· pdf file3.3 district sanitation strategy ... supply and sanitation policy formulation and...

PPSP 2010 – 2014 Implementation Issues and Recommendations

USDP Urban Sanitation Development Program

USDP-R-PMU-10081

May 2014

Urban Sanitation Development Program


USDP-R-PMU-10081

May 2014



i

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................................... I

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................. II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................. III

1. SANITATION IN THE NATIONAL CONTEXT .............................................................................................. 1

2. THE ACCELERATED SANITATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (PPSP) ....................................................... 2

2.1 The purpose of PPSP ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 The PPSP development cycle .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.3 The PPSP Roadmap ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Funding for the PPSP Roadmap .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Program management ...................................................................................................................................... 10

2.5.1 Central level ......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.5.2 Provincial level ..................................................................................................................................... 13 2.5.3 District level ......................................................................................................................................... 13

3. THE PLAN INSTRUMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Environmental Health Risk assessment (EHRA) ................................................................................................ 15 3.2 Sanitation White Book or Buku Putih Sanitasi (BPS) ......................................................................................... 16 3.3 District Sanitation Strategy (SSK) ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Sanitation Program Memorandum (MPS) ........................................................................................................ 17 3.5 Provincial Roadmap .......................................................................................................................................... 18 3.6 Modifications to the plan documents during the course of PPSP .................................................................... 18

4. SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................... 20

4.1 Institutional development and capacity building for PPSP management ......................................................... 20 4.1.1 Provincial level ..................................................................................................................................... 20 4.1.2. District level ........................................................................................................................................ 22 4.1.3 Capacity Building ................................................................................................................................. 23

4.2 Process-oriented support ................................................................................................................................. 25 4.2.1 Advocacy and promotion ..................................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Provincial and City Facilitators ............................................................................................................. 28 4.2.3 Quality assurance ................................................................................................................................ 29 4.2.4 Monitoring and evaluation .................................................................................................................. 30

4.3 Institutionalization of sanitation management ................................................................................................ 32

5. ISSUES ARISING .................................................................................................................................... 35

5.1 The technical challenge .................................................................................................................................... 35 5.2 The implementation challenge in the districts ................................................................................................. 39 5.3 The program management challenge ............................................................................................................... 43 5.4 The capacity challenge ..................................................................................................................................... 47 5.5 The funding challenge ...................................................................................................................................... 50 5.6 The institutional challenge ............................................................................................................................... 53

6. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................... 57

6.1 The technical challenge .................................................................................................................................... 57 6.2 The implementation challenge in districts ....................................................................................................... 58 6.3 The program management challenge ............................................................................................................... 59 6.4 The capacity challenge ..................................................................................................................................... 60 6.5 The funding challenge ...................................................................................................................................... 61 6.6 The institutional challenge ............................................................................................................................... 61

7. COLOPHON .......................................................................................................................................... 62



ii

List of Tables

Table 1 List of pilot districts for updating SSK ............................................................................................ 5

Table 2 Progression of districts through the program stages during PPSP and beyond .............................. 6

Table 3 Number of districts progressing to budgeting and implementation .............................................. 7

Table 4 Progression of districts through the second cycle of PPSP planning .............................................. 7

Table 5 Funding for PPSP Roadmap ........................................................................................................... 8

Table 6 Roadmap PPSP: funding from central government for sanitation development ............................ 8

Table 7 Funding for PPSP Roadmap ........................................................................................................... 9

Table 8 Roadmap PPSP: funding from central government for sanitation development .......................... 10

Table 9 Training Programs 2010-2013 ...................................................................................................... 24

Table 10 Coverage of different wastewater systems by 2019 and 2034 ..................................................... 35

Table 11 Funding for PPSP Roadmap ......................................................................................................... 51

Table 12 Funding available for PPSP Roadmap .......................................................................................... 52

Table 13 Funding need for sanitation development in different scenarios ................................................ 52



iii

List of Abbreviations

AMPL : Air Minum dan Penyehatan Lingkungan (Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation) APBD : Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (Provincial or Local Government Budget) APBN : Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (National Government Budget)

AusAID : Australian Agency for International Development

Bappenas : Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (State Agency for National Development Planning)

CF : City Facilitator DAK : Dana Alokasi Khusus (Special Funding Allocation to local government)

EHRA : Environmental Health Risk Assessment EKN : Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

GOI : Government of Indonesia Kab/Kota : Kabupaten/Kota (Regency/City)

KMP : Konsultan Manajemen Provinsi (Provincial Management Consultant)

KMW : Konsultan Manajemen Wilayah (Regional Management Consultant)

Loknas : Lokakarya Nasional (National Workshop)

MDGs : Millennium Development Goals MonEv : Monitoring and Evaluation

Pamsimas : Penyediaan Air Minum dan Sanitasi Berbasis Masyarakat (Community-Based Water

Supply and Sanitation Program)

PF : Provincial Facilitator

PHBS : Perilaku Hidup Bersih Sehat (Campaign for Clean and Hygienic Behavior) PIU : Program Implementation Unit

PIU-AE : Program Implementation Unit-Advocacy and Empowerment PIU-IF : Program Implementation Unit-Institutional and Finance

PIU-T : Program Implementation Unit-Technical

PMM : Program Management Manual PMU : Program Management Unit

POKJA : Kelompok Kerja (Working group) PPP : Public Private Partnership

PPSP : Percepatan Pembangunan Sanitasi Permukiman (Accelerated Sanitation Development

for Human Settlements)

QA : Quality Assurance Rakernas : Rapat Kerja Nasional (National Meeting) RPIJM : Rencana Program Investasi Jangka Menengah (Medium Term Investment Program)

RPJM : Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah (Medium Term Development Plan)

RPJMN : Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (National Medium Term Development Plan)

Sanimas : Sanitasi Berbasis Masyarakat (Community-Based Sanitation Program) SC : Steering Committee

SSA : Sanitation Supply Assessment

SSK : Strategi Sanitasi Kota/Kabupaten (City/Regency Sanitation Strategy)

STBM : Sanitasi Total Berbasis Masyarakat (Community-Led Total Sanitation) TNA : Training Needs Assessment TOR : Terms of Reference

Unicef : United Nations Children's Fund

USDP : Urban Sanitation Development Program

BPS : Buku Putih Sanitasi (Sanitation White Book) WSP-EAP : Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and Pacific



iv



1

1. Sanitation in the national context

A seminal development in the water and sanitation sector in Indonesia was the creation of the water

supply and sanitation policy formulation and action planning project (Waspola), which initially ran

from 1999 to 2003 and continues (with an amended mandate) as the Waspola Facility to this day.

The purpose of Waspola was to facilitate adoption of a national policy framework for water supply

and environmental sanitation.

To coordinate its activities in connection with the Waspola project, GOI created a multi-agency

Working Group on Water and Environmental Sanitation, known as the Pokja AMPL, which comprised

a steering committee and a technical committee both chaired by Bappenas and supported by a

project secretariat in Bappenas. Gradually, the activities of the Pokja MPL reached beyond Waspola

only to more general advocacy and promotion of water and sanitation development in Indonesia. As

such, the Pokja AMPL eventually has come to support and cooperate with other projects in sanitation

development supported by the government, international donor organizations, etc.

After completion of policy formulation, it became necessary to develop and pilot implementation

options. GOI decided to do this separately for the water supply and sanitation subsectors: the

Indonesian Sanitation Sector Development Program (ISSDP) was created to pilot approaches for

sanitation development, while Waspola continued with the water supply activities.

Throughout this period, and continuing during ISSDP, there was growing attention for sanitation, as

reflected in a number of seminars, policy initiatives, etc. In 2007, the National Sanitation Conference-

I confirmed the GOI commitment to achieve the Millennium Development Goals for sanitation. 2008

was the International Year of Sanitation, which saw a number of city sanitation summits organized

under the auspices of the Pokja AMPL. Subsequently, the Urban Sanitation Convention of April 2009

identified issues and targets and confirmed the integrated approach to city sanitation planning and

development that had been piloted in ISSDP.

In its National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2010-2014 the GOI set out a number of

policies and strategies to overcome various constraints in sanitation development. This resulted in

the establishment of the national Accelerated Sanitation Development Program (PPSP), with the

following objectives and targets:

1. Providing off-site sewerage and treatment systems for 10% of the population (5% community-

based and 5% city scale systems) and on-site treatment facilities for 90% of the population, to

achieve 100% eradication of open defecation;

2. Reducing solid waste at source and providing sanitary or controlled landfills and other safe

technologies for final disposal to serve 80% of the population;

3. Reducing inundation in a total of 22.500 hectares of flood-prone areas in 100 districts1.

Under the auspices of the Pokja AMPL, PPSP is implemented by four ministries: Ministry of National

Development Planning (Bappenas), Ministry of Public Works (PU), Ministry of Health (MOH), and the

Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA). Each of the ministries has established a designated unit for this

purpose, and each of these units receives technical assistance by a team of consultants from USDP,

which is funded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

1 A district is the administrative level below province and is either a completely urban territory (known as city or Kota) or

comprises a rural territory with possibly one or more urbanized areas (known as regency or Kabupaten). Indonesia has 508 districts, of which 98 are classified as cities and 410 as regencies.



2

2. The Accelerated Sanitation Development Program (PPSP)

2.1 The purpose of PPSP

Initially, PPSP was to implement the approach and methodology developed and piloted under ISSDP

to over 300 cities faced most seriously with problems in one or more of the sanitation sub-sectors:

waste water, solid waste, and urban drainage. This was subsequently changed to include all 508 cities

and regencies in Indonesia.

PPSP provides a framework for all stakeholders in sanitation development (government institutions

at all levels as well as foreign donors and the private sector) to align their programs and projects.

Specifically, it encourages all districts to formulate an integrated strategy for sanitation development

(Strategi Sanitasi Kota/Kabupaten, known as SSK) and to describe a program for its implementation

(Memorandum Pembangunan Sanitasi, known as MPS). GOI has provided an incentive for districts to

do this inter alia by making the availability of an SSK a criterion for the distribution of its specific

allocation grants for sanitation in the system of fiscal transfers to local governments (Dana Alokasi

Khusus, or DAK).

The objectives and principal characteristics of the process through which PPSP aims to accelerate

sanitation development are described in the Roadmap for Accelerated Sanitation Development in

Human Settlements 2010-2014 (Roadmap PPSP), published by the Pokja AMPL in June 2009. Once

PPSP was underway, the objectives of the roadmap were incorporated in the PPSP Results

Framework (2012). The framework stipulates the overall objective of PPSP as:

Realization in 2014 of proper sanitation conditions for (urban) settlements, meeting

technical standards and based on a comprehensive and integrated planning process,

so as to avoid negative impacts on the environment.

Technical approaches – Situation in 2010

Prior to PPSP, in 2008, PU issued a ministerial regulation on wastewater making STBM (Community

Led Total Sanitation) the preferred approach in rural areas and Community Based Sanitation

(Sanimas) in urban slums, reserving piped sewerage with centralized treatment for large and

metropolitan cities. The corresponding minimum service standard (SPM 2008) indicated that by 2014

60% of the population should have access to on-site wastewater facilities and 5% to community

based off-site systems.

In 2010 the PPSP Roadmap formulated the following development goals:

’Open Defecation Free’ (ODF) in urban and rural areas, by constructing off-site sewerage

networks for 5% of the urban population (5 million people in 16 cities) and community-based

facilities in all cities, with priority for 226 selected cities;

At-source reduction of waste and more environmentally friendly waste management by

applying sanitary landfill or controlled landfill systems for final disposal, together with other

safer technology – by Implementing 3R practices to achieve a 20% reduction in waste

generation and improving waste management in 240 priority cities;

Reduction of flooding in 100 cities/urban areas for a total area of 22,500 ha.

The PPSP Roadmap initially pursued these goals in some 300 selected cities / urban areas:

Megapolitan, metropolitan large and medium-size cities (kota);

Provincial capitals;

Urban conglomerations with autonomous status (kota);

Urbanized areas within regencies (kabupaten) with advanced exposure to sanitation risk.



3

Situation in 2014

Waste water – Much of the approach, geared towards providing solutions in higher-risk areas with

selected types of interventions has been maintained, although the roll out ultimately included all

districts in Indonesia.

Open defecation has decreased, but will not have been eradicated by 2014. In rural areas, the

promotion of on-site systems through STBM is ongoing, but the number of facilities built is

below plan.

Community Based Sanitation (CBS) has been strongly promoted through ADB’s USRI (Urban

Sanitation and Rural Areas) program, targeting the specific regional transfer (DAK) for

sanitation to CBS, other ABPN funding, and funding from the Islamic Development Bank.

Between 2012 and 2014 a more than 5,000 CBS systems have been planned or constructed.

For on-site systems, there has been a lot of attention for the development of IPLT (septage

sludge management systems).

Large off-site systems are being planned or constructed in more than the originally planned 16

cities, but the number of household connections is below plan. Typical obstacles to developing

off-site systems are land acquisition and effective transfer of assets to the cities for operation

and maintenance.

Solid waste – An increasing number of cities are planning or have constructed facilities for sanitary

final disposal of solid waste (TPA). With the increasing number of systems the need for proper

management of structures is becoming more important.

As for all infrastructure development, land acquisition is an important issue. An accepted way

to reduce the spatial requirement for landfill is to minimize residual waste entering the TPA by

implementation of 3R (reduce/re-use/recycle). The target for construction and planning of 3R

installations is likely to be achieved.

The increasing development of sanitary TPAs has also resulted in more attention for managing

the existing non-sanitary landfills. Most districts have certain areas (informally) allocated for

dumping waste, but these facilities lack protective measures for soil and groundwater or

management of landfill gas. Even after they have been closed, non-sanitary landfills continue

to pose a threat to public health and the environment and management is required.

Urban Drainage – There is increasing acceptance of international trends in urban drainage

management that focus on (1) retaining, (2) storing (3) draining, rather than immediate discharge. An

example is the zero delta run-off policy, which requires a new urban development to manage its run-

off in such a way that the new development does not result in increased peak discharges (water

sensitive urban developments).

During 2010-2012 75 primary drainage projects were constructed, and this number is planned

to reach 92 at the end of 2013 in line with the planned PPSP activities.

There is also progress in the development of secondary and tertiary works (which the districts

must fund themselves), but completion is behind schedule.

2.2 The PPSP development cycle

PPSP’s integrated sanitation planning and implementation approach involves five more or less

consecutive stages and one continuous stage, i.e.:

Stage 1 – Awareness raising by Campaigns, Education and Advocacy activities

Stage 2 – Institutional and regulatory preparation for participation (in the district)

Stage 3 – Preparation of the District Sanitation Strategy (SSK)

Stage 4 – Preparation of the Program Memorandum (MPS)

Stage 5 – Program Implementation

Stage 6 – Monitoring, Evaluation, and Guidance

(this stage runs from the start and continues throughout the other stages)



4

The original targets of PPSP include the development of City Sanitation Strategies (SSKs) by 306

Districts, with plans for subsequent implementation of technical and non-technical sanitation

interventions in at least 160 of these districts by 2014. However, with the broadening of the scope to

both urban and rural areas, all 508 districts in principle became eligible for participation in the

program.

A basic element of the approach is that districts establish an interagency working group on sanitation

(Pokja Sanitasi), and that the members of these Pokjas put together the plan documents themselves.

PPSP assists the district Pokjas through Provincial and City Facilitators, who are appointed by PU

Cipta Karya and paid from the PPLP budget. Both the facilitators and the Pokja members received

extensive training, funded by PPLP, PIU-IF, and PIU-AE and conducted by central PPLP staff with

support from USDP.

There are also Pokjas at provincial level, whose role is to guide and supervise district Pokjas in

preparing the plan documents. The provincial Pokja is also responsible for quality assurance of these

documents and the process in which they are produced. With this role, the Provincial Pokjas are

potentially in a good position to ensure that all sanitation interventions by central, provincial, and

district agencies conform to the priorities expressed in the different SSKs.

Participating districts go through the different stages more or less consecutively. Each batch of

districts goes through Stages 1 and 2 in the first year (Year 0), during which PPSP approaches

prospective districts through Campaign, Promotion and Advocacy, and cities make preparations to

meet the readiness criteria for joining the program. Prominent among these are the establishment of

their Pokja Sanitasi, confirmed by decree of the district chief (SK Bupati/Walikota) and the allocation

of budget for the operational costs of the Pokja itself and for implementing the EHRA survey and

study. Districts conduct a household survey to collect data for the EHRA study during this period.

From the perspective of the participating cities, the starting point of PPSP (Year n) is when the Pokja

is ready to begin the substantive activities in the program, i.e. completing the basic plan documents:

EHRA, the BPS, and the SSK. In Year n+1 they go through Stage 4 by formulating a coherent program

(MPS) of activities and investments to implement the SSK. The implementation of this program

(Stage 5) will begin in Year n+2. However, because the MPS is only a plan document and not a

budget, what actually happens in Year n+2 is only preparing for physical implementation by using the

MPS as a framework for entering activity proposals in the consultative planning process (musrenbang

process) that is to produce the annual budget for the following year. Concrete, project-related

activities will then begin in Year n+3 (for physical works this will mostly involve preparatory activities

such as feasibility studies, detailed design, etc.).

Because the planning horizon of the SSK is 5 years, the districts need to update it in Year n+4. In

principle, all three planning documents have a planning horizon of 5 years (medium term) and are

linked with the Medium Term Development Plans (RPJMD) at district level, which also have a

planning period of 5 years. It should be noted, however, that conceptually, the outlook of the SSK is

the longer term: it is the strategic development plan contained within it that must be updated every

5 years, along with the MPS. At that time, the entire SSK should be revisited to amend – if necessary

– the long term vision it presents if conditions have changed due to e.g. changes in demand,

sanitation infrastructure, financial capacity, and so on.

Since the SSKs of 22 districts would already expire in 2013, the PMU has drawn special attention to

the need to develop a methodology for updating them, along with a facilitation mechanism for

supporting the districts in this. PPSP conducted a pilot activity in 2013 to test the draft methodology

and support mechanism in six districts in six different provinces:



5

Table 1 List of pilot districts for updating SSK

No. District Province Program in which SSK developed

1 Jambi Jambi ISSDP-1

2 Banjarmasin South Kalimantan ISSDP-1

3 Surakarta Central Java ISSDP-1

4 Batu East Java ISSDP-2

5 Denpasar Bali ISSDP-1

6 Manado North Sulawesi USAID – ESP

The methodology for updating is based on experiences of PPSP implementation in 2010 – 2012.

Using “Simplicity” as leading principle, two Excel-based tools were developed to assist the process: (i)

a zoning tool and (ii) a selection and costing tool for sanitation systems. These tools have been tested

in several districts in 2012.

The draft methodology aims to produce one single document with information on the current

sanitation profile (“White Book” section), a 5-year sanitation development strategy (“SSK” section),

and details the process to obtain funding commitment (currently framed in the MPS).

As a basic concept, it should be possible to complete the entire updating in one single year.

Implementation of the methodology involves achieving a number of milestones:

- Milestone 1 : Internalization and synchronization of perceptions;

- Milestone 2 : description of the sanitation profile and progress on sanitation development;

- Milestone 3 : Sanitation development scenario;

- Milestone 4 : Budgeting consolidation and sanitation marketing;

- Milestone 5 : Finalization.

Seven events are conducted in each pilot city to assist in applying the methodology to reach the

milestones. A central kick off meeting was conducted in May 2013.

The updating of ‘expired’ SSKs in the coming years will also provide an opportunity to better link

sanitation planning with the national targets framed in the RPJMN (2014 – 2019) and the Provincial

Sanitation Road Maps that have been or are going to be prepared in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

2.3 The PPSP Roadmap

Situation 2010-2013

The PPSP Roadmap originally projected a gradual increase in the number of participating districts

joining the program, rising from 41 during the first year to 82 in 2013. Overall, 306 districts were

expected to join and all of these were supposed to complete at least their sanitation development

strategy during the five years of PPSP. The decision to open PPSP to all 507 districts in Indonesia, and

not only to 306 cities and urban areas, resulted in vastly increased participation. Table 2 shows that

by end of 2013 a total of 428 districts were involved in PPSP. This number takes into account the 22

districts that completed their SSK prior to PPSP under ISSDP or other programs, as well as the 98

districts that began Stages 1 and 2 in 2013 and which should now have met the criteria to begin PPSP

planning in 2014.



6

Table 2 Progression of districts through the program stages during PPSP and beyond

Stage Activity 2009

PPSP

2015 2016 2017

Total

in

PPSP

Balance

to 508 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1

Campaign, education,

advocacy, and

assistance

Annual 41 58 104 123 98 61

485 22 Cumulative 41 99 203 326 424 485

2

Institutional and

regulatory

preparation

Annual 41 58 104 123 98 61

485 22 Cumulative 41 99 203 326 424 485

3

Formulation of

Whitebooks (BPS) &

District Sanitation

Strategies (SSK)

Annual 22 41 58 104 123 98 61

507 0 Cumulative 22 63 121 225 348 446 507

4

Formulation of

program

memorandum (MPS)

Annual

9 41 58 109 123 98 61

499 8 Cumulative

9 50 108 217 340 438 499

5

Implementation

(budget preparation

and concrete activities

in next year)

Annual

9 41 58 109 123 98 61

499 8 Cumulative

9 50 108 217 340 438 499

6

Monitoring,

evaluation,

counseling, and

guidance

Cumulative 63 121 225 348 428 507 507 507 507

In all, 348 districts have completed their SSK and 217 districts have progressed to or even completed

the MPS during 2013. In all, 108 districts have reached Stage 5 “implementation” by 2013. However,

it should be noted that upon entering Stage 5 districts must first move their MPS proposals through

the annual planning and budgeting process, so actual activities planned and funded in this manner

will only take place during 2014.

Situation 2014

Assuming that 446 districts can complete their SSK in 2014, and given a total of 507 districts in

Indonesia, PPSP can use 2014 to commence advocacy, etc. (Stage 1) in the remaining 61 districts,

which should result in these 61 districts working to meet the readiness criteria (Stage 2) in the same

year. They would go through the different substantive program stages from 2015 through 2017

(Stages 3, 4, and 5).

As mentioned before, it takes several years for districts to progress from initial planning activities to

the implementation stage. Based on data from Nawasis, Table 3 shows that 107 districts have

entered Stage 5 in 2013, of which 49 are actually involved in some form of concrete implementation.

With 109 districts now in Stage 4, it is expected that a further 109 districts will begin budgeting in

2014.



7

Table 3 Number of districts progressing to budgeting and implementation

Year Stage 3

BPS + SSK

Stage 4

MPS

Stage 5

Budgeting Implementation

< 2010 22

2010 41

2011 58 49*

2012 109 58 49

2013 123 109 58 49

2014 (est.) 123 109 58

* this includes 8 MPSs prepared for the 22 cities that completed an SSK prior to PPSP

Updating the SSK – Second Cycle PPSP planning

Given that preparation of an SSK occurs in Year n, the plan period of the SSK is Years n+1 through

n+5. This makes it necessary to update the SSK in Year n+5 to provide a framework for development

in the subsequent plan period n+6 through n+10. To ensure immediate relevance for actual

budgeting, the SSK and the MPS must be updated in the same year. The process in which the SSKs

and MPSs are updated is known as the second cycle of PPSP planning.

If districts are to have their Second Cycle plan ready for budgeting in Year n+6, they must complete

Stage 3 and Stage 4 within nine months during Year n+5. A pilot to determine whether this is possible

began in 2013 continues in 2014. The pilot involves 5 of the 22 SSKs that were prepared prior to

2010. Another 9 “early SSKs” will be included in the 2014 batch.

Table 4 presents an overview of the SSKs that become due for updating in the coming years, based

on the progress of the first cycle as it was implemented during PPSP, and the projected progression

of the second cycle in subsequent years.

Table 4 Progression of districts through the second cycle of PPSP planning

Stage Activity PPSP-1 PPSP-2

2020 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

1

Campaign, education,

advocacy, and

assistance

Annual 5 9 49 58 104 123 98 61

Cumulative 5 14 63 121 225 348 446 507

2 Institutional and

regulatory preparation

Annual 5 6 49 58 104 123 98 61

Cumulative 5 14 63 121 225 348 446 507

3+4 Formulation of Second

Cycle SSK and MPS

Annual

5 9 49 58 104 123 98 61

Cumulative

5 14 63 121 225 348 446 507

5

Implementation (budget

preparation and

concrete activities in

next year)

Annual

5 9 49 58 104 123 98 61

Cumulative

5 14 63 121 225 348 446 507

6

Monitoring, evaluation,

counseling, and

guidance

Cumulative 6 14 63 121 225 348 446 507 507 507

2.4 Funding for the PPSP Roadmap

The ministries responsible for PPSP have dedicated budgets for guiding the provinces and districts

through the different stages of implementation, and provincial and district administrations also make

operational funds available for the activities of the different Pokjas. However, the financial impact of

the program is much greater, because the PPSP process provides an umbrella for integrated planning



8

of all activities in sanitation development. As formulated by the Pokja AMPL, the funding

requirements for implementing the PPSP Roadmap therefore involve all present and future

sanitation-related budgets of all involved stakeholders, be they government organizations, donors,

communities, or private enterprise.

Situation 2010-2013

Table 5 Funding for PPSP Roadmap

(Rp. Billion)

2010 estimate 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Five Year Total

PPSP Funding need 4,247 7,146 10,657 23,298 17,277 62,625

Available funding 6,220 9,478 9,177 9,922 10,140 44,937

Sources:

APBN 1,799 3,443 3,600 3,757 3,921 16,520

APBD Province 779 798 818 838 860 4,093

APBD District 3,138 3,232 3,329 3,429 3,532 16,660

Donors 485 1,967 1,366 1,776 1,729 7,323

CSR and Communities 19 38 64 122 98 341

Funding Gap -1,973 -2,332 1,480 13,376 7,137 17,688

In 2009 the financial impact of PPSP was estimated at Rp 62.6 trillion over five years. This included Rp

44.9 trillion in present allocations, and thus projected a shortfall of Rp. 17.7 trillion. Analysis shows

that of all funding projected to be allocated to sanitation between 2010 and 2014, 26.6% was

expected to come from local government. On average in 2010 districts spent less than 1% of their

total budget on sanitation. While the objective in PPSP is for districts to double their outlays for

sanitation, the projection over 2010-2014 shows the level of local expenditure on sanitation to grow

only modestly from Rp 3.1 to Rp 3.5 trillion. Given the steep increase in the projected funding need,

the local government share would thus decline from 74% of the total funding need in 2010 to little

over 20% in 2014.

Table 6 Roadmap PPSP: funding from central government for sanitation development

(Rp billion – 2009 Estimate)

Source 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 5 Years

DAKSanitation 357.2 419.6 482.5 554.9 638.2 2,452.4

DAKEnvironment 58.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 59.0

Ministry of Public Works (PU) 1,241.0 2,870.1 2,941.9 3,000.7 3,060.7 13,114.4

Ministry of Health 101.3 121.6 123.1 142.6 157.4 646.0

Ministry of Housing & Settlements 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.0

Ministry of Environment 1.8 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.8 27.5

PIU-PMU PPSP 39.2 25.4 45.1 51.9 57.6 219.2

Total 1,799.3 3,443.2 3,599.4 3,757.3 3,921.3 16,520.5

These are only estimates, some of which are difficult to make. This is particularly true for district

spending on sanitation. Local budgets do not specify all sanitation expenditures directly, and

especially for drainage it is difficult to find definitive data. The same is true for some central

government ministries and agencies, which may include sanitation spending as part of programs not

specifically directed at sanitation development. One estimate that is easy to track is the regional



9

transfer funds (DAK) for sanitation and environment. Table 6 shows that the 2009 estimate

calculated the DAKSanitation to represent some 20% of total spending by central government in 2010,

while DAKEnvironment stood at less than 1%. According to this estimate, the DAKSanitation was expected to

rise very rapidly over the years, ultimately to represent 15% of sanitation spending from the central

budget over the five year program period. DAKEnvironment was expected to remain less than 1% of the

total.

Another source where sanitation expenditures are easy to identify is PU, which represents in fact by

far the greatest source of central government spending on sanitation development. According to the

2009 estimate, the PU share was expected to represent some 69% of 2010 expenditures and some

60% overall for the five-year period.

Situation in 2014

Four years hence it seems that availability of funds has developed better than expected. Table 7

shows the updated estimate of 2013, which suggests that funding from all sources has increased by

25%, from Rp 44 trillion to Rp 55 trillion over the 5-year period. Contributions increased from all

sources except provincial budgets. Based on the assumption that districts would double their

appropriations for sanitation, the five-year total of district spending would increase 50% from Rp

16.6 trillion to Rp 24.7 trillion, ultimately putting district spending at some 40% of the five-year total.

The overall impact of these developments would be a reduction of the funding gap from Rp 17.7

trillion to Rp 7.5 trillion.


(Rp. Billion)

2013 Estimate 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Five Year Total

PPSP Funding need 4,247 7,146 10,657 23,298 17,277 62,625

Available funding 6,169 10,058 10,656 13,022 15,184 55,089

Sources:

APBN 1,883 3,796 4,022 4,302 4,766 18,769

APBD Province 357 407 766 909 997 3,436

APBD District 2,815 3,703 4,540 5,944 7,796 24,798

Donors 1,096 2,097 1,223 1,633 1,454 7,503

CSR and Communities 18 55 105 234 171 583

Funding Gap -1,922 -2,912 1 10,276 2,093 7,536

However, the updated estimate may need further investigation. It takes at least two years before the

PPSP plan documents can be entered into the budget preparation process, and actual budget

allocations based on them only result in the year after that. With participation in PPSP only growing

step by step over the years, the previous section showed that only 107 districts would have actually

reached the stage of MPS-based budgeting by 2013. Only 49 of these districts have progressed to

concrete implementation, i.e. spending based on budgets formulated last year, so the macro impact

of PPSP-originated spending cannot be very great. In fact, experience on the ground does not suggest

vastly increased sanitation development activities, and the increased numbers of district spending

may therefore be overly optimistic.



10

Table 8 Roadmap PPSP: funding from central government for sanitation development

(Rp billion – 2013 Estimate)

Source 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 5 Years

DAKSanitation 262.6 323.5 340.8 435.2 467.3 1,829.4

DAKEnvironment 276.9 315.8 358.2 405.3 479.8 1,836.0

DAKHousing&Settlements 0.0 150.0 191.2 205.0 227.6 773.8

Ministry of Public Works (PU) 1,241.0 2,870.1 2,941.9 2,974.0 3,150.0 13,177.0

Ministry of Health 71.0 75.3 124.3 197.0 323.0 790.6

Ministry of

Housing&Settlements

2.2 8.6 15.5 35.1 64.5 125.9

Ministry of Environment 14.1 34.4 35.9 38.0 42.2 164.6

PIU-PMU PSP 15.6 17.6 13.9 12.0 11.9 71.0

Total 1,883.4 3,795.3 4,021.7 4,301.6 4,766.3 18,768.3

Table 8 shows details on spending from the national budget in the 2013 estimate. Total central

government spending would now be Rp 18.8 trillion for the five years, representing an increase from

26% to 30% of the total five-year funding need since the 2009 estimate. The share of the DAKSanitation

in this total has declined to slightly less than 10%, but this decline was more than compensated by an

increase in the share of sanitation expenditures funded from the DAKEnvironment, which increased from

an average of less than 0.5% in the 2010 estimate to almost 10% in the 2013 update. Together, these

two sources now represent an average of 19.5% of total central government spending, and if

sanitation spending from the DAKHousing&Settlements is also taken into account, DAK spending on

sanitation averages almost 24% of total central government sanitation spending. Next year the share

of DAK spending will increase even more rapidly, as the DAKSanitation is expected to double to some Rp.

900 billion, although its availability will be limited to fewer cities than to date. Taken together, this

represents a real shift in central budget spending, i.e. from the central ministry budgets to regional

transfers for sanitation, as is reflected by the fact that PU spending on sanitation now stands at 70%

of total spending compared to 79% in the 2010 estimate.

2.5 Program management

In 2010 the ministries, provinces, and local administrations participating in PPSP essentially had to

start from scratch to conduct a nationwide rollout of a relatively sophisticated planning process that

had been tested in only a few cities. Familiarity with the approach was naturally limited everywhere,

and there was a natural tendency to continue “business as usual” with existing donor-supported

sanitation programs. Increasing awareness that these programs alone would not achieve the MDG

target by 2015 led all parties to pursue better coordination and thereby strengthened the appeal of

the PPSP approach.

By 2013, there are Pokjas coordinating PPSP activities at both provincial and district level. These

Pokjas include participation from relevant agencies such as BAPPEDA, Public Works Service, Health

Service, Sanitation Service, Agency for Community Empowerment and Women, Environment Agency,

and others. The Communities are represented by entities such as the PKK or NGOs, while there

sometimes is also participation from higher education institutions or representatives of the media /

press. In this setup the district level Pokja has the lead in identifying sanitation development needs.

The provincial Pokja provides process support and could eventually become a force for coordination

of funding and implementation of sanitation interventions by other government agencies that are

complementary to the ones carried out by the districts themselves. The central level continues its

role in setting national sanitation development targets and priorities (such as the MDGs), making



11

funding sources and channels available to the districts, monitoring quality of implementation, and

ensuring correct application of the relevant regulations.

The following paragraphs describe the development of program management capacity at the

different levels that has made this result possible.

2.5.1 Central level

A major challenge has been the organization of the multi-sectoral decision making that is the

hallmark of PPSP. At central level, this has been the responsibility of the Pokja AMPL. However, this

required some adjustments to this platform because it had originally been created for the

implementation of Waspola more than 10 years ago and remained mostly focused on this program.

The decision to divide responsibility for development of water supply and sanitation between

Waspola and ISSDP, respectively, led to the establishment of the Sanitation Development Technical

Team (TTPS) under the Pokja AMPL. This was revamped following adoption of the PPSP Roadmap by

embedding the responsibilities for implementing PPSP in five working groups:

Working group on Advocacy and Health – responsible for developing policies to improve the

quality of living and strategies for effecting clean and hygienic behavior;

Working Group on Technical Issues – responsible for feasibility assessment and assessment of

compliance with standards and regulations, and for recommending designs and supervising

development of sanitation infrastructure;

Working group on institutional aspects – responsible for streamlining institutional

arrangements and organizing the necessary capacity building;

Working group on Empowerment and Community Participation – responsible for developing

strategies to empower communities to participate in sanitation development;

Working group on Funding – responsible for identification of (alternative) funding sources and

developing financing strategies including private sector participation.

However, it soon became clear that these working groups were too far removed from the daily

activities in PPSP to manage the program in a dynamically changing policy environment. Their

responsibilities were then more instrumentally established within PPSP itself, through the creation of

a program management unit (PMU) at Bappenas and three program implementation units (PIU) in

the three ministries most closely involved in PPSP implementation:

PMU in Bappenas – coordinates overall planning and management of the program, develops

networks, and fosters partnerships with various stakeholders;

PIU-AE (advocacy and empowerment) in the Ministry of Health – manages and coordinates

activities for community preparedness, awareness of health risks, inclusion of the poor, gender

specific roles, and private sector participation;

PIU-T (technical) in the Ministry of Public Works – manages and coordinates activities to

improve district level sanitation planning (BPS, SSK, MPS) and implementation of local,

provincial, and central level sanitation interventions;

PIU-IF (institutional and finance) in the Ministry of Home Affairs - manages and coordinates all

activities for capacity building and access to funding for local sanitation development.

In this setup, the PMU and the PIUs have become the platforms for decision making on operational

strategies and arrangements for implementation, in close consultation with decision makers in the

respective ministries. The Pokja AMPL remains responsible for aspects of policy coordination and

strategy development that the PMU-PIU structure cannot independently decide. To this end, the

Pokja AMPL has conducted a number of breakfast meetings with directors general and directors of

the relevant ministries.



12

The program management unit (PMU)

The PMU was established in the office of the Director of Settlements and Housing in Bappenas and

began operating in 2010 with a limited budget and a small group of junior civil service staff.

Gradually, the PMU recruited additional support on a contract basis and has thus grown in its ability

to manage the program.

The Director of Settlements and Housing is also the chairman of the Pokja AMPL, and this has

ensured that the PMU receives adequate functional support from Bappenas and could maintain a

close link with the Pokja AMPL. The PMU has been able to increase the operating budget for its own

activities, but was unable to facilitate the same level of operational funding for the PIUs.

Coordination between PMU and PIUs improved in 2013 following the start of monthly coordination

meetings.

A major achievement of the PMU was the establishment of Nawasis, a comprehensive monitoring

and evaluation system that merges components of systems developed by USDP and Waspola.

However, some stakeholders remain hesitant to submit data, and this affects the still limited

monitoring capacity of the PMU.

The PIU Advocacy and Empowerment (PIU-AE)

At the beginning of PPSP the MOH had not allocated staff to the PIU-AE, and consequently activities

such as design of awareness campaigns, EHRA, media analysis, etc. came only to a slow start.

However, MOH ultimately assigned a number of staff and the PIU-AE recruited a number of external

consultants during 2011-2012 to increase operational capacity.

By the end of 2013, two MOH staff are formally in charge of the PIU-AE’s daily activities. Another 13

staff from other parts of the Ministry have been trained by USDP. EHRA master trainers have been

prepared and fielded. Operational funds have been secured for 2013, and significant allocations have

been proposed for PIU-AE activities in the 2014 budget.

The PIU Institutional and Finance (PIU-IF)

At the beginning of PPSP in 2010, MOHA designated a team of junior civil service staff on a part-time

basis to the PIU-IF. Moreover, these staff were new to the PPSP approach and most of them had an

administrative background and no training skills. The unit received only a very small operating

budget.

By 2013, the PIU-IF continues to suffer from a lack of adequate financial resources and, while it now

has clear job descriptions, still only few staff are capable on institutional matters. Nevertheless, PIU-

IF has grown in its guiding role for national policy implementation in the regions, and it leads in

defining, formulating, and disseminating PPSP’s working mechanisms at the provincial and local level

and between the three levels of government. Moreover, the unit has been successful in convincing

the different MOHA sub directorates that are responsible for guiding drinking water development

and sanitation development to coordinate their respective approaches to guidance of local

government.

The PIU Technical (PIU-T)

Initially, PU was not heavily committed to PPSP, likely because it already had many ongoing activities

in sanitation development for which it had its own planning and budgeting system. Perhaps as a

consequence, the PIU-T was severely understaffed when it began in 2010. As appreciation of the

potential of PPSP slowly grew this has gradually changed: three staff members were appointed to the

unit; the Satkers were given a significant role in executing PU’s PPSP-related tasks at the provincial

level; and groups of consultants were hired to support the PIU-T.



13

The PIU-T now has three civil service staff members who oversee coordination, monitoring, and

evaluation of PPSP stages 3, 4, and 5 by the external consultants. Although as a group the PIU-T has

significantly increased its PPSP-related skills, its capacity for training/coaching provincial target

groups needs further development.

2.5.2 Provincial level

While PPSP initially focused on selecting districts that met the criteria to join the program and

supporting them to produce the BPS, SSK, and MPS, it soon became clear that the key to successful

program implementation lay in enabling provinces to take on two important roles:

Assisting the center in rolling out the program over the entire country;

Assisting districts by coordinating with other institutions as needed to implement the local

SSK/MPS.

The provincial role of coordinator and facilitator proved especially important in quality assurance of

the plan documents and in negotiating solutions for sanitation issues involving more than one

district.

However, the limitations of the setup for strategic decision making and dedicated program

management at central level have delayed the creation of an effective decision making “umbrella” at

the provincial level. One of the complications has been the institutional separation between water

supply and sanitation development. While this was positive in the sense that it served to raise the

profile of “sanitation”, it contradicts the total water cycle approach and, moreover, has resulted in

parallel but unequal attention to development of the two subsectors. While the organization at

central level continues to stress integration at least in name (“AMPL” comprises both water supply

and wastewater), ISSDP and subsequently PPSP could only assist local level Pokjas on sanitation.

This has proved problematic because provinces that were early adopters of the Waspola approach

established a Pokja AMPL to be able to coordinate with the central Pokja AMPL, and therefore are

reluctant to create a separate Pokja Sanitasi under PPSP. This seems only logical from the substantive

perspective (the total water cycle), but the difference between the two approaches is very real: while

Pokjas AMPL have a long history in water supply development they have paid much less attention to

sanitation. Moreover, their role under Waspola focuses on general policy making and promotion,

while the Pokjas under PPSP are very hands on in taking charge of sanitation development.

2.5.3 District level

The motor of sanitation development in the PPSP approach is the district Pokja, which must increase

sanitation awareness, prepare plan documents, search (local) funding, identify options for strategic

cooperation, and monitor the implementation by different agencies. This clearly positions the SSK

produced by the Pokja as the central plan document that should become the focus for stakeholders

at all levels. However, district governments have historically not had such a leading role in

development, and in fact have in large part been dependent on central government initiative. The

PPSP approach therefore represents a real paradigm shift from the perspective of local government

and requires a corresponding change of mindset.

By itself, the “Pokja” concept is nothing new: for decades government administrations at all levels

have established such fora to coordinate the implementation of projects requiring participation by

different agencies. But “coordination” seldom went beyond convening meetings to discuss issues,

following which the participants would return to their individual offices to do their regular duties.

Conversely, PPSP requires a much greater commitment, which is to be reflected in a hands-on

approach to implementing the program and a concern for some degree of institutional memory to

guide development for the long term.



14

During the early years of PPSP most district Pokjas were reluctant to embrace this new approach:

they were very loosely organized, had to absorb frequent staff replacements, lacked a clear

management structure, and often did not have an adequate operating budget. Gradually this has

changed as PPSP specified stricter selection criteria and provided guidance for structure and process

of PPSP implementation by the Pokjas, as formalized in MOHA’s Circular Letter SE 660/4919SJ/2012

(hereafter referred to as “Circular SE 660”).

By 2013, selection of districts for participation in PPSP is based on formal criteria (although the target

orientation of the central authorities still influences the process). A concern is that although most

Pokjas have managed to produce the requisite plan documents on time, the quality of these

documents remains poor. This also poses limitations to the ability of the Pokjas to ensure that the

activities and investments proposed in the documents are actually entered into the regular

musrenbang planning and budgeting process.

Nevertheless, the SSK/MPS have been an eye opener for local government and they are here to stay.

The capacity of many district Pokjas to systematically plan for sanitation development has greatly

increased. Together, this has resulted in a sense of ownership and commitment.



15

3. The plan instruments

Districts participating in PPSP go through a structured process of data collection and processing to

support comprehensive analysis and decision making on the sanitation condition in relation to the

general development aspirations of the district. During this process, they produce four documents:

Environmental Health Risk Assessment (EHRA) – collects primary data on level and quality of

sanitation facilities at neighborhood level and presents ‘Risk Areas’ that are exposed to a

higher environmental and/or (public) health risk resulting from poor sanitation;

Sanitation White Book (BPS) – mainly based on secondary data and describes all aspects

related to the present sanitation condition and potential efforts to improve it (technical,

institutional, financial, etc.). Incorporates the results of the EHRA if available;

District Sanitation Strategy (SSK) – describes a long-term vision for sanitation in relation to the

general aspirations of the district and identifies medium-term (five years) policies and

priorities for development in order to get there;

Sanitation Sector Program Memorandum (MPS) – identifies programs of sanitation

development interventions and lists specific investments and other activities to be considered

for funding.

The districts depend heavily on the provinces to help them in getting support for local development.

This makes use of the formal position of the governor as representative of central government,

which makes him the prime coordinator of all government activity in his jurisdiction. But provincial

administrations should not limit themselves to coordination of other institutions, because sanitation

is designated a “shared responsibility” for all levels of government and provinces thus have their own

role to play. Apart from taking care of cross district issues such as regional facilities for final solid

waste disposal, they can also specify e.g. targeted financial support for district level activities.2 To

structure this support PPSP has begun to promote the development of a provincial plan document:

Provincial Roadmap for sanitation development – classifies districts by relative sanitation risk

exposure and sets out vision and mission of the province in supporting sanitation

development.

3.1 Environmental Health Risk assessment (EHRA)

The EHRA studies provide scientific data on the availability of sanitation solutions at the household

level and can be applied not only in urban areas, but in scattered settlements in rural areas as well.

The studies cover domestic wastewater, solid waste, drainage, environmental hygiene, and

sanitation behavior, and follow the 5 pillars of STBM (community based sanitation) of the Ministry of

Health. One of the most important outputs of the EHRA is the sanitation risk index (IRS), which is the

basis for determining clusters of sanitation risk in the district. The IRS serves to:

1. Provide information to compare specific sanitation issues between clusters;

2. Provide a basic component for determining the relative risk that poor sanitation poses to

(public) health in different areas.

2 An example is East Java and several other provinces that provide funding for programs in district MPSs.

EHRA BPS SSK MPS



16

The aggregated IRS data base can produce a matrix that links typical IRS problem situations to typical

solutions suitable for areas with different characteristics (e.g. flood-prone, industrialized, and peri-

urban). At national level the Ministry of Health maintains an EHRA data base to inform its policy on

sanitation development, sanitation infrastructure development, and synchronization of interventions

across districts.

A practical guideline is available to assist district Pokjas in carrying out the EHRA survey and study.

Upon request, the PIU-AE now supports district Pokjas that request assistance in analyzing the

results. The EHRA employs random sampling for data collection and presents results of the analysis

for clusters of neighborhoods. The sampling methodology is flexible and districts may adapt it

depending on their available budget. There is no limit to the number of samples, but it should at least

be sufficient to provide a statistical confidence level of 95%. Before determining the number of

samples, district Pokjas now cluster the sampling areas (desa/kelurahan) based on:

1. Population density;

2. Poverty rate;

3. Prea drained by rivers or drainage/irrigation channels potentially impacted by latrines and/or

waste disposal;

4. Flood-prone areas where submersion is more than 30cm and lasts more than 2 hours.

3.2 Sanitation White Book or Buku Putih Sanitasi (BPS)

The purpose of the White Book or Buku Putih Sanitasi (BPS) is to describe the existing sanitation

situation in a district to establish a point of departure for future development. For specifics on

sanitation, the BPS draws on primary data of the EHRA study (which becomes part of the BPS), but

for other aspects it mainly relies on secondary data. Collection and presentation of this data is

structured along formats provided by PPSP, mainly in the form of tables in MS Excel and MSWord.

Data collection and analysis involves general data (such as demography) and more specific data on

wastewater, solid waste, and drainage. The BPS presents the ‘Risk Areas’ identified through the

EHRA, i.e. clusters of administrative units within the district that are exposed to a higher

environmental and/or (public) health risk due to the absence of (effective and efficient) sanitation

facilities.

The BPS also contains information on the regulatory environment for sanitation, the distribution of

institutional authorities and responsibilities, sources of funding including general budget allocations

and dedicated sanitation service fees, and other aspects that are relevant for the way in which the

district administration approaches and decides on sanitation development.

3.3 District Sanitation Strategy (SSK)

The District Sanitation Strategy or Strategi Sanitasi Kota/Kabupaten (SSK) describes the district’s long-

term vision for sanitation development starting from the baseline described in the BPS, together with

a medium term (5 year) strategic plan for investments and other activities to realize that vision. The

SSK preparation flows along four ‘milestones’.

Preparation of

Sanitation

Development

Establishment of

Accelerated Sanitation

Development Strategy

Preparation of

Programs and Activities

Finalization of SSK



17

The principal contents of an SSK are:

1. A long-term (10-15 year) plan indication of the kind of sanitation system (e.g. on-site versus

off-site) that would be most appropriate, with due regard to the Spatial Plan (RTRW);

2. A 5-year strategic sanitation development plan that reflects a stated vision and mission and

conforms to the district’s Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMD)3;

3. Sanitary zones for each sub-sector, indicating clusters within district boundaries that face

similar problems and for which the same/similar ‘system’ can be applied;

4. Sanitation development stages that coincide with the mid-term planning periods (RPJMD);

5. Sanitation development strategy and defined targets;

6. A program of activities, a long-list of identified projects and activities to meet the targets;

7. Analysis of the district’s financial capacity to fund the projected sanitation requirements.

The final document must be approved by all relevant stakeholders. As an indication of commitment

for full implementation support, it must be signed off by the Mayor or Bupati.

3.4 Sanitation Program Memorandum (MPS)

This plan document consists of a series of ‘volumes’ and constitutes an integral and inseparable part

of the BPS and SSK mentioned above. There are 5 (five) milestones to be achieved in preparing the

MPS.

The most important parts of the document are a Budgeting Plan and a Common Agreement or

Commitment from the different stakeholders to support the investment program. Technically, the

MPS is based on:

the outcomes of studies in PPSP;

synchronization with all other plan documents related to sanitation;

assessment of the district’s institutional capacity to implement the strategy;

assessment of the district’s fiscal capacity to fund the various interventions it contains;

other supporting data relating to implementation.

The MPS is a “rolling” document that is to be updated every year depending on progress achieved

and funding available. This puts a premium on effective and efficient monitoring and evaluation of

annual budget implementation, an aspect that is, however, poorly developed in local government.

3 By Law, the district head (mayor or Bupati) must issue an RPJMD by decree within 3 months of his election. As such, it is in

part a political document and its validity cannot exceed the term of office of the district head. If the SSK is to conform to the RPJMD, it should logically be revisited if new elections take place before the end of its own 5-year plan horizon and a new district head issues a new RPJM. It is thus in the first year of the term of office that the opportunity arises to synchronize the plan horizons of the RPJM and SSK.

Milestones in MPS Preparation

Review and

Establishment of

Prioritized Programs

Program Consolidation and

Commitment

Preparation of Funding

Proposals

Annual Follow-Up Implementation Plan and

Program Management



18

3.5 Provincial Roadmap

Within PPSP, there is agreement that a sanitation policy of their own, provinces will not be able to do

more than distributing support to all regions in their territory based on general characteristics such

as, e.g. population size. A provincial policy should spell out the objectives of sanitation development

and related priorities from the provincial perspective identify the means to be made available, and

lay out a path with specific milestones to get there. This has become known as the Provincial

Roadmap for Sanitation Development. Essentially, a province would use this roadmap to:

describe the role it sees for itself in sanitation development;

ensure the link with national sanitation policy documents (e.g. Renstra PU, PPSP);

coordinate sanitation development with other relevant policies (national and provincial).

Because PPSP initially continued the approach piloted under ISSDP, which focused on district level

planning and did not include facilitation of provincial Pokjas to do sanitation planning, the roadmap is

not part of the original PPSP plan documents. However, MOHA has included roadmapping as one of

the prime responsibilities of the provincial Pokja in its Circular SE 660 on sanitation program

management in the regions.

3.6 Modifications to the plan documents during the course of PPSP

Situation 2010-2013

Early on in PPSP it became clear that the manuals and guidelines developed under ISSDP for

preparing the BPS and the SSK were too complex, especially given the fact that districts had to

prepare these documents with considerably less support from facilitators and/or consultants

compared to the resources available during ISSDP. It thus became evident that for a large up-scaling

of the “ISSDP approach” under PPSP, it was essential to:

a. revise and streamline existing procedures, manuals and guidelines to allow a shorter

implementation time (maximum 10 months) but without jeopardizing the established mix of

bottom-up/top-down planning;

b. prepare practical guidelines to support the existing manuals for the BPS, the SSK, and the MPS,

including standard templates to prepare these products;

c. design a Quality Assurance (QA) procedure with workable QA criteria, to improve and ensure

minimum quality standards;

d. ensure an end-product that can be used as input for the regular planning and budgeting

procedures of the local, provincial and central governments.

This resulted in a substantial simplification of the original manuals4, but it has not been possible to

simplify the procedures so much that local governments can complete them within ten months with

the existing pokja setup. It still takes well over two years to go through the entire PPSP planning

process.

An important objective of streamlining was to ensure a final product that could immediately serve as

input in the regular planning and budgeting process of local, provincial, and central government. This

would really impact on the utility of the entire PPSP planning cycle, something that local and even

provincial levels increasingly began to recognize during 2012-2013. Because SSK and MPS are not

part of the formal planning cycle mandated under the National development planning system (Law

25/2004), they recognized that any and all proposals need to:

meet ‘readiness criteria’ of various funding sources;

be integrated in standard district plan documents (e.g. the RPIJM);

comply with established procedures.

4 The original manuals developed under ISSDP, known as Manual Tahab B and C, remain available as reference material.



19

With the decision to roll out the SSK approach all over Indonesia to implement the GOI’s PPSP

program with a view to attaining the millennium development goals for sanitation, it became

imperative to enlist the provinces in translating the national policy for implementation at the

regional level. This is entirely in line with the governor’s official role of central government

representative, under which provinces can coordinate and facilitate access to central level funding.

Moreover, there is great scope for the provinces to play an independent role in furthering sanitation

in their jurisdiction, because many provinces have considerable funds available that they could use to

assist districts in pursuing sanitation targets (e.g. through Bantuan Keuangan, i.e. financial support to

districts).

However, not all provinces recognize “sanitation” as a concept requiring a multi-sectoral approach on

which they can provide leadership. PPSP has therefore begun to assist provinces on putting together

a Provincial Roadmap for sanitation. This began with a pilot activity in three provinces during 2012

and continued with formal roadmap planning in 10 provinces during 2013.

Situation in 2014

Circular SE 660 on sanitation program management, which obliges provincial Pokjas to produce a

roadmap, applies to all provinces, not only the 13 provinces that have received consultant support

through 2013. This means that the remaining 21 provinces should at least begin their roadmapping

activities in 2013. The PIU-IF work plan 2013 provides for assistance to these provinces, but the latter

will need continued support to complete the process in 2014.

The districts have been using the streamlined procedures for preparing the PPSP plan documents

starting in 2012. Since then, the guidelines have been reviewed again, which resulted in a number of

further improvements. 2013 saw a similar and last round of review and finally the materials have

been fine tuned for use in 2014.

Of course it is important that the PPSP planning process can be completed within a reasonable time,

but it is even more important that the outputs (the plan documents) are of good quality. To this end,

PPSP introduced a quality assurance (QA) protocol in 2012. Together, the streamlined practical

guidelines and the QA protocol have contributed to better and more comprehensive plan

documents. Recent MPS are now effectively being used in the Government’s regular planning and

budgeting process. Still, there is a need for continued vigilance to make sure that the districts go

beyond the protocol instead of just “ticking off” the relevant format requirements.

Another factor that has contributed to improved performance is the introduction and further

improvement of Nawasis from 2010 onwards. With Nawasis it is now possible to monitor and

evaluate progress of the planning process. Because Nawasis also contains QA scores for the

documents, both progress and quality assessment data are now publicly accessible on line. This has

resulted in some form of ‘peer pressure’, which has contributed to increased awareness of the need

to comply with QA criteria and readiness criteria for funding, and there is now more attention for the

need to link the sanitation development projects and activities proposed in the MPS with the

strategy formulated in the SSK. This has made recent MPS documents much more realistic than the

more randomly formulated ‘shopping lists’ produced in 2010-2011.



20

4. Supporting activities

As mentioned earlier, the PPSP approach represents a significant departure from the traditional ways

of planning and implementation of development in Indonesia. Therefore, PPSP has taken up a

number of supporting activities to enable the provincial and district Pokjas to perform their tasks

under the program. These activities include (a) institutional development and capacity building of the

PPSP management structure; (b) more process-oriented support through advocacy, facilitators,

quality assurance, and monitoring and evaluation; and (c) efforts to prepare for long-term

sustainability of sanitation interventions following from PPSP planning.

4.1 Institutional development and capacity building for PPSP management

4.1.1 Provincial level

Situation 2010-2013

PPSP launched an innovative sanitation development planning approach featuring an empirical

assessment of real sanitation conditions (EHRA), local ownership of sanitation development, strategic

planning (SSK) and integrated programming (MPS). Taken together this has required an effort from

all stakeholders to join in a ‘holistic’ sanitation development approach. This has necessitated

modifications in the existing legal framework and institutional mechanisms.

To give direction to the PPSP implementation process, the PIU-IF produced guidelines for

institutional preparation and indication of the PPSP activities at local level (“Pedoman penyiapan

kelembagaan dan indikasi kegiatan PPSP di daerah”). These guidelines are crucial for effective

management and coordination of PPSP implementation. Among other issues, they list selection

criteria for PPSP participation. Subsequently, the enrollment of large numbers of districts during

2010-2012 and the concomitant institutional challenges led MOHA in 2012 to issue Circular SE 660 to

clarify PPSP management responsibilities at local and provincial level. The directive establishes the

provincial role in sanitation development, with responsibility directly under the Governor, and

promotes the creation of a provincial Pokja Sanitasi with terms of reference specifying its

organizational structure and task description. Circular SE 660 attributes six functions to the provincial

Pokja Sanitasi and specifies how they are to be performed:

1. Coordination;

2. Advocacy;

3. Advisory;

4. Facilitation;

5. Supervision;

6. Synchronization.

The provincial Pokja has three “instruments” at its disposal for carrying out its responsibilities:

The QA Panel, to review the quality of the documents submitted by the districts and provide

feedback for improvement;

The Provincial Roadmap, to formulate a sanitation strategy based on provincial hotspots as a

basis for prioritizing assistance to districts in sanitation development;

The Lokakarya MPS, a meeting with all districts in the province, to pull together and prioritize

proposals from their MPSs in preparation for regular coordination in the context of the budget

preparation process.

During 2010-2013 27 provinces have established a provincial Pokja Sanitasi including the QA Panel.

These so-called Tim Panel differ in size, capacity, and operating mechanisms. All have received

regular coaching sessions to strengthen their capacity.



21

The introduction of the Provincial Sanitation Roadmap provided an opportunity for on-the-job

training / coaching of the provincial pokjas. This was begun in 2012, initially in 3 provinces, and

continued during 2013 in another 10 provinces. By end of 2013, all 13 provinces involved have

produced a (draft) Sanitation Roadmap.

At least 20 Satkers from PU have conducted some form of coordination meeting on the MPS

documents submitted to the provincial Pokja. This “old style” Lokakarya MPS will be replaced by a

new, more inclusive process involving all stakeholders. South Kalimantan province conducted a “new

style” Lokakarya MPS on a pilot basis. This pilot (which only included part of the Pra-Lokakarya MPS

process) brought the message home that good quality planning documents are of crucial importance.

Without such documents, it is not possible to make adequate funding arrangements, nor to begin

preparing for implementation. It further showed that more work is required for the key stakeholders

to achieve a thorough, mutual understanding of one another’s programs and capacities if they are to

develop a truly integrated sanitation development program.

Situation in 2014

Both local and central government have gradually recognized the essential need for collaboration

between the provincial and district Pokjas on sanitation planning, quality control of BPS/SSK/MPS,

(shared) funding, and implementation of programs. The central government remains responsible for

determining national policies and priorities, providing adequate funds for sanitation development,

and overall monitoring and evaluation of program implementation. Under the working title

“Permendagri 2014”, MOHA is currently working on a Ministerial Decree that will strengthen the

directives on the functions and tasks laid down in its Circular SE 660.

The 13 provinces that have prepared a Provincial Roadmap will likely continue using this as a baseline

for decision making on sanitation development. The remaining 21 provinces are expected to prepare

their Roadmap during 2014. By end 2014 all provinces should have gone through strategic policy

formulation based on actual data of real sanitation conditions in the province.

All provinces are ultimately expected to organize a Lokakarya MPS to synchronize and prioritize

sanitation development in their jurisdiction. Key ingredients for this are the Provincial Roadmap and

the MPSs from all the districts in the province. By mid-2014 there will be up to 13 provinces that

have completed a roadmap and consequently have met the basic conditions for conducting an

effective Lokakarya MPS. This will give these 13 provinces a better starting point for securing

budgets, which will continue to be a major challenge for each district Pokja in its own. Used

effectively, the Lokakarya MPS can become a forum for all stakeholders (local, provincial, national,

and private sector and donors) to agree on funding activities that are mutually complementary in

pursuing the goals and targets set out in the SSKs. Whether this will actually materialize and, more

importantly, whether all provinces will be able to do this after 2014, depends mainly on:

The quality of the MPSs in terms of whether they include all necessary sanitation interventions

along with relevant details to meet funding requirements;

The quality of the Provincial Roadmap in terms of whether it provides clear criteria for decision

making;

The capacity of the provinces for planning and subsequent monitoring and evaluation with a

view to providing feedback to planning in future years.



22

4.1.2. District level

Situation 2010-2013

The responsibility for improving sanitation conditions in the country lies with local government. Early

in PPSP, before the PMU-PIU structure became effective, representatives of the TTPS Working

Groups conducted a number of roadshows to convince the districts to participate in the program.

This task was subsequently taken over by the PMU and PIUs, occasionally with representatives of the

core Ministries. The readiness criteria for selecting participating local governments were initially

rather lenient to encourage as many districts as possible to apply. However, this soon proved

counterproductive because in many cases the districts needed un-scheduled support once

implementation got underway. A particular obstacle proved to be the requirement that Pokjas need

to have an operational budget for their activities and for implementing the EHRA: while all districts

promised to make ‘budget allocations’, actual release of funds was often late or did not occur at all.

Eventually in 2013 the criteria have been made more specific, and these have been applied for

selecting the 2014 batch of districts.

A major challenge remains the quality of the BPS/SSK and MPS prepared by the district Pokjas. Most

Pokjas have to go through a steep learning curve to achieve the standard required in PPSP for field-

level data collection, processing and analysis, strategic thinking to prioritize sanitation problems, and

translating the strategy into effective, ‘bankable’ measures. While there is a Quality Assurance

protocol, this is more directed at “completeness” of the documents than review of their substance.

This has contributed to many Pokjas following an “administrative approach” in preparing the PPSP

plan documents, in which they focus more on filling in all the chapters of the prescribed format than

on accuracy and consistency of the information. Notwithstanding the efforts of CFs, PFs, provincial

Pokjas, and PROSDAs to facilitate and support the district Pokjas, and despite coaching sessions

provided by central level program staff, ultimately it is the district Pokja that is responsible for the

quality of the plan documents. Improvement in this regard will require continued guidance of the

district Pokjas and further simplification of the PPSP planning process.

Bringing local stakeholders together in a district Pokja has raised the self-confidence of the agencies

responsible for sanitation. This has reflected on the Pokjas as a whole, which have become

increasingly aware that they are the main vehicle for local level sanitation development. However,

there has been a limitation in that frequent staffing changes have undermined the effectiveness of

the capacity building that PPSP has provided to the Pokjas. This is exacerbated by the fact that there

appears to be no culture of systematic transfer of knowledge between those who leave a position

and their replacements.

Another limiting factor has been the fact that documents such as the SSK and MPS have no formal

status in the existing government planning and budget preparation process. Especially in the early

phase of PPSP they often merely served as background information during budget planning, but not

as basic plan documents. However, all levels in PPSP by now have come to realize the value of the

plan documents, and efforts are underway to better incorporate them into the formal planning and

budgeting cycle.

Situation in 2014

By 2014 all districts throughout the country will have been exposed to the planning concepts of PPSP

and given the opportunity to participate in the program. Out of a total of 508 districts, 85 will have

participated in Stages 1 and 2 of the PPSP process only, but the rest will have moved to the other

stages. Most of those 85 districts are located in Eastern Indonesia, especially Papua, where special

conditions apply. Getting these districts on board requires extra advocacy initiatives that are

different from the rest of the country.



23

Another development is the increasing number of districts that must update their SSK/MPS as the

five-year validity period is running out. For this so-called Second Cycle, PPSP has modified its

facilitation and other activities, with as most important characteristic that the process is expected to

be much shorter than the first time around because Stage 2 and Stage 3 are to be completed within

nine months.

The most important challenge remains bringing together the project proposals contained in the MPSs

with the sources of funding that are available but for which the different responsible ministries and

agencies are searching “bankable” proposals. Unless this happens, larger scale sanitation

improvement may remain underfunded. Similarly, on a local scale, districts need to increase their

own revenue through sanitation service fees to fund (improvement of) their sanitation services. This

will require a change of mindset, as local governments need to understand that income from service

fees presupposes delivery of a service that people are willing to pay for, which in turn requires a

customer orientation that so far seems to be lacking in most local “services”. Making sure that

districts indeed experience this change of mindset will require considerable institutional and capacity

building to keep up with the pace of infrastructure and facilities being completed and the need to use

these effectively for improved sanitation services.

4.1.3 Capacity Building

Situation 2010-2013

The successful application of the PPSP planning and implementation methodology in the 330 Districts

targeted in the original Roadmap PPSP was expected to put a strain on human resources at all levels

of Government. However, although the Roadmap PPSP was very specific on the annual targets (e.g.

on the numbers of BPS, SSK, MPS, etc. to be produced), it did not address the human resources

required. In fact, the various GOI stakeholders took a while to realize the impact of implementing

PPSP on their own resources. As a result, the sponsoring ministries were initially slow in filling the

PMU and PIUs with sufficiently senior, full-time staff. For operational support, MPW initially recruited

consultants (KMW and KMP) to assist provinces and districts in becoming familiar with the PPSP

approach and methodology, while the Satkers PU recruited Provincial and City Facilitators to assist

the Pokjas by facilitating the formulation of SSK and MPS documents. (The CFs/PFs continue their

activities to this day.) In addition, USDP stationed provincial sanitation development advisers

(Prosda) in a number of provinces (some with more than one province as their “client”) to further

strengthen delivery of “the message”. All these staff were new to PPSP and all required more or less

extensive training and coaching from USDP. The table below depicts the training programs organized

and funded by PPSP during 2010-2013, for which USDP took charge of planning, design, preparation

and implementation.



24

Table 9 Training Programs 2010-2013

Target Group Main Subject(s) Number of Participants

2010 2011 2012 2013

PMU-PIU Media Training Echelon 2 30

PPSP Processes & Products 26

Training of Trainers 39 24

Monitoring and Evaluation 10

“Konsinyasi” Road Map 30

EHRA 55

Pokja KK PPSP Socialization 100 156 320

Provincial Kick-Off (7x) 280

EHRA Updating 122 154

PPSP Methodology BP/SSK 191

Institutional Strengthening 120

Pokja Province Institutional Strengthening 150 54

Identification of Funding Sources 26

Monitoring and Evaluation 55 27 78

Quality Assurance and MonEv 84

MonEv of Advocacy Activities 20

Pokja Prov & KK Sanitation Campaign Methods 60 60

SSK + MPS Methodology 477

Pokja Prov + Satker SSK & MPS 52

National Kick-Off 120

Pokja’s + KMW EHRA 102 115 171

PF/CF PPSP Methodology + Facilitation Skills 95 230 346 266

MPS 40 33

Satker PU BPS & SSK 114

KMW PPSP Methodology 62

KMP MPS 70

IUWASH Facilitators PPSP Methodology 24

PROSDA PPSP Methodology 15

PROSDA PPSP Methodology – Follow Up 14

TOTAL 530 1.159 1.547 1.384

Situation 2014

The impact of the above and other activities on the capacity of the key implementing actors has been

significant and impressive results have been achieved over the years. Most of those capacity

development achievements have been reported in other sections of this report. However,

challenges remain.

In general, capacity of the PMU and PIUs is commensurate with their anticipated post-PPSP role of

overall program management, which will especially focus on monitoring, evaluation, and mobilizing

sufficient resources. The PMU-PIUs exhibit a structural weakness in the thin layer of ministry staff,

which results in a continued dependency on consultants. Moreover, since PMU/PIUs lack staff with

PPSP field experience and practical training skills, their responsibility for future training and coaching

of provincial/district stakeholders will likely become a challenge.

It is anticipated that the provincial Pokjas will play a key role in the post PPSP environment, as they

must provide strong coordination within the framework of clearly formulated provincial objectives.

However, there is no universal agreement yet on this role, and particularly the provincial policy

context within which they must play it. Despite significant training over the years, not all provincial

Pokjas are ready for this and more strengthening of their capacity will be required. Frequent



25

reassignments of trained staff put further pressure on the performance of the Pokjas and their Tims

Panel.

The district Pokjas are facing similar constraints, facing a dual challenge of updating their SSK/MPS

through the so-called Second Cycle process and speeding up implementation of planned

development. In the Second Cycle, the Pokjas will have to internalize the national sanitation

development target and formulate more ambitious sanitation development goals for their districts.

Moreover, the focus will have to shift to ensuring on-time implementation of the planned

investments. All this requires significant capacity and especially where there have been significant

reassignments of trained staff this will pose a significant challenge.

4.2 Process-oriented support

4.2.1 Advocacy and promotion

Situation 2010-2013

General advocacy

Sanitation development is a priority for several ministries, including PU and MOH. By 2014 60% of

the population should avail of on-site wastewater facilities and 5% should be served by community-

based off-site systems. The general approach to increasing access to wastewater facilities is:

Community Led Total Sanitation (STBM) in rural areas;

Community Based Sanitation (Sanimas) in urban slum areas;

Piped sewerage with off-site treatment in urban areas (metropolitan and large cities).

As mentioned, the PPSP approach was piloted under ISSDP from 2006 through 2009. Data shows

cities that have completed all planning stages in ISSDP ultimately increased their sanitation budgets

two to four times. The challenge for PPSP is to scale up the effort with a view to achieving the same

impact across Indonesia.

While PU pursues development of physical infrastructure, MOH focuses on information, promotion,

and triggering, etc., the Ministry of Health is responsible for the activities in stage 1 of the PPSP

program cycle: advocacy, campaign, education, empowerment, and general public communication.

The sanitation development focus is on large scale systems in a few major cities and promoting

community-based systems anywhere else where on-site systems are problematic. The basic premise

in promoting community-based systems is that, once energized, communities participate in planning

and implementation and accept responsibility for operation and maintenance thereafter. This

approach risks local governments concluding that sanitation development is unsustainable unless

communities push for it. This undermines the understanding that sanitation is a public sector

obligation: government has a responsibility to act if communities remain inactive.

PIU-AE has collected data on the cost of doing nothing for each target group, the economy, and the

general public. Advocacy focuses on convincing central, provincial, and local governments to actively

pursue sanitation development by translating the cost of doing nothing into political and

administrative issues and showing that funding sources are available for sanitation development. In

this connection, the PIU-AE encourages participating districts to set achievable targets and to

develop an appropriate regulatory environment for sanitation.5

5 This may involve the identification of services to be provided, distribution of responsibilities, determination of tariff structures,

etc.



26

Promotion of sanitation demand

A key concern in sanitation development is how to reach out to the general public to generate

effective demand for services the districts could provide. In past, top-down approaches that have

characterized development of large-scale sewerage systems with centralized treatment this has

often been neglected, with predictable difficulties in convincing households to connect to the system

and resulting in underutilization of the system. But the same concern obtains for less infrastructure-

heavy services such as septic sludge collection, solid waste management, and environmental

sanitation in general. The MOH approach has been to focus on “triggering” interest in sanitation with

a view to making people not only aware of the need, but also ready to take action. MOH has used

this approach in rural areas through so-called community-based total sanitation (STBM), which

focuses on five “pillars”:

1. Stop open defecation;

2. Hand washing with soap;

3. Proper household drinking water management;

4. Proper household liquid waste management;

5. Proper household solid waste management.

Early in PPSP, when rural areas were first being approached to conduct BP/SSK planning, many

districts found it difficult to incorporate STBM because the PPSP manuals had been developed in the

urban-oriented setting of ISSDP and did not refer to STBM as a potential strategy. This has since been

corrected and the inclusion of the more rural regencies in PPSP, in addition to the cities for which it

was originally intended, has presented an opportunity to overcome a number of drawbacks of the

community-based sanitation approach as practiced until then:

Only few institutions used STBM as the vehicle for sanitation development in rural

communities;

The STBM drive aimed at meeting national MDG targets, and focused on pillar one: stop open

defecation, resulting in failure to achieve progress in the other pillars;

Other community-based sanitation programs (e.g. Sanimas and Pamsimas) did not involve the

community in planning and other project phases and thus did not meet actual needs, leaving

facilities underutilized;

There was no module for organizing STBM training and the guide for mentoring performance

after triggering did not include community leaders.

In circular letter SE 132/2013 the MOH instructs that there must be at least one open defecation free

neighborhood in the territory of each community health center (puskesmas), and that communities

that have completed pillar one must move on to the other pillars of STBM.

Sanitation champions

It was the experience of ISSDP that no amount of advocacy, triggering, or promotion could make up

for lack of top level commitment to sanitation development. A key ingredient for Pokjas Sanitasi to

become truly active, and for individual agencies to adhere to coordination, was to have a mayor – or

at least a district secretary of head of the planning board – embrace the cause.

In 2009, at the end of ISSDP, 12 mayors signed on to the “The Jambi Declaration” and agreed to

establish AKOPSI, the City Alliance for Better Sanitation. Subsequently, in 2010, AKOPSI resolved to

also accommodate heads of rural districts (Bupatis) to join the alliance. The name of the alliance was

then changed from AKOPSI to AKKOPSI, to reflect that the platform not only included cities (kota) but

also regencies (kabupaten). The AKKOPSI secretariat is located in the PMU-PPSP.

The participation of Mayors and Bupatis as members and executives has made AKKOPSI a strategic

vehicle for strengthening advocacy, commitment, mutual learning, and the sharing of experiences



27

among all the principal actors. This commitment continues to push the Pokjas Sanitasi in the districts

to perform effectively in PPSP.

In its first four years, AKKOPSI conducted advocacy to each of the provinces and provided

information to mayors and Bupatis of other districts on PPSP mechanism and targets for sanitation

development. As a result, AKKOPSI was able to increase its membership from 121 to 224 Mayors and

Bupatis.

Situation in 2014

General advocacy

PIU AE has moved to expand the EHRA to include three new subjects: a) communications and media

mapping; b) sanitation supply assessment; and c) community and gender mainstream assessment.

These products will contribute to quality of BPS, SSK and MPS. The PIU-AE also seeks to further

integrate its activities with those of the technical and institutional PIUs and with the PMU for

monitoring and evaluation.

PIU-AE will review and complete the “PPSP Advocacy Kit” and other promotional/communications

and tools, and update them as necessary. The purpose of most of these materials is to disseminate

success stories and lessons learned of PPSP.

A major focus of PPSP will be strengthening internal advocacy and internal communications among

ministries and provincial and district agencies, to ensure that all stakeholders stay “on message”. In

particular, central ministries must be convinced to direct their activities to support provincial and

district governments in accelerating sanitation development. In other words, the SSK/MPS must

become the leading benchmark for sanitation development.

Promotion of sanitation demand

A number of central government programs include demand triggering, or more broadly engaging

communities in planning and development of local sanitation solutions. Until recently, these

programs, each with their own funding source and specific targets and reporting requirements,

operated more or less independently. However, these programs are now better synchronized, and

include the following:

1. Water Supply Program and Community Based Total Sanitation ( PAM STBM ):

Phase I in 2012 conducted in 20 provinces and 28 regencies

Phase II in 2013 conducted in 33 provinces and 159 regencies

2. Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Project ( ICWRMIP ):

Phase I (2010-2012) in two regencies and one city

Phase II (2012-2017) in 9 regencies and 3 cities

3. a pilot project for implementation of PPSP through strengthening the Pillars of STBM;

4. PAMSIMAS Phase I in 2008-2013 ( implementation of STBM demand component ):

Implemented in 96 regencies and 15 provinces

5. PAMSIMAS Phase II in 2014-2016 ( implementation of STBM demand component ):

implemented in 221 regencies and 32 provinces

6. Program Urban Sanitation and Rural Infrastructure (USRI) by Directorate PPLP of PU

7. Specific budget allocation for Community-Based Environmental Sanitation (DAK-SLBM) by

Directorate PPLP of PU

Carried out in 33 provinces in 2013



28

Apart from improving synchronization, the programs have also been able to incorporate useful ideas

and approaches from one another. For example:

In urban areas, programs such as USRI employ STBM prior to the construction stage

STBM has begun to shift focus to other pillars such as Pillar 4 and 5 as part of improvement of

residential sanitation;

A new module on using STBM to accelerate sanitation development with community

participation uses the Buku Putih Sanitasi as one of the references for determining the STBM

locations;

MOH will allocate Dekon funds for training provincial Pokjas on strengthening the STBM pillars

in PPSP.

Sanitation champions

AKKOPSI’s role in creating awareness and commitment among the district heads is very important

because, as expressed by the Minister of Home Affairs, political will of the district head is the key

success in providing for the basic needs of the public. Yet AKKOPSI faces a number of challenges:

The shortage of experts to support AKKOPSI missions;

Shortage of funds to carry out AKKOPSI activities.

4.2.2 Provincial and City Facilitators

Situation 2010-2013

At the beginning of PPSP the role and task of the provincial and city facilitators had yet to be

determined. There was an obvious example in ISSDP, but in PPSP the facilitators would have to work

much more independently from the technical assistance in the USDP cells in the PMU and PIUs. The

facilitators were initially provided by PU’s regional-based KMW and KMP consultants, but after the

latter consultants were phased out the Satkers PPLP in the provinces hired the facilitators directly

from 2012 onwards.

Apart from having to agree on a workable task description, there was also concern that the many

facilitators required to implement the program would have to be recruited from a pool of local

consultants that almost universally were unfamiliar with the PPSP approach. While of course the

subject matter was to be considered trainable, the main concern was for quality control of their

performance.

The recruitment process was slow, also because of budget limitations in PU, but ultimately it was

possible to recruit all the necessary facilitators. In 2010 USDP and ministry staff provided a two week

training course and the facilitators were deployed to their (sometimes remote) locations. A number

of reasons limited their effectiveness in 2010:

Their late deployment relative to the first implementation year of the PPSP program cycle;

The time it took for them to familiarize themselves more intimately with the PPSP approach in

the field;

The level of complexity of the early planning manuals, which came from ISSDP and had not

been prepared for a nationwide rollout.

For these reasons the pokjas were unable to complete the planning targets during the first year. This

led into another constraint, i.e. the fact that PU could only hire the facilitators on one-year contracts

that it could not automatically extend. This meant that new facilitators would have to be recruited in

the middle of the planning process, who would then have to familiarize themselves again, etc.

Against these odds, the first districts participating in the program managed to complete their plan

documents. However, upon review of these first documents it became clear that many of them



29

focused more on planning than on implementation. This was a major weakness, because the basic

criterion for PPSP planning was that it should result in implementable project proposals.

Situation in 2014

The full complement of CFs/PFs has been trained and over 60% are now functioning well. However,

because it is not possible for PU to hire this category of staff on multi-year contracts, it is still

necessary to go through a cumbersome selection and recruitment process every year. It would

appear that this should not be too difficult, because there is now a ready pool of experienced

personnel to choose from. However, many Satkers also use criteria other than merit alone to hire

facilitators, so it is not clear how much of the capacity established during 2010-2014 will remain

available for the 2015-2019 plan period. In any event, it is clear that the training program for 2014

and beyond will have to be diversified, since recruits that have worked as PF/CF before should only

need a ‘refresher’ course (or may not require training at all).

4.2.3 Quality assurance

Situation 2010-2013

As mentioned above, PPSP had to begin without a methodology for systematic quality assurance for

the planning process and the final planning products (BPS, SSK and MPS). Relevant QA criteria and

protocols were developed during 2011 for implementation by the provincial Pokjas. Eventually,

MOHA institutionalized the quality assurance function in its Circular SE 660. PPSP developed relevant

training material and provided training to the provincial Pokjas.

Situation in 2014

Quality Assurance (QA) has now become a vested responsibility of the Provincial Pokja, for which it

has a specially trained unit (Tim Panel). Since 2012 QA is a permanent subject during training of

members of the provincial and district Pokjas and of the Facilitators.

Quality assurance is a continuous process and essentially iterative. The district submits their plan

documents (BPS/SSK/MPS) chapter by chapter by uploading a soft copy in Nawasis. The Provincial

Tim Panel checks the documents and assesses the quality of the document against the agreed upon

quality criteria, which obtain nation-wide. In case of shortcomings, the Provincial Tim Panel returns

the file to the district Pokja with comments and suggestions for improvement. The district Pokja then

amends and returns the document for re-assessment, and so on.

During this process, the document receives a QA score, which is displayed in Nawasis. As the quality

of the document improves, so does the score. The score displayed in Nawasis at any given moment is

therefore not necessarily the final QA score. Average scores are calculated for general reporting

purposes. Because these averages also include districts that are still improving their documents and

districts that have not yet begun to upload their documents, total averages are by definition lower

than could ultimately be expected.

Ideally, the QA process should serve two purposes: ensuring that all plan documents give comparable

treatment to the different subjects in conformity with agreed standards; and contributing to

progressive quality improvement in terms of substance. The apparent assumption is that, if these

standards indeed represent a balanced document (e.g. in terms of whether all relevant aspects are

mentioned and receive sufficient treatment), working to meet them would “automatically” drive the

Pokjas to continually strive to improve on the substance of the different plan sections describing

these aspects as well. This latter purpose requires that the Tim Panel is well informed on all aspects

of sanitation development and, moreover, that it is able to establish a relationship of mutual trust

with the district Pokjas that allows it to be frank in its feedback. However, like most “Q systems” in



30

use today, the QA process in PPSP mainly addresses administrative requirements and the Tims Panel

seem to lack both the expertise and the drive to lead the district Pokjas to further substantive

improvement.

As things stand today, the QA process has potential, but the Tims Panel need additional capacity

building for the interaction between the provincial and district the Pokja to provide substantive

benefit to PPSP implementation:

1. to clarify relations between the sanitation problems and the required solutions within the

context of the five-year planning horizon at local and provincial levels;

2. to shed light on the suitability of the proposed programs and activities to achieve locally

formulated sanitation development goals. A clear justification of proposed projects and

activities helps the district Pokja during hearings with the local assembly

The process described here derives from the context of local conditions and personal relations within

the province. One should thus expect the substantive benefits to develop at different speed and with

different effect in the different provinces. It may be possible to speed up the process in all provinces

through horizontal learning structured around the QA findings.

4.2.4 Monitoring and evaluation

The fact that monitoring and evaluation (M&E) constitutes a separate and continuous Stage of the

PPSP approach, running from the very beginning of advocacy through implementation of sanitation

infrastructure and other activities, demonstrates the crucial importance attached to M&E from the

very start of PPSP. Effective M&E allows decision-makers to make more informed choices about

budget allocations by providing useful information on progress towards meeting key sanitation

objectives, serves transparency, and improves accountability.

Situation in 2010

While included in a number of individual sanitation projects in the past, in 2010 M&E was not yet

being applied in the context of an overall encompassing program. Although (local) governments are

required to conduct M&E of their activities, it generally stops at monitoring inputs, focusing on things

such as % completion of items in the current budget but without much attention to the reasons for

deviations from plan. The challenge for PPSP was to establish nationwide M&E with a view to lessons

learned to inform changes in implementation where necessary.

At the start of PPSP GOI was in the process of developing improved tools and institutional systems

for data management on water supply and sanitation monitoring with support from WASAP-E.

Ultimately, USDP and the WASAP-E consultants collaborated on developing the national water and

sanitation information system Nawasis. The system is of key importance for monitoring by the PMU,

but it is also accessible to all stakeholders in sanitation. In fact, it contains much more than

information on the implementation of PPSP (such as numbers of districts participating and numbers

of plan documents completed), as it also aims to provide information on concrete sanitation

development driven by other programs and projects throughout Indonesia.

The design of this system used a standard approach comprising three main building blocks:

A planning, process, and decision-making block;

A strategic monitoring block;

An implementation monitoring block.



31

Planning, process and decision-making

(Block 1)

Strategic Monitoring (Block 2)

Implementation Monitoring (Block 3)

Measurement of annual

plan implementation

(outputs), using SSK Action

Plan as guidance for

selection of annual

activities

Measurement of progress

towards meeting general

objectives, specific

objectives, outcomes, and

targets

Sanitation Monitoring The basic principle of this model is

results-based monitoring, which

reflects that the effectiveness and

efficiency of the sanitation

development derives from sanitation

sector decision-making (Block 1)

based on two types of performance

monitoring, i.e.: strategic monitoring

(Block 2) and implementation

monitoring (Block 3):

Planning, process, and

decision-making monitoring

measures progress towards

the establishment of SSK

planning and its impact on

decision-making on sanitation;

Strategic monitoring measures progress towards meeting the desired sanitation results – the

outcomes and their associated targets, which are a reflection of the specific objective of

sanitation development;

Implementation monitoring measures progress towards achieving the annual sanitation

outputs. It analyzes sector inputs (primarily budget allocations) and their relation to outputs

(such as new sanitation infrastructure and other activities).

Situation in 2014

Because of the long processing time involved in PPSP planning, it is too early to pronounce verdict on

the effectiveness of the three blocks as implemented in Nawasis. As mentioned earlier, to date only

107 districts have actually reached the stage of MPS-based budgeting and only 49 of these districts

have progressed to concrete implementation n 2013, i.e. spending based on budgets formulated last

year. Consequently, the only one of the three blocks in Nawasis that contains sufficient data to draw

conclusions is the planning process and decision-making block, which contains information on the

number of plan documents completed by the districts as they progress through the different stages

of PPSP, etc. With the implementation monitoring block only drawing information from a few dozen

districts, actual development on the ground is too small to feed the strategic monitoring block to

draw conclusions on the macro impact of PPSP-originated spending.

This realization has in fact become an issue once PPSP began to encourage provinces to formulate

their own sanitation strategies in the so-called Provincial Roadmaps. Because provinces need reliable

and comprehensive data to take a stand on sanitation development in their jurisdiction, the fact that

in 2012 not all districts in all provinces were participating in PPSP meant that provinces could not use

Nawasis for roadmapping. To overcome this obstacle, USDP designed a tool for the provinces to

collect data in all districts in their jurisdiction.

By end of 2014, almost all districts will be participating in PPSP and all provinces will be working on

their roadmap. Hence, both Nawasis and the Roadmap Databases will be nearly comprehensive in

their coverage. However, there are important differences:

The data in Nawasis and the Roadmap Databases are different in nature. The latter are at once

more limited (they contain data that is relatively easy to collect) and less basic (they include

data reflecting opinion on the quality of facilities and institutional and regulatory

arrangements). Nawasis will ultimately include more basic data on sanitation development

(investments and non-physical activities).



32

Nawasis and the Roadmap Databases have different appeal to local governments. Nawasis is a

central database in what has remained a top-down system that demands information for the

purposes of national program management, without offering immediate benefit to the

districts for providing data. In contrast, districts are aware that they may benefit from

providing data for provincial roadmapping, because this helps provinces identify and support

the allocation of assistance to local sanitation development. The fact that the results of

roadmapping are shared with all districts may encourage them to continue contributing data

as roadmaps are updated.

As PPSP comes to a close, so will USDP that has so far managed Nawasis for the PMU and Bappenas

will need to find another partner to take over database management.

Meanwhile, MOHA has concluded that the Roadmap Databases constitute important building blocks

for developing M&E in support of its responsibilities for the development of urban services in

general. This reaches beyond sanitation and thus obtains irrespective of whether PPSP continues as a

national program, but MOHA considers it important to develop the Roadmap Databases as much as

possible through the end of PPSP. Since USDP has also managed data collection and processing for

the Provincial Roadmap Databases, MOHA, too, will have to find another partner to continue this.

Once both Nawasis and the Roadmap Databases cover (nearly) all districts by end of 2014 it appears

advisable to merge at least data collection of the two databases on condition that the information

needs of both Bappenas and MOHA are met. For this strategy to succeed districts must be able to

obtain the same benefit from complying with Nawasis requirements that they get from supplying

data for roadmapping. In fact this would be particularly beneficial to Nawasis. Making this happen

may include:

Expanding Nawasis with the data collection tool and protocol for roadmapping (amended for

duplication with existing Nawasis data);

Developing additional output formats to present Nawasis data in a manner that is at once

attractive and useful for stakeholders at all levels;

Exploring practical ways to make provinces responsible for data collection, processing, and

guaranteed feedback to local governments, which would ensure that districts perceive a

continued interest in submitting data to the system, by framing data collection and processing

more clearly in the context of the provincial responsibility for coordination of sanitation

development.

4.3 Institutionalization of sanitation management

Situation in 2010

GOI has embarked on a rapid increase in sanitation infrastructure development throughout

Indonesia in pursuit of MDGs, financed mostly by APBN but also through support of international

donor agencies (mainly ADB, IDB, AUSAID and INDII). The sanitation facilities comprise thousands of

communal sanitation systems (SANIMAS, SLBM), many septage treatment plants (IPLT), medium and

large-scale sewerage systems, and solid waste processing and disposal sites. In support of effective

and efficient use of this infrastructure, these agencies’ programs also involve extensive advocacy,

promotion, and behavioral interventions such as PHBS (clean living and healthy behavior) and 3R

(reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste).

However, the organization of local government has little experience in supporting and/or managing

sanitation services with the systems being introduced, since in most districts this is a relatively new

focus area. Hence, in many cases the systems are managed by the local agency in charge of public

works (e.g. Dinas PU or Dinas Cipta Karya), environment (Dinas Lingkungan Hidup), or street cleaning

(Dinas Kebersihan). While from an asset management perspective this might still be acceptable as



33

long as there are only few sanitation systems in one city, this often complicates a comprehensive

approach to sanitation that involves both infrastructural and behavioral interventions. Moreover,

with the current acceleration of new sanitation infrastructure in many Indonesian cities, it is

apparent that in order to properly manage and maintain all these systems there is an urgent need to

organize this in a more “professional” managed environment.

Sustained service management is impossible without functioning assets. However, many assets

deteriorate quickly due to lack of maintenance. For many years, inadequate budget allocations have

been blamed for this, but it has since become apparent that there must be more to this than just a

lack of funds. Other aspects brought into question are a focus on service delivery, organization, cost

recovery, and asset ownership. Institutional innovation creating public service organizations (BLUD)

has by itself not proved sufficient to bring about improvement. Legal and regulatory obstacles as well

as the government’s poor reputation for service delivery obstruct establishment of cost recovery.

Moreover, diffuse ownership makes unclear exactly who is responsible for what part of the service

infrastructure.

Situation in 2014

The Ministries of Home Affairs, Public Works, and Finance have concluded that difficulties in asset

transfer inhibit improved management of sanitation facilities by the districts. A potential solution

could be a joint decree (SKB) on asset transfer and asset management. Such decree should stipulate:

Assets created with central or provincial funds are to be transferred to local government as

soon as possible but within not more than one year after creation;

Responsibility to initiate the transfer will be on the party that created it, and local government

must receive the asset unless it can demonstrate that the asset is not functional and/or that it

is unable to maintain it;

If local government claims inability to maintain the asset, it must demonstrate the cause of this

inability and formulate and execute a plan to eliminate it within a limited period of time.

During this period, the creator will provide diminishing rates of assistance.

The Ministry of Home Affairs is preparing a ministerial regulation (Permendagri) in sanitation service

management. The regulation will identify possible organization forms and provide guidelines for

arranging important aspects of sanitation management. The regulation will be issued in 2014 and

instruct districts to:

Ensure that all subsectors of sanitation are effectively managed from an integrated perspective

(following on the integrated approach to sanitation development planning introduced in

PPSP);

Ensure that all steps in the process of managing sanitation are adequately managed in each

subsector, and that the management of these steps is complementary / mutually supportive to

all steps in the process;

Stress the need for local revenue generation as a sine qua non for sanitation development –

sanitation is a public service, but involves individual benefits for which individuals should pay a

reasonable price;

Ensure a customer orientation in sanitation management, which is necessary to tailor the

service to individual needs in order that users are willing to pay for its cost;

Ensure that service fees cover all relevant cost (at least all O&M), based on targeted

customers’ ability to pay, which means that service levels may need to be adjusted to the level

of affluence;

Ensure that sanitation infrastructure assets are adequately maintained and operational at all

times in order to prevent service interruptions that would reduce customer appreciation and,

hence, willingness to pay;



34

Ensure that there is an up to date register of all assets operating in the service delivery

system, to whom they belong, and when they will be transferred to local government if

necessary.

While the center is thus working toward meaningful steps to advance sanitation management at

local level, districts may need considerable capacity building on all aspects of sanitation service

management to fully implement them in future years.



35

5. Issues arising

5.1 The technical challenge

A major concern in sanitation development is the type and scale of development that will be

necessary to achieve the anticipated GOI target of full access to basic sanitation in 2019. With the

exception of a few major cities, where city-wide sewerage systems with centralized treatment are

being developed with support from international donors, sanitation development in most urban

areas generally focuses on community-based solutions. GOI has a number of programs supporting

this development (Sanimas, Pamsimas, USRI, etc.). Moreover, for wastewater solutions the specific

allocation for sanitation development in the regional transfer system (DAKSanitation) exclusively focuses

on community-based sanitation.

However, Sanimas-type solutions typically serve no more than approx. 50 households, or some 200-

250 people, whereas the population without access to good wastewater solutions in many towns

may be 50.000 or more. Filling that gap would clearly require very many community-based systems.

Moreover, it would take many years to do this because the mobilization, empowerment, etc., that

characterizes the community-based approach means that districts cannot implement many projects

at the same time. This is not to argue against community-based sanitation, but to suggest that the

desired quantum leap in access also requires a heavy dose of larger-scale, institution-based solutions.

PPSP has conducted a needs-based analysis of what it takes to achieve full access to basic

wastewater services, taking into account all technical solutions (septic tanks, community-based

systems, medium-scale decentralized treatment systems, and city-wide centralized treatment

systems). Using data on factors such as population density, urban/rural function, geography and

topography, environmental sanitation risk, current access, etc., and employing alternative

assumptions for future development, the analysis shows that it will be impossible to reach full access

without relying heavily on on-site (septic tanks) and medium-sized decentralized wastewater

systems:

the vast majority of access in the medium and long term will have to be through on-site

systems (septic tanks);

neither community-based solutions nor city-wide centralized treatment systems can provide

more than 3% of access to wastewater services;

up to 20% of access will have to come from medium-sized decentralized systems (some 10% by

2019).

Table 10 Coverage of different wastewater systems by 2019 and 2034

Technical solution Required coverage for 100% basic access to sanitation

2019 2034

On-site system 85%-86% 75%-79%

Community-based system 2% 3%

Medium decentralized system 10%-11% 17%-20%

Large centralized system 1% 2%-3%

Practical concerns about on-site systems

The need to rely heavily on on-site sanitation to meet the targets, both in the short and long term,

derives in large part from the fact that septic tanks are already in place. However, this does not mean

that any sanitation development program can take these systems for granted, because there are

major concerns about their effectiveness:

A recent WSP study indicates that 95% of septic tanks are not sealed, which means that most

sewage seeps directly into the subsoil;



36

Seepage into the subsoil allows solids to fill the tank, which ultimately eliminates retention

capacity and then results in wastewater flowing directly through to the environment as

untreated effluent.

Given the continued role of on-site systems as the mainstay of sanitation in Indonesia, it is important

that district administrations come to grips with these concerns through institutional interventions,

such as inspection and enforcement of building codes and environmental regulations. This is by

definition a matter for district government and the SSKs should reflect this. To support districts in

this effort, the GOI could set up, or encourage the private sector to set up, a certification system for

septic tanks and ancillary equipment.

Although they are essentially large septic tanks, community-based systems may not suffer as much

from the technical concerns that plague on-site systems, mainly because they have been

implemented recently and in more controlled circumstances. However, these systems have other

drawbacks that raise the question whether they are appropriate for application on a large scale:

There is a significant residual burden on the environment unless effluent is drained into

leeching fields or collected in some other way, and they may thus be unable to meet (future,

more demanding) effluent standards;

It is very difficult to guarantee sustainable O&M because neighborhood committees that are

supposed to manage the system often disintegrate, fail to collect sufficient financial

contributions, forget to execute regular maintenance, etc.

Medium-sized systems

With on-site systems not suitable in all situations, the limited impact of developing new community-

based systems, and given that centralized systems are only an option in a few cities, the logical

conclusion is for GOI to formulate programs supporting massive development of medium-sized

systems providing decentralized treatment to around 5.000 households each to fill the gap. The need

is urgent indeed, for these programs would provide sanitation to 10% of the population within five

years. And this will only be a first step, because ultimately approx. 20% of sanitation access will have

to come from such medium-sized systems as the population increases.

There currently are only a few GOI sponsored initiatives (e.g. sAIIG) to develop such systems, but so

far they have limited impact. One reason is that even the medium-sized systems being promoted

under sAIIG are too small (some 200 households) to make a real difference. Perhaps more

importantly, because sAIIG uses output-based financing many local governments have thus far

hesitated to participate as they must pre-finance the entire project cost.

Consequently, most district governments are unfamiliar with implementing anything other than

community-based approaches. Even though many districts include medium sized systems in their

SSK, most hesitate to include them in their MPS as well because:

districts that included such systems in the past have had difficulty securing adequate funding

as they could not meet criteria of central programs that often demand pre-financing and/or

cost sharing;

districts fear that such systems bring new responsibilities for which they are poorly equipped,

such as for land acquisition, cost recovery, and generating household connections.

Against this background, the emphasis of the development community and GOI on community-based

approaches gives local governments a good excuse to forego their responsibility to safeguard public

health by providing a sanitary environment. After all, if successful implementation depends on the

community and the community does not move, then who can blame local government for not

pushing supposedly unsustainable solutions? However, unless districts take up these more difficult

responsibilities the sanitation development targets will be unattainable.



37

Without concerted outside pressure to include medium-sized systems in their MPS, districts are

unlikely to move in this direction. However, GOI mainly seems to use SSKs as an eligibility criterion

for several programs pushing small-scale solutions, as well as for the allocation of the DAKSanitation. In

other words, GOI currently seems to more emphasize having an SSK/MPS than what is in it.

This severely limits the SSK/MPS planning approach in reaching its full potential. Only through

comprehensive analysis of all available options is it possible to identify what solutions are necessary,

what districts can finance and carry out themselves, and for what other interventions they need

assistance from provincial and/or central government. In this way the SSK/MPS can become the basis

for participation by all stakeholders in coordinated and mutually complementary sanitation

development at the local level.

A ministry such as PU has an important stake in this, because without the MPSs to inform its own

planning, PU will be doomed to continue scrounging for project proposals on which to spend its

development budget. This will perpetuate the risk of underspending of sanitation development

budgets and, hence, underinvestment in sanitation.

Household connections

Because medium-sized systems are expensive to build and operate, cost recovery becomes essential

and it is very important to ensure that there is effective demand for the service, i.e. the number of

people that are willing pay for a house connection. This poses a challenge because, while the city

may only charge a moderate fee to connect residential properties, households nevertheless often

must make considerable additional investment to connect to the system’s junction box at their

property (sometimes involving partially demolishing on-site structures to lay new underground

pipes), whereas most local governments consider it unappealing to force households to connect

through legal means.

This challenge – apart from the large investment cost – has made medium and large-scale solutions

unpopular with local administrations, and this is in fact one of the major drivers of the community-

based approach. One could argue that these two types of systems approach sanitation from opposite

directions: generating household connections is the last step in larger-scale approaches, while it is

the starting point in the community-based approach. In doing so, each encounters limitations of

effectiveness: medium-sized and large systems cannot find enough customers to survive, and

community-based systems do not cover enough customers to make a difference.

Promotion and development

Medium-sized systems are not a one size fits all solution. In practice they may range from 1,000 to

10,000 or more households, but whatever their specific size, there is a strong need for community

mobilization to generate enough household connections. In a sense, what is required is “triggering”

individual sanitation demand, and because MOH has experience in doing this through STBM,

developing appropriate promotion campaigns and “toolkits” for community mobilization in large

urban areas could become a new driver/direction for the PIU-AE. However, STBM has been

developed for rural areas, focuses primarily on eliminating open defecation, and does not extend

into steps beyond triggering (e.g., actual construction of sanitation facilities). While STBM may

become the starting point for MOH in triggering large numbers of urban households to connect to

medium-sized systems, to be successful it will be necessary to convert the STBM approach into

something that could be termed “government-led total sanitation” (GLTS).



38

Simplification of process requirements

Irrespective of the relative share that on-site, community, medium-sized, or large systems represent

in the sanitation development program, a major issue affecting achievement of any target is that it

takes a long time to turn initial ideas into action. Once a budget becomes available for implementing

interventions mentioned in the SSK/MPS (generally at best during year n+3 following the start of

White Book preparation in year n), districts may need yet another year or even more for master

planning, feasibility studies, detailed designs, preparing tender documents, and contracting. Hence,

physical infrastructure proposed in the SSK/MPS may only be completed during year n+4 or n+5. If

any target for 2019 is to be taken seriously, this process must be accelerated. Possibilities for this

may exist in the SSK/MPS planning process conducted by the Pokja Sanitasi as well as in post budget

planning by the implementing agency (e.g. Dinas PU):

One thing that continues to complicate completion of the SSK/MPS is an overestimation of the

importance of the EHRA, coupled with the fact that it is frequently delayed. Despite the

guideline that planning should just go on if no EHRA is available after five months, Pokjas

Sanitasi nevertheless generally postpone further action until it is. It is really not necessary to

do this, because the state of sanitation is so poor in most districts that interventions will be an

improvement almost anywhere, and at the beginning of sanitation development there is so

much “low hanging fruit” it is easy to identify areas where the need is great.

Another cause for delay in many districts is limited planning capacity in local government and

local consultants, which makes it difficult to develop master plans, etc. within a reasonable

time. One solution here could be standardization by providing model plans, designs, etc. This

would require identification of typical implementation conditions and defining models that

would effectively and efficiently answer to the local situation.

The first mentioned item is of crucial importance for the second cycle of SSK/MPS planning, which

supposes that updated documents are available before July/August in order that they may be

entered into the annual musrenbang planning and budgeting process. This is only possible with a

pragmatic approach, in which planners only amend the documents in areas where something has

changed. Finally, if Pokjas consider it important to update the EHRA as well as the SSK/MPS, then

they should begin this process at least one year prior to updating the SSK.

Readiness for future demands

Given the poor state of sanitation in Indonesia most efforts center on providing immediate remedies.

Especially in connection with wastewater this can produce undesirable consequences. With solid

waste, people have it piling up around them unless they take care of collection, and even if it is not

taken to official disposal sites at least it is evident where it ends up and the city may feel an urge to

take corrective action. But when it comes to wastewater people think the problem is solved as soon

as it is washed away. As pointed out earlier, this is a particular problem with septic tanks, most of

which are estimated to be functioning poorly or not at all in terms of sanitizing the waste. And even if

they do, their pathogen laden effluent is often not discharged to leeching fields for further

purification but flows straight into drains and streams. Another issue with septic tanks is sludge

removal, because not all sludge is taken to the official disposal sites as pump truck operators

continue to dispose of their loads illegally.

As the middle class grows and becomes more affluent, and with ever more intensive irrigated

agriculture, water soluble phosphates and nitrogen components may be discharged that cause

excessive growth of algae and other water plants, which deplete the water's oxygen supply. This kills

fish and, when found in drinking water, can kill young children. As Indonesia develops one can expect

that effluent standards will be increased to levels common in industrialized countries, and the

question that arises is to what extent current sanitation development efforts should take this into



39

account. At least one aspect of this is to further emphasize the desirability of decentralized systems,

which have more advanced treatment facilities than on-site and community-based systems.

While current SSKs and MPSs already include recovery efforts such as 3R for solid waste, there is

great potential for further developing the notion that there is money to be made with waste. At least

this is being recognized, if not by governments then at least by private sector operators all over the

world. In the next phase of sanitation development, the GOI should encourage local governments to

pay more attention in their SSKs to establishing fruitful cooperation between the two. However,

cost/resource recovery efforts regarding wastewater in Indonesia are still in their infancy. For

example, few SSKs discuss the readiness of wastewater treatment plants for recovering phosphates,

producing biogas, etc. Yet such efforts offer potential not only for removing pollutants but also as a

business opportunity. Similar potential may exist in composting septic sludge. While many sludge

treatment plants in Indonesia remain underutilized, Manila in the Philippines shows that it is possible

to achieve full cost recovery in managing septic sludge (the service deriving 10% of its income from

desludging fees and 90% from selling the compost). As cities in Indonesia will have to deal more

effectively with septic sludge in the future, they would do well to study examples such as this and try

to emulate them.

5.2 The implementation challenge in the districts

The national target

PPSP 2010-2014 focused on implementation-oriented planning of sanitation activities, but due to

length of the planning and budgeting process only few districts are in a position to report

implementation of these activities by 2013-2014. Moreover, in their planning, the districts first focus

on ongoing sanitation activities, or at least activities within existing budget allocations for sanitation.

The impact on sanitation in such districts would be that facilities are now better planned, e.g. more

in tune with user needs, etc. Any increase in access to sanitation in such districts would be the

consequence of increased efficiency and effectiveness of the facilities planned, and could thus

remain limited. A real “jump” in access to sanitation requires more than that, and would only be

observed in districts that combined participation in PPSP with an increase in budgeting for sanitation.

In this connection, the fact that many districts now participate in AKKOPSI does not necessarily mean

that they all equally “care about” sanitation: it is quite possible that districts that joined early in PPSP

were more motivated than many of the districts that joined in 2013-2014.

The emphasis during 2015-2019 will lie even more on implementation than to date. This is not only

an internal drive resulting from the fact that all PPSP districts will begin to report their actual

implementation during this period, and many of these districts will even go through a second cycle to

update their SSK/MPS followed by more implementation. There will also be a strong external drive,

because the new national target under which full access (i.e. 100% basic coverage) must be achieved

by 2019 will demand a real quantum leap in implementation. Though in wastewater, where the lion’s

share of the investment must be made, most of this achievement (79%) is expected to come about

through on-site facilities (septic tanks), there is nevertheless a large investment increase projected

for all Indonesia to achieve the relatively smaller targets for communal, neighborhood, and city-wide

services. AKKOPSI aims to have districts double their sanitation efforts. In terms of budget

allocations, this represents an increase from an average of 1% to 2% of total APBD. Doubling an

effort appears very significant, and taken for the country as a whole this will represent a very large

investment indeed. However, at the micro level, one must realize that the starting point for most

districts is very poor sanitation, and that doubling or even tripling the present monetary outlays will

remain far from sufficient to achieve the national target within five years.



40

Upscaling development at district level

To make any real progress beyond a simple repeat of the volumes planned in their SSK/MPS during

PPSP, districts will have to find vastly larger sources of funding for sanitation development. In this

effort they will face a number of limitations that also existed during PPSP.

The transition from SSK/MPS planning to implementation is not yet “automatic” in many

districts, as most development planning in Indonesia focuses more on formulating the next

plan than on evaluating the achievements under the previous one and drawing lessons

learned. In part this is institutionally determined, since the responsibilities for planning,

implementation, and monitoring are divided over different agencies. On paper there exists an

elaborate coordination mechanism that all districts implement vigorously every year, but a lack

of attention for monitoring and evaluation limits the effectiveness of this so-called

musrenbang process. Hence, many MPS documents, while indicating the proposed

interventions, are lacking in quality in terms of readiness to meet the prevailing criteria of on-

going programs of other stakeholders. This is important, because unless they meet these

criteria the districts cannot access these programs to fund activities in line with the priorities

set out in the SSK/MPS. This includes the identification of matching funds by the districts

where this is required.

SSK/MPS planning is meant to be truly integrated in the sense that it includes identification of

investments that are beyond the capacity of individual districts and for which they would

expect participation from provincial or central government agencies. However, most districts

have only a limited understanding of the central government’s Long-Term National

Development Plan and how they can plan their SSK/MPS to maximize the possibility that

central government will support part of its implementation. As a result, many districts may

focus their MPS mostly on activities they can control and carry out themselves, and fail to

include sufficient proposals to be taken up by the provincial or central level. This limits the

potential effectiveness of SSK/MPS planning, which exists in leveraging local capacities with

complementary higher-level activities.

Even when districts are aware in general terms of the central government’s objectives for

sanitation development, they often are unaware how to reflect these priorities in their own

plans. Districts are not always aware which objectives are pursued by which central

government programs or projects. They therefore find it difficult to relate activities to achieve

the minimum service standards (SPM) developed by the center to the right program, and even

if they do, they are often unaware of the formal requirements for accessing funding under

such programs.

A complication in this regard is the “tension” between decentralization of authority and the

need for administrative control of implementation. The role distribution between the center,

provinces, and districts puts the emphasis at the center on regulation, guidance, and

supervision (turbinwas) of local governments. This would imply that all implementation is the

task of local government. However, sanitation is a so-called shared task for which all

government levels have (or at least may claim) implementation-oriented responsibilities.

Districts do not question this for complicated or very large projects, for which their agencies

obviously lack the capacity and capability, but many feel that funding for simple, small scale

activities such as developing community-based sanitation systems should be allocated directly

to local government. However, the reality is that e.g. PU controls a large investment budget

including both major and small project activities, for which it maintains its own planning and

budgeting process together with implementation controls. In PPSP it has become clear that it

is very difficult to bring together the funds available at the center (“money looking for

projects”) and the manifest development needs at the local level (“projects looking for

money”).



41

A major reason for this lies in another tension, i.e. between the sectoral setup of government

administration, which is hierarchically oriented, and the integrated approach to development,

which would continue involving all relevant stakeholders as long as possible in horizontal

coordination of planning and budgeting. PU’s funding mechanism through the RPIJM

controlled by the satker is representative of the former, while PPSP’s pokja approach

characterizes the latter. Both approaches depend on regional coordination. PPSP has made an

effort to further this by introducing the “Lokakarya MPS”, the function of which is to prioritize

proposals from the MPS documents submitted by all districts in the province. However, these

events are all-inclusive and as such not able to conclude decisions on sectoral budget planning

and spending. In contrast, PU uses the “konreg” for regional coordination, in which only

infrastructure and infrastructure-related activities are discussed by the PU agencies of the

province and the different districts. Without a clear decision at the center, communicated

through a regulatory instrument that is binding on all parties, making the konreg

unconditionally accept the output of the Lokakarya will remain a challenge for years to come.

Gaps

Even if the districts can move beyond all the limitations mentioned above, the formal planning and

budgeting cycle presents a fundamental challenge to achievement of the 100% basic coverage goal in

2019. This cycle cannot be changed, but understanding it points to a number of gaps, each of which

poses its own challenges:

The first gap is between the targets for development under the existing SSKs/MPSs and the

new national target of full coverage by 2019. This means that most if not all SSKs and MPSs

must be reviewed and scaled up to meet the national target. However, this is not just a paper

exercise for it is unclear whether local governments have the financial and technical capacities

to achieve the new target. The entire foundation of the PPSP approach is making realistic

assessments of needs and abilities to derive at a realistic development strategy. While setting

a challenging national target may energize everyone involved in accelerating sanitation

development at the national level, attaining it at local level it simply may not always be doable.

Should the SSKs nevertheless be amended to incorporate the new target, they may soon be

perceived as unrealistic and the entire effort may backfire.

The second gap is between the need to amend the SSKs/MPSs for the new targets as soon as

possible and the pace of implementing the second cycle for updating of the PPSP plan

documents in practice. The second cycle is only being piloted today and will only begin in

earnest in 2015. It is not until 2020 that the last districts are now scheduled to complete

updating their SSKs and MPSs. Only after that will increased implementation begin to

materialize in these latter districts.

The third gap is the most serious one, i.e. the fact that it takes at least two years before a plan

results in the first evidence of implementation. This is due to the combination of the PPSP

planning cycle and the formal planning and budgeting cycle. In the Second Cycle, districts have

one year (year n) to update their plan documents (SSK and MPS). This means that, unless

Pokjas manage to complete the Second Cycle no later than August-September, proposals from

these plans are too late for inclusion in the budgeting process for year n+1, because that is

being completed during the final quarter of year n. More than likely, proposals from plans

updated in year n will enter budget preparation during year n+1, which aims to secure a

budget for actual implementation in year n+2. Depending on the size and/or complexity of the

projects, implementation may be completed in year n+2 itself, but their impact in terms of

access to sanitation will in large part only become measurable in year n+3. Even then,

“implementation” will not immediately result in works on the ground, for there may be

additional preparatory work required such as feasibility studies, detailed design,



42

environmental impact assessments, tender documents, etc. Certainly for larger facilities,

meeting these additional requirements may consume well over another year.

The fourth gap is in human resources. Implementing the “spike” in sanitation development in

the coming few years will require a large number of various sanitation experts. Currently, there

are about 9,000 sanitarians available in local government. However, a recent estimate6 shows

a need for more than 15,000 sanitation personnel in the short term, and an additional 18,000

in the medium-term. This involves almost 11,000 main personnel in the short term and an

additional 12,400 in the medium term, most of whom would be facilitators (for the

preparation of SSK, implementation of STBM, and implementation of SANIMAS). A significant

number of individuals with a background in environmental/ sanitary engineering will be

needed. More than 60% of the recruitment need pertains to individuals with entry-level and

junior experience.

Realizing the strategic intention of the SSK

One reason why districts may find it difficult to include more than relatively small scale solutions in

their SSKs may be that, despite their name, the SSKs are not truly strategic in nature. There are

various definitions of strategy, which can be summarized to infer an “outline for achieving an overall

goal over the long term, for the benefit of an organization and its stakeholders in a challenging

environment”. As currently formulated, most SSKs do not reflect this type of vision. Because of the

project-orientation still prevailing in Indonesian government, and the Pokjas’ tendency to plan by

“filling in the blanks”, the long-term perspective receives only cursory treatment. Rather than

designing ways to battle the unknown, district Pokjas focus on cobbling together project proposals

for the next five years.

Some argue that this will change. An example is the Practical Guide for the EHRA Study in Second

Cycle SSK/MPS planning. Recognizing that small-scale interventions of the first SSKs are not enough

to achieve much improvement in overall access to sanitation, the practical guide suggests that

Second Cycle SSKs have a plan horizon of 20 years and involve larger works and integrated service

delivery. It is imperative that this revelation gains further ground, and that district Pokjas are

exposed to the need to focus on the long term. Although in general there is not much familiarity in

local government with strategic thinking, simply because it has never been required, it is not too

much to expect that Pokjas to formulate a long-term development plan in which they outline:

The overall condition of sanitation in different parts of the district and ambition for

improvement over the next 20 years;

Some general indication of hydraulic conditions that may affect sanitation solutions in

different parts of the district;

Identification of desired types of sanitation service for different parts of the district (in line

with socio-economic, technical, and other factors);

Identification of the number of systems to be built of the different types, together with a

rough cost estimate based on rule of thumb assessment;

Breakdown of the overall development workload into consecutive five-year programs, with

results adding up to the total target (e.g. which systems to do first, which areas to give priority,

etc.);

Specification of projects to complete the first five-year program;

Steps towards instituting a service orientation in sanitation management..

Long-term development plans such as described above will provide essential focus for the SSK/MPS.

Moreover, they will represent the benchmark for monitoring and evaluation of actual development

on the ground, which should inform annual planning in the five years of the SSK/MPS

6 Source: The Final Report Sanitation Training and Capacity Study, published by STBM Indonesia



43

implementation period as well as, subsequently, possible amendment of the next five-year program

(to be covered by the “third cycle SSK/MPS” and so forth.

5.3 The program management challenge

Central level

In PPSP, the PMU/PIU structure has served well to enumerate and implement activities under a

dedicated national program. If PPSP is extended, this national management structure will likely

continue as well. However, even if PPSP itself continues, the approach to provincial and local

governments may be different. This also provides opportunity to amend the PMU/PIU structure. The

following issues need to be addressed:

one could argue that after five years the need for close central involvement in program

management should no longer be necessary and that the activities that the program seeks to

promote are so essentially local that responsibility for program management should be

decentralized to the provincial level. However, it is important to note that despite the long

program implementation period only relatively few districts have come to full implementation.

Moreover, implementation to date has shown continuing weaknesses in district level

commitment and capacities. It may therefore be best to retain the PMU/PIU structure, and

instead strive for closer vertical coordination of implementation, still within the context of

horizontal coordination of planning but with the aim to remove issues such as delays in asset

transfer, and to drive implementation of central activities to better serve local priorities.

more generally, there may be an opportunity to frame the role of the PMU/PIU more in line

with the decentralized government structure in Indonesia. PPSP has contained some top-down

elements driving sanitation development in the short term. However, for the longer term the

center’s role is more properly to create and maintain an enabling environment in which local

governments can provide services to the public. One step towards this could be reorienting the

PMU/PIU setup towards regulatory development, negotiating financial modalities with donors,

and monitoring and evaluation of the sector.

some concern remains about whether SSK/MPS plans will actually be implemented and this

could become a new focus area for the PMU/PIUs. For example, the PIU-T could shift towards

guiding districts on the preparation of master plans, feasibility studies, detailed designs, etc.

in each of the participating ministries there are various (sub) units with a mandate and budget

related to sanitation development.7 However, the PMU and PIUs typically are staffed only from

one of these units, leaving the other ones unrepresented. This has sometimes led to internal

coordination delays that might have been prevented had all units participated in PPSP

management. Given the rapid increase in sanitation development that is required to attain the

new national target, delays caused by such inefficiencies must be brought to a minimum.

Role of the province

Under PPSP the provinces have several important roles in accelerating sanitation development. This

distribution of tasks is inspired by both the concepts of subsidiarity, which holds that local issues

should be decided locally unless there is an overriding reason for higher-level involvement, and span

of control, which holds it is not possible for central government in one location (Jakarta) to control

sanitation development in hundreds of districts throughout Indonesia. Yet the application of these

concepts under PPSP goes beyond their application in the general legislation on decentralized

government, which gives autonomy to local districts and makes the governor the ex officio 7 MOHA: sub directorate for spatial management and sub directorate for large and metropolitan cities;

Bappenas: directorate for housing and settlements and directorate for urban and village areas; MOH: sub directorate for water treatment and basic sanitation and the center for health promotion; PU: sub directorate for technical planning for environmental sanitation, sub directorate for wastewater, sub directorate for solid waste, and sub directorate for drainage.



44

coordinator as representative of central government. The responsibility for quality control and

coordination under PPSP is not an activity in the governor’s office that merely derives from his

position as GOI representative. Rather, acknowledging that sanitation is a shared task under

PP38/2007 on the task distribution between levels of government, elements of the provincial

administration gathered in the provincial Pokja Sanitasi carry out this responsibility. This embodies

the spirit of cooperation between provincial and local administrations as autonomous areas in the

context of the bottom-up nature of the musrenbang planning and budgeting process. At the same

time, this is a relatively new approach with which most provinces and districts are not familiar.

Under PPSP the province has both “process tasks” and “material tasks”. The former, which are

obligatory under Circular SE 660, involve quality assurance and supervision of PPSP implementation.

The latter, which are more elective, may include guidance to plan coordination in the districts,

related regulatory development, and material support to specific local level activities (e.g. by funding

through Bantuan Keuangan). It is the “material tasks” for which the province marshals its own

administrative capacity as an autonomous government, while the “process tasks” are delegated

responsibilities from the center. If PPSP is extended for another five years, there is a world to be won

regarding the process tasks:

During PPSP 2010-2014 quality assurance by the provincial Pokjas has focused mainly on

process aspects such as completeness and consistency of the documents submitted by the

districts. There was, however, little attention to the substantive quality of the proposals. This is

characteristic of most QA systems, which generally only seek to offer protection from legal

liability for process errors. However, the intention behind the introduction of QA in PPSP was

indeed to achieve substantive quality improvement. To achieve this it is necessary for

provincial Pokjas to become much more knowledgeable about sanitation development in

general as well as the varying sanitation challenges existing in the different districts.

A major issue is the lack of an institutional memory due to frequent staff changes: as staff are

reassigned in their respective agencies, others are appointed to represent the agency.

Generally, these new staff have to be trained from scratch on the PPSP approach as there

seldom is a thorough handover.

A final question is whether the Provincial Roadmaps will be able to perform their dual

functions: material in that they (should) provide the outline for the province’s own

development activities, and process in that they guide coordination of these activities with

those of the districts in the provincial jurisdiction. The current Provincial Roadmaps may still be

less than convincing in terms of the material function, but used properly they should in future

become the basis for the provinces’ own sanitation development plans.

Provincial Pokjas

The Pokja Sanitasi is the vehicle developed under PPSP through which the province must carry out

these tasks. By 2013 there are 27 provinces that have established this forum, of which the role and

responsibilities are described in MOHA’s Circular SE 660. However, a major obstacle has been that

four of the provinces that became involved early on in PPSP already had a Pokja AMPL, a similar body

established under the Waspola facility. In name, the Pokja AMPL coordinates both water supply and

sanitation development, but in practice it has for many years focused more on water supply.

Moreover, even Pokjas AMPL that do give equal attention to sanitation do this within the context of

the Waspola approach, i.e. by focusing more on motivation and promotion than on actual, hands-on

development planning with a view to implementation. From a PPSP perspective the provincial Pokjas

AMPL are thus less effective than PPSP’s “own” Pokja Sanitasi, and PPSP has for a long time urged

provinces with a Pokja AMPL to establish a separate Pokja Sanitasi. However, it has sometimes been

difficult to convince provincial administrations to do this. MOHA is currently preparing a ministerial

decree to more clearly delineate the responsibilities for sanitation development, which may retain



45

the “Pokja AMPL” in name while prescribing the creation of two sub groups within it for water supply

and sanitation, respectively.

Given the huge challenge posed by the national sanitation ambition, districts will need guidance from

the center and the provinces even more than before. This raises the question of the continuity of the

existing coordination and guidance mechanism in the provincial Pokjas established under PPSP:

Pokjas generally do not survive the program or project under which they have been created, so

unless PPSP is extended it is likely that the provincial Pokja Sanitasi will suffer the same fate.

The Pokjas are now “protected” under MOHA’s Circular SE 660, but this pertains only to PPSP.

MOHA is currently preparing a decree that would establish the PPSP management structure in

more general terms (i.e. independent of PPSP). However, the question remains to what extent

this will truly bind autonomous provincial and local governments more than superficially (e.g.

they might establish Pokjas, but these may remain inactive). In any event, a ministerial decree

from MOHA is not binding on other ministries and agencies of the central government.

With or without a second PPSP to fuel activity, the impact of a MOHA decree on lower levels of

government administration also depends on the commitment of MOHA itself, as reflected by

involvement of its senior management and financial resources provided to provinces for

guiding districts in sanitation development.

It appears evident that, for the Pokjas to survive, provinces must develop an independent

appreciation of their added value. This is not immediately apparent in the process tasks, for

provinces may feel that they perform these more for the center than for themselves. Rather, it is the

material tasks that can lay the foundation for continued provincial commitment to sanitation

development. Of key importance here will be the experience with the Provincial Roadmap, which

essentially constitutes the beginning of a provincial policy document in which the province outlines

its own (rather than the center’s) plans for sanitation development.

Provincial Roadmaps

Once provinces have identified sanitation development activities of their own, implementation of

these activities should create a legacy on which to build planning in future years, even without

pressure from a central PPSP. After all, if provinces are working in their own interests, why would

they stop? It is encouraging that several provinces that have participated in roadmapping thus far

have expressed a sense of revelation regarding their contribution to the provincial tasks. It thus

appears that a good roadmap is crucial for the province if it is to become the catalyst for sanitation

development, which is essential if the ambitious national goals for sanitation are to be achieved. For

this to happen it is necessary to overcome a two limitations:

the roadmaps produced by the first 13 provinces to date only take a first step, i.e. they identify

provincial sanitation risk areas, spell out a provincial vision on sanitation, and formulate the

mission of the province in sanitation development. Achieving the national goals will in part

depend on the enthusiasm and capability of the provinces to develop their roadmaps into true

policy documents that spell out the priorities of the province, what type of activities the

province is willing to support, the type of support it wants to provide, substantive criteria for

obtaining such support, and conditions under which support may be provided.

like the SSK/MPS, the roadmap is not part of the formal government development planning

cycle. But again like SSK/MPS, the governor has the power to instruct the parties involved in

planning on methodology. In the 13 provinces involved in roadmapping to date, the roadmap

will be confirmed by gubernatorial decree. It is essential that such decree also positions the

roadmap as basic frame of reference for sanitation planning in the annual musrenbang

process.



46

Legal framework

An important obstacle to sanitation development is an incomplete legal framework. This applies as

well to the planning process (status of the PPSP plan documents) and the overall societal context in

which sanitation development must take place:

Law 25 / 2004 on the national development planning system establishes a number of plan

documents as instruments for coordination in the musrenbang process. These documents are

all general plan documents, not specific to any one sector. Plan documents such as the MPS,

etc. can be enormous help in getting the sectoral priorities and necessary activities in line, on

time and with good documentation. It will likely be very difficult to amend Law 25/2004. In

fact, it may not be necessary if mayors, Bupatis, and governors, respectively, not only issue a

decree to confirm the SSK, MPS, and roadmap of their district or province, but also explicitly

instruct the participants in the musrenbang process to use these documents as a framework

for annual planning and budgeting.

While Law 7/2004 on water resources prohibits untreated discharge into surface or

groundwater, many districts have so far not issued specific local regulations for its

implementation. The need to do this is likely to be felt more acutely if a law on wastewater

would provide further specification. However, no such law is being formulated, although there

is a law on solid waste and a more general law on sanitation is under advisement.

Advocacy

Another important task that may have to be reorganized in the coming years is advocacy. In PPSP this

was the domain of the PIU-AE at MOH. Should PPSP continue, and given the ambitious national

sanitation development goals, it is likely that MOH will have to continue playing a role, but here too

any dependency on the center must be limited. A likely solution is to formally engage AKKOPSI in this

effort. During PPSP, AKKOPSI has grown from an association of mainly the mayors of cities

participating in ISSDP to a forum of some 250 members (mayors and Bupatis). AKKOPSI is an

important platform for promoting sanitation development and for disseminating lessons learned

through horizontal learning programs, conferences, etc. AKKOPSI may also provide networking

support to district and provincial governments to “sell their sanitation portfolio”.

To make this possible, AKKOPSI needs organization development and technical experts to make its

secretariat more effective in driving activities. However, it is unclear whether the districts

participating in AKKOPSI are willing and able to provide funding for this from their local budgets.

Without this it is unclear from whose budget this should be funded.

There may also be scope for broadening the involvement in advocacy beyond MOH. For example, in

Banda Aceh it was PU that conducted advocacy to create awareness of the types of solutions

available for sanitation improvement. In fact, this points to an important lesson from PPSP, which is

that broad advocacy campaigns are not sufficiently effective. As argued in the description of the

technical challenge, there is a need to provide institution-based systems of various sizes, ranging

from 1,000 to 10,000 household or more. Moreover, these systems have to be implemented in a very

short time and this demands a solution-oriented approach. One of the criticisms still valid today is

that, in many districts, participatory planning through the Pokjas puts more emphasis on the

planning process, and thus on problematizing the planning environment, than on material outputs,

i.e. proposals for concrete interventions. Given that sanitation is no rocket science and that there is

only a limited range of solutions, the effort should go to identifying different sanitation conditions

and linking these to concrete sanitation solutions. If this reveals different combinations of concerns

and solutions depending on the scale of the systems, this would be an important contribution to

making advocacy much more effective.



47

5.4 The capacity challenge

Changing capacity requirements

Identifying sanitation development needs is not rocket science and in principle most districts should

have the capacity to do it. They have, after all, carried on infrastructure development for many years.

What is new in PPSP is the focus on the heretofore neglected domain of sanitation for which,

moreover, PPSP has promoted a strategic, integrated approach based on systematic data collection

and processing.

An added challenge in dealing with this “new” sector is the multi-sectoral approach, for which PPSP

demands the establishment of Pokjas with members from different agencies directly or indirectly

involved in sanitation. Although establishing a pokja to bring about coordination is very customary in

Indonesian local government, making them achieve results has always been difficult. One reason for

this may be that each agency represented in the pokja has its own strategic plan, and the individual

pokja members – at least those belonging to the technical working group – lack the clout to force

amendment of this plan to the specific needs resulting from an integrated approach to sanitation

development.

The PPSP approach is sufficiently different from provinces’ and districts’ normal involvement in

development planning that it is not enough for the administrations to just “sign up” with the

program. A major challenge has therefore been the need to ensure the availability of trained

manpower, both to guide and assist the Pokjas through the process and within the Pokjas themselves

to do the actual planning work. PPSP has been able to deal with this by providing extensive training

to provincial and city facilitators, Pokja members, KMW/KMP consultants, etc. Where performance

gaps remained, PMU/PIUs and consultant staff provided additional coaching. To date this has

contributed to significant capacity improvements in all provincial and about 440 district Pokjas.

Impact of CBT to date

Pokja members must go through a real learning curve to make things happen and to date this is what

capacity building in PPSP has focused on: facilitating a process in which local and provincial Pokja

members consider customary things from a new perspective, in a new context, and in an unfamiliar

approach. In this connection, PPSP has produced extensive BP/SSK/MPS preparation manuals. To

some extent, these manuals have had more impact on process than on substance, because without

real knowledge of the issues that matter in integrated sanitation development planning agency staff

have often focused more on “filling in the blanks” to be able to submit the document on time rather

than on developing thoroughly vetted development proposals.

Hence, many of the SSKs and MPSs produced were found to be wanting, especially in the early years

of the program. PPSP therefore established a quality assurance (QA) function in the provincial Pokja

(Tim Panel). The purpose of this was to improve the quality of SSK/MPS plan documents. However,

like QA systems in most organizations, this QA focused on the planning process rather than plan

content. Even so, it would have been difficult to achieve any higher ambition, because most Pokjas

have turned out to possess only a limited grasp of how to relate solutions to problems identified, and

how to present these solutions in the five-year planning context at both district and provincial level.

CBT in years to come

Given these considerations and the capacity reductions due to staff reassignments, it will be

necessary to (step up and in fact) revamp CBT to make sure that provinces and local governments

have the capacity to translate the ambitious new national sanitation development target to their

specific circumstances and to identify, plan, and implement the investments and activities needed to

achieve it.



48

CBT needs to be expanded for selected target groups – although the numbers already trained

are large, they only scratch the surface in terms of what is required for implementing the

“spike” in sanitation development in the coming few years. Currently, there are about 9,000

sanitarians available in local government, but a recent estimate8 shows a need for more than

15,000 sanitation personnel in the short term, and an additional 18,000 in the medium-term.

CBT needs to be deepened – The need for further attention to CBT is obvious given that the

capacity built to date has (only had a few years’ experience, largely been limited to the first

cycle of PPSP planning. Furthermore, experience has shown that Pokja members often have

limited knowledge about technical solutions to sanitation challenges.

o The second cycle, which must inter alia deal with considerably higher targets, will be

more challenging, especially since it is necessary to significantly shorten the time

between identifying an issue and implementing a solution.

o It is therefore not enough to focus capacity building and training (mainly) on the PPSP

planning process. The outcome of the process cannot be divorced from substantive

reasoning about the pros and cons of different sanitation solutions. Failure to correctly

relate solutions to problems identified will result in rejection of plan proposals for

funding or implementation by e.g. provincial or central government.

o This requires substantive quality control focusing on both effective approaches to

sanitation development in general and the relation between local plan proposals and

the objectives and requirements of centrally funded programs. Because to date

provincial Pokjas have clearly demonstrated to lack sufficient capability to vet proposals

on these aspects, this too demands additional CBT.

The impact of CBT needs to be sustained – the longer term impact of training is typically

relatively limited because of the frequent staff changes that characterize government human

resources management. Of course it is unlikely that this will stop, as it derives from internal

agency needs and (ideally) an attempt to offer individual career development. However, the

fact that the personnel that have been trained have not been able to institute a structured

handover process of their knowledge and experience suggests that they have seldom become

real change agents in their respective agencies. CBT will have to encourage agencies to

internalize the need for sustained capacity in this area and to act on this by making

arrangements for suitable handover.

Organizing CBT

All this points to a need to de-concentrate – at least in part – the responsibility for CBT of Pokjas and

other stakeholders in cities and regencies. This is the level where sanitation issues must be identified,

and this is where proposals for appropriate solutions must be initiated. Training and coaching local

Pokjas is a vast undertaking for which the responsibility should logically lie at provincial level. From

the perspective of PPSP, the preferred locus for this responsibility is the provincial Pokja, because –

assuming that the provinces recognize their own interest in sanitation development throughout their

jurisdiction – this has an operational relationship with the Pokjas at district level and, conversely, the

district Pokjas now recognize the provincial Pokja as a crucial partner in the PPSP process for local

sanitation development.

The situation for CBT of provincial Pokjas is different. Although these have all been exposed to CBT

during 2010-2014, especially the need to strengthen the provincial role and shifting part of the

responsibility for operational program implementation to the province implies an additional need to

train and sustain the capabilities of provincial Pokjas. The overall responsibility for this would

logically remain one level higher, i.e. with the PMU/PIUs. However, in line with the more prominent

8 Source: The Final Report Sanitation Training and Capacity Study, published by STBM Indonesia



49

future role expected of the province, this will now also demand proactive partnership from the

Pokjas. The skills needed to execute the Pokja job description should by now have become

organizational skills rather than just the skills of a few staff members trained under the program.

Since every organization is responsible for its own organizational skills, it is urgent to move important

elements of the responsibility for capacity development to the Pokja itself. This involves:

Identifying the need for training and/or coaching;

Liaising with the PMU/PIUs to meet the need;

Ensuring participation of relevant staff in CBT events;

Monitoring whether the new abilities and skills are (can be) effectively applied in practice.

Despite the more prominent role of the provincial Pokjas there is a continued need for the PMU/PIUs

to play a leading role in CBT, especially in horizontal coordination of national training budgets and

training programs and vertical coordination with the provincial Pokjas on the implementation of

these programs. However, it is essential to prevent a dependency on the center for what should now

become much more internalized at provincial and local levels. Of course the Pokja itself cannot

become fully responsible for executing the program (planning, funding, preparation, organization,

and implementation of training and coaching activities), but it should be involved in deciding who

gets to be trained on what and in sourcing and coordinating training supply. Hence, the nature of the

PMU/PIUs’ role in vertical coordination should now become more reactive, more in terms of assuring

the availability of program resources to serve the needs identified by the provincial Pokja in

collaboration with the local Pokjas.

Financing CBT

Although it is clear that provincial Pokjas should have a leading role when it comes to identifying

training needs and facilitating the implementation of training and other capacity building programs,

most provinces likely will lack the financial means to cover the full cost of implementation. There are

two ways in which PPSP can meet this need, possibly in the context of a co-financing arrangement:

1. Providing major allocations of training funds to the Pokjas for implementing large CBT efforts.

Possible limitations here could be:

a. that the Pokja is not itself an agency with its own budget and is thus unable to

participate in co-financing,

b. as a coordinative body of representatives from different agencies it may lack the

capacity for and day-to-day attention to developing, programming, and delivering

training support,

c. it may lack both authority and capacity to receive and manage depletion of substantial

budgets for purposes other than its own internal operations. This could significantly limit

the Pokja’s effectiveness since provinces probably lack sufficient training staff to

perform PPSP-related training and therefore may have to recruit most trainers

externally.

2. Leaving overall financial responsibility for CBT programs where the budget is, i.e. under PPSP

mainly with the PMU-PIUs and their respective ministries at the central level. This suggests a

possibility to:

a. delegate responsibility for co-administration of training to provincial SKPDs, with the

requirement that all training must fit the national program criteria and first be agreed in

the provincial Pokja,

b. transfer funds to the provincial SKPDs to implement the programs. The national

budgeting system provides for this through so-called dekon transfers to the provinces

for funding non-physical activities.



50

Implementing CBT

With the responsibility and funding for training in place, a remaining concern is who will actually do

the training as there is no provincial sanitation development training institute with a body of

professional trainers. PPSP did not face this limitation during 2010-2014 as it could draw on staff of

the participating ministries and consultants from the technical assistance. This will be different in the

next five years of PPSP, when there will likely be considerably less technical assistance. Although the

PMU/PIUs will likely continue to have access to ministry personnel to act as trainers, it is possible

that the number of such personnel will diminish over time as there will be not as much intensive

cooperation with consultants from the technical assistance. To prevent or at least delay this as much

as possible, PMU/PIUs should liaise with the sponsoring ministries to create formal PPSP-related

training programs with dedicated training staff. Such staff could be sourced in part from the

ministries (Widiyaiswara) and in part from outside education and training institutions (universities,

polytechnics, mid-level and secondary level technical schools, etc. depending on the level of training

and whether the need is central, provincial, or local).

5.5 The funding challenge

Potential for closing the funding gap 2010-2014

The roadmap PPSP was formulated in 2009 with a total funding need of Rp 62.6 trillion over the five

years of the program, of which Rp 44.9 trillion was expected to be available leaving a funding gap of

Rp 17.7 trillion. The total funding need included both government and non-government expenditures

for public sanitation facilities. However, private expenditures, e.g. for septic tanks, were not part of

the estimate. An update of the estimate in 2013 indicated that availability of funds had actually

increased to Rp 55.1 trillion, resulting in a decline of the funding gap to Rp 7.5 trillion. In part this

may be due to the fact that the different stakeholders have had to increase their allocations because

of inflation, which stood at some 15% 9 over 2010-2012, while the total funding need was not

adjusted for this factor. Table 10 shows that the Rp 10.2 trillion decline of the funding gap derives

mainly from a Rp 10.4 trillion increase in available funding in the central and district budgets.

Particularly the district budgets show a rapid increase in available funds for sanitation: while the

2009 estimate projected almost equal funding from the central and district budgets, the 2013

estimate suggests that district funding now outstrips central government funding by almost one

third. However, this is based on the assumption that district appropriations for sanitation will double

over the program period. If this does not actually materialize, much of the funding gap will have

remained intact.

9 Cumulative inflation calculated based on CPI2010=6.96%, CPI2011=3.79%, and CPI2012=4.3%.

Source: Inflation.eu worldwide inflation data: historic CPI inflation Indonesia (yearly basis).



51


(Rp. Billion)

2009 estimate

2013 estimate

Year 2010 2014 5-Year Total 2010 2014 5-Year Total

PPSP Funding need

4,247 17,277 62,625

4,247 17,277 62,625

Available funding

6,220 10,140 44,937

6,170 15,184 55,088

Sources:

APBN

1,799 3,921 16,520

1,883 4,766 18,768

Provincial APBD

779 860 4,093

357 997 3,436

District APBD

3,138 3,532 16,659

2,816 7,796 24,798

Donors

485 1,729 7,324

1,096 1,454 7,503

CSR and Communities

19 98 341

18 171 583

Funding Gap

-1,973 7,137 17,688

-1,923 2,093 7,537

The increase in APBN funding for the five years is just 13.6% and does thus not make up for inflation.

The Rp 8.1 trillion growth in district funding represents an increase of 48.9% and is thus well ahead of

inflation. More importantly, Table 10 shows a year-on-year increase in annual funding during the

five-year period, from Rp 6.2 trillion available in 2010 (according to the 2013 estimate) to Rp 15.2

trillion available in 2014. Such a pace of increase would indeed represent acceleration of effort. The

question, however, is whether this is sufficient:

At the beginning of PPSP it was estimated that local governments on average spent less than

1% of their budget on sanitation development. If aggregated local government funding has by

now doubled, this means that districts may be spending up to 2% of their budget on sanitation

by 2014. Considering the very poor state of local sanitation achieved with 1% of budget, it is

very likely that 2% of budget will still be far from enough to bring about real improvement. Of

course this pertains to only the first five years of the program, but it appears that further

growth beyond a 2% share may be very difficult to achieve given that districts typically have

only 10% of their budget available for the 31 government tasks they must perform under

PP38/2007. 10

Another observation from Table 10 is that the Rp 24.8 trillion that districts would spend in five

years on sanitation development would by far be the largest spending from all the sources. In

fact, the share of local government in available funding would be 45%. Relative to the funding

need, the share of funding by districts drops to 39.6% due to the still remaining funding gap of

Rp 7.5 trillion. This raises two concerns:

o If total funding available is just over two times the amount that local governments

spend, this would represent at most 4% of local government budgets. This will not be

enough to really improve sanitation conditions in the short term (i.e. by 2014) given the

poor results achieved with 1% of budget in the past.

o The continued funding gap suggests that local governments are, at least for now, at the

end of their rope when it comes to increasing allocations for sanitation development.

Moreover, Table 10 shows that it has not been possible to significantly increase donor

funds, and that the relatively large increase in contributions from CSR and communities

10

Most local governments spend some 60% of their budget on overhead and they are legally mandated to spend 20% on

education and 10% on health.



52

is too small in nominal terms to really make an impact. Taken together, this suggests

that it may be difficult to achieve significant further increases in total funding for

sanitation development unless significant national funds become available.

The 2013 updated estimate projects an average nominal growth of Rp 2.3 trillion, which represents a

relative increase of 27% per year. There was a spike in 2011, mainly from APBN funding.

Contributions from donors were also highest in 2011, but have since declined 25%. For any

organization, maintaining annual growth rates of around 27% over an extended period is very

difficult. If the nominal growth of Rp 2.3 trillion per year could be sustained, overall availability of

funds for the period 2015-2019 would be a little over Rp 110 trillion. If the relative growth rate of

27% could be maintained, that figure would rise to almost Rp165 trillion.

Table 12 Funding available for PPSP Roadmap

(Rp. Billion)

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5 year total

Total funding (2013 est.) 6,170 10,058 10,656 13,021 15,184 55,089

Relative growth 63.0% 5.9% 22.2% 16.6% 26.9% avg.

Nominal growth 3,888 598 2,365 2,163 2,254 avg.

Funding required for achieving the new national target

PPSP has estimated the cost of meeting the total sanitation development need based on data

concerning urban/rural areas, population density, geography and topography, access to sanitation,

environmental sanitation risk, etc. The estimate employs different scenarios in terms of coverage by

the different types of sanitation systems (with alternatives A and B for the percentage of current

users of on-site systems eventually switching to off-site systems) and the final completion date of the

investment program. Table 12 shows the total cost of achieving the different coverage targets in

2034, together with the investment need in the first five years depending on the targeted year of

completion (2019, 2024, or 2034).

Table 13 Funding need for sanitation development in different scenarios

Rp trillion

Targeted coverage in 2034

Alt. A Alt. B

Alt. A Alt. B

On-site 79% 75%

Medium decentralized 17% 20%

Community-based 3% 3% Centralized 2% 3%

Total investment need through 2034

Investment need in first 5-years

100% in 2019 100% in 2024 100% in 2034

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. A Alt. B Alt. A Alt. B Alt. A Alt. B

National Government 200 231 111 119 77 83 58 62

Provincial and Local Govt. 121 135 65 68 45 48 37 39

Community / Users 86 86 81 81 51 51 40 40

All sources 407 452 257 268 173 182 135 141

The table shows that, even if it is possible to maintain the relative rate of increase in annual funding

to accumulate a total of Rp 165 trillion over the next five-year period, this amount would still fall

short of the necessary total projected Rp 176 trillion government funding needed to achieve 100%

access to basic sanitation by 2019 in alternative A (the least expensive of the two alternatives for

completion by 2019). This total five-year need would drop to Rp 122 trillion if the year of completion



53

Declining quality of service

Declining service income Declining willingness to pay

is 2024, and further to Rp 95 trillion if it is 2034.11 It appears, then, that the new national sanitation

development target is likely unattainable unless other sources of funding become available.

Viewed from a broader perspective, the Rp 176 trillion five-year total of government funds needed to

complete the sanitation investment program by 2019 represents over 10% of total investment and

non-investment spending by government for all sectors in the 2013 budget (Rp 1,683 trillion). The

central government share in completing the target by 2019 (Alternative A) would be an investment

of Rp 111 trillion over five years. This is over 60% of the Rp 184 trillion total investment spending in

the 2013 central government budget and exceeds the total 2013 PU budget of Rp 78 trillion by 42%.

The needs-based cost estimate presented in Table 12 also shows that, due to the nature of

infrastructure to be developed, the necessary contribution from APBN will be far greater than

funding by local government. This is completely opposite to the current funding estimate, in which

(as shown earlier) local government contributes 45% of total available funding against 34% from

APBN. Assuming that GOI is willing to increase its contribution, the question arises how this could be

done:

Reallocation of spending priorities – in the short term this is generally the only option to

rapidly increase spending in a particular sector. However, the amount involved is so large that

it is unlikely GOI will be able to divert it all from other sectors.

Increasing revenue – a medium term solution could be to institute a new tax or other levy

earmarked for sanitation development. However, although cost recovery should be an

important principle in sanitation development, earmarking revenues at the central level is

generally not a preferred solution in public finance because it limits flexibility of the budget.

Cost recovery is better done at local level, where the levy can be positioned in relation to an

actual service for which people are willing to pay.

Increased donor support – although donor funding for sanitation has decreased during 2010-

2014, a basic purpose in PPSP (going back to ISSDP) is that SSK/MPS planning should result in

“bankable” project proposals. This has not been very visible in the proposals coming out of the

first MPSs that have just entered the stage of implementation. Further effort is necessary to

improve the quality of MPS proposals in this regard. Even if this is successful, a question that

arises is whether the GOI is willing to countenance significantly increased donor support, given

that a few years ago it announced a desire to end international donor funding.

5.6 The institutional challenge

Local revenue mobilization

All efforts to accelerate sanitation development ultimately must bear fruit at the local level. Until

now, PPSP has focused mainly on investment planning for infrastructure development. However,

while the purpose of PPSP may be to assist and guide local governments in acquiring physical

sanitation facilities, the objective of

all this is to achieve improved

sanitation. The latter will only come

about if the facilities are correctly

managed, with beneficial impact for

many years to come. To the extent

that effective and efficient

management depends on selection of

locations and types of facilities, the

PPSP planning process contributes to

11

USDP Report on sanitation demand



54

an enabling environment. But the district governments have the responsibility to make it all work.

This is nothing new, but historically local governments in Indonesia have been plagued by a vicious

circle of needs and expectations that has often made it impossible to keep services alive.

As argued above, the large investments required for sanitation infrastructure development present a

daunting funding challenge. As far as small-scale facilities are concerned, the districts will have to

shoulder much of the investment burden them-selves, while medium and large-scale facilities are

likely to need central PU support. But after construction cities become responsible for operation and

maintenance of all facilities, including the ones built by central government. Limiting the argument

for the moment to the management of water services, which includes wastewater collection and

treatment, the law provides that there shall be no untreated discharge and that all costs of water

management be recovered through a service fee. This fee is to cover to all economic cost, i.e.

including planning, amortization, interest, operation and maintenance, management, etc. More

broadly, local governments are entitled by law to collect fee income for specific services in any

sector, including sanitation. However, in fact districts do not seem to give much priority to local

income generation, and most have only little opportunity to provide funding through reallocation

from other sectors. It is therefore probably safe to say that no significant sanitation improvement is

possible without creating an additional source of local income. Districts that do this have to take into

account a number of limitations:

Law 33/2004 on balancing financial relations between levels of government provides, inter

alia, for the distribution of national funds in the form of a general allocation (DAU) to local

government. The DAU consists of a basic allocation, mainly to cover the salaries of government

staff in the district, and a supplemental allocation, which is based on the “fiscal gap” of the

district. This is a disincentive for local revenue mobilization because tjis would reduce the fiscal

gap and thus any increase from e.g. sanitation service fees may lead to a commensurate

reduction in the DAU.

most local governments determine service fees based on what they perceive as the public’s

willingness to pay. Revenue from fees is therefore generally insufficient to sustain an adequate

service level, which in turn reduces the willingness to pay, and so on.

the focus on willingness to pay severely limits development, since it invariably leads

governments to provide only poor quality services that soon break down. It is the expectation

that this will happen that results in the public’s unwillingness to pay.

in roadmapping, most provinces assume that districts determine service levels based on

minimum service standards. It is not certain that this is what the public wants and is willing to

pay for, but what is most important is to set the service fee at a level that is able to sustain the

service. The focus should therefore shift from willingness to ability to pay: only if district

government decides that the public will be unable to pay the full cost of service should the fee

be set lower.

Where fee revenue is unable to cover the cost of the service, the shortfall is often invisible as it

is covered from the general budget and not provided as an explicit subsidy. Consequently only

few people know the actual cost of providing the service and there is no urgency to strive

towards cost recovery.

Most people are in fact willing and able to pay a higher service fee: slum dwellers often pay a

multiple of utility rates for water services. A recent study12 found the price of water to range

from 10 times the price utility customers pay (Bandung slums) to up to 60 times in extreme

cases. What is important is to decide on a level of service that is attractive and to provide it

without interruption.

12

“Serving poor consumers of water supply in Indonesia: options for the future”, B. Evans, V. Jaganathan, W. Kingdom; Indopovwss



55

Customer-oriented service management

Taken together, these observations lead to the conclusion that, given the poor state of sanitation

today, service improvements are only possible through accelerated investments in sanitation

facilities, which investors will only pay for if they are satisfied about the financial sustainability. The

increase in service income that this requires is only possible if there is public trust that the

government will “deliver”, i.e. the government must improve the service. There is no choice here,

because a decision not to improve service delivery would inevitably make people less willing to pay

and the service would come to a complete stop.

It is therefore important that districts demonstrate their ability to deliver and sustain improved

service. A basic condition for this is establishing a true orientation to customer service. Achieving this

objective is possible, but the organizational reality does not make it easy:

As long as sanitation services are managed by an administrative unit of a district agency such

as e.g. the Dinas Kebersihan it is difficult to determine the full cost of the operation, as some

elements of funding may come from different units. Moreover, any income from sanitation

fees goes to the district treasury (Kas Daerah) and is not directly available for funding the

operations. From an organizational perspective, this situation also represents a mingling of

regulatory and operational responsibilities. Taken together these factors make it difficult to

achieve cost effectiveness. As long as districts give insufficient priority to sanitation, this

situation is not likely to change.

In many districts the regulatory and operational responsibilities have been unbundled by

creating a dedicated technical operational unit (UPTD). This enables more effective and

efficient operation because staff members have no other responsibilities. The UPTD also

provides more transparency about the cost of providing the service, and thus creates a basis

for better financial management. However, any income from sanitation fees still goes to the

treasury and it is not directly available to the UPTD. The relative separation from the

bureaucratic organization only pertains to operational activities – although the UPTD may

submit a proposed annual workplan, the annual budget of the unit is ultimately decided as

part of the overall workplan of the Dinas. The ultimate budget allocations are often far smaller

than proposed, forcing limitation of operations with predictable results for service quality.

Some districts have established public service organizations (BLUD) for some sanitation

services. The BLUD is a not for profit entity with fiscal autonomy based on the principles of

financial management for service organizations formulated by GOI (PPK-BLUD), which focus on

efficiency and productivity to ensure service delivery based on sound business principles.

Though it remains inseparable from the LG bureaucracy, reporting to the “instansi induk”, it

does not necessarily adhere to the administrative hierarchy (eselon) and may employ both civil

service and non-civil service professional staff. The BLUD retains the income from service fees

to fund its operations and may receive subsidies from the district if this is not sufficient.

Because it still reports to the “instansi induk” it is not very independent in planning its activity

level, especially while it remains dependent on subsidization. In theory the BLUD could muster

a commitment to provide customer service that allows levying service fees that are more

realistic in terms of cost recovery. Presumably this could ultimately allow the organization

more independence in planning and implementation of the service. However, as long as

service fee income is too far below cost, it is difficult for the BLUD to reach this situation.

Even in cases where districts have established full-fledged municipal companies (perusahaan

daerah) to provide sanitation services, they retain a fair degree of control over these

companies’ annual work planning. In part this can be understood as evidence that the

companies are beholden to the district, because in many cases the investment in (major)

service infrastructure and facilities is funded from the district budget. Moreover, any fee

structures and levels have to be approved by the administration.



56

In all these situations the district administration clearly maintains a hold on the service organization,

regardless of its legal status and the freedoms this allows. It is clearly not enough for the district to

understand that good services demand a dedicated, customer-oriented organization, for where they

have taken steps toward establishing such organizations the latter remain restricted in their

operations and thus unable to deliver enough good quality service. The main constraint appears to

be a concern that the service is too expensive compared to the income produced by service fees.

Most districts are very reluctant to set such fees at a level that can support a service that customers

would be willing to pay for (even at subsidized rates), and thus condemn the organization to fail.



57

6. Recommendations

6.1 The technical challenge

Achieving the national target only involves improvement where it is needed, and not where

adequate facilities already exist. Most existing residential sanitation in Indonesia is on-site, either in

the simplest form of the “pit/hole” or the more advanced form of septic tank, which is predominant

in more affluent neighborhoods. This will for many years remain the mainstay of sanitation.

However, most septic tanks are suspected to be dysfunctional, either because of poor

construction/materials or because they are not being serviced. WSP recently (2013) showed that 95%

of the septic tanks were not lined from the bottom,

Develop a system for licensing, inspection, and enforcement of on-site sanitation facilities,

most urgently septic tanks:

o Septic tanks are usually ready-made, only to be installed in the ground and connected to

the necessary tubing. The GOI should regulate the quality of these systems along with

instructions for installation. Local government should license dealers to carry these

products and make sure that only quality tanks from licensed dealers are being used.

o Local governments should inspect existing septic tanks in all neighborhoods to ensure

that they are functioning properly and if not make recommendations for improvement.

Local government should furthermore establish an annual desludging service for all

residential properties (i.e. abandon desludging on-demand).

o Central government should create a legal basis for districts to enforce their regulations

with appropriate and practical sanctions.

Continue Sanimas etc. where appropriate, but clarify to districts that sanitation is a

government responsibility and they should not “hide” behind community inaction.

o Provide institutional solutions for the management phase, since management

committees often fail.

Develop a large program for accelerated development of medium-sized systems that would

connect typically 1,000-5,000 households each in most cities throughout the country. The PPSP

analysis suggests that such so-called “kawasan systems” could provide for some 10% of total

access by 2019 if 100% access were to be reached. . By 2034, it is assessed that about one third

of the urban and 18% of the total population is served by an ipal kawasan, as households

convert from septic tanks to connection to these systems. In addition most new urban

developments should immediately be provided by IPAL kawasans

o With a very concentrated effort, kawasan systems could thus close more than half of the

25% sanitation access gap between now and 2019 in urban areas (leaving 10% of people

that lack sanitation provided with large-scale and on-site systems).

o Besides providing a medium-term solution for filling the access gap, kawasan systems

have the additional advantage that they may be easier to fit into local topographic

conditions than large systems, which could make them easier to build and less likely to

require extensive pumping.

Any sewerage and treatment system depends on sufficient influent to function technically and

sufficient income to stay afloat financially. Effective demand is demand for which are willing to

pay when it is met, i.e. when they get a house connection to the system.

o Develop a model business case to be calculated for each kawasan system, identifying

effective demand, operating cost, and income.

o Develop a specific approach to creating effective demand for connections to kawasan

systems, for example using the triggering approach used in STBM

o Investigate possibilities to force households to connect to sewer systems.



58

A shift towards medium sized “kawasan” systems represents a radical break with present policy,

which focuses mainly on community-based solutions. To the extent that community based systems

are supported by existing projects, they are too small to effectively be able to close the sanitation

access gap. Community-based systems are still useful in specific circumstances, but the center should

formulate a significantly larger central effort to develop kawasan systems.

Agree with stakeholders on the national target and its implications for the approach to

sanitation development and include the target in the RPJMN along with:

o preliminary identification of the number of different systems to be developed (initial

assessment is approx. 3,000 systems);

o realistic estimate of cost and logistical implementation issues (capacity for design,

availability of land, capacity and construction, etc.);

o identification of funding sources that GOI considers appropriate (possibly re-evaluate

earlier announcement to reduce funding by external donors).

Encourage districts to further develop their SSK/MPS so that it may become the primary

indicator of local sanitation development needs, with clear targets for central programs and

other support to focus on. To this end:

o look beyond the mere availability of an SSK (e.g. as criterion for DAK disbursement);

o also consider the substance of SSKs make sure they effectively contribute to achieving

the national target (i.e. contain sufficient numbers of appropriate systems).

6.2 The implementation challenge in districts

Ensure that national programs are available to achieve the targets in RPJM

Instruct national programs to take the lead from districts in identifying locations for

development

o Use updated Second Cycle SSK/MPS as basic tool for identifying locations for program

implementation;

o Include instruction in Second Cycle SSK/MPS guideline to maximize use of national

programs unless ineffective or unfeasible in the district;

o Allow districts to access national programs before updating SSK/MPS in Second Cycle;

o Make sectoral planning (e.g. Konreg) accepts LKMPS outputs so national spending

follows local priorities.

Provide information to districts on the background of the national target and how to translate

this into relevant targets for the district:

o Ensure that districts make a 20-year master plan for sanitation development focused on

the national target, as a framework for evaluation of the SSK/MPS;

o Institute procedures to ensure that successive 5-year SSK/MPS achieve the 20-year

target in the master plan;

o Prepare manual for master planning and develop model master plans.

Recognize that integrated development as planned through horizontal coordination must be

implemented by vertical hierarchies, but ensure that the vertical hierarchy accepts the result

of horizontal planning.

o Issue PermenPU that KonReg must accept outcome of LK-MPS.



59

6.3 The program management challenge

Ensure that provinces develop a material interest in sanitation development and make them

responsible for program implementation

o Develop roadmap into real provincial development policy document

Translate national targets to provincial development outline (based on sanitation

risk map in roadmaps), thus creating a material interest for the province;

Identify provincial policy measures to support districts in driving sanitation

development and include in roadmap.

o Identify pilot provinces and assist them on managing 2nd Cycle and CBT process

Set up framework for evaluation of SSK/MPS against provincial development

outline in LK-MPS

o Develop manual on PPSP management for use by other provinces

o Coaching of other provinces on managing PPSP implementation

The PMU should focus on an effective and efficient information flow between the levels of

government: downward regarding national objectives and programs, and upwards regarding

the SSK/MPs identifying local level opportunities for action. Key areas of attention for the PMU

are:

o Lobbying in central government for large kawasan development program

o Establishing an enabling framework for local sanitation development

Proactively inform districts of relevant funding sources and criteria for using them

Develop NAWASIS into a distributed information system with databases in

Bappenas, MOHA (roadmap), and MOH (EHRA)

The PIU-T should focus on closing the access gap with kawasan systems, establishing a

licensing inspection and enforcement system for on-site systems, and creating institutional

O&M for community-based systems where necessary

o Develop kawasan systems in a few locations to create showcases

Produce a design manual with (modular) design options, standard drawings, etc.

Develop standard operation manual for kawasan systems

o Assist districts in accelerating the planning process that follows once budgets have been

allocated and the district must take concrete steps implement sanitation development

activities:

Prepare templated feasibility studies, DEDs, TORs for related consultancy, etc.

Templated TOCs for master plans, feasibility studies, DEDs, TORs for consultants

The PIU-IF should focus on regulatory and financial aspects of the enabling framework:

o Develop/provide model perdas for sanitation management

o Experiment with financial modalities (co-financing, pre-financing, cost recovery, etc.)

o Remove procedural obstacles to asset transfer and create O&M contracts and TP

funding where this is not possible

o Remove disincentive for local revenue mobilization in Law on balanced funding

The PIU-AE should focus on data collection on access to sanitation, advocating kawasan

systems to district governments as realistic means to close the access gap, and promoting

effective demand for house connections to these systems

o Ensure that EHRA serves improving the SSK/MPS and does not hold up Second Cycle

Update only where the situation has changed

Start update one year prior to Second Cycle to ensure completion in time



60

o Move from broad advocacy to pragmatic, solution-oriented advocacy

In urban areas, formulate a “government-led total sanitation” approach to

support accelerated development of kawasan systems

Advocate kawasan system development to districts

Promote house connections early in system development

Discourage on-site systems that do not work properly

o Complete Grand Design with “Event matrix and advocacy calendar” and toolkit

o Link with AKKOPSI (requires CB/HRD – who pays?) or delegate to PU (as in Banda Aceh)?

o Identify pilot provinces to apply the approach, with focus on sufficient funding, etc. at all

levels

6.4 The capacity challenge

Although it is the government that has set the sanitation development goal, it is not able to achieve it

on its own. Developing the necessary infrastructure will of course involve vast numbers of private

contractors, etc. This is not only true for investment in sanitation by private citizens (mainly on-site

sanitation such as septic tanks but also larger systems with centralized treatment on residential

estates built by private developers) but also for much of the planning work to be done for public

infrastructure, for which local governments regularly recruit expertise on a short-term basis. Capacity

building and training in PPSP will primarily deal with skills development in the Pokjas and other

government organizations. However, it is also necessary to address the availability of engineers and

contractors to be contracted for actually constructing the facilities. As things stand, there appears to

be a need for educating / training vast numbers of such personnel at all relevant levels, not only

university trained engineers and other experts but also technicians and construction personnel with

(lower) secondary technical training.

1. Step up and revamp CBT by increasing efforts to:

a. Expand the reach of CBT to many more persons than have been trained thus far,

b. Deepen the impact of CBT by focusing beyond the PPSP planning process and including

substantive sanitation aspects, contract management, and substantive quality control,

c. Increase and sustain the impact of CBT by shifting partly to coaching of staff with basic

relevant knowledge and involving provincial Pokjas in matching training supply and

demand;

2. Liaise with sponsoring ministries to create formal PPSP-related training programs:

a. with dedicated ministry staff (widiyaiswara), and / or

b. framework contracts with local education and training institutions to provide trainers;

3. Deconcentrate as much as possible the responsibility for CBT:

a. Make provincial Pokjas drive CBT of district level Pokjas,

b. Retain responsibility for CBT of provincial Pokjas with PMU/PIUs,

c. Rely on PMU/PIUs for horizontal coordination of national training budgets and programs

and vertical coordination of implementation with the provincial Pokjas,

d. Give the provincial Pokjas a more proactive role in identifying training needs and

training supply;

4. Clarify funding arrangements for CBT, by either:

a. Transferring CBT funds directly to the Provincial Pokjas if these are able to assume

responsibility for program implementation, or

b. Leaving funding and overall responsibility for CBT with the relevant ministries (e.g.

MPW), delegating implementation tasks to the provincial Pokjas along with the transfer

of “dekon” budgets;



61

5. Expand substance from planning to implementation and management – will coaching be

enough?

a. Planning skills versus planning process

b. Transition from planning to implementation (budgeting, feasibility studies, DED, etc.)

c. Customer-oriented management – can coaching/training achieve culture change?

6.5 The funding challenge

Closing the sanitation access gap by 2019 will involve major infrastructure development, especially in

kawasan systems, and will require vast additional financial resources, conservatively estimated at Rp

176 trillion or more depending on the speed of development. There are several options for funding

this effort:

Reallocation of funds from other sectors to sanitation, based on the argument that improved

sanitation helps achieve those sectors’ development goals. Because this will require

demonstration that sanitation development is equally effective and efficient in achieving other

sectors’ objectives, it is unlikely that this option will be able to unleash all funds needed to

achieve the target.

Increasing national revenue to fund additional national sanitation development programs, by

raising or introducing new national taxes or levies. At the national level, instituting or raising

taxes for a particular purpose is neither effective not efficient:

o Public finance customarily maintains a strict separation between tax and other income

and budget expenditures. Hence the use of the revenue from such tax for sanitation will

be untraceable.

o Even if tax revenue were earmarked for sanitation, the link between expenditure and

result would be too vague to enable determination of who pays and who benefits. Cost

recovery is better organized at local level, where a fee is paid for a specific service.

Increased borrowing from international donors to fund sanitation development programs. This

is the most likely scenario for accessing the large amounts of funds needed to achieve the

national sanitation target.

Cost recovery through a service fee with appropriate tariff structure at local level – GOI may

lend the relevant amount on to districts to implement specific projects in the programs. The

district then institutes a service fee with a tariff structure sufficient to recoup all or an agreed

percentage of the cost. (The remainder would presumably be a subsidy.)

6.6 The institutional challenge

Convince district governments that good sanitation can be a vote getter with good potential

for cost recovery if provided with a true customer orientation in accordance with public

demand, and without major service interruptions.

Prepare manual to assist districts in optimizing effective demand for sanitation services by:

o Costing of relevant service level options and calculating effective fee structures

o Engaging community in determining service level and amount they are able to pay

Assist districts in setting up BLUD (if the service must be subsidized) or PD and set relevant

performance targets

o Determine support during startup phase

o Engage in service oriented HRD (training, salary structure, relevant targets, etc.)



62

7. Colophon

This document was produced by the Urban Sanitation Development Program (USDP). USDP provides Technical Assistance to the “Accelerated Sanitation Development for Human Settlements” Program (PPSP), a Government of Indonesia Program implemented by the POKJA AMPL, a sanitation-oriented collaborative program between eight Ministries, with Bappenas as lead agency. PPSP is implemented through a PMU at Bappenas and three PIUs at the Ministries of Health, Home Affairs and Public Works. USDP’s services focus on facilitation and capacity building and training targeting the principle stakeholders and actors in the PPSP Program. USDP is funded by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. DHV BV in association with PT Mitra Lingkungan Dutaconsult, Royal Haskoning Indonesia, Witteveen + Bos Indonesia, MottMacDonald Indonesia, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and PEM have been contracted to provide a range of technical services in support of the implementation of PPSP. Your letters, e-mails, enquiries can be forwarded to: Urban Sanitation Development Program (USDP) Jl. Lembang No. 11 A Kecamatan Menteng Jakarta 10310, Indonesia Phone: (62-21) 319 248 92, 237 287 48 Fax: (62-21) 319 248 95 Email:[email protected] For information, please also check: www.sanitasi.or.id

Client : Embassy of Kingdom of the Netherlands, POKJA AMPL Nasional – Bappenas

Project : Urban Sanitation Development Program

Report Title : PPSP 2010 – 2014 Implementation Issues and Recommendations

Length of Report : 70 Pages

Author : Rudolf van Ommen

Internal Check : USDP Management

Project Manager : Bram van der Boon

Project Director : Dadang Fadillah

Date : 16 May 2014

Status : Final

http://www.sanitasi.or.id/

· pdf file3.3 district sanitation strategy ... supply and sanitation policy formulation and...

Documents