr
ojec
ts o
r gov
ernm
ent,
but n
ot re
gula
rly, n
ot w
ides
prea
d an
d it
is n
ot
bein
g ac
ted
upon
.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
54
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Qu
antit
yIs
the
annu
al
expa
nsio
n of
rura
l ho
useh
olds
gai
ning
ac
cess
to s
afe
sani
tatio
n su
ffici
ent
to m
eet t
he s
ubse
ctor
ta
rget
s?
Over
75%
of t
hat
need
ed to
reac
h se
ctor
targ
ets
Betw
een
75%
an
d 50
% o
f th
at n
eede
d to
ac
hiev
e ta
rget
s
Less
than
50%
of
that
nee
ded
to
reac
h ta
rget
s
035
% o
f urb
an p
opul
atio
n st
ill pr
actic
e op
en
defe
catio
n, (S
USEN
AS 2
011)
, stil
l far
till
natio
nal
targ
et o
f 100
% O
DF in
201
4.
SUSE
NAS
2011
, Rur
al
Sani
tatio
n W
orks
hop
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Qu
ality
of w
ater
Is th
ere
enou
gh
capa
city
- s
taff,
ex
perti
se, t
ools
, m
ater
ials
- to
del
iver
a sa
nita
tion
prog
ram
at
sca
le, u
sing
ta
ilore
d co
mm
unity
-ba
sed
and/
or o
ther
ap
proa
ches
?
Yes,
cap
acity
ex
ists
and
ap
proa
ches
are
be
ing
used
at
scal
e
Gaps
in c
apac
ity
but a
ppro
ache
s ge
nera
lly b
eing
us
ed a
t sca
le
Defic
its in
ca
paci
ty a
nd
no c
omm
unity
-ba
sed
appr
oach
es a
t sc
ale
0.5
Sani
taria
ns h
ave
wor
k an
d ge
nera
lly fu
nctio
n w
ell.
Follo
w u
p ac
tions
of c
apac
ity b
uild
ing
asse
ssm
ent
are
bein
g do
ne th
roug
h tra
inin
g an
d su
perv
isor
y ac
tiviti
es. M
inis
ter o
f Hea
lth R
egul
atio
n No
. 32
/201
3 on
san
itaria
n se
t up
guid
elin
es fo
r ca
paci
ty b
uild
ing
incl
ude
rew
ards
and
sup
port
give
n fo
r the
san
itaria
ns.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop,
Qi
pra
stud
y (2
012)
, Min
iste
r of
Heal
th R
egul
atio
n No
. 32/
2013
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Re
porti
ngDo
es th
e go
vern
men
t re
gula
rly m
onito
r and
re
port
on p
rogr
ess
and
qual
ity o
f rur
al
sani
tatio
n ac
cess
, in
clud
ing
settl
emen
t-w
ide
sani
tatio
n, a
nd
diss
emin
ate
the
resu
lts?
Qual
ity,
quan
tity
and
diss
emin
ated
Qual
ity o
r qu
antit
yNe
ither
0.5
Regu
lar s
urve
illanc
e m
onito
ring
is c
ondu
cted
by
MoH
. It i
s pa
rt of
the
mai
n re
spon
sibi
lity
of th
e sa
nita
rians
and
repo
rted
on a
mon
thly
basi
s. A
t th
is m
omen
t, 5
prov
ince
s al
read
y do
sm
s ba
sed
daily
repo
rts th
at a
ppea
rs o
nlin
e w
ith S
TBM
w
ebsi
te.
No v
erifi
catio
n is
con
duct
ed, t
houg
h.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
SUST
AINI
NG
Sust
aini
ngM
arke
tsSu
pply-
chai
nDo
es th
e su
pply-
chai
n fo
r san
itatio
n pr
oduc
ts
mee
t hou
seho
ld
need
s (re
ady
avai
labi
lity,
quan
tity
and
cost
), sa
tisfy
go
vern
men
t sta
ndar
ds
and
reac
h to
uns
erve
d ar
eas?
Yes
for q
uant
ity,
cost
, sta
ndar
ds
and
reac
h
Yes,
but
not
for
all o
f qua
ntity
, co
st, s
tand
ards
an
d re
ach
No0.
5In
done
sian
San
itatio
n M
arke
t Ass
essm
ent
(201
0): s
uppl
y ch
ain
syst
em is
exis
ting,
but
onl
y fe
w p
rovid
es h
ave
one
stop
sho
p se
rvic
es a
t an
affo
rdab
le p
rice
and
a va
riatio
n of
pro
duct
s. It
is
avai
labl
e in
som
e pa
rt of
Indo
nesi
a bu
t not
yet
na
tionw
ide.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ngM
arke
tsPr
ivate
sec
tor
capa
city
Is th
ere
suffi
cien
t m
ason
/arti
san/
sm
all
busi
ness
cap
acity
to
mee
t hou
seho
ld
need
s (q
uant
ity,
qual
ity a
nd c
ost)?
Yes
for q
uant
ity
and
cost
Yes,
for q
uant
ity
but n
ot fo
r cos
tNe
ither
0.5
Inte
rven
tion
in s
ome
regi
ons.
Mas
ons/
artis
ans
are
gene
rally
ava
ilabl
e, b
ut q
ualit
y of
ski
lls a
nd
prod
ucts
del
ivere
d no
t alw
ays
suffi
cien
t.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t55
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Sust
aini
ngM
arke
tsPr
ivate
sec
tor
deve
lopm
ent
Does
the
gove
rnm
ent
have
pro
gram
s to
pr
omot
e an
d gu
ide
the
dom
estic
priv
ate
sect
or a
nd fa
cilit
ate
inno
vatio
n fo
r the
pr
ovis
ion
of s
anita
tion
serv
ices
in ru
ral
area
s?
Yes,
with
var
ious
co
mpo
nent
sYe
s, b
ut e
ither
be
ing
deve
lope
d or
has
gap
s
No p
rom
otio
n,
guid
ance
or
enco
urag
emen
t
0.5
MoH
has
som
e pr
ogra
ms
on h
ealth
pro
mot
ion
and
priva
te s
ecto
r eng
agem
ent,
e.g.
in S
TBM
and
its
cor
resp
ondi
ng p
roje
cts
such
WSP
pro
ject
s, a
nd
PAM
SIM
AS. C
urre
ntly
this
initi
ative
is s
till a
t the
ea
rly s
tage
and
will
be c
ontin
uous
ly de
velo
ped.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ngM
arke
tsM
anag
emen
t of
Disa
ster
Ris
k an
d Cl
imat
e Ch
ange
Do lo
cal g
over
nmen
t or
rura
l ser
vice
prov
ider
s ha
ve p
lans
fo
r cop
ing
with
nat
ural
di
sast
ers
and
clim
ate
chan
ge?
Yes,
the
maj
ority
of
rura
l ser
vice
prov
ider
s ha
ve a
pl
an fo
r dis
aste
r ris
k m
anag
emen
t an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
No. O
nly
som
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
have
a p
lan
for
disa
ster
risk
m
anag
emen
t an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
or m
ost
serv
ice
prov
ider
s ha
ve u
nder
take
n a
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent.
No s
ervic
e pr
ovid
er h
as a
cl
imat
e ac
tion
plan
or h
as
unde
rtake
n a
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent.
0No
pla
ns fo
r the
rura
l san
itatio
n su
bsec
tor e
xist.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ngUp
take
Supp
ort f
or e
xpan
sion
Are
expe
nditu
res
at th
e lo
cal l
evel
in
line
with
the
natio
nal
sani
tatio
n po
licy
and
are
they
suf
ficie
nt
to a
chie
ve n
atio
nal
targ
ets?
In li
ne w
ith p
olic
y an
d su
ffici
ent t
o ac
hiev
e na
tiona
l ta
rget
s
In li
ne w
ith p
olic
y bu
t in
suffi
cien
t to
ach
ieve
na
tiona
l tar
gets
Not i
n lin
e w
ith
polic
y an
d in
suffi
cien
t to
achi
eve
natio
nal
obje
ctive
s
0.5
Man
y ci
ties
and
dist
ricts
hav
e pr
ovid
ed m
inim
um
to s
uffic
ient
am
ount
of b
udge
t for
rura
l san
itatio
n (S
TBM
) stra
tegy
.
Nugr
oho
Tri U
tom
o, b
log
ww
w.am
pl.o
rg, 2
2 No
v 20
11; R
ural
Sa
nita
tion
Wor
khsh
op.
Sust
aini
ngUp
take
Ince
ntive
sHa
s go
vern
men
t (n
atio
nal o
r loc
al)
deve
lope
d an
y po
licie
s, p
roce
dure
s or
pr
ogra
ms
to s
timul
ate
upta
ke o
f rur
al
sani
tatio
n se
rvic
es
and
beha
viors
by
hous
ehol
ds?
Polic
ies
and
proc
edur
es
(inst
rum
ents
) de
velo
ped
and
bein
g im
plem
ente
d
Som
e po
licie
s an
d pr
oced
ures
(in
stru
men
ts)
deve
lope
d bu
t no
t im
plem
ente
d
No p
olic
ies
or
proc
edur
es
(inst
rum
ents
) ex
ist
1M
oH h
as is
sued
a p
olic
y to
sup
port
ince
ntive
s at
nat
iona
l lev
el. C
urre
ntly
this
pol
icy
is b
eing
di
ssem
inat
ed to
loca
l gov
ernm
ents
. MoH
als
o pr
ovid
es te
chni
cal a
dvis
ory
and
train
ing
to
prov
ince
s, c
ities
, and
dis
trict
s.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Sust
aini
ngUp
take
Beha
viors
Is th
e su
bsec
tor o
n tra
ck to
mee
t the
st
ated
targ
et?
On-t
rack
Off-
track
but
ke
epin
g up
w
ith p
opul
atio
n gr
owth
Off-
track
039
% (b
asic
san
itatio
n ac
cess
-SUS
ENAS
201
1).
Subs
ecto
r dev
elop
men
t is
impr
ovin
g, b
ut s
till o
ff tra
ck to
mee
t the
targ
ets.
Rura
l San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
56
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Sust
aini
ngUs
eSu
bsec
tor
prog
ress
Is th
e su
bsec
tor o
n tra
ck to
mee
t the
st
ated
targ
et?
On-t
rack
Off-
track
but
ke
epin
g up
w
ith p
opul
atio
n gr
owth
Off-
track
0.5
Rate
of p
rogr
ess
is n
ot h
igh
enou
gh to
reac
h na
tiona
l tar
get
NTPI
, NTP
II co
mpl
etio
n Re
ports
; Ann
ual 2
011.
201
2 NT
P Re
ports
UN S
umm
it Re
ports
.W
B Re
port
on P
over
ty
Redu
ctio
n.
Sust
aini
ngUs
eEq
uity
of u
seW
hat i
s th
e ra
tio o
f im
prov
ed to
ilet a
cces
s be
twee
n th
e lo
wes
t an
d hi
ghes
t qui
ntile
in
rura
l are
as?
Less
than
2
times
Betw
een
2 an
d 5
Mor
e th
an 5
tim
es0.
5Th
e SD
A eq
uity
ana
lysis
reve
aled
that
in ru
ral
area
s, th
e ric
hest
qui
ntile
has
100
% a
cces
s to
im
prov
ed s
anita
tion,
com
pare
d to
36%
for t
he
low
est q
uint
ile, w
hich
is a
bout
3 ti
mes
.
SDA
equi
ty a
nalys
is.
Sust
aini
ngUs
eHy
gien
ic u
se o
f qu
ality
faci
litie
sW
hat p
erce
ntag
e of
pe
ople
livin
g in
rura
l ar
eas
use
impr
oved
to
ilet f
acilit
ies
(exc
ludi
ng s
hare
d fa
cilit
ies)
?
Mor
e th
an 7
5%
of p
eopl
e us
e to
ilets
Betw
een
50%
an
d 75
% o
f pe
ople
use
toile
ts
Less
than
50%
of
peo
ple
use
toile
ts
0SU
SENA
S 20
11: 3
9%, R
ISKE
SDAS
201
0:
hous
ehol
d ac
cess
(59%
), sh
ared
7%
. SU
SENA
S 20
11, R
ISKE
SDAS
20
10, R
ural
San
itatio
n W
orks
hop
URBA
N W
ATER
SUP
PLY
ENAB
LING
Enab
ling
Polic
ySe
ctor
targ
ets
Are
ther
e US
H ac
cess
ta
rget
s (h
ouse
hold
le
vel a
nd s
ewer
age/
sept
age
man
agem
ent)
in th
e na
tiona
l lev
el
deve
lopm
ent p
lan?
Yes,
tar
gets
for
urba
n ho
useh
old
acce
ss a
nd
sew
erag
e/se
ptag
e m
anag
emen
t in
clud
ed in
the
deve
lopm
ent
plan
Targ
ets
for
urba
n ho
useh
old
acce
ss
incl
uded
in
the
deve
lopm
ent
plan
but
no
sew
erag
e or
sep
tage
m
anag
emen
t ta
rget
s in
clud
ed
No u
rban
sa
nita
tion
targ
ets
in th
e
deve
lopm
ent
plan
1RP
JMN:
Ope
n De
feca
tion
Free
by
2014
, off-
site
se
wer
age
syst
em fo
r 10%
of p
opul
atio
n (5
%
sew
erag
e, 5
% c
omm
unal
), 90
% o
nsite
sew
erag
e sy
stem
, 80%
urb
an h
ouse
hold
hav
e be
tter w
aste
m
anag
emen
t, de
duct
22.
500
acre
s flo
odin
g ar
ea in
100
stra
tegi
c ur
ban
loca
tion,
PPS
P ta
rget
: ren
ovat
e pu
blic
san
itatio
n fa
cilit
ies
in
226
sele
cted
citi
es, d
educ
t was
te w
ater
by
20%
by
impr
ove
was
te w
ater
man
agem
ent i
n 24
0 ci
ties.
Nex
t RPJ
KN: u
nive
rsal
acc
ess
to im
prov
ed
sani
tatio
n by
201
9.
Indo
nesi
a M
id-t
erm
De
velo
pmen
t Pla
n (2
010-
2014
), In
done
sia
Long
-ter
m
Deve
lopm
ent P
lan
(200
5-20
25).
Indo
nesi
a M
DG T
arge
t.
Enab
ling
Polic
ySe
ctor
pol
icy
Is th
ere
an u
rban
sa
nita
tion
polic
y th
at is
agr
eed
by s
take
hold
ers,
ap
prov
ed b
y go
vern
men
t, an
d pu
blic
ly av
aila
ble?
Polic
y of
ficia
lly
appr
oved
and
pu
blic
ly av
aila
ble
Polic
y dr
afte
d an
d ag
reed
but
no
t offi
cial
ly ap
prov
ed
No p
olic
y1
Min
istry
of P
ublic
Wor
ks R
egul
atio
n No
. 16/
2008
se
t up
requ
irem
ent f
or c
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith
stak
ehol
ders
bef
ore
mak
ing
a po
licy,
and
it sh
ould
be
ava
ilabl
e pu
blic
ly.
Perm
en P
U No
. 16/
2008
; Ur
ban
Sani
tatio
n W
orks
hop
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t57
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Enab
ling
Polic
yIn
stitu
tiona
l Rol
esAr
e th
e in
stitu
tiona
l ro
les
of u
rban
sa
nita
tion
subs
ecto
r pl
ayer
s (n
atio
nal/s
tate
&
loca
l gov
ernm
ent,
serv
ice
prov
ider
, re
gula
tor e
tc.)
clea
rly d
efine
d an
d op
erat
iona
lized
?
Defin
ed a
nd
oper
atio
naliz
edDe
fined
but
not
op
erat
iona
lized
Not d
efine
d0.
5In
stitu
tiona
l rol
es a
re p
artly
defi
ned
in s
ever
al
law
s, d
ecre
es a
nd a
gree
men
ts s
uch
as W
ater
and
En
viron
men
tal H
ealth
Nat
iona
l Stra
tegy
(200
3),
Law
No.
32/
2004
on
loca
l aut
onom
y, go
vern
men
t de
cree
No.
38/
2007
on
dem
arca
tion
of ro
les
betw
een
natio
nal a
nd lo
cal g
over
nmen
t, M
inis
ter
of H
ealth
Dec
ree
Regu
latio
n No
. 852
/200
8 on
Co
mm
unity
Bas
ed T
otal
San
itatio
n, L
aw N
o.
18/2
009
on w
aste
man
agem
ent.
Dem
arca
tion
of
role
s an
d fu
nctio
ns a
mon
g in
stitu
tions
and
loca
l go
vern
men
t can
als
o be
see
n at
Gov
ernm
ent
Regu
latio
n No
. 41/
2007
on
loca
l gov
ernm
ent.
How
ever
, iss
ues
rem
ain
in u
rban
san
itatio
n ab
out a
lack
of c
lear
dis
tinct
ion
betw
een
serv
ice
prov
ider
and
regu
lato
r.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Fund
flow
co
ordi
natio
nDo
es g
over
nmen
t ha
ve a
pro
cess
for
coor
dina
ting
mul
tiple
in
vest
men
ts in
the
subs
ecto
r (do
mes
tic
or d
onor
, eg.
Nat
iona
l gr
ants
, sta
te b
udge
ts,
dono
r loa
ns a
nd
gran
ts e
tc.)?
Coor
dina
tion
proc
ess
defin
ed a
nd
oper
atio
naliz
ed
Coor
dina
tion
proc
ess
defin
ed b
ut n
ot
oper
atio
naliz
ed
Not d
efine
d/ n
o pr
oces
s0.
5Cl
early
defi
ned
proc
ess
and
equi
pped
with
rela
ted
supp
ortin
g pl
anni
ng, i
mpl
emen
tatio
n, m
onito
ring
and
repo
rt do
cum
ents
. Coo
rdin
atio
n is
led
by
Bapp
enas
. How
ever
, not
yet
fully
ope
ratio
naliz
ed.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Inve
stm
ent p
lan
Is th
ere
a m
ediu
m
term
inve
stm
ent p
lan
for u
rban
san
itatio
n ba
sed
on n
atio
nal
targ
ets
that
is c
oste
d,
prio
ritize
s in
vest
men
t ne
eds,
is p
ublis
hed
and
used
?
Inve
stm
ent p
lan
base
d on
prio
rity
need
s ex
ists
, is
publ
ishe
d an
d us
ed
Exis
ts b
ut n
ot
used
, or u
nder
pr
epar
atio
n
Does
not
exis
t0.
5Av
aila
ble
in m
inis
tries
' stra
tegi
c pl
ans,
pr
ovin
cial
/dis
trict
mid
-ter
m d
evel
opm
ent p
lan,
se
ctor
al s
trate
gic
plan
, mid
-ter
m in
vest
men
t pl
an, s
anita
tion
mem
oran
dum
pro
gram
, etc
, Th
ese
plan
s ar
e be
ing
exec
uted
. Iss
ue: q
ualit
y im
plem
enta
tion.
The
mec
hani
sm m
ust b
e fo
llow
ed b
ut n
ot a
ll SS
Ks a
re fi
ne w
ith th
at.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
Annu
al re
view
Is th
ere
an a
nnua
l m
ulti-
stak
ehol
der
revie
w in
pla
ce to
m
onito
r sub
sect
or
perfo
rman
ce, t
o re
view
pro
gres
s an
d se
t cor
rect
ive a
ctio
ns?
Revie
w o
f pe
rform
ance
an
d se
tting
of
corre
ctive
act
ions
Revie
w o
f pe
rform
ance
bu
t no
setti
ng o
f co
rrect
ive a
ctio
ns
No re
view
or
set
ting
of
corre
ctive
act
ions
0.5
Annu
ally,
ther
e ar
e m
inis
tries
/ ins
titut
ions
' ev
alua
tion.
For
gen
eral
revie
w, B
appe
nas
has
a de
velo
pmen
t eva
luat
ion
dire
ctor
ate.
Out
com
es
are
subm
itted
to th
e pr
esid
ent.
The
devia
tion
of th
e ou
tcom
es w
ill be
use
d as
a b
asis
for t
he
futu
re w
ork
plan
. BPS
als
o do
es a
nnua
l eva
luat
ion
for s
anita
tion.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
58
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Enab
ling
Plan
ning
HR C
apac
ityHa
s an
ass
essm
ent
been
und
erta
ken
of th
e hu
man
re
sour
ce n
eeds
in th
e su
bsec
tor t
o m
eet
the
subs
ecto
r tar
get
and
is th
e ac
tion
plan
be
ing
impl
emen
ted?
Asse
ssm
ent
unde
rtake
n an
d ac
tions
bei
ng
impl
emen
ted
Asse
ssm
ent
unde
rtake
n bu
t no
act
ion
bein
g ta
ken
No a
sses
smen
t un
derta
ken
0.5
Spor
adic
ass
essm
ents
hav
e be
en m
ade
but n
o cl
ear i
nfor
mat
ion
on fo
llow
up
actio
n or
onl
y fe
w
is b
eing
follo
wed
up.
Eac
h m
inis
try h
as it
s ow
n HR
cen
ter a
nd e
valu
atio
n/as
sess
men
t cen
ter.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Enab
ling
Budg
etAd
equa
cyAr
e th
e an
nual
pub
lic
finan
cial
com
mitm
ents
to
the
urba
n sa
nita
tion
subs
ecto
r suf
ficie
nt to
m
eet n
atio
nal t
arge
ts
for t
he s
ubse
ctor
?
Mor
e th
an
75%
of w
hat i
s ne
eded
Betw
een
50-
75%
of n
eeds
Less
than
50%
of
nee
ds0
Less
than
50%
. The
SDA
cos
ting
anal
ysis
es
timat
es th
at o
nly
37%
of t
he re
quire
d in
vest
men
ts c
an c
urre
ntly
be a
ntic
ipat
ed.
SDA
cost
ing
anal
ysis
.
Enab
ling
Budg
etSt
ruct
ure
Does
the
budg
et
stru
ctur
e pe
rmit
inve
stm
ents
and
su
bsid
ies
(ope
ratio
nal
cost
s, a
dmin
istra
tion,
de
bt s
ervic
e, e
tc) f
or
the
urba
n sa
nita
tion
sect
or to
be
clea
rly
iden
tified
?
Yes
for
inve
stm
ent a
nd
for s
ubsi
dies
Yes
for
inve
stm
ent b
ut
not s
ubsi
dies
No1
Ther
e is
no
subs
idy,
budg
et fo
r pro
mot
ion
is
avai
labl
e at
MoH
. In
budg
et p
lan
and
capi
tal
budg
et p
lan,
sou
rce
of in
vest
men
t has
som
e ca
tego
rizat
ion
but n
o su
bsid
y av
aila
ble.
MoF
Fin
ance
Not
e 20
13; R
ural
Sa
nita
tion
Wor
ksho
p
Enab
ling
Budg
etCo
mpr
ehen
sive
Does
the
gove
rnm
ent b
udge
t co
mpr
ehen
sive
ly co
ver d
omes
tic
and
offic
ial d
onor
in
vest
men
t/sub
sidy
to
urba
n sa
nita
tion?
Mor
e th
an 7
5%
of fu
nds
to
subs
ecto
r on
budg
et
Betw
een
50-
75%
of f
unds
to
sub
sect
or o
n bu
dget
Less
than
50%
of
fund
s to
su
bsec
tor o
n bu
dget
1Ye
s, o
n bu
dget
, on
treas
ury,
equi
pped
with
co
rrela
ted
audi
t pro
cess
. Ur
ban
Sani
tatio
n Di
scus
sion
DEVE
LOPI
NG
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Utiliz
atio
n of
dom
estic
fu
nds
Wha
t per
cent
age
of d
omes
tic fu
nds
budg
eted
for
urba
n sa
nita
tion
are
spen
t (3
year
ave
rage
)?
Over
75%
Betw
een
50%
an
d 75
%Le
ss th
an 5
0%0.
5No
relia
ble
data
, but
ther
e is
a s
peci
al b
udge
t for
ur
ban
sani
tatio
n.Ur
ban
Sani
tatio
n Di
scus
sion
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Utiliz
atio
n of
ext
erna
l fu
nds
Wha
t per
cent
age
of e
xter
nal f
unds
bu
dget
ed fo
r urb
an
sani
tatio
n ar
e sp
ent (
3 ye
ar a
vera
ge)?
Over
75%
Betw
een
50%
an
d 75
%Le
ss th
an 5
0%0.
5No
relia
ble
data
, est
imat
ed g
uess
bet
wee
n 50
-75%
. Ur
ban
Sani
tatio
n Di
scus
sion
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t59
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Deve
lopi
ngEx
pend
iture
Repo
rting
Is u
rban
san
itatio
n ex
pend
iture
ver
sus
budg
et a
udite
d an
d re
porte
d on
in a
co
nsol
idat
ed fo
rmat
fo
r all
sour
ces
of
dom
estic
and
offi
cial
do
nor e
xpen
ditu
re?
Yes
for d
omes
tic
and
dono
r ex
pend
iture
Yes
for d
omes
tic
expe
nditu
reNo
0.5
No c
onso
lidat
ed re
port,
but
ther
e is
a d
ivisi
on
betw
een
exte
rnal
and
inte
rnal
sou
rces
of f
unds
. Th
e da
ta a
re a
vaila
ble
at e
ach
rele
vant
min
istry
.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Loca
l par
ticip
atio
nAr
e th
ere
clea
rly
defin
ed p
roce
dure
s fo
r in
form
ing,
con
sulti
ng
with
and
sup
porti
ng
loca
l par
ticip
atio
n in
pl
anni
ng, b
udge
ting
and
impl
emen
ting
for u
rban
san
itatio
n de
velo
pmen
ts?
Yes
and
syst
emat
ical
ly ap
plie
d
Yes,
but
not
sy
stem
atic
ally
appl
ied
No0
Philo
soph
y an
d ap
proa
ch fo
r san
itatio
n:
com
mun
ity b
ased
(bot
tom
up
appr
oach
) em
phas
izes
on lo
cal p
artic
ipat
ion
and
guid
ed
with
sev
eral
regu
latio
ns a
nd g
uide
lines
. Mid
-ter
m
deve
lopm
ent p
lan
is d
evel
oped
thro
ugh
botto
m u
p ap
proa
ch. I
n re
ality
, rep
orts
sho
w h
igh
num
ber o
f ca
ses
of in
suffi
cien
t com
mun
ity p
artic
ipat
ion
for
man
agin
g an
d ut
ilizin
g of
f-si
te s
yste
ms.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on,
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Budg
et a
lloca
tion
crite
riaHa
ve c
riter
ia (o
r a
form
ula)
bee
n de
term
ined
to a
lloca
te
urba
n sa
nita
tion
fund
ing
equi
tabl
y to
urb
an u
tiliti
es o
r se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
and
amon
g m
unic
ipal
ities
an
d is
it b
eing
co
nsis
tent
ly ap
plie
d?
Yes,
app
lied
cons
iste
ntly
Yes,
but
no
t app
lied
cons
iste
ntly
No1
Law
No.
32/
2004
on
loca
l gov
ernm
ent a
nd
Min
iste
r of F
inan
ce R
egul
atio
n No
165
/201
2 on
tran
sfer
fund
sta
ted
that
bud
get a
lloca
tion
is c
ondu
cted
by
MoF
with
spe
cific
crit
eria
. MoF
co
nsul
ts o
ther
tech
nica
l min
istri
es a
nd lo
cal
gove
rnm
ent,
espe
cial
ly to
get
tech
nica
l inp
uts,
w
hen
allo
catin
g th
e bu
dget
. Rea
dine
ss o
f the
city
is
als
o co
nsid
ered
.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Deve
lopi
ngEq
uity
Redu
cing
ineq
ualit
ies
Do lo
cal g
over
nmen
t or
urb
an s
ervic
e pr
ovid
ers
(nat
iona
l or
in 3
larg
est c
ities
) ha
ve s
peci
fic p
lans
or
mea
sure
s de
velo
ped
and
impl
emen
ted
for
serv
ing
the
urba
n po
or?
Plan
s de
velo
ped
and
impl
emen
ted
Plan
s de
velo
ped
but n
ot
impl
emen
ted
No p
lans
do
cum
ente
d0.
5Pl
ans
are
bein
g de
velo
ped
with
in P
PSP,
and
acco
rdin
g to
Impr
es n
o. 3
/201
0 on
equ
ity o
f de
velo
pmen
t. Bu
t the
se p
lans
are
not
fully
im
plem
ente
d ye
t.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Quan
tity
Is th
e an
nual
ex
pans
ion
of u
rban
ho
useh
olds
gai
ning
ac
cess
to s
afe
sani
tatio
n su
ffici
ent
to m
eet t
he s
ubse
ctor
ta
rget
s?
Over
75%
of t
hat
need
ed to
reac
h se
ctor
targ
ets
Betw
een
75%
an
d 50
% o
f th
at n
eede
d to
ac
hiev
e ta
rget
s
Less
than
50%
of
that
nee
ded
to
reac
h ta
rget
s
0Ur
ban
sani
tatio
n ac
cess
to im
prov
ed s
anita
tion
=
77%
(SUS
ENAS
201
2). H
owev
er, s
ecto
r tar
gets
ou
tline
by
2019
: 100
% a
cces
s to
impr
oved
sa
nita
tion
over
all,
6% a
cces
s to
sew
erag
e sy
stem
s, a
nd in
crea
se in
com
mun
al s
yste
ms.
An
nual
exp
ansi
ons
still
fall
shor
t to
less
than
50%
SUSE
NAS
2012
, Urb
an
Sani
tatio
n W
orks
hop
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
60
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Deve
lopi
ngOu
tput
Repo
rting
Ar
e th
ere
proc
edur
es
and
proc
esse
s ap
plie
d on
a re
gula
r bas
is
to m
onito
r urb
an
sani
tatio
n ac
cess
and
th
e qu
ality
of s
ervic
es
and
is th
e in
form
atio
n di
ssem
inat
ed?
Qual
ity,
quan
tity
and
diss
emin
ated
Qual
ity o
r qu
antit
yNe
ither
0.5
Regu
lar s
urve
illanc
e m
onito
ring
is c
ondu
cted
by
MoH
. It i
s pa
rt of
the
mai
n re
spon
sibi
lity
of th
e sa
nita
rians
and
repo
rted
in m
onth
ly ba
sis.
At t
his
mom
ent,
5 pr
ovin
ces
alre
ady
do s
ms-
base
d da
ily
repo
rts th
at a
ppea
rs o
nlin
e w
ith S
TBM
web
site
. So
me
issu
es w
ith d
ata
qual
ity re
mai
n, th
ough
.
http
://ci
ptak
arya
.pu.
go.id
/v2
/?ac
t=vin
&nid
=11
42,
MoP
W d
ata,
Urb
an S
anita
tion
Wor
ksho
p
SUST
AINI
NGW
SP s
tudy
Sust
aini
ngM
arke
tsCo
llect
ion
and
treat
men
t W
hat i
s th
e pr
opor
tion
of to
tal f
ecal
was
te
gene
rate
d th
at g
ets
safe
ly co
llect
ed a
nd
treat
ed?
Over
75%
of
that
gen
erat
ed
is c
olle
cted
and
tre
ated
Over
50%
of
that
gen
erat
ed
is c
olle
cted
from
th
e HH
leve
l
Less
than
50%
of
that
gen
erat
ed0
Only
5 IP
LTs
are
wor
king
pro
perly
. No
syst
emat
ic
retri
butio
n sy
stem
exis
ts y
et, o
nly
a fe
w n
eigh
bor
grou
ps s
tart
to im
plem
ent i
t.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Sust
aini
ngM
arke
tsCo
st re
cove
ryAr
e O&
M c
osts
of
treat
men
t sys
tem
s (b
eyon
d ho
useh
old
leve
l fac
ilitie
s)
asse
ssed
/kno
wn
and
fully
met
by
eith
er
cost
reco
very
thro
ugh
user
fees
and
/or l
ocal
re
venu
e or
tran
sfer
s?
O&M
cos
ts
know
n an
d >
75%
cov
ered
th
roug
h co
st
reco
very
O&M
cos
ts a
re
know
n an
d 50
%
cove
red
thro
ugh
cost
reco
very
O&M
cos
ts n
ot
know
n0
Uncl
ear O
&M s
yste
m, m
any
IPLT
and
IPAL
do
not
wor
k pr
oper
ly. H
ouse
hold
s pa
y fo
r dis
char
ge a
nd
gove
rnm
ent p
ays
for t
reat
men
t
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Sust
aini
ngM
arke
tsDi
scha
rge
Are
ther
e no
rms
and
stan
dard
s fo
r w
aste
wat
er d
isch
arge
fo
r sep
tage
and
se
wer
age
treat
men
t pl
ants
that
are
sy
stem
atic
ally
mon
itore
d un
der a
re
gim
e of
san
ctio
ns
(pen
altie
s)?
Exis
t and
are
m
onito
red
unde
r a
regi
me
of
sanc
tions
Exis
t and
maj
ority
ar
e m
onito
red,
bu
t the
re a
re n
o sa
nctio
ns
Stan
dard
s ex
ist
but m
ajor
ity
of p
lant
s ar
e no
t reg
ular
ly m
onito
red
0.5
Law
No.
32/
2009
on
the
prot
ectio
n an
d m
anag
emen
t of t
he e
nviro
nmen
t. So
me
loca
l go
vern
men
ts h
ave
thei
r ow
n re
gula
tions
suc
h as
Jak
arta
with
Gov
erno
r Reg
ulat
ion
No.
220/
2010
on
IPAL
and
AM
DAL.
How
ever
, no
firm
ev
iden
ce o
n en
forc
ing
sanc
tions
exis
ts, t
houg
h m
onito
ring
is m
anag
ed b
y th
e lo
cal e
nviro
nmen
t m
anag
emen
t bod
y (B
PLHD
). M
oH is
mon
itorin
g m
edic
al w
aste
man
agem
ent.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Ser
vice
Del
iver
y A
sses
smen
t61
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Sust
aini
ngM
arke
tsM
anag
emen
t of
Disa
ster
Ris
k an
d Cl
imat
e Ch
ange
Do lo
cal g
over
nmen
t or
ser
vice
prov
ider
s (n
atio
nal o
r in
3 la
rges
t citi
es) h
ave
plan
s fo
r cop
ing
with
na
tura
l dis
aste
rs a
nd
clim
ate
chan
ge?
Yes,
the
maj
ority
of
urb
an s
ervic
e pr
ovid
ers
have
a
plan
for d
isas
ter
risk
man
agem
ent
and
clim
ate
chan
ge
No. O
nly
som
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
have
a p
lan
for
disa
ster
risk
m
anag
emen
t an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
or m
ost
serv
ice
prov
ider
s ha
ve u
nder
take
n a
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent.
No s
ervic
e pr
ovid
er h
as a
cl
imat
e ac
tion
plan
or h
as
unde
rtake
n a
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent.
0An
em
erge
ncy
sani
tatio
n po
licy
exis
ts in
clud
ing
proc
edur
es, a
pro
gram
, and
a c
lust
er o
n di
sast
ers
(BNP
B). T
he g
over
nmen
t has
a p
lan
to p
repa
re
a po
licy,
but n
o cl
ear i
nfor
mat
ion
whe
ther
the
priva
te s
ecto
r has
acc
ess
to it
.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
iont
Auto
nom
yDo
util
ities
or s
ervic
e pr
ovid
ers
(nat
iona
l or
3 la
rges
t) ha
ve
oper
atio
nal d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
auto
nom
y in
in
vest
men
t pla
nnin
g,
HR, fi
nanc
e (s
epar
ate
bala
nce
shee
t) an
d pr
ocur
emen
t m
anag
emen
t?
Yes
in a
ll as
pect
sIn
all
aspe
cts
exce
pt
inve
stm
ent
plan
ning
No0.
5Ut
ilitie
s ar
e fin
anci
ally
auto
nom
ous
but I
nves
tmen
t / M
aste
r pla
ns m
ust b
e ap
prov
ed b
y th
e Lo
cal
Gove
rnm
ent a
utho
ritie
s.
Decr
ees
of P
rodu
ctio
n an
d Co
nsum
ptio
n of
Cle
an
Wat
er (1
77/2
006/
ND-C
P &
124/
2011
/ND-
CP)
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
ion
Upta
ke
Has
gove
rnm
ent
(nat
iona
l or l
ocal
) de
velo
ped
any
polic
ies,
pro
cedu
res
or
prog
ram
s to
stim
ulat
e up
take
of u
rban
sa
nita
tion
serv
ices
an
d be
havio
rs b
y ho
useh
olds
?
Polic
ies
and
proc
edur
es
(inst
rum
ents
) de
velo
ped
and
bein
g im
plem
ente
d
Som
e po
licie
s an
d pr
oced
ures
(in
stru
men
ts)
deve
lope
d bu
t no
t im
plem
ente
d
No p
olic
ies
or
proc
edur
es
(inst
rum
ents
) ex
ist
0.5
A ba
selin
e st
udy,
prel
imin
ary
soci
aliza
tion,
and
na
tion-
wid
e ca
mpa
ign
is b
eing
led
by M
oH. S
till
limite
d im
plem
enta
tion.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
ion
Plan
sDo
gov
ernm
ent/
serv
ice
prov
ider
s ha
ve b
usin
ess
plan
s fo
r exp
andi
ng th
e pr
opor
tion
of c
ityw
ide
feca
l was
te th
at is
sa
fely
colle
cted
and
tre
ated
?
Busi
ness
pla
ns
for e
xpan
sion
of
col
lect
ion
& tre
atm
ent b
eing
im
plem
ente
d
Busi
ness
pla
ns
for e
xpan
sion
of
col
lect
ion
& tre
atm
ent u
nder
pr
epar
atio
n
No B
usin
ess
Plan
s0
PPSP
dev
elop
s ci
ty s
anita
tion
stra
tegi
es (S
SK),
whi
ch in
clud
e ur
ban
sani
tatio
n st
rate
gies
. Ho
wev
er, t
he c
onst
rain
ts in
urb
an fe
cal s
ludg
e m
anag
emen
t are
stil
l sub
stan
tial,
no m
anag
emen
t sy
stem
is in
pla
ce y
et.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Wat
er S
upp
ly a
nd S
anita
tion
in In
don
esia
62
Serv
ice
Deliv
ery
Cycl
eBu
ildin
g Bl
ock
Area
s of
evi
denc
e fo
r ass
essm
ent
Ques
tion
High
(1)
Med
ium
(0,5
)Lo
w (0
)Sc
ore
Expl
anat
ion
for s
core
Sour
ce o
f evi
denc
e
Sust
aini
ngEx
pans
ion
Priva
te s
ecto
r de
velo
pmen
tDo
es th
e go
vern
men
t ha
ve o
ngoi
ng
prog
ram
s an
d m
easu
res
to
stre
ngth
en th
e do
mes
tic p
rivat
e se
ctor
for t
he
prov
isio
n of
san
itatio
n se
rvic
es in
urb
an o
r pe
ri-ur
ban
area
s?
Yes,
var
ious
co
mpo
nent
sIn
dev
elop
men
t, fe
w c
ompo
nent
sNo
0.5
Ther
e ar
e so
me
prog
ram
s th
roug
h co
rpor
ate
soci
al re
spon
sibi
lity
supp
ort f
or s
mal
l sca
le
busi
ness
. Med
ium
and
big
sca
le b
usin
ess
do n
ot
have
any
pro
gram
yet
.
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Sust
aini
ngUs
eSu
bsec
tor p
rogr
ess
Is th
e su
bsec
tor o
n tra
ck to
mee
t the
st
ated
targ
et?
On-t
rack
Off-
track
but
ke
epin
g up
w
ith p
opul
atio
n gr
owth
Off-
track
0Su
bsec
tor i
s pr
ogre
ssin
g, b
ut n
ot y
et o
n tra
ck to
m
eet s
ecto
r tar
gets
. Ur
ban
Sani
tatio
n Di
scus
sion
Sust
aini
ngUs
eEq
uity
of u
seW
hat i
s th
e ra
tio o
f im
prov
ed to
ilet a
cces
s be
twee
n th
e lo
wes
t an
d hi
ghes
t qui
ntile
in
urba
n ar
eas?
Less
than
2
times
Betw
een
2 an
d 5
Mor
e th
an 5
tim
es0.
52.
34 (B
PS)
Urba
n Sa
nita
tion
Disc
ussi
on
Sust
aini
ngUs
eUs
e of
faci
litie
sW
hat p
erce
ntag
e of
pe
ople
livin
g in
urb
an
area
s us
e im
prov
ed
toile
t fac
ilitie
s (e
xclu
ding
sha
red
faci
litie
s)?
Mor
e th
an 9
0%
of p
eopl
eM
ore
than
75%
of
peo
ple
Less
than
75%
of
peo
ple
0.5
Hous
ehol
d us
e (7
9.7%
), sh
ared
(8,3
%),
tota
l 88%
(R
iske
sdas
201
0); S
USEN
AS 2
011:
72.
5%Ri
skes
das
(201
0). S
usen
as
(201
1)
Service Delivery Assessment 63
Annex 2: Key Inputs for the Required andAnticipated Capital Expenditures
This annex describes the key inputs that were used to generate estimates of the required and anticipated capital expenditures. It discusses the sources, adjustments and assumptions of the following information: exchange rates, demographic variables, sector-specific technologies and spending plans.
Exchange Rates
Amounts in Indonesia rupiah (IDR) from 2009 to 2012 were converted into US Dollars using annual exchange rates from the World Development Indicators.49 Projections for 2013 fol-low the assumptions used by the Ministry of Finance, which are in turn based on Law No. 15 on the State Budget for 2013.50 The exchange rates for succeeding years were as-sumed to be the same as in 2013.
Demographic Variables
The model requires two sets of demographic variables. The first set captures rural and urban population estimates/pro-jections for base year (2011) and target year (2019). This in-formation is combined with existing and target access rates for water and sanitation in order to calculate the number of people that will be requiring access to improved facilities during the period of analysis. The other set of information refers to the average size of households. This is used to convert costs of facilities, which are generally in expressed on a per household basis, into per capita terms.
Table A2.1 shows the key demographic variables used in the analysis. Aggregate population data for 2011 and 2019 were obtained from Bappenas et al. (2005).51 Rural and urban population data were generated using proportions and growth rates from the UN.52 The analysis assumes that there are 3.9 members per household.53
Access Rates
Table A2.2 shows the baseline (2011) and target (2019) ac-cess rates for water supply and sanitation. The 2011 ac-cess rates for sanitation and water supply were calculated using data from the SUSENAS by the BPS and Bappenas, respectively.
Table A2.1 Current and target access rates
Region Population (millions)Annual population growth (%)
2011 2019
Rural 117 112 -0.3%
Urban 120 146 2.5%b
National 236 258 not calculated
a All values for this row were calculated as residuals. b This value represents the projected population growth rate for 2010-2015 of the UN (2012) World Statistics Pocketbook, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN, New York. c Bappenas, BPS and United Nations Population Fund (2005) Proyeksi Penduduk Indonesia (Indonesia Population Projection), Jakarta.
49 World Bank (2013) World Development Indicators, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF.50 Ministry of Finance website, http://www.depkeu.go.id/Eng/?menu=english.51 Bappenas, BPS and United Nations Population Fund (2005) Proyeksi Penduduk Indonesia (Indonesia Population Projection), Jakarta.52 UN (2012) World Statistics Pocketbook, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN, New York.53 The estimate is for 2010. Badan Pusat Statistik [Statistics Indonesia] (2013) Perkembangan Beberapa Indikator Utama Social-Ekonomi Indonesia [Trends of Selected Socio-Economic Indicators of Indonesia], Jakarta, May.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia64
Table A2.2 Current and target access ratesSector 2011 2019
Rural water supply 58% 100%
Urban water supply 52% 100%
Rural sanitation 39% 100%
Urban sanitation 73% 100%
Sector-specific Technologies: Water
Information on sector-specific technologies, unit costs, and expected life are necessary for the calculation of invest-ment requirements. Table A2.3 presents data on the vari-ables mentioned above for water supply.
The options included and shares for 2011 were based on the technologies reported in SUSENAS 2010, which was presented in JMP. However, given the absence of docu-ments, the distribution of water supply technologies for 2020 was based on the informed judgment of stakeholders at the SDA validation workshop in Jakarta on June 2013.54
Unit capital costs represent expenditures for materials and labor used in the construction of the different facilities while lifespan refers to the projected number of years before a facility is fully replaced. For urban water supply, the infor-mation in Table A2.2 was based on the project experience of participants at the SDA validation workshop in Jakarta on June 2013. On the other hand, unit costs for rural water supply were based on estimates from the Domestic Private Sector Project (DPSP) and the Third Water Supply and San-itation for Low Income Communities Project (PAMSIMAS).
Sector-specific Technologies: Sanitation
Table A2.4 presents information on the expected household distribution, costs and lifespans of key sanitation technolo-gies.
Improved sanitation facilities are defined by Indonesian au-thorities as a household that has its own latrine, gooseneck latrine and/or pit latrine, and uses a septic tank as the final disposal facility.55
An Urban Sanitation Development Program (USDP)56 report identifies improved facilities as private or shared facility that has access to a gooseneck as a type of barrier and either a septic tank, pit latrine or sewerage system as a type of treatment.57 The 2011 distribution of facilities in Table A2.4 were apportioned across facilities using information from the JMP.58 Given the absence of documents, the distribu-tion of sanitation options for rural areas in 2019 was based on the opinions that stakeholders provided at the SDA validation workshop in Jakarta on June 2013. For urban households, the projected distribution was obtained as fol-lows. Information from Bappenas indicates that national targets for communal facilities (which represents SANIMAS in the analysis) rise by about one percentage point per year between 2010 (1%) to 2014 (5%). If this trend continues, then about 9% of the national population will have access to such facilities by 2019. Confining the use of such facili-ties to urban areas suggests that about 16% of the urban population in 2019 will have access to communal facilities. However, using 16% for SANIMAS facilities will be difficult to employ in the analysis because it means that proportion of the urban population with access to private facilities will fall from 86% in 2011 to 84% in 2019. Hence, the decision adopted for the analysis is to assume that access to private facilities in 2019 will be the same as in 2011 and that all the remaining urban households (14%) will have access to SANIMAS.
54 JMP (2012) Estimates for the Use of Improved Drinking Water Sources: Indonesia. Downloaded from wss.info.org.55 Ministry of Health (2013), Main Findings of Indonesia Basic Health Survey 2013. 56 Urban Sanitation Development Program (2012) National Sanitation Demand Assessment 2012, Draft report, November. 57 The USDP report identifies the following facilities as not improved: (a) public facility, (b) public/private/shared facilities that do not have access to a gooseneck and/or septic tank/pit latrine/sewer system, (c) no toilets. 58 JMP (2012) Estimates for the Use of Improved Sanitation: Indonesia. Downloaded from wss.info.org.
Service Delivery Assessment 65
Table A2.3 Selected information on sanitation technologies
Option
Distribution of facilities (base year, %)a
Projected distribution of facilities
(2020, %)a,b
Unit capital cost (per capita at 2012 prices) Lifespan
(in years)
Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban
Piped into dwelling/yard 9% 26% 58% 90% 40 181 30
Public tap 5% 9% 5% 5% 4 91 30
Tubewell/Borehole 26% 28% 5% 0% 40 160 5
Protected well 23% 32% 25% 5% 20 64 5
Protected spring 28% 5% 4% 0% 24 3 5
Rainwater 9% 0% 3% 0% 40 21 4
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% nc nc nc
a As a share of the population that have access to improved facilities. b Based on informed judgments of participants in a stakeholder workshop in Jakarta on June 2013.
Unit capital costs in urban areas, which exclude the costs of sewers, and the lifespan of private and shared facilities were based on the informed judgment of the participants in the SDA validation workshop in Jakarta on June 2013. Fur-thermore, it is also assumed that three households share a facility; which translates to unit costs of shared facilities that are a third of private facilities. The cost of a private facility in rural areas ($31 per person or $120 per facility) is based on the curriculum for the STBM entrepreneur training of 2013 of the Ministry of Health). This cost is conservative relative to the median price of permanent pit latrines (at $44 per person or $173 per facility at 2010 prices) found by Giltner and Arianto59 for rural areas in Indonesia. It is also way be-low the costs of a toilet with septic tank ($140 per person) used in the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI).60 The per capita cost of SANIMAS facilities, which includes treat-ment facilities, represents investments for Community Sani-tation Centers. The value represents median capital costs as calculated by Eales et al. (2013) using survey data.61 The per capita estimates here, which are much higher than es-timated per capita costs of $152 per person under optimal
conditions, reflects the under-utilization of the Community Sanitation Centers.
Sewerage Systems
Sewerage systems in urban areas, which are also covered in the analysis, are treated separately from on-site treat-ment facilities. The assumptions used in the analysis are as follows:
• Access: In the base period (2011), it is assumed that 1% of the urban population had access to sewerage systems. While there seems to be no solid evidence on access rates, studies by the World Bank and AusAID62,USDP63 and Eales et. al.64 suggest values close to this assumption. Access to sewerage systems is assumed to increase to 6% by the target year (2019).
• Unit costs: The analysis assumes unit costs of $372 per person (at 2012 prices). This represents the lower end of per capita CAPEX costs (US$ 350 per person at 2010 prices) estimates presented in a study by the
59 Giltner, S and I. Arianto (2011) Rural Latrine Costs in Indonesia, UNICEF, Plan Indonesia, ADB and WSP, World Bank.60 Winara, A., G. Hutton, Oktarinda, E. Purnomo, K. Hadiwardoyo, I. Merdykasari, T. Nurmadi, B. Bruinsma, D. Gunawan, D. Fadilah and M. Albrecht (2011) Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.61 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.62 World Bank and AusAID (2013) East Asia Urban Sanitation Flagship Study: Indonesia Country Study, Main Report, February.63 Urban Sanitation Development Program (2012) National Sanitation Demand Assessment 2012, Draft report, November. 64 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia66
Table A2.4 Selected information on sanitation technologies
Option
Distribution of facilities (base year, %)a
Projected distribution of facilities (2020, %)a,b
Unit capital cost (per capita at 2012 prices) Lifespan
(in years)Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban
Private facility 69% 86% 80% 86% 31 55 20
Shared facility 31% 13% 20% 0% 10 18 20
SANIMAS na 1% na 14% na 294 20
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% nc nc nc
a As a share of households with access to improved facilities.
Table A2.5 Public investments (million US$, annual average)
Sector Central government Local government Development partners Total
Anticipated (2012-2014)
Rural water supply 254 480 58 791
Urban water supply 265 481 25 771
Rural sanitation 37 2 29 69
Urban sanitation 48 352 28 427
Total 604 1,315 140 2,059
Recent (2009-2014)
Rural water supply 111 369 43 524
Urban water supply 121 370 19 510
Rural sanitation 23 2 22 47
Urban sanitation 32 271 21 324
Total 287 1,013 105 1,405
a Anticipated investments of the government only represent expenditures for 2012 and 2013.
Service Delivery Assessment 67
World Bank and AusAID65,66. The value used in the analysis is much higher than the average capital costs at optimal use of simplified sewerage systems ($136 per person at 2012 prices) and combined systems ($186 per person at 2012 prices) of SANIMAS projects. However, it is closer to the median costs at actual use of simplified sewerage systems ($228 per person at 2012 prices) and combined systems ($251 per person at 2012 prices) of SANIMAS projects.67 The costs are also higher than the unit costs of centralized sewer-age and treatment systems ($130 per person at 2012 prices) reported in the ESI.68
• Lifespan: Sewerage systems are assumed to have a lifespan of 20 years. This value was taken from the ESI.69
Spending Plans
Collecting information on recent and anticipated invest-ments and comparing the results to CAPEX requirements allows the costing tool to generate estimates of financing gaps (or surpluses). As discussed in the text, investments for water and sanitation were obtained/derived from docu-ments and websites of various stakeholders.
The process of the collecting and compiling the information for capital expenditures was difficult and the subject to the following issues and limitations. First, expenditures of the central government for 2014 are not yet available. Hence, anticipated expenditures of the government only represent the average over two years (2012 and 2013). Second, there is also some uncertainty surrounding the sub-sectoral data used in the analysis. In some instances, information was only available for water supply and sanitation as a whole but not separately. Quite often, the data also do not make
a clear distinction by location (rural or urban), annual dis-bursements for multi-year projects, actual expenditures and allocations, and nature (hardware and software). In all these cases, the approach used in the analysis was to ask the concerned stakeholders for their best guess of how the data might be suitably disaggregated.
Given the available information, estimates of anticipated (2012-2014) and recent (2009-2011) CAPEX from the gov-ernment and development partners are shown in Table A2.5. To ensure comparability with the investment requirements, estimates of anticipated and recent CAPEX are limited to hardware expenditures only.
Given the available information, estimates of anticipated (2012-2014) and recent (2009-2011) CAPEX which come from government and development partners are shown in Table A2.4. To ensure comparability with the investment re-quirements, estimates of anticipated and recent CAPEX are limited to hardware expenditures only.
The planned spending of users is computed by specify-ing the proportion of investments that the authorities are expecting households to contribute. Table A2.5 shows the proportion of investments that households are expected to contribute. In the absence of an expressed policy, all the proportions used for urban areas were based on the in-formed judgment of the stakeholders who participated in the June 2013 workshop in Jakarta. Users are expected to finance 15% of piped water into dwellings. The amount rep-resents household payments for the connection pipe and meter. The only exception is the contribution of households in SANIMAS projects which is the midpoint of the estimated contribution of the community that was estimated in the lit-erature.70
65 World Bank and AusAID (2013) East Asia Urban Sanitation Flagship Study: Indonesia Country Study, Main Report, February.66 The value used in the analysis, which is at 2012 prices, accounts for changes in the general price level and exchange rate. 67 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.68 Winara, A., G. Hutton, Oktarinda, E. Purnomo, K. Hadiwardoyo, I. Merdykasari, T. Nurmadi, B. Bruinsma, D. Gunawan, D. Fadilah and M. Albrecht (2011) Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.69 Winara, A., G. Hutton, Oktarinda, E. Purnomo, K. Hadiwardoyo, I. Merdykasari, T. Nurmadi, B. Bruinsma, D. Gunawan, D. Fadilah and M. Albrecht (2011) Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.70 Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia68
Table A2.6 Share of users in capital/development costs, %
Option Rural Urban
Water Supply
Public tap 0% 0%
Piped into dwelling/yard 15% 15%
Tubewell/Borehole 99% n.a.
Improved dug well 99% 99%
Protected spring 99% n.a.
Rainwater 99% n.a.
Sanitationa
Private facility-gooseneck-with treatment 99% 99%
Shared facility-gooseneck-with treatment 99% 99%
SANIMAS na 3%b
a Sewerage systems in urban areas are not included in the table. Such facilities are expected to be initially financed entirely by government/donors/utilities and not by house-holds. b Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Review of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February.
Service Delivery Assessment 69
Annex 3: Comparison with Alternative Estimatesof Investment Requirements
This annex compares the estimates and key assumptions of the SDA costing tool with two studies in the water and sanitation sector in Indonesia. The first study, which pres-ents estimated investment requirements for the water sup-ply sector, provides an investment roadmap for Indonesia (WIRA study team, 2012). The second study, which was conducted by USDP (2012), examines, among others, sani-tation investments. Table A3.1 summarizes the key informa-tion from the current analysis and the two studies.
The WIRA study team (2012) presents an estimated invest-ment requirement of Rp64 trillion from 2011 to 2014. The study asserts that this estimate will lead to 56 million people (41 million with access to piped systems and 15 million with access to non-piped systems) having access to improved water supply services by 2014. It was derived by adding up on the costs of various activities in rural and urban areas.71
Converted into US Dollar and expressed on an annual ba-sis, the costs presented by the WIRA study team ($1.7 bil-lion per year) are much lower than the estimates presented in the current analysis ($4.8 billion per year). There are two factors that might explain this. First, the target adopted in the current analysis suggests that about 29 million people a year will gain access to improved water supply facilities. This is more than twice as many as the estimate of the WIRA study team (56 million in 4 years equals 13.3 million
people per year). Second, the analysis presented by the WIRA study team does not appear to include replacement costs. Removing this item from the estimates of the current analysis reduces the investment requirement to $1.8 billion per year, a figure that is not very different from the values presented by the WIRA study team.
The USDP (2012) calculations assume universal access to improved sanitation by 2035. It estimates costs to be in the order of Rp472 trillion (about $2.5 billion per year) from 2015 to 2035. Estimates in the current analysis ($2.4 billion/year) seem very close to the USDP estimate but this should be viewed with care. The reason is that the USDP invest-ment requirements do not appear to include expenditures for replacing worn-out facilities. Removing these replace-ment costs from the current analysis leads to investments requirements ($1.9 billion per year) that are noticeably lower than USDP estimates. The resulting difference between the two estimates may then be explained in part by examining the technology distribution at the target year. In the current analysis, it is assumed that only about 3.4% of the total population in 2019 (or 8.8 million people) will have access to offsite wastewater treatment facilities by the target year. In contrast, the USDP analysis assumes that about 32% of the 2035 population (95.2 million people) will have access to medium scale decentralized wastewater treatment facili-ties.
71 Table 2 of the WIRA report provides the details.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia70
Table A3.1 Comparison among three studies
Item Current SDA analysis WIRA Study team (2012) USDP analysis (2012)b
Sector of interest Water supply and sanitation Water supply Sanitation
Period of analysis 2011-2019 2011-2014 2015-2035
Access to improved facilities at target year
Water supply: 100% Sanitation: 100%
56 million people or about 68% of the population by end 2014
2035: 100%
Estimated costs (as presented in study) Water supply: $4.75bn/ year ($1.79bn/ year excluding replacement costs)Sanitation: $2.42bn/ year ($1.86bn/ year)
Rp65 trillion for the entire period Rp472 trillion for the entire period
Estimated cost (converted to billion US$/ year)a
Water supply: $4.75bn/ year ($1.79bn/ year excluding replacement costs)Sanitation: $2.42bn/ year ($1.86bn/ year)
$1.73bn/year $2.5bn/year
a Estimates from WIRA and USDP were converted to US$ using the 2012 exchange rate of Rp9386/US$. b USDP estimates are not yet final.
Service Delivery Assessment 71
References
Bappenas, BPS and United Nations Population Fund (2005) Proyeksi Penduduk Indonesia (Indonesia Population Projec-tion), Jakarta.
Bappenas, “Perkembangan Kebijakan Penyediaan Air Minum” [Development of Water Provision Policy], can be accessed at http://perkim-Bappenas.info/index.php?prm_page_id=1&prm_id=21&prm_type_id=4&prm_parent_id=20&prm_doc_cat_id=4&prm_text=air_sejarah.php&prm_lbl=Sejarah.
Badan Pusat Statistik [Statistics Indonesia], Socioeconom-ic Survey 2011.
Badan Pusat Statistik [Statistics Indonesia] (2013) Perkem-bangan Beberapa Indikator Utama Social-Ekonomi Indone-sia [Trends of Selected Socio-Economic Indicators of Indo-nesia], Jakarta, May.
BPPSPAM (2011), Laporan Kinerja PDAM [PDAM Perfor-mance Report}.
Eales K., R. Siregar, E. Febriani and I. Blackett (2013) Re-view of Community Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia, WSP, February..http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/pdfs/ISF_VietnamWASH.pdf
Giltner, S and I. Arianto (2011) Rural Latrine Costs in Indo-nesia, UNICEF, Plan Indonesia, ADB and WSP, World Bank, October
Government of Indonesia (1962), Law No 5/1962 on Water Companies (PDAM).
Government of Indonesia (1974), Presidential Decree No. 5/1974 on Household Water and Latrines (SAMIJAGA) Na-tional Program.
Government of Indonesia (1997), Ministry of Health Decree No. 173/Men.Kes/Per/VIII/1977 on Surveillance of Water Polution Related to Health Issues.
Government of Indonesia (1999), Law No. 22/1999 on Local Autonomy.
Government of Indonesia (2004), Law No. 7/2004 on Water Resources.
Government of Indonesia (2005), Government Decree No. 16/2005 on Water Provision Systems. Government of In-donesia (2005), Indonesia Long-Term Development Plan (2005-2025).
Government of Indonesia (2006), Minister of Public Works Regulation No.20/2006 on Water System Management.
Government of Indonesia (2007), Government Decree No. 38/2007 on Demarcation of Roles Between National and Local Government.
Government of Indonesia (2008), Minister of Public Works Decree No. 16/2008 on Policy and National Strategy on Settlements; Sewerage Water System Development.
Government of Indonesia (2008), Minister of Health Decree No.832/2008 on National Community-Based Total Sanita-tion Program.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia72
Government of Indonesia (2009), Law No. 18/2009 on Waste Management.
Government of Indonesia (2009), Law No. 32/2009 on the Protection and Management of Environment.
Government of Indonesia (2009), Presidential Regulation No.29/2009 on Guaranty and Interest Subsidy by National Government to Accelerate Provision of Water Supply. Government of Indonesia (2009), Minister of Finance De-cree No. 229/2009 on Implementation Guideline on the Guaranty and Interest Subsidy by National Government to Accelerate Provision of Water Supply.
Government of Indonesia (2010), Indonesia Mid-Term De-velopment Plan (2010-2014).
Government of Indonesia (2010), Minister of Public Works Decree No. 12/2010 on Water System Business Manage-ment.
Government of Indonesia (2010), Minister of Health Regula-tion No. 736/2010 on Guideline for Water Quality Surveil-lance.
Government of Indonesia (2012), Minister of Public Works Regulation No. 18/2012 on the Guidance for the Manage-ment of Water Provision System Development.
Government of Indonesia (2013), Ministry of Public Works Decree No. 13/PRT/M/2013 on the National Policy and Strategy on Development of Water Provision System.
Government of Indonesia (2013), Minister of Health Regula-tion No. 32/2013 on the Management of Work of the Sani-tarians.
Government of Indonesia (2013), Minister of Home Affairs Decree No. 23/2013 on Guideline on Planning, Controlling and Evaluating Local Development Workplan. Joint Moni-toring Programme (2013), Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.
Joint Monitoring Programme (2009), Report on Intercountry Workshop on Water Supply and Sanitation, Indonesia.
Joint Monitoring Programme (2012), Estimates for the Use of Improved Drinking-Water Sources, Indonesia. Report available at www.wssinfo.org.
Joint Monitoring Programme (2013), Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2013 Update. UNICEF and WHO.
Ministry of Finance (2012), The Indonesian Budget Overview 2011: Sekilas APBN, Dinamika Penganggaran di Indonesia.
Ministry of Health (2010), PHLN Dalam Disparitas Pemban-gunan Kesehatan. Ministry of Health (2011), Indonesia Basic Health Survey 2010.
Ministry of Health (2013), Main Findings of Indonesia Basic Health Survey 2013.
Ministry of Public Works and World Bank (2012), Indonesian Water Investment Roadmap (2011-2014).
Pokja AMPL (2010), Handbook of Water and Environmental Health Policy.
Pokja AMPL (2013), Pokja AMPL Decree No. Kep.38/D.VI/07/2013 on the Establishment of Water and Sanitation Technical Working Group.
Service Delivery Assessment 73
Qipra Galang Kualita (2012), Sanitation Personnel: Capacity Development Strategy, Report was prepared for Bappenas, WSP, and AusAID.
United Nations (2012) World Statistics Pocketbook, Depart-ment of Economic and Social Affairs, UN, New York.
Urban Sanitation Development Program (2012) National Sanitation Demand Assessment 2012, Draft report, Novem-ber.
Utomo, Nugrono Tri (2010), Water Investment, published at www.ampl.or.id.
Winara, A., G. Hutton, Oktarinda, E. Purnomo, K. Hadi-wardoyo, I. Merdykasari, T. Nurmadi, B. Bruinsma, D. Gu-nawan, D. Fadilah and M. Albrecht (2011) Economic As-sessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank.
WIRA Study team (2012), Indonesia Water Investment Roadmap 2011-2014, World Bank, Ministry of Public Works and Water Partnership Program, January.
World Bank and AusAID (2013), Urban Sanitation Review: Indonesia Country Study.
World Bank (2013) World Development Indicators, available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF.
WSP (2006), Pathways to Progress, Transitioning to Coun-try-Led Service Delivery Pathways to Meet Africa’s Water Supply and Sanitation Targets. Report available at http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/CSO-Syn-thesis-Report.pdf
WSP (2013), Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia.
WSP (2013), Review of Fecal Sludge Management in 12 Cit-ies, Draft Report.
Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia74
Water Supply and Sanitationin IndonesiaTurning Finance intoService for the Future
May 2015Service Delivery Assessment