Home » Articles » Indonesia National Program for Community Water Supply and Sanitation Services

Indonesia National Program for Community Water Supply and Sanitation Services

Improving Hygiene & Sanitation Behavior and Services
 
Technical Guidance to the World Bank/Indonesia and Government of Indonesia’s Ministry of Health team in the preparation of hygiene and sanitation promotion components for the proposed National Program for Community Water Supply and Sanitation Services Project

Prepared by Andy Robinson for the World Bank
December 2005

 

This report was funded by the Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership, a facility that enhances World Bank operations to increase delivery of water supply and sanitation services to the poor (for more information see www.worldbank.org/watsan/bnwp).
The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Any references provided in this document to a specific product, process, or service is not intended as, and does not constitute or imply an endorsement by the World Bank of that product, process, service, or its producer or provider.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is based on fieldwork and research funded by the Bank Netherlands Water Partnership through the World Bank Sanitation, Hygiene and Wastewater Support Service. The fieldwork, research and mini-workshop could not have taken place without the support and assistance of the Government of Indonesia (Directorate General for Communicable Disease Control, Ministry of Health and BAPPENAS), the WSLIC-2 project team, and the Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and Pacific.
 
Special thanks are due to Pak Basah Hernomo (BAPPENAS); Pak Samilan (WSLIC-2);
Pengky Priyono and Devi Setiawan (WSP-EAP) for their kind assistance and support in Indonesia. I am also grateful to Eddy Perez and Pete Kolsky (World Bank), Isabel Blackett and Nila Mukherjee (WSP-EAP), and Mike Ponsonby (WSLIC-2) for their thoughtful and detailed comments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is the main output from a consultancy to provide technical guidance to the World Bank Indonesia and Government of Indonesia’s Ministry of Health team in the preparation of hygiene and sanitation promotion components for the proposed National Program for Community Water Supply and Sanitation Services (NPCWSSS)1
 
In Indonesia, the water supply and environmental sanitation (WSES) sector has been split into ‘community-based’ and ‘institutional-managed’ services, rather than rural and urban services. This division is important, as it means that the proposed NPCWSSS will be designed for the implementation of community-managed sub-projects in both rural and peri-urban areas. However, as the vast majority of community-managed sub-projects are found in rural villages, and the needs of rural and peri-urban sub-projects are often quite different, this report and its proposed component design concentrate largely on the challenges of rural service provision. 
 
Despite ongoing activity in policy development in the water sector in Indonesia, efforts to create an enabling framework for sanitation service delivery have been limited, and have had relatively little impact on the sector to date. Government of Indonesia policy treats domestic sanitation (i.e. toilets and septic tanks) as primarily a private responsibility, with households and commercial establishments expected to make private investments in on-site sanitation improvements in order to conform to public health regulations.
 
Lessons learned

An important factor in the cost-effectiveness of hygiene interventions is the presence (or absence) of adequate water supply and sanitation facilities. Most Indonesians use water for anal cleansing after defecation, and several Indonesian sanitation programs have identified distant or rationed water supply as a major barrier to toilet use, handwashing, and general hygiene. Likewise, hygiene improvement is more difficult in communities with low sanitation coverage, due to the environmental pollution, fecal contamination, and inappropriate hygiene habits associated with widespread open defecation. 
 
Anecdotal evidence collected during this study suggests that the sanitation and hygiene improvement approaches used in Indonesia are inadequate at reaching the poorest households in the poorest communities. Households in this critical group, which suffer most from the high costs and ill effects of inadequate water supply and sanitation, rarely have toilets; rarely obtain subsidized facilities from sanitation projects; and rarely borrow from revolving sanitation funds. 
 
Water supply development requires a high level of technical knowledge, thus must involve external institutions with strong engineering skills and experience, even when implementation is participatory and community-driven. Water supply programs also need to establish relatively complex systems for the management of shared infrastructure, thus must engage with local leaders, develop community level institutions, and build financial and operational capacity. In contrast, sanitation and hygiene interventions need to operate at a lower level, and in a different way: working with individual mothers and children;
                                                
1 Since renamed PKS-KASIH (Partnership for Life, Water and Sanitation in Green Indonesia)

with poor households and neighborhoods; and with local health and hygiene service providers. Inevitably, sanitation and hygiene promotion require very different skills and institutional arrangements to those needed for water supply development. 
 
WSLIC-2 Project

The World Bank supported Second Water & Sanitation for Low Income Communities Project (WSLIC-2) is recognized as one of the more successful community-driven development projects in Indonesia. The WSLIC-2 project attempts to develop integrated water supply, sanitation and hygiene improvement action plans in each sub-project community, but sanitation and hygiene development remains a weakness. 
 
Revolving sanitation funds are the mainstay of the WSLIC-2 sanitation program. While these have worked well in some areas and communities, their overall impact on low-income beneficiaries and sanitation coverage has been limited. Few of the sanitation loans have been repaid, and demand for the loans is relatively low. After three years of the WSLIC-2 project, 1.6 million people have access to improved water supply, but only 140,000 people have benefited from improved sanitation. 
 
Assuming that the WSLIC-2 project reaches its target of completing sub-projects in 2,500 communities, and manages to double the number of toilets constructed in each community, the average annual increase in access to improved sanitation will be about 220,000 people. This represents only 0.2% of the rural population of Indonesia. At this rate, it will take about 170 years for Indonesia to reach the Millennium Development Goal of halving the (rural) population without access to improved sanitation. 
 
In WSLIC-2, several important and well-planned elements of the ‘improving health behavior and services’ component, including the mass media and social marketing campaigns, have not been implemented. The reasons for the failure of these sub-components are complex, but the sub-components had little direct bearing on the main performance indicators (number of water supply facilities constructed; population benefiting from water supply facilities; number of school and household toilets constructed; number of people trained) and it proved difficult to recruit suitably qualified and motivated staff to implement these specialist activities. Inevitably, given time and resource constraints, these activities received less interest and attention than the construction of water supply and sanitation facilities. 
 
The community institutions formed under WSLIC-2 seem designed to meet the demands of water supply development rather than those of sanitation and hygiene promotion, as most project-initiated institutions operate at the community level and focus largely on the management of communal water supply systems. This bias is natural, given that water supply development consumes about 90% of project time and resources, and is also visible in institutional arrangements across the sector. The WSLIC-2 staff involved in sanitation and hygiene promotion spend the majority of their time working on water supply implementation, thus have little specific responsibility or accountability for sanitation and hygiene improvement. At present, there is no accountability for sanitation and hygiene interventions at any level within Indonesia: there is no separate national level body responsible for sanitation and hygiene improvement; and no sanitation or hygiene units at province or district level.

Recommendations

The NPCWSSS ‘improving sanitation and hygiene behavior and services’ component needs to be different from previous Indonesian water supply and sanitation interventions in two important ways: firstly, for the sanitation and hygiene component to have any national impact on rural access to improved sanitation, or on hygiene behavior and public health, it must operate at a far larger scale than existing interventions; and, secondly, it must adopt a more programmatic approach, with financing and management by sustainable local institutions, in order to provide the long-term institutional support and monitoring required for effective sanitation and hygiene improvement.
 
There is increasing global support for sanitation and hygiene marketing as a possible solution to the large-scale and cost-effective provision of sanitation and hygiene services. The argument is that most progress in increasing access to sanitation has been achieved by private suppliers supplying individual households, and that marketing has been more successful than anything else in promoting the adoption of sanitary toilets and making sustainable changes to people’s hygiene behavior. However, there are concerns about the ability of the marketing approach to reach the poorest households. In contrast, intensive, participatory approaches like Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) are good at reaching the poorest households, but are relatively difficult and expensive to scale up, and hence likely to be less cost-effective in reaching large, diverse populations.   
 
One solution is to combine both ‘sanitation marketing’ and ‘total sanitation’ elements into the sanitation and hygiene promotion component. The early promise of CLTS in Indonesia suggests that this approach, when adapted and used within a carefully structured and targeted program, will provide an effective way of reaching the poorest households in remote, rural communities. The rest of the population will be served by a large-scale marketing program designed to develop appropriate products and services; build local sanitation businesses and supply chains; and promote sanitation and hygiene improvements. 
 
The proposed program strategy will use provincial sanitation awareness and hygiene promotion campaigns, modeled on the campaigns planned by the Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program (ISSDP), and targeted at the market segments identified by the initial consumer research in each province. Beneath these provincial campaigns, there will be a two-pronged strategy: the marketing component will work outwards from the rural centers and main roads, building supply chains and local capacity; meanwhile the ‘total sanitation’ component will start in the most remote, unserved, rural communities and work inwards towards the expanding supply chains. In the long-term, it is hoped that the reach and effectiveness of market supply will enable the ‘total sanitation’ component to be phased out completely. 
 
Proposed program sub-components

One of the major challenges of the consultancy has been the costing of the sanitation and hygiene improvement component, as there have been no previous large-scale implementations of either ‘total sanitation’ or ‘sanitation marketing’ programs in Indonesia. The proposed sub-component costs are based on preliminary cost estimates, which should be improved and updated during program preparation. Given this proviso, it is proposed that the component for sanitation and hygiene improvement comprises the following sub-components:

Sub-component  Amount
1. Total sanitation program US$ 35.0 million
2. Sanitation and hygiene marketing program US$ 19.0 million
3. School hygiene and sanitation program US$ 6.0 million
4. Development of provincial sanitation and hygiene units US$ 5.0 million
Total component cost US$ 65.0 million

The proposed ‘total sanitation’ program is designed to cover 17,500 communities over five years, with the potential to reach 30 million poor, rural inhabitants, of whom about 24 million are thought to have no access to improved sanitation. Assuming that the total sanitation program manages to provide improved sanitation access to only 50% of this target population, it will still increase rural sanitation coverage by 10%. 
 
The three elements of the proposed sanitation and hygiene marketing program are:
•  Sanitation market, consumer and supplier research studies (US$ 0.25 million)
•  Sanitation awareness and hygiene promotion campaigns (US$10 million)
•  Sanitation supply chain and business development programs (US$8.75 million)
 
The proposed school hygiene and sanitation program includes two main activities:
•  School sanitation and hygiene facility program (US$ 4.5 million)
•  District workshops on school hygiene and sanitation (US$ 1.5 million)
 
The proposed sub-component for the development of provincial sanitation and hygiene units aims to establish a sustainable network of ‘provincial sanitation and hygiene units’ tasked to:
•  Conduct baseline surveys
•  Monitor and evaluate program performance
•  Monitor and evaluate program impact
•  Provide institutional support to community programs
 
Next steps

This report is based on a three-week mission to Indonesia, supplemented by secondary data from previous sector studies and evaluations. While every effort has been made to provide a comprehensive assessment of community-based sanitation and hygiene services in Indonesia, and to make realistic proposals for sanitation and hygiene improvement under a new national program, time and resource constraints have resulted in some inevitable shortcomings and omissions.
 
In particular, three areas require more thorough examination during the detailed program preparation:
•  Evaluation of CLTS in Indonesia
•  Program implementation in peri-urban areas
•  Institutional arrangements for sanitation and hygiene improvement

1 INTRODUCTION

This report is the main output from a consultancy to provide technical guidance to the World Bank Indonesia and Government of Indonesia’s Ministry of Health team in the preparation of hygiene and sanitation promotion components for the proposed National Program for Community Water Supply and Sanitation Services (NPCWSSS)2
 
This technical assistance was carried out by the Sanitation, Hygiene and Wastewater Support Service of the World Bank’s Energy and Water Department with funding from the Bank Netherlands Water Partnership (BNWP). The consultancy was carried out in advance of the main project preparation because of the additional work and consultation needed to improve and develop the sanitation and hygiene component.
 
The terms of reference3 for this consultancy required the following specific tasks and outputs:
•  Design of the ‘improving sanitation and hygiene behavior and services’ component of the proposed NPCWSSS; 
•  Design of the sanitation and hygiene aspects of the related capacity building component of the proposed NPCWSSS;
•  Relevant written sections of the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) clarifying roles, responsibilities, costs, timelines and performance indicators; and
•  Evidence of stakeholder consultation and consensus on the project approaches and component design recommended by the consultancy. 
 
The consultancy involved eighteen days in Indonesia, with nine days used for field visits to existing sanitation programs and pilot projects in South Sumatra and NTB4, plus discussions with key stakeholders in Jakarta, and secondary research based on materials provided by the Water and Sanitation Program - East Asia and Pacific (WSP-EAP). The consultancy concluded with a mini-workshop in Jakarta hosted by the Ministry of Health’s Directorate General for Communicable Disease Control (DepKes), at which the preliminary findings of the consultancy were presented and discussed with representatives from the key government and donor agencies5
 
The findings from the fieldwork, consultations and secondary research have been combined with the feedback from the mini-workshop to produce this report, which is the main output from the technical assistance consultancy.

Definitions

In order to ensure a common understanding of the concepts and terms used in the report, the following definitions are provided:
 
CLTS: Community-Led Total Sanitation is the original variant of the ‘total sanitation approach’, a process to inspire and empower rural communities to stop open defecation and start using sanitary toilets, without offering external subsidies for the purchase of hardware such as toilets pans and pipes6 . CLTS uses a participatory analysis of community sanitation to stimulate a collective sense of disgust and shame among community members as they confront the crude facts about mass open defecation. This analysis triggers the realization among community members that they each need to change their habits and behavior. The CLTS facilitator should never lecture or advise on sanitation habits, and should not provide external solutions, such as toilet designs, in the first instance. The goal of the facilitator is to help community members to see for themselves that open defecation causes ill health and an unpleasant environment, and thus inspire and empower them to find locally appropriate sanitation solutions.  
 
Community-Based Water Supply and Sanitation Services: are managed and controlled by communities or community-based organizations without the need for formal legalization, and are distinct from services managed by legally registered institutions e.g. services managed by public sector utilities and private sector providers (in both the formal and informal sectors). In Indonesia, the community – institutional separation has replaced the rural – urban divide, with separate government policies and programs established for community-based management and institutionally-based management of water supply and sanitation services. 
 
Hygiene promotion: a planned approach to prevent diarrheal disease through the widespread adoption of safe hygiene practices7 , e.g. campaigns to encourage regular handwashing at appropriate times. Note: hygiene promotion is usually a much broader intervention than sanitation promotion, which focuses solely on the safe management and disposal of excreta. 
 
Informed choice: demand-based programming places the community in the role of decision-maker in the selection, financing, and management of their water supply and sanitation system.  In order to effectively implement a demand-responsive approach, the government should play a role as facilitator to provide informed choices to the community regarding the development and construction of sound infrastructure and services, taking into account local financial, technical, environmental, social, and institutional factors. Informed choices are provided in participatory sessions, covering technology and service options based on willingness to pay, to provide insight on the service provision schedule and know-how, management of funds and responsibilities, and management of services8
 
PHAST: Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) is a methodology for community hygiene behavior change and improved management of community water supply and sanitation facilities. PHAST uses trained facilitators to initiate and oversee a series of participatory activities that assist community groups to identify health and hygiene problems, analyze disease transmission routes, identify barriers to disease, plan interventions to construct facilities and change behaviors, and monitor their progress. PHAST is different from CLTS in that PHAST uses a set series of activities to initiate changes in management and behavior relating to water supply, sanitation and hygiene, whereas CLTS is a less rigid methodology with the sole objective of stopping open defecation through the introduction of low-cost sanitary toilets. 
 
Poverty: the poor are defined as those below the national poverty lines devised by the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS). The BPS poverty lines are based on food consumption packages that satisfy a daily requirement of 2100 calories per day, plus allowances for non-food necessities. Note: the composition and value of the packages are based on the relative prices in each province, and are calculated separately for the urban and rural areas, thus the ‘official’ poverty lines are not consistent across provinces, or between rural and urban areas9. In 2004, theBPS set the National Poverty Line at Rp 143,455 (US$14) per month in urban areas, and Rp 108,275 (US$11) per month in rural areas10

Program software: activities that support and promote the provision of program services and facilities, e.g. media campaigns, capacity building activities, community hygiene promotion sessions and so on. Note: program software must be differentiated from program hardware (infrastructure) which includes tangible program products and facilities, e.g. toilets, soakaways, handwashing facilities and so on.
 
Rural: that which is not urban. In Indonesia, urban areas are defined using complex criteria that include population density (more than 5,000 per square km), the proportion of the population engaged in non-agricultural occupations (less than 25%), and the number of ‘urban’ facilities available. 
 
Sanitation: interventions for the safe management and disposal of excreta11 , with the principal safety mechanism being the separation of excreta from human contact. The term improved sanitation is used in this report to denote private facilities that provide safe management and disposal of excreta. Following the definition adopted by the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP), the following are considered ‘improved sanitation facilities’: sewer connections septic tank connections, pour-flush latrines, ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines and simple pit latrines. Note: this definition means that public or shared latrines; open pit latrines; and bucket latrines are not considered to be ‘improved sanitation facilities’.
 
Sanitation marketing: consists of activities to reach customers and persuade them to buy and use sanitation products or services. Sanitation marketing is based on a voluntary exchange between consumer and producer, from which both parties gain, and involves the development of sanitation products and services that people want, at prices they can afford; and the promotion of these sanitation products and services to the target population (using advertising, mass media, word of mouth, demonstration toilets, special offers, vouchers, competitions, prizes, door-to-doo sales, credit from local traders, mutual-help schemes and so on). 
 
Sanitation promotion: encourages the safe management and disposal of excreta through the widespread adoption of safe sanitation facilities and practices, e.g. programs promoting the construction and universal use of improved sanitation facilities (see ‘sanitation’ definition above
 
Total sanitation approach: a community-wide approach whose main aim is universal toilet use (total sanitation) in each community covered. The total sanitation approach focuses on stopping open defecation on a community-by-community basis through recognizing the problems caused to all by open defecation within and around the community, and ensuring that every household uses either their own low-cost toilet, or a shared toilet situated close to their home. However, the total sanitation approach is a broader variant of CLTS that may involve financial incentives (e.g.post-construction subsidies provided by the Total Sanitation Campaign in India); the promotion of broader environmental sanitation objectives such as drainage and solid waste management; an the promotion of hygiene improvement activities such as handwashing.

2  Since renamed PKS-KASIH (Partnership for Life, Water and Sanitation in Green Indonesia)
3  The full terms of reference are included in Annex 1
4  Nusa Tenggara Barat (Lombok and Sumbawa)
5  Full list of workshop attendees attached in Annex 2
6 Kar (2005) Subsidy or self-respect? Community led total sanitation. An update on recent developments
7 Ibid.
8 Government of Indonesia (2003) National Policy: Development of community-based water supply and environmental sanitation
9 Fuwa (2002) Evolution of rural poverty in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand
10 Maksum (2004) Development of poverty statistics in Indonesia: Some Notes on BPS contributions to poverty alleviation
11 WHO (2005)

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Poverty in Indonesia

Between 1976 and 1996, the rate of poverty consistently declined from 40 percent to just over 11 percent and the population under the poverty line reduced from 54 million to 22 million. There is little doubt that incidence of poverty decreased dramatically in the 20 years prior to the 1997 financial crisis, coinciding with Indonesia’s 7 percent per annum GDP growth trend. However, the economic crisis that hit Indonesia in 1997 led to a dramatic increase in the number of the poor. According to official estimates, the incidence of poverty from February 1996 to December 1998 rose nearly 50 percent. 
 
Following the stabilization of the economy, the poverty rate in August 1999 returned to around the pre-crisis level of February 1996. Based on the 2004 National Poverty line, about 36 million people (17% total population) currently remain below the poverty line.
 
There is considerable regional variation in depth and incidence of poverty. In 1999, the three most populated provinces (West, Central and East Java) comprised about 50% of the total population, but contained 60 percent of the total poor population. However, the incidence of poverty was far greater in other provinces, with the highest incidence found in Irian Jaya (55%), East Nusa Tenggara (47%) and Maluku (46%). Regarding the depth of poverty, the percentage of “chronically poor” was higher in rural Indonesia (12%) thanin urban areas (9%). Similarly, the percentage of “transitorily poor” was higher in rural (13%) than in urban areas (12%). 
 
Based on SUSENAS survey data, profiles of the poor in Indonesia can be summarized as follows (when compared to the national average): 
•  Poor households tend to have larger family sizes. 
•  A lower proportion of the poor (especially poor women) have secondary education (or above). 
•  Most births among the poor are attended by traditional health workers (or not at all). 
•  Heads of poor households are more likely to work in the informal or agricultural sectors. 
 
2.2 Baseline sanitation data

Access to sanitation in rural areas of Indonesia is reported to be 52 percent, but the real figure is likely to be much lower as the official data do not indicate whether sanitation facilities are in use, or meet minimum standards of hygiene. 
 
The impact of inadequate water supply and sanitation services is evident: 11% of Indonesian children have diarrhea in any 2 week period and 8% have acute respiratory infections; 216,000 children under five die each year, of which about 40,000 die from diarrhea and a similar number from respiratory infections12 Infant mortality has been reduced to 35 per 1,000 live births13, but remains at 121 per 1,000 in low-income areas.
                                                
12 Curtis (2004) Handwashing, hygiene and health: proposals for strengthening WSLIC-2s health component and a national handwash campaign
13 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (2002)

Of the four most important causes of under-5 mortality in Indonesia14, two (diarrhea and typhoid) are fecal borne illnesses directly linked to inadequate water supply and sanitation. Furthermore, the incidence of typhoid is the highest in the region and is disproportionate for countries achieving a GDP per capita above US$700.
 
In 2001, economic losses due to inadequate sanitation were estimated at 2.4% of GDP15, equivalent to about US$6.8 billion per year, or roughly US$150 per household per year. This situation presents a significant challenge to which the Indonesia government is responding through their commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
 
The GOI statistics on access to sanitation differ markedly from those reported by the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program. Most sector stakeholders seem to agree that the government figures for sanitation coverage are over-estimates, but the downward revision of these figures will be a politically difficult step to take. Nevertheless, this access data provides the baseline for all national investment plans and strategies, including measurement of progress towards the MDGs, thus it is vitally important that new baseline sanitation data is collected, and that broad consensus is reached on the use of these revised access figures for planning and monitoring purposes.
 
2.3 National policy for water supply and environmental sanitation

In 1998, the Government of Indonesia (GOI) embarked on an initiative to develop a national policy for the development of community-based water supply and environmental sanitation through the Water and Sanitation Policy Formulation and Action Planning (WASPOLA) project16. The new community-based policy was approved in 2003 and a national level inter-ministerial working group, funded by the GOI, has been set up to guide the policy implementation process.  
 
The comprehensive, community-based policy has been endorsed by the relevant ministries, as well as by several district governments, and a process is now underway to have it issued as a Presidential Decree. The second phase of WASPOLA (2004-08) aims to scale up implementation of the community-based water supply and environmental sanitation policy and expand current policy reforms to cover institutionally–managed services, e.g. services managed by public sector utilities and private sector providers (in both the formal and informal sectors). However, the national strategy and investment plan for translating the policies into practice and scaling up sector reform remain unclear.
 
The decision to split the water supply and environmental sanitation (WSES) sector into community-based and institutional-managed services, rather than rural and urban services, is important, as it means that the proposed Indonesia National Program for Community Water Supply and Sanitation Services (NPCWSSS) will be designed for the implementation of community-managed sub-projects in both rural and peri-urban areas. However, as the vast majority of community-managed sub-projects are found in rural villages, and the needs of rural and peri-urban sub-projects are generally very different, this report and its proposed component design concentrate largely on the rural challenge. 
 
The new sector policy provides direction for sector reform, by radically changing policy goals from achieving ‘coverage targets’ measured in terms of the construction of facilities, to the twin goals of sustainability and effective use of WSES services. Most of the directives are general in nature, including policies on: water as an economic and social good; informed choice as the basis for a demand-responsive approach; environmentally-based development; poverty focus; active role of women in decision-making; accountability in the development process; and the government’s role as facilitator. However, the hygiene education policy is the only section that explicitly addresses sanitation and hygiene improvements:
 
“Sustained WSES management requires WSES development to be comprehensive and capable of stimulating change for better community hygiene behavior to improve quality of life. Initiatives to change behavior should emphasize comprehensive proper hygiene and healthy living education as a compulsory and principal component of future WSES development; development planning should not focus solely on the physical construction of infrastructure.” p.14 Government of Indonesia (2003) National Policy: Development of community-based water supply and environmental sanitation 
 
Despite the ongoing activity in policy development in the water sector in Indonesia, efforts to create an enabling framework for sanitation service delivery have been limited, and have had little impact on the sector to date. GOI policy treats basic sanitation (i.e. toilets and septic tanks) as primarily a private responsibility and, therefore, public finance of sanitation remains limited, and households and commercial establishments are expected to make private investments in on-site sanitation improvements in order to conform to public health regulations.
 
2.4 Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program

The Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program (ISSDP) has been established recently to tackle some of the weaknesses in the sanitation sector. ISSDP aims to develop an effective enabling and investment framework for sanitation; to stimulate sanitation demand through a targeted public awareness and marketing campaign; and to build local government capacity for sanitation planning, implementation and management. Whilst most ISSDP activities have an urban orientation, epitomized by its proposed city sanitation pilot projects, much of the sanitation sector work will be relevant for the NPCWSSS. 
 
In particular, the ‘sanitation awareness raising and hygiene promotion’ ISSDP component should provide direct inputs and learning for the marketing campaigns envisaged for the NPCWSSS. ISSDP is contracting out this component to private sector consultants, thus has developed an extensive and well thought-out terms of reference (see Annex 3). The key elements of this sanitation awareness raising and hygiene promotion component include: consumer and market research; hygiene behavior studies; identification of vulnerable population groups and market segmentation; design of national sanitation awareness and hygiene promotion campaigns; development and implementation of targeted campaigns for poor households and children; and a full impact monitoring program for all sub-components. 
 
2.5  Financing of software and capacity building activities

The Government of Indonesia’s external debt burden is extremely high. Economic growth resulted in a higher nominal GDP in 2004 (US$258 billion), but the ratio of external debt to GDP has decreased only slightly, from 57% (in 2003) to 53%17. As a result of this heavy debt burden, GOI is reluctant to borrow funds for anything other than essential investments, and has a bias towards programs that produce tangible outputs. This reluctance has translated into an unofficial government policy to restrict non-hardware components in infrastructure loan programs to less than 10% of the total investment18. This is problematic in community-driven development programs, especially given the move for sanitation and hygiene interventions to invest more in software activities and capacity building.
 
The WSLIC-2 project incorporated a ‘community and local institutions capacity building’ component that covered facilitation, training, participatory identification and preparation of community-level projects, development and production of promotional materials, institutional strengthening of district and local agencies, and public information activities. This component alone accounts for 32% of WSLIC-2 external project costs (US$34.2 million), which illustrates the severe constraint that a 10% cap on non-hardware costs would impose on the proposed NPCWSSS.
 
2.6 Impact of 2004 Tsunami

The NPCWSSS is likely to operate in Sumatra, and may cover other areas affected by the 2004 tsunami. However, for the purposes of this report, it has been assumed that the urgent infrastructure needs of the affected population will be met by the planned reconstruction activities. In this regard, the international community signaled its firm commitment to assist countries affected by the 2004 tsunami at the summit held in Jakarta on January 6th, 2005 and donors have since pledged US$1.6 billion in additional assistance for reconstruction and recovery efforts in the Aceh region. Additional private sources (NGOs, corporate and private contributions) have also pledged significant assistance, reflecting the unprecedented response to this tragedy19
 

1 2 3 4 5 6
← Previous   Next →
Back
RSS