Water Environment Partnership in Asia

Policy Brief

Series2

March 2014

C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D
SANITATION LESSONS LEARNEDFROM SANIMAS PROGRAMME IN
INDONESIA
1. Introduction
With a population of 242.3 million as of2013, Indonesia has become the fourthmost populous country in the world, withover half (51%) living in urban areas (World
Bank, 2013). As with other Southeast Asian
countries, however, Indonesia is still facing
many sanitation problems due to its rapid
population and urban growth. One of thecritical problems is poor domestic wastewaterand septage management, especially inurban areas, many of which lack adequate
sewerage and drainage systems due tolack of capital. Conventional centralised
approaches to wastewater management
have generally failed to address the needs ofpoor communities in urban, peri-urban andrural areas of Indonesia. Access to piped
sewerage in Indonesia is one of the lowest
Figure 1

Direct sewerage(No septic tank)< 1%
Septic tankwith sewerage< 0.5%
Communal toilets
0%
Septic tanks
No sewerage
62%

Urban population
110 million

in the region. According to World Bank &Australia AID (2013), only about 1% of theurban wastewater, or approximately 115
million litres per day, is treated in Indonesia
and 14% of the population defecates in the
open (Fig. 1). The cost to improve sanitationin Indonesia is estimated at 384 trillion IDR(42.7 billion USD) at minimum. Inadequate
sanitation and poor hygiene have led to morethan 120 million disease episodes and 50,000
premature deaths annually. Consequently,
the direct economic impact is more than
3.3 billion USD per year, and the overall
adverse economic impact was estimatedat 6.3 billion USD per year, or around 2.3%of its gross domestic product (GDP) (WSPEAP, 2008). Meanwhile, on-site sanitation,
mainly septic tanks, is often inappropriate
to address the problem, thus necessitatingintermediary and complementary solutions.

Wastewatersafely collected

Total
wastewater
treated1%

Septage safely
collected

Septage safely
disposed pr treated
4%

Other on-site
sanitation< 23%

Open defecation
14%

Urban wastewater and septage flow in Indonesia
Source: World Bank & Australia AID, 20131

Septage andwastewater
unsafely disposedSince 2006, thanks to the strong commitment
and extensive efforts of the government ofIndonesia via multi-stakeholder partnerships
with the Australian Government, NGOs
as well as international donor agencies
such as the World Bank, JICA and ADB,a number of decentralised wastewater
treatment plants through community-based
sanitation programmes called SANIMAS
have been constructed focusing on poor anddensely populated urban areas, which canhelp to close the gap between on-site andcentralised systems. These programmes
have helped to reduce 60% of hygiene- andsanitation-related diseases in intervention
areas during the period 2000–2010 (BORDA,
2011). In 2010, the Government of Indonesia
started a new SANIMAS programme which
will run until 2014 and aims to implement
1,000 units per year. As stated in the
National Mid-term Development Plan 2010–2014, 70 million inhabitants lacking basic
sanitation are to have access to sanitation
facilities through centralised systems (5%),
communal or decentralised systems (5%)
and on-site sewage systems (90%) by 2014.

The government of Indonesia sees thesecommunity-based sanitation programmes as
the best way to eradicate open defecationand improve sanitation, especially in poor
dense urban settlements, until full municipal
sewerage and wastewater treatment
becomes a feasible option.

2. Background information on domestic
wastewater management in Indonesia

rural population have access to improved
toilet facilities (World Health Organisationand UNICEF, 2013) and that about 65% ofhouseholds in urban areas have septic tanks(WEPA Commission Report, 2013). However,most of these septic tanks are poorly
constructed and rarely emptied, which allows
untreated or partially treated wastewater toinfiltrate into groundwater. Meanwhile, public
investments in sanitation infrastructure andservices have been neglected. Consequently,
wastewater from households is usuallydischarged untreated or only partially treatedinto open water bodies such as rivers, ponds,
canals and drains. Indonesia is one of thecountries that has the lowest sewerage andsanitation coverage rates in Asia, which
has caused widespread fecal contaminationof urban water sources, both surface andgroundwater. According to the Environment
Monitor 2003 report (World Bank, 2003),
Indonesia has experienced repeated local
epidemics of gastrointestinal infections andhad the highest incidence of typhoid in Asia,and around 70% children had hookworm
and roundworms. Mursito (2013) reported
that 75% of rivers and 70% of groundwaterin Indonesia are already heavily polluted.
About 140,000 tonnes of feces per day were
polluting the country’s water bodies.

a. Demographic, socio-economicand environmental conditions
Indonesia is economically a middle-income
country, the largest in Southeast Asia, andis a highly developed and decentralised
state. Since 2005, its economic growth
has averaged 5% per annum (WSP, 2009).
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was
6.5% during 2010–2011. Decentralisationof service delivery to local governments
has begun since 2001 and its impact varies
across the country.
Along with economic growth is the challenge
of developing essential basic infrastructureand services, especially urban sanitation
infrastructure, to meet the demands of rapid
urbanisation and population growth. However,the Government of Indonesia previously
handled sanitation as basically a private
matter, with households responsible for initialconstruction investment and operation. Mostof the sanitation infrastructure has been
provided by households and small operatorsin the form of on-site water-borne toilets
such as septic tanks. It is reported that about
73% of the urban population and 44% of the2

The main objective of this policy brief is toreview Indonesia’s experience in managing
urban wastewater in the context of low sewer
coverage, with a special focus on communitybased sanitation programmes, namely
SANIMAS. Based on this experience, positive
outcomes will be identified and shared
among policymakers and water professionalsof local and national governments, potential
international donor agencies, as well as
entities from other countries planning to
mainstream community-based sanitation as asustainable sanitation solution for the urban
poor in other densely populated areas ofAsia.

Household septic tanks are still thepreferred and common choice for residential
wastewater treatment in Indonesia. Thus, it
is estimated that the amount of generated
septage will steadily increase. Indonesia has
in total about 150 septage treatment plants
in large and medium-sized cities, which wereconstructed over the past 20 years, but 90%of these facilities have closed down or run onvery low volumes due chiefly to institutional
problems, low loading inputs due to low
quality septic tanks, difficulties with vehicularaccess and illegal direct desludging to water
bodies (Sudjimah, 2013). As a result only 4%

Figure 2of generated septage is treated (World Bank
& Australia AID, 2013). In addition, limited
budget allocation from local government (LG)makes it difficult for responsible institutions
to operate, undertake maintenance activities
and monitor the effluent.

b. Key issues, challenges and constraints in
wastewater and septage management
There are a number of issues and challenges
related to sanitation management at different
governmental levels in Indonesia. A summaryof these challenges is presented in figure 2.

At national levelLow political will and prioritisation to improve sanitation at all government levels, as evidenced from limited
budget allocation of both local and central government. Funding allocation for sanitation projects orprogrammes is only 1‒2% of district budget.
Many existing policies and regulations are outdated ; enforcement of relevant policies and regulations is weak,
especially for environmental sanitation.
Lack of coordination among related agencies responsible for sanitation facilities and infrastructure development.
Lack of penalties.
Limited funding resources and investments.
Limitations of human resource capacity and lack of qualiﬁed personnel.
Limted availability of Master plans for sanitation developments.

At provincial level

Most of strategies for the sector are created at the national level. Thus, translating these strategies to theprovincial and local levels is very challenging.
No clear institutional arrangements for wastewater and septage management at local government level.
Weak capacity and lack of incentives to implement and manage sanitation activities.
Lack of progress monitoring.

At city level

Lack of eﬀective approach for inter-agency collaboration with the full range of sanitation stakeholders onplanning and service delivery.
Limited capacity for planning, infrastructure development, service delivery and sanitation promotion.
Lack of appropriate mechanisms for accessing and allocating capital funds.
Lack of mechanisms to promote private sector involvement in service delivery (e.g., in safe removal, treatment
and disposal of septic tank sludge).
Poor operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure.

At communityand householdlevel

Low community awareness, participation and demand for improved sanitation services; ignorance of impact ofdefecation in rivers or wells on others' health due to ingrained lifestyles at community level.

Issues and challenges of urban sanitation at different administrative levels
Surce: Modifications based on WSP, 2009; World Bank & Australia AID, 2013

3. Policies and regulations on wastewaterand sanitation management
In Indonesia, both on-site and off-site
sanitation systems are managed by the
Cipta Karya or Directorate General of Human
Settlement at the Ministry of Public Works,
thus the policies and strategies for on-siteand off-site systems are not separated.
Indonesia has sanitation policies andstrategies which cover both on-site and offsite systems, the main ones of which are
discussed below:

3

3

•

National Policy Development ofCommunity-Based Water Supply
and Environmental Sanitation
released in 2003, recognized thecommunity members as the key
decision makers for all planning,
design, implementation, operations
and management of water supply
and sanitation facilities and services.

•

Decentralisation Law of 2004 hashelped to strengthen the legal
framework of the sector. According
to this law, district or provincial
governments are responsible forproviding water and sanitation
services to the communities within
their authority, including drafting local
regulations. District or provincial
governments also have the rightto establish the local operationalframework, including tariffs andsanctions for rural and urban watersupply and sanitation. Meanwhile,the central ministries focus on policy
development, standard setting
and capacity building. However,at the national level, guidance onsanitation and septage management
remains unclear and incomplete.
Consequently, enforcement of thislaw is insufficient at all levels, which
provides incentive for polluters to
reduce their impacts due to thealready polluted state of the receiving
bodies. Current controls focus moreon the obligations of polluters thanon the management role of publicbodies.

•The 2008 National Policy andStrategy on Domestic Wastewater
Management provides direction
and guidance to national andlocal governments, private sector,
communities and other stakeholders
on how to achieve national and
MDGs targets related to wastewater.
This policy is the basis of all planningand programmes in domestic
wastewater development, and aims
at improving access to infrastructure
and wastewater through on-siteand off-site systems in both urban
and rural areas, with a priority
on the low-income segment.

•

National Medium-term Development
Plan (RPJMN) for 2010–2014
sets the targets for wastewater
management as follows: (i) Indonesia
to be 100% free of open defecation;(ii) 10% of the total populationt o b e u s i n g o ff - s i t e w a s t e w a t e r
management systems; and (iii) 90%of the population to have improved
on-site or shared facilities (Fig. 3).

Figure 3

STBM
On-site sanitation(90%)
Community based

Septagemanagement
Target2014

Decentralised system(5%)

Target 2014

Permanent solution(Communal WWTP)

Expansion of existing
centralised system

Centralised system(5%)

New pipeline systems
in 5 cities

Targets for domestic wastewater and septage management by 2014

4

Institutional basedIntermediate solution(SANIMAS)

a. On-site management (small and mediumsized cities, provinces)Indonesia’s “National Standard Code forPlanning Septic Tanks with Absorption
System” provides guidelines for the designand construction of septic tanks, and forthe design, operation and maintenanceof septage treatment facilities. However,there is no legal, institutional or financing
framework for septage collection, treatment
or disposal. Most local government units(LGUs) are unable to provide comprehensive
septage management and the enforcementof these codes is insufficient. Consequently,
most individual on-site sanitation systems are
not built to code (AECOM & Sandec-Eawag,2010).

Currently there are no legal arrangements
regarding off-site domestic wastewater
management in either the centralised
or decentralised system. However, the

The Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)
approach is one of the main components inthis programme, which aims to stop open
defecation through community action. Under
this initiative, the Ministry of Public Works has
implemented a community-based sanitation
programme known as SANIMAS for periurban areas, and around 569 locations in 31
provinces had benefited from the programme
since its inception in 2004 as of 2012 (WEPA
Commission Report, 2013).

4. Institutional arrangementsa. On-site management

In 2001, the government embarked on
rapid and far-reaching decentralisation
which formalized the local government’s
responsibility for the delivery of urban
sanitation services; however, no significant
improvements were seen on the ground. A
World Bank study of 19 cities and 2 districtsin 7 provinces in Indonesia found that 99%
of central transfers to the LGUs went toeither public works or health departments(WSP-EAP, 2006). A critical failure of thisdevolvement, however, was in the transfer
of responsibility for urban services (including
sanitation) to local governments withoutestablishing an operational framework,
service delivery standards or measures todevelop municipal capacity. This meant thatthe tasks municipalities were to perform,
how to provide accountability, and the means
for funding services were not defined. In
addition, no specific responsibility was
requested to improve sanitary conditions in
unsewered areas. Furthermore, the specificroles of provincial governments in municipal
sanitation have failed to define clearly. The
lack of institutional capacity and expertiseamong the staffs responsible for sanitation
planning thus remain major challenges
for domestic wastewater and septage
management in Indonesia.

The individual on-site wastewater
management system in Indonesia is still
unaffected by any institution, thus no one
is responsible for controlling the quality ofthe effluent from individual septic tanks or
the quality of construction. As the average
septic tank has limited capacity and canbe full at any time, advance treatment isrequired to treat the sludge from them. In
this respect, the Ministry of Public Works(MoPW) takes the initiative to constructsludge treatment plants which can be used
to treat the sludge from individual septictank and then hands them over to local
government for operation and maintenance.

b. Off-site management (large cities)

5

Indonesian government does have a national
policy on off-site sanitation management
systems, called the National Programme forCommunity-Based Total Sanitation (STBM).
Initiated by the Ministry of Health in 2006
and integrated into national policy in 2008
as stipulated by Minister of Health Decree
Kepmen no. 852/Menkes/SK/IX/2008, STBM
aims to prevent and lower the occurrenceof sanitation-related diseases throughmodifying social behavior and eradicating
open defecation habits to create a better
environment.

5

The biggest problems with this are the lack ofmanagement capacity, lack of coordination,and lack of political will from the relevant
stakeholders to manage this fecal sludge.
Central government, via MoPW, is attempting
to rectify this situation by providing technicalassistance to rehabilitate and optimise
existing sludge treatment plants in several
cities using the state budget. However, most
crucially, no capacity building takes place for
local government staffs.

b. Off-site management
The responsibilities for urban sanitation
services among different levels ofgovernment are as follows:
National government has the overall
responsibility for coordination of the sector
such as formulation of sanitation policies andstrategies, regulations, minimum standards
and monitoring. The National Development
Planning Agency (Bappenas), the Ministries
of Public Works, Ministry of Health, andMinistry of Home Affairs (the latter being
responsible for local government) and theEnvironment Agency all have roles in urban
sanitation, however Bappenas still plays
the lead role in decision making. National
government is also in charge of the Waterand Sanitation Sector Policy Formulation
and Action Planning project (WASPOLA), theIndonesia Sanitation Sector Development
Programme (ISSDP) and the Accelerationof Sanitation Development Programme(PPSP). Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health is
responsible for promoting rural sanitation.
Provincial governments have to date notbeen involved in urban sanitation services
because their roles and responsibilities have

Figure 4

not been clearly defined. Thus, defining thespecific roles of provincial government in thisarea is becoming an urgent task.
Local governments have overall responsibility
for the provision of urban sanitation services.
However, the assignment of specific roles
to municipal departments and other citybased agencies differs greatly from one
city to another. For instance, in the case of
sewerage, responsibility may belong to thewastewater management utility (PDPAL), thewater utility (PDAM), the water resources
department or the department of public
works.
In order to improve coordination andcooperation among these agencies, anational multi-departmental sanitation
working group has been established in 2007,
and headed by Bappenas. However, policy
development in the sector so far has mainly
focused on community-based services,which emphasized more on rural and periurban sanitation. Unfortunately, there is no
policy for urban sanitation. In other words,
the policy framework underlines more on
the roles of communities without addressing
issues that need institutional attention.

5. Community-Led Total Sanitation:
Lessons learnt from SANIMAS
programme in Indonesia
a. Programme description
The SANIMAS programme (Sanitation by
Community) is based on community-driven
development principles, and is tasked with
providing wastewater infrastructure for thecrowded urban slum populations. Startingin 2005, following the success of the pilot
programme in six cities over the years 2003
and 2004 initiated by BORDA, World Bank
and Australia Government, the Governmentof Indonesia via the Ministry of Public Works
has committed to increasing resources tosupport a replication and scale-up approachfor community-based decentralised
wastewater treatment systems (DEWATS)
nationwide through SANIMAS programmes.
SANIMAS used the demand-responsive

6

SANIMAS system in Bekasi city, Indonesia
Source: Bao, 2013

Since 2006 the Ministry of Public Works began
to replicate the SANIMAS approach using its
own budgets, however, long-term operation andmaintenance systems are still underdeveloped.
Since 2007 this approach has been considereda success and the central government
adopted SANIMAS as a national programme
to accelerate sanitation development by
replicating it to other cities, in order to achieve
the MDG targets. Concurrently, many donors
also participate and invest in this programme.
The Islamic Development Bank (IDB) and the
Asian Development Bank (ADB) are part ofefforts to replicate the programme.

SANIMAS used the demand-responsive
approach (DRA) principle, in which local
government expresses their interestby budgeting on budget plan. Central
government will select the participating city/community by several criteria, such having
join PPSP programme, had city sanitation
strategy, and Mid-term Investment Planningfor Wastewater Sector. Participating cities/
communities were selected through atransparent, competitive process based on
the standard criteria that included technicalfeasibility, willingness to contribute andexperience with other self-help projects.
b. Technological solutions
In the SANIMAS programme, communities
are often offered three options for sanitation
system improvement:(i) Communal or shared septic tanks,
normally applied for a group of four
to five households. In this option, thehouseholds have to build their own toilets
and connect it to the shared septic tank.
(ii) Enhanced communal bathing, washingand toilet block facilities (also known as
MCK facilities) including biogas capture
and reuse (this option is sometimes
referred as “community sanitation centers”)(iii) Simplified sewer system with a communal
sewage treatment facility (usually a baffled
reactor). In this option, the households needto build their own toilets and connect it to thesewer.

of their preferred option. According to a
recent World Bank (WSP, 2013) report, 77%
have been community sanitation centers(CSC) with toilets and washing and laundry
facilities, as most members of communities
benefiting from SANIMAS had no toilets, andfurther, because biodigesters can provide
gas which can be used for cooking, hotwater and lighting for the SANIMAS facilities
area. Meanwhile, 16% of cases were forwastewater collected from household toilets
by a simplified sewer system (SSS) andgravity-fed to a DEWATS plant. For theremaining 6%, a local sewer network and acommunal sanitation facility were combined,making these the most inclusive as they
accommodate both household connections
and access to sanitation for those unable toconnect to the network.
For the treatment facilities, communities areoffered three choices of technology, whichtarget both grey water and black water:(i) Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR): A
chamber with multiple compartments to treat
wastewater anaerobically. ABRs can bemade of concrete and Glass Reinforced Fiber(GRF). To date, this option has been the mostcommonly used technology in SANIMAS
programmes in Indonesia (Fig. 5a).
(ii) Anaerobic Filter: A chamber of multiple
compartments equipped with a filter (volcanic
rock, bio-ball or any other media) (Fig. 5b).
(iii) Aerobic Reactor: A chamber equippedwith oxygen supply.

The actual options are selected dependingon the specific local conditions such associal and cultural preferences. However,communities are guided in the selection
Figure 5a. Anaerobic baffled reactor

b. Anaerobic filter

Treatment facilities
Source: Sudjimah, 2013

7

7

The treatment facilities can be equipped witha biodigester, which can produce methane(CH4) usable as an alternative energy sourcefor household activities such as cooking,lighting or water heating. MCK facilities
equipped with a biodigester are known as
MCK ++ (MCK plus plus) and can serve
50–150 households depending on the sizeof land available. If a community chooses
a simplified sewer system, it is importantto pay attention to the location of treatment
facilities, which can be in open areas such as
roads, public areas or other open areas, butpreferably where easy access to desludging
trucks is possible.
Typically, house owners would like to haveprivate facilities connected to a simplified
sewer system. Meanwhile, occupants ofrental housing often prefer shared toilet
blocks. All of the options are suitable forcommunity sizes ranging from 100 to
200 households. Each of these options
costs about Rp 3 million (about $310). For
instance, for a community of 100 households,
the central government grants Rp 100 million(about $10,300) or one third of the cost. The
local government then invests the balanceof 200 million IDR (20,700 USD) and thecommunity invests an equivalent of 2–5% in‘in kind’ labor or land, food, etc. contribution
to build the facilities (WSP, 2009).

c. Funding mechanism of the programme
Block grants are transferred directly tocommunity bank accounts managed bycommunity-based organisations (CBOs).
CBOs will develop investment plans withassistance from community facilitators andthe LGs. After the community investment
plans (including the final technical designs
and cost estimates) have been approved at
a community assembly and submitted forapproval, a contract is executed between the
CBO and the local executing agency, which
releases the first instalment of the block
grant. Communities undertake civil works withtechnical assistances from the community
facilitators and project management
consultants. The proposed projects utilise thesame funding flow mechanism as for block
grants and the first instalment of 40% of theapproved block grant is transferred directly
into the CBO’s bank account as an advancepayment, with the remaining funds disbursed
to communities in two further instalments.
SANIMAS as a national policy programme
is funded by three sources, including thestate budget (central and local government
budget), NGO Grants/CSR and from thecommunity itself (Mursito, 2013). The detailsof which are given below:

8

Central Government Budget(i)Construction cost(ii) Cost of training of local facilitators(iii) Salary for local facilitators (2 persons/SANIMAS site)
Local Government Budget(i)Empowerment cost such as socialisation
cost and rapid participatory assessment(RPA) cost for selection of location(ii) D e t a i l e d e n g i n e e r i n g d e s i g n(DED) and community action plan(iii) T r a i n i n g o f c o m m u n i t y based organizations (CBOs)
and construction workers(iv) Training for operators and users(v) Empowerment for sustainability of
SANIMAS
Community(i)

Cash to open an account and for
operational and maintenance costs(ii) Fund non-cash (in-kind) such as land,
goods, labor, and other contributions.
The implementation of this funding
arrangement does not always run smoothly,
especially in big cities like Jakarta, where
community contribution is a challenge.
Although people in the related communities
are not always required to contribute
financially they are expected to contribute
their labour to construct facilities, but projects
can still stall at this empowerment stage due
to lack of awareness or desire to assist on
the part of the citizens. However, Jakarta
LG has subsumed the part community
contribution should play by paying for thelabour required in the construction phase,a practice strongly not recommended as it
contradicts the basic ethos of community
empowerment.
In smaller cities, where there is a higher
level of community spirit, projects can run
more smoothly and members of communities
are usually willing to contribute their laborin the construction phase. In such workcommunities are often trained and monitored
by LG staffs and technical facilitators, aswell as in the management of funds andexpenses records, to maintain transparency
and accountability.

d. Responsibilities of different stakeholder
groups in SANIMAS programme
SANIMAS programmes have been
implemented and managed by both national

Figure 6
National
government

Local
government

Communityand local government and communities. The
roles of different stakeholder groups in the
management of SANIMAS programmes aredescribed in Fig. 6.

Socialisation of SANIMAS programme
Training of facilitators
Supporting for the Community Workplan Formulation
Providing materials & wages for construction
Providing both technical and social supports to facilitators
Responsible for monitoring of SANIMAS sustainability

Choosing appropriate location
Supporting for the Community Workplan Formulation
Community Empowerment (Training for CBO, treasurer, operator, foreperson, enterpreneurship, O&M training)
Establish campaign for hygiene & health promotion
Land provision
Supporting operation and maintainance (1st year for O&M cost, 6-monthly inﬂuent & eﬄuent lab test,
desludging, providing rehabilitation fund)

Formulation of community workplan
Responsible for operation and maintenance of SANIMAS
Responsible for O&M routine cost based on community contribution

Roles of different stakeholder groups in the management of SANIMAS programmee. Impact of SANIMAS programme oncommunity and lessons learnt
A s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r, t h e S A N I M A S
programme’s goal is to encourage community
initiatives in an open, participatory andself-reliant approach. In 2012, the Ministryof Environment carried out a research tomonitor 400 SANIMAS facilities, in which
over 400 effluent samples from SANIMAS
facilities were taken for laboratory analysis.
Parameters measured were Total Suspended
Solids (TSS), Biological Oxygen Demand(BOD), pH and oil and grease. Results
showed that 82% of SANIMAS establishedwere operating well and had good quality ofeffluent (Mursito, 2013).
Aside from a number of SANIMAS facilities
constructed using the national budget
t h r o u g h t h e M i n i s t r y o f P u b l i c Wo r k s ,many other SANIMAS facilities have been
implemented around the country via theSpecial Location Budget, ADB and IDB loans,
as given in Fig. 7, which also gives totals forthe various funding sources.

Figure 7

Numbers of implemented SANIMAS facilities by funding source in Indonesia
Source: Mursito, 201399

Lesson learnt from SANIMAS programme inIndonesia and recommendations

lack the knowhow to access such,
while provincial governments havefunds but do not know how to disbursethem. This highlights the need forfurther improved communication
among governmental agencies.

Sanitation planning••

Bottom-up planning for community/neighborhood scales and topdown planning for city-wide/
regional scales need to be combinedto accomplish sufficient publicaccess to sanitation infrastructure.

•

Indonesia needs to develop acomprehensive national sanitation
strategy with defined objectives andclear institutional roles from national
to local level, and to provide aframework and guidelines for actions
at both national and local level.

•

Local governments need to develop
septage management programmes
through introducing institutional andregulatory arrangements, appropriate
financing and charging mechanisms.

•

Central government needs to develop
both incentives and obligations
for municipalities to adopt thecomprehensive national sanitation
strategy strategies.

C o m m u n i t y - b a s e d D E WAT S
is an effective and promising
approach for poor communities
in dense urban settlements.

Capacity building•

Sanitation should not be limited
to wastewater management
and should also cover septage
treatment and management.

•

To enable local governments to beaware of the support required to makeappropriate and cost-effective technology
options, effective promotional campaigns
and more financially viable services areneeded.

Public awareness raising campaign•

Funding mechanisms•

Institutional arrangements

It is necessary that the funding
mechanisms for urban sanitation must be
publicized. Funding for urban sanitation
improvements is normally available fromgovernment sources, but municipalities

10

Providing only sanitation infrastructure
will not solve the problem; publiccampaigns to raise public awareness ofsanitation are also a key task.

6. References
AECOM & Sandec-Eawag. (2010) A Rapid Assessment of Septage Management in Asia: Policies andPractices in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. AECOM
International Development, Inc. and the Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries(Sandec) at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Available on internet:
http://www.waterlinks.org/library/septage-management/septage-report

Authors:
NGOC BAO Pham
Policy Researcher
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies(WEPA Secretariat), Japan

Bao, P.N. (2013) Picture has been taken at the field trip held during the WEPA Workshop on “Decentralised
Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Asia” held on 14th November 2013 in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Tetsuo Kuyama
Manager(Water Resource Management)
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies(WEPA Secretariat), JapanBORDA (2011) SANIMAS - Sanitation by the Community in Densely Populated Low Income Areas
in Indonesia by BORDA and its Network. Available on: http://www.solutionsforwater.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/11/SANIMAS_BORDA-1.pdf
Mursito, D. (2013) Introduction of Decentralised Domestic Wastewater Management System in Indonesia.
Proceedings of WEPA Workshop on ”Decentralised Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Asia” held on 14th
November 2013 in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Sudjimah, E. (2013) Indonesia National Policy & Strategy on Environmental Sanitation Management.
Proceedings of WEPA International Workshop held on 18th -19th February 2013 in Siem Reap, Cambodia.
World Bank & Australia AID.(2013) East Asia pacific Region Urban Sanitation Review – Indonesia Country
Study. Available on internet: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/EAP/Indonesia/
indonesia_sanitation_report.pdf
World Bank. (2003) Indonesia Environment Monitor 2003. Special Focus: Reducing Pollution. World Bank
Indonesia Office, Jakarta, Indonesia.
World Bank. (2013) World Development Indicators 2013. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-08213-9824-1. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0
World Health Organisation and UNICEF. (2013) Progress on sanitation and drinking-water - 2013 update.
World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
WSP (2009) Urban Sanitation in Indonesia: Planning for Progress (Field Note). Water and Sanitation
Programme-East Asia and the Pacific, Jakarta, Indonesia. Available on internet: http://www.wsp.org/sites/
wsp.org/files/publications/Urban_San_Indonesia.pdf
WSP. (2013) Review of Community-Managed Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia.
Water and Sanitation Programme, World Bank. Available on internet: https://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/
files/publications/WSP-Review-DEWATS-Indonesia-Technical-Paper.pdf
WSP-EAP (2008) Economic Impacts of Sanitation in Indonesia - A five-country study conducted in
Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, the Philippines, and Vietnam under the Economics of Sanitation Initiative(ESI). Water and Sanitation Programme - East Asia and the Pacific (WSP-EAP), World Bank Office inJakarta, Indonesia. Available on internet: http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/esi_indonesia.
pdf
WSP-EAP. (2006) Review of Public Financing for Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia. Water andSanitation Programme - East Asia and the Pacific (WSP-EAP), World Bank Office in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Layout:Yumi NishimuraInstitute for Global
Environmental Strategies, Japan

Contact:
WEPA secretatiat
Institute for Global Envrionmental Strategies[IGES]Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Area
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa,
240-0015, Japan

Acknowledgements:
Following WEPA partner and advisor kindly provided valuable comments and suggestion for thispolicy brief;
Yun Insiani, Head of Infrastructure and Services, Ministry of Environment, Indonesia
Zuchrufijati, Water Expert, Indonesia
Daisuke Sano, Associate Professor, Hokkaido University, Japan

TEL: +81-46-855-3700, FAX: +81-46-855-3709
E-mail: contact@wepa-db.net
URL: http://www.iges.or.jp/

1111