WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAM: TECHNICAL PAPER 85192 Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia June 2013 The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership administered by the World Bank to support poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. Acknowledgments This report was prepared by Kathy Eales, Isabel Blackett, Reini Siregar, and Evi Febriani. Valuable inputs were provided by Almud Weitz and the study reviewers Franz Drees-Gross, Soma Moulik Ghosh, Param Iyer and Sudipto Sarkar. This document was based on a study funded by AusAID. Photos by Kathy Eales Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) reports are published to communicate the results of WSP’s work to the development community. Some sources cited may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations, or to members of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank Group concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to wsp@worldbank.org. WSP encourages the dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. For more information, please visit www.wsp.org. © 2013 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 1 I. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 2 II. Indonesia’s Urban Sanitation Challenges ....................................................................................... 5 III. The Rise of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia .............................................................. 7 IV. Purpose of This Review.................................................................................................................... 9 V. Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 10 Institutional Roles, Sustainability and Urban Integration Aspects ........................................................ 11 VI. Key Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 11 Technical Aspects .............................................................................................................................. 14 Financial and Economic Aspects ...................................................................................................... 16 Equity and Pro-Poor Aspects ............................................................................................................ 18 Sustainability...................................................................................................................................... 20 Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................. 20 VII. Overall Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 20 Integrated Sanitation Improvement .................................................................................................... 21 VIII. Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Executive Summary Effective management of sanitation and wastewater is a More than 80% of DEWATS installations function well day growing challenge in dense urban settlements. In many to day, comply with environmental discharge regulations, developing countries, centralized sewerage and wastewater and enable far-reaching changes in environmental health treatment systems cover only a portion of larger urban ar- and personal behaviors in urban areas otherwise likely to eas, and on-site sanitation is often inappropriate in densely remain unserviced for some time. populated settlements. Intermediate and complementary solutions are needed. The simplified sewer systems retain higher usage levels than community-sanitation centers as they offer users greater con- Community-managed anaerobic decentralized wastewa- venience and privacy. They are more resilient in the face of ter treatment systems (DEWATS) offer the possibility of weak management as they require less operating income and relatively swift sanitation improvements in high priority maintenance than communal facilities. Communal sanitation neighborhoods that communities can manage themselves, centers have the highest number of users and work best where where local government does not yet provide a full sanita- tion service. a) there is a high population of tenants or non-perma- nent residents This review explores Indonesia’s experience in implement- b) there is no space for households to build their own ing community-managed DEWATS on a growing scale. In toilets or soak pits/septic tanks, a context of extremely low sewer coverage, the Government c) the area is prone to flooding or subsidence, and/or of Indonesia sees community-managed DEWATS as its d) the water source serving the community sanitation best available option for eradicating open defecation and center will be the primary local source of reliable, improving sanitation in selected poor dense urban settle- good quality water. ments until full municipal sewerage and wastewater treat- ment are feasible. The cost-effectiveness of DEWATS is shaped primarily by the number of people using a particular facility. Where the Three types of DEWATS are being implemented. To date, number of users per site is above 50 households, the average 77% have been community sanitation centers (CSCs), with cost is substantially lower than centralized systems. toilets, washing and laundry facilities. Alternatively, in 16% of cases wastewater is collected from household toilets by The sustainability of service provision with community-man- a simplified sewer system (SSS) and gravity-fed to a DE- aged DEWATS is vulnerable to a range of challenges: varying WATS plant. In a further 6%, a local sewer network and a levels of motivation by community management structures, communal sanitation facility are combined, making these inadequate operating income to cover major repairs, limited the most inclusive as they accommodate both household concern for wastewater treatment performance relative to connections as well as access to sanitation for those unable functioning facilities and free-flowing sewers, and inadequate to connect to the network. external support when things go wrong. www.wsp.org 1 Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia The assumption that communities can and will manage DEWATS as a scalable urban sanitation option should be facilities and wastewater treatment on their own without developed only in the context of a bigger picture that maps external support is overstated. Community-based organi- where decentralized systems fit into a broader city sanita- zations lose enthusiasm; desludging is neglected; and even tion strategy: which areas will be integrated into evolving the most committed users are reluctant to fund major re- centralized sewer systems, and within what time frames, pairs and refurbishment on their own. Sustained use of the and which areas are likely to remain stand-alone decentral- infrastructure and good treatment performance long term ized systems long term. are unlikely without external monitoring and support for technical and non-technical problem solving. Decentralized systems that can be operated and managed by users are much more likely to reach the poor in the short Community management should be reconceived as co-man- and medium term than the centralized piped systems and agement, where user communities take responsibility for rou- treatment works that prioritize central business and dense tine operation and maintenance, and local government and its downtown areas first. partners provide greater technical and non-technical support. Sustained improvements in sanitation and hygiene practices In summary, community-managed DEWATS can be effective require ongoing reinforcement, support and monitoring. for serving poor communities where the appropriate type of system is built well in the right location, the number of users Community-managed DEWATS do not absolve local gov- is optimized and sustained, and there is shared responsibil- ernment of its sanitation management responsibilities and ity with government for operation and maintenance. Com- should not delay more comprehensive planning and invest- munity-managed DEWATS should be developed as part of a ment in integrated sanitation improvement using both im- broader city sanitation plan and only where a community proved on-site and off-site sewerage systems. has the motivation to make them work. 2 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia I. Introduction The Government of Indonesia sees community-managed In this review the term decentralized waste- DEWATS as its best available option for eradicating open water treatment systems (DEWATS) refers defecation and improving sanitation in selected poor dense specifically to passive anaerobic treatment settlements until full municipal sewerage and wastewater systems. The most commonly used tech- treatment are feasible. It aims to reach 5% of the urban nology in Indonesia’s community-managed DEWATS programs is an anaerobic baffled population, or six million people, by 2014, through thou- reactor (ABR). sands of DEWATS installations. Indonesia is giving equal weight to centralized and decentralized systems in pursu- ing its Millenium Development Goals (MDG) and sector Effective management of sanitation and wastewater is a goals: by 2014, it is aiming for 5% coverage by centralized growing challenge in dense urban settlements. Rapidly systems too. increasing urbanization and, along with that, rising settle- ment densities in low-income urban and peri-urban areas This review explores Indonesia’s experience in implement- highlight the need for sanitation technologies and manage- ing community-managed DEWATS on a growing scale, ment systems that are robust and affordable, and which and more specifically, whether community-managed DE- lessen the pollution load on local water sources. WATS are a viable urban sanitation option for serving poor households in dense settlements. In many developing countries, centralized sewerage and wastewater treatment systems cover only a portion of larger Figure 1: Community-Managed Dewats Can urban areas, and are often not yet planned for smaller towns Offer Significant Improvements in Dense and densely populated, low-income areas of cities. On-site Settlements Not Served by Centralized Sewer Systems sanitation is often inappropriate in the denser settlements and slum areas, thus requiring intermediate and comple- mentary solutions. Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (DEWATS) connected to simplified sewer systems or communal sani- tation centers have the potential to close the gap between on-site and centralized systems. Community-managed DEWATS offer the possibility of swift sanitation improve- ments in high priority neighborhoods that communities can manage themselves, where local government does not yet provide a full sanitation service. www.wsp.org 3 Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia The performance of DEWATS in treating wastewater has been This review draws on quantitative and qualitative data documented elsewhere1; this assessment is more concerned from nearly 400 sites implemented between 2003 and with whether operation and management of DEWATS by 2011 (representing about 70% of the DEWATS developed neighborhood-based self-help groups is a viable option for between 2003 and 2009) and the experiences of a wide supporting service improvements in low-income urban areas range of stakeholders. It reflects on some outcomes and at scale. The emphasis is less on the ‘T’ in DEWATS for ‘treat- learning over the decade since the first projects were pi- ment’ than the ‘S’ for ‘systems’ in the widest sense. loted in 2003. Box 1: Community-Managed Dewats in Indonesia Thousands of community-managed DEWATS are being developed across Indonesia. Government funds most of the infrastructure development, and project implementation has a strong emphasis on community engagement and em- powerment. There are three main types. The majority are colorful tiled community sanitation centers (CSCs), with toi- lets, washing and laundry facilities. Alternatively, wastewater is collected from households by a simplified sewer system (SSS), with the treatment infrastructure often built under the road to save space and lower costs in dense settlements. A small minority offers both a local sewer network and a communal sanitation facility, and serves households that have their own toilet and washing facilities as well as those that do not. Each system typically serves between 20 and 100 households, and is managed by a small committee of residents who are responsible for long-term operation and maintenance. Figure Figure Community 2: 2 : Community sanitation Sanitation centers with Centers DEWATS with DEWATS Figure 3: Neighborhoods Served by Simplified Sewers and a Communal Treatment Plant 1 Ulrich, A, Reuter, S, and Gutterer, B (eds.), with Sasse, L., Panzerbieter, T. and Reckergzügel, T. (2009) Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS) and Sanitation in Developing Countries. 4 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia II. Indonesia’s Urban Sanitation Challenges Indonesia’s urban sanitation challenges are acute. Half of investment in sewer infrastructure has been low. Seventy- Indonesia’s population of 242 million people live in urban three percent of people in towns and cities have improved settlements, yet less than 2% are connected to a centralized sanitation, but the vast majority rely on toilets connected sewer network and treatment system. Just twelve cities have to soak pits or poorly constructed, open-bottomed “tanki any centralized sewering, and even Jakarta, the capital, with septik”. nearly 14 million people, has under 2% sewer coverage. In- donesia’s piped sewer coverage compares poorly with other An estimated 14% of the urban population still practice countries with a similar Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per open defecation or use overhanging ‘helicopter toilets’ that capita. discharge directly into canals and rivers below. The extent of water pollution is severe. Two-thirds – 66% – of Indonesia’s Historically, sanitation improvement in Indonesia has been urban population are still not connected to a piped water seen as a household responsibility, and public demand for network, and rely heavily on untreated groundwater. Figure 4: Indicative Piped Sewer Coverage in Countries with a Comparable GDP Per Capita Percent coverage 0 20 40 60 80 100 Morocco Mongolia Guatemala Congo Republic Indonesia Ukraine Paraguay Albania Tunisia Jordan Thailand 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 GDP per capita (US$) GDP per capita Percent coverage with piped sewers Source; UNICEF/ WHO JMP, 2012; World Bank, 2012 www.wsp.org 5 Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia Poor sanitation is holding back Indonesia’s human and eco- Local government is formally responsible for ensuring the nomic development. The real annual economic cost of poor availability of basic services, but gives sanitation low prior- sanitation in Indonesia has been quantified as US$6.3 bil- ity. Urban sanitation is almost entirely private and on-site, lion (2006 figures), equivalent to 2.3% of GDP. Poor sani- and there is little institutional capacity yet to manage sani- tation and water contribute extensively to health problems, tation services. and diarrhea, Hepatitis A and E, scabies, worm infestations and typhoid are common. Box 2: The Meaning of DEWATS in Indonesia If centralized Figure wastewater 2: Community management sanitation is characterized centers with DEWATS by one wastewater treatment plant for the largest possible confined catchment area in a region, decentralization simply means the break-up of the catchment area into smaller areas (IWA, n.d.). The smallest possible decentralized system is an on-site facility. Decentralized systems vary in size, and include a range of technologies – aerobic, anaerobic or combined systems; attached or dispersed media; passive or active systems, and so on. In this review, DEWATS is used to refer specifically to passive anaerobic treatment systems. The DEWATS used in Indonesia are typically one of the following: • Communal septic tank • Biodigester plus anaerobic baffled reactor plus anaerobic filter • Settler plus anaerobic baffled reactor plus anaerobic filter • Proprietary system using a permutation of the above systems To date, anaerobic baffled reactors (ABRs), have been the most commonly used technology in Indonesia’s community- managed DEWATS programs. DEWATS plants may include secondary and tertiary aerobic and anaerobic treatment in planted gravel filters and/or ponds. None of the domestic systems reviewed here uses planted gravel filters or ponds, primarily because of space constraints in dense settlements. The treated effluent is piped to an open drain, river or canal. Anaerobic wastewater treatment systems have no moving parts, low running costs and, with adequate training and support, can be operated and managed by the user community itself. Figure 5: Community-Managed DEWATS as a Permutation of Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems Centralized Decentralized Treatment System Management System Community Anaerobic Private Operator Aerobic Municipality/Utility Active Passive 6 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia III. The Rise of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia Indonesia’s community-managed DEWATS approach, preferences of users so that they would be willing to accept known as SANIMAS (Sanitasi Oleh Masyarakat, or ‘Sanita- responsibility for a system that they liked and could man- tion by Communities’), was piloted in seven sites in 2003- age, and equipping community management structures to 04, in support of a wider sector policy reform initiative led operate the systems long term. by government. The SANIMAS concept was developed in the context of rapid decentralization of a range of powers The outcomes of the SANIMAS pilot program were en- and functions to local government, and soon after Indone- couraging, and from 2006 the Ministry of Public Works led sia’s financial crisis of the late 1990s, which stalled govern- the replication of SANIMAS more widely, developing 50 to ment investment in major infrastructure developments. At 100 systems per year in poor neighborhoods. Implementa- that time there was limited capacity to fund, develop or op- tion approaches were shaped strongly by a partnership of erate centralized sanitation systems. SANIMAS emphasized NGOs with expertise in decentralized wastewater manage- building and responding to demand for sanitation improve- ment and community development. By 2009 there were ments at neighborhood level, respecting the choices and more than 420 SANIMAS installations around Indonesia. Figure 6: Decentralized Systems as an Intermediate Step and Bridge to Centralized Sewerage and Wastewater Management Increasing cost Citywide piped sewerage Off-site sanitation Centralized wastewater treatment 6LPSOLĺHGVHZHUQHWZRUN Community Sanitation Center Decentralized sanitation Decentralized wastewater treatment Soak pit, Septic tank On-site sanitation Pit toilet ‘Helicopter’ toilet Increasing complexity Source: Adapted from BORDA (2005), Blackett & Perez (2006) and Utomo (2012) www.wsp.org 7 Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia Since 2007 Indonesia’s government has given growing at- lection and treatment systems in 15 cities and imple- tention to national sanitation improvement. The reasons menting decentralized community-managed systems in have less to do with rising popular demand than with the 226 cities. combination, at national government level, of evidence- based advocacy (notably WSP’s Economics of Sanitation Indonesia’s government is now massively expanding DE- study that quantified the impacts of poor sanitation), pres- WATS implementation and aims to reach 5% of the urban sure to address Millennium Development Goals, and eco- population – 6 million people – by 2014. Three national nomic recovery and growing macro-economic fiscal space projects are underway, with a fourth being launched in (WSP, 2011b). At city level, a national sanitation sector de- 2013. In parallel, it aims to expand the coverage of central- velopment program focused attention on building sanita- ized sewer networks and wastewater treatment systems to tion capacity, mainly through supporting detailed city-level reach a further 5% of the urban population. Government is assessment of sanitation needs and the development of city- extending coverage by piped sewers in five cities with cen- wide poor-inclusive strategic sanitation plans. tralized systems, and planning new sewerage developments in a further eight cities. In 2009, the government announced a five-year Accelera- tion of Sanitation Development in Human Settlements The National Development Planning Agency, BAPPENAS, Program (Percepatan Pembangunan Sanitasi Permuki- is promoting community-managed DEWATS as an inter- man, or PPSP) as part of a wider five-year (2010-2014) mediate solution for selected poor dense settlements until national development plan, with substantially increased full municipal sewerage and wastewater treatment are fea- funding for urban sanitation development. Its prior- sible. Local networks developed for DEWATS will in time ity was to eradicate open defecation and improve urban be integrated into a wider sewer system with centralized wastewater management, by developing centralized col- treatment wherever possible. 8 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia IV. Purpose of This Review This review was undertaken over a period of eight months period to 2009, before the surge in the scale of imple- in 2011-2012 at the request of the Government of Indo- mentation, and to identify lessons for a wider interna- nesia, to assist in improving its scale-up plans. It aimed tional audience, since Indonesia is currently one of the to assess the effectiveness and outcomes of community- countries with the highest number of DEWATS in op- managed DEWATS projects implemented mainly in the eration. www.wsp.org 9 V. Methodology This review drew on a range of primary information sourc- Table 1. Summary of Primary Data Sets and Survey Sites es, including three site-based surveys covering nearly 400 Community Simple Combined community-based DEWATS sites, or 70% of the total Sanitation Sewer Data Set CSC and Total Centers Systems developed between 2003 and 2012. The largest survey, of SSS (CSC) (SSS) 298 installations operational for at least a year, was commis- Ministry of sioned for this review and covered the majority of SANI- Public Works 27 5 8 40 MAS sites completed by 2009. It is cited as BORDA-WSP 2011 2011.2 These quantitative data were complemented by WSP-BORDA 198 69 31 298 2011 qualitative data from 50 further sites in seven cities; focus WSP – Site group discussions with users and community management visits 2011/12 31 13 6 50 representatives at 37 of those sites; and interviews with a WSP – Focus wide range of stakeholders. A growing body of relevant sec- 18 13 6 37 Groups 2012 ondary literature informed the assessment. Figure 7: Location of the Seven Cities Visited by the WSP Research Team. Jakarta is Shown Here as a Point of Reference Only Banjarmasin Palembang Makassar Tegal Jakarta Semarang Yogyakarta This map was cleared by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. August 2013 2 The survey included sites in which BORDA had an involvement and those which were wholly implemented by government. 10 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia VI. Key Findings and Recommendations Key findings and recommendations are grouped into four settlements with a strong ethic of voluntary service broad areas of assessment: institutional roles, sustainability for the good of the community; this is particularly and urban integration aspects; technical aspects; financial pronounced in central and eastern Java. Maintaining and economic aspects; and equity and pro-poor aspects. motivation and continuity among voluntary office bearers is often a challenge, in particular when com- INSTITUTIONAL ROLES, SUSTAINABILITY AND munity leadership changes. URBAN INTEGRATION ASPECTS • Few user communities regard desludging as neces- sary or their responsibility, and very few DEWATS KEY FINDINGS: have been desludged to date. Desludging does not impact on their ability to utilize the facilities; con- • Over 80% of installations are functioning well genial facilities and sewer networks that drain well day to day. There is strong evidence that most com- matter far more to users than a concern for the qual- munities are willing and able to take responsibility ity of discharged effluent. The evidence suggests lo- for day-to-day operation and maintenance, and that cal government will need to play an active role in they appreciate the benefits and quality of the facili- undertaking, subsidizing or facilitating desludging at ties. DEWATS facilities. • Many community management structures do not function as assumed. Management structures were Figure 8: Many Community Sanitation Centers are in place in two-thirds of the sites surveyed, although Designed to Provide a Meeting Space tor some are inactive and exist in name only. A small Local Residents Living in Dense Settlements with Limited Public Space cluster in West Java is managed semi-commercially by an NGO; some are run informally by an adjacent mosque or by users, or are overseen by the head of the neighborhood administration. About 10% of fa- cilities are completely dysfunctional and not in use. Simplified sewer systems appear to be the most resil- ient in the face of weak management, as they require the least maintenance and income and do not need a full-time operator. • Community management approaches are more effective in some areas than in others, and are vulnerable to changes in community leadership. Management structures work particularly well in www.wsp.org 11 Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia • Local government support, in particular post-con- and working conditions of facilitators supporting struction, is largely absent. The benefits of substan- the different programs, and local government is not tial public investment in sanitation improvement are yet allocating adequate funds to prepare communi- being compromised by weak systems for monitoring, ties adequately to manage local services sustainably. support and intervention once construction has been completed. Users and their management committees RECOMMENDATIONS: need both technical and non-technical support; keep- ing the infrastructure working is essential, but manag- • Integrate DEWATS into wider city sanitation ing community dynamics, sustaining behavior change planning and management. Develop DEWATS and motivating users to pay matter even more. The only in the context of a wider sanitation plan that review found evidence of a range of problems and dif- maps where decentralized systems fit into the over- ficulties requiring external intervention. With a few all city sanitation improvement strategy. This will exceptions, there is almost no monitoring of usage or include which areas will continue to use on-site performance post construction, no provision for on- systems; which areas will be integrated into evolv- going support and training for community manage- ing centralized sewer systems, and within what time ment structures post construction, and no help lines frames; and which areas are likely to remain stand- or referral systems for those seeking help. alone decentralized systems in the long term. • NGO implementation approaches are not readily • Move from ‘Sanitation by Communities’ to Co- replicable by government at scale. The implemen- management, or ’Sanitation with Communities’. tation approach adopted for community-managed Community-managed DEWATS should be recon- DEWATS is relatively resource intensive. Given ceived as a co-management partnership, with a the growing scale of implementation nationally, the straightforward and transparent division of respon- number of facilitators, contractors, and project ad- sibilities: communities are responsible for ‘above ministrators involved is immense, and the transac- ground’ day-to-day operation and maintenance and tion costs are relatively high. A parallel sanitation minor repairs that they can easily detect and fix, while training and capacity study concluded that a signifi- local government and potentially outsourced private cant gap of available personnel would have a critical partners are responsible for ‘below ground’ sustain- impact on achieving Indonesia’s sanitation targets3. ability and provide desludging and disposal of sludge Government does not have the capacity and resourc- and major maintenance support, along with non- es to shape and nurture a multitude of small projects technical support to professionalize community-based in the way that an NGO network can when working organizations. Building strong monitoring systems in at a modest scale with a cadre of experienced devel- local government, supported by up-to-date databases, opment practitioners in multi-disciplinary teams. is essential for the sustainability of the systems, as is a • There are significant bottlenecks in the recruit- firm plan and institutional framework for post-con- ment, training and support of project facilitators. struction support over the long term. It takes skilled facilitation to mobilize residents ef- • Develop co-management capacity in local govern- fectively for lasting sanitation improvement and to ment as an integral part of its institutional models accept responsibility for long-term operation and for addressing sanitation, wastewater and septage management of facilities. Rapid scaling up of proj- management responsibilities. Central government ect implementation has raised demand for experi- should stimulate institution building for sanitation in enced facilitators well beyond the available supply, local government by offering financial incentives to and government is struggling to provide adequate cities that set up an autonomous municipal wastewater training and support to new recruits on the scale re- utility, or take steps towards this goal with a technical quired. There are big differences in the remuneration service unit or regional service delivery entity. 3 PT Qipra Galang Kualita (2012). Sanitation Training and Capacity Study. Water and Sanitation Program, March 2012. 12 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia Figure 9: What Communities Can Be Expected to Manage Can Clean community sanitation center Keep simplified sewer networks unblocked Collect payments Above-ground Routine building maintenance (painting, offers users Minor repairs (taps, blockages) direct benefits Check inlets Buy supplies Manage operator Maybe De-scum settler Check outlets Below-ground Can’t Monitor effluent quality doesn’t affect Desludging users directly Do major maintenance Do post-disaster repairs Box 3: Mainstreaming DEWATS into Integrated Wastewater and Septage Management The city of Makassar is building the institutional framework for an integrated sanitation, septage and wastewater util- ity. It began by setting up a mobile support team in its Human Settlements Department to provide post-construction support to community-managed DEWATS. In mid-2012, it transferred the team to a new technical service unit with responsibility for monitoring and supporting DEWATS, providing a desludging service and managing septage and drainage in the city. The mobile support team continues to work closely with Health and Community Development staff. From 2014 the unit will be restructured to also manage the new centralized sewerage and treatment system being built to serve the city’s central business and recreation district. In time the organization could become a full commercial utility company straddling centralized and decentralized wastewater management, septage collection and treatment and drainage. Figure 10: Members of Makassar’s Mobile Unit Provide Support to Community-Managed DEWATS www.wsp.org 13 Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia • Before construction starts, ensure that local resi- Figure 11: Integrated Citywide Sanitation Planning is dents understand what they will have to do, man- Essential to Achieve Lasting Improvements age and fund long term. Clarify the respective roles of central, local government, and local residents and secure a formal agreement between all parties through a memorandum of understanding for every site. • Integrate water and sanitation planning: develop simplified sewer systems in areas served or to be served by piped water. Increased availability of piped water will result in greater volumes of waste- water that require management. Where houses are owner-occupied and there is enough space to build, households that obtain a piped water connection are more likely to develop their own household toilet and washing facilities, and usage of community sani- TECHNICAL ASPECTS tation centers may well decline. • Ensure regular desludging and safe sludge treat- KEY FINDINGS: ment disposal or reuse. Consider the full sanitation service chain, from excreta collection to septage dis- • The vast majority of community-managed DE- posal or reuse. DEWATS plants should be accessible WATS in Indonesia are community sanitation to sludge collection vehicles either by appropriate centers. These constitute 77% of all systems de- siting in relation to road access or by ensuring small- veloped through the SANIMAS program between er vehicles are available and able to navigate nar- 2003 and 2010, followed by simplified sewer systems row alleys. Without effective septage management, (16%) and combined systems (6%). Early program the health and environmental benefits of improved guidelines envisaged community sanitation centers wastewater treatment in one neighborhood will be servicing users who were not permanent residents undermined by indiscriminate dumping of septage and had little incentive to invest in toilets of their somewhere else. own, and simplified sewer systems as the default. Us- • Develop a sound scaling up approach, not replica- ers are involved in developing the design and layout tion. Scaling up entails more than replicating a large of the facilities, but the choice of wastewater treat- number of discrete projects, and requires different ment technology and whether to build a community institutional arrangements, making the most effec- sanitation center or simplified sewer system is often tive use of available resources. Align implementation decided elsewhere, not by users. An attractive com- approaches with the funding and project implemen- munity sanitation center is more conspicuous than tation cycles and the bureaucratic requirements of a buried simple sewer network, and perhaps reflects government. Work within government implementa- well on the standing of a local leader. tion frameworks, with mechanisms and incentives • There are important differences in DEWATS serv- to strengthen multi-sectoral coordination, coopera- ing community sanitation centers and settlements tion and accountability between sector departments. with house connections and simplified sewers. Shift from a project-by-project approach to broader Simplified sewer systems collect effluent from peo- programming, with some elements – community ple’s homes, whereas community sanitation centers management training, sanitation promotion and so- provide communal facilities and consequently re- cial marketing, post-construction monitoring and so quire more land for a top-structure, and have greater on – addressed collectively on a larger scale to mo- management and income requirements. Systems bilize the wider resources and systems of the public with house connections offer users greater conve- sector. nience, and collect wastewater from a larger area. 14 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia in 2011 at 22 sites for the Ministry of Public Works, Box 4: Characteristics of Community Sanitation Centers with High Usage which were mainly on non-BORDA ABR plants. In- sufficient data were available to support assessment of the treatment performance of non-ABR systems. • Little space for residents to build their own toilets and effluent management systems • Prefabricated wastewater treatment units are a good option for managing construction quality and re- • Challenging environments prone to flooding or subsidence that deter households from investing ducing project management risks, if supplied by in their own toilets manufacturers that meet quality and performance • The majority of residents are not permanent and standards. But if those quality and performance stan- have little incentive to invest in developing their dards are set too high, few suppliers will meet them and own toilets the potential benefits of prefabricated systems will be • Many casual users, because of nearby markets, compromised. As yet there are no manufacturing qual- transport hubs, schools or major thoroughfares ity or performance standards and systems in place. • The facility provides a reliable source of good qual- • Usage of biogas is low. The majority of SANIMAS ity water in an area where there are no piped con- community sanitation centers with ABRs have a nections or the quality of service is poor, or where biodigester to collect biogas for fuel, but the biogas alternative sources are unreliable or poor quality is used at just one third of them, mainly by operators and almost exclusively for cooking. The reasons seem to be technical problems with biogas collection (gas leaks, broken or missing pipes) and the low volumes • Two-thirds of the systems developed to date use of gas produced from weak effluent, rather than user an anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR). A minority use reluctance. Few operators understand how to man- a septic tank or proprietary system based on a septic age the digester, and the number burning off unused tank. There is growing use of prefabricated propri- biogas is negligible; gas build-up in the digester can etary systems made from fiber-reinforced plastics. compromise overall treatment performance. • Simplified sewer systems have been developed mainly where most users already had a toilet at a Box 5: Advantages of Prefabricated Modular home. Community sanitation centers were developed Dewats Components mainly in areas where most people did not have their own facilities, yet households in more than a third • Mitigate a shortage of wastewater treatment de- of neighborhoods served by community sanitation sign and construction professionals with standard- centers went on to invest in building their own toi- ized modular components lets. This is positive for reducing open defecation and • Achieve consistent manufacturing and construc- supporting better household sanitation practices, but tion quality by pre-certifying manufacturers the type of facilities built generally offers less effective • Reduce implementation times, and simplify con- treatment than DEWATS, and contribute to ongoing struction on site water pollution. • Suitable for challenging environments in tidal areas • Over 90% of systems tested complied with envi- or a high water table ronmental standards. Indonesian environmental • Reduce the project oversight responsibilities of the regulations stipulate a maximum biological oxygen community management organization demand (BOD) level of 100 mg/liter for discharged • Reduce the facilitator’s scope of work and training effluent. BORDA-WSP data from a sample of 99 sites requirements with ABRs implemented with support from BORDA • More transparent standardized costing shows that 92% complied with Indonesian regula- • Easier maintenance with lightweight manhole cov- tions for reducing the organic content of treated ef- ers fluent. These findings are consistent with tests done www.wsp.org 15 Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia Figure 12: Laundry Facilities at a Community Sanitation (COD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) re- Center Offer Good Quality Water, Good moval than septic tank systems or biodigesters, toler- Drainage and Company ate fluctuating loads well, and produce low volumes of biomass. The evidence suggests they can perform well even when operated by unskilled and untrained people. The additional cost of constructing internal compartments is offset by longer intervals between desludging, thus lowering operating costs for users. • Develop biogas systems only where there is overt community demand, technical support available, and where sufficient biogas will be generated to war- rant the added costs and operating risks. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS KEY FINDINGS: RECOMMENDATIONS: • The number of users per site is lower than planned. • Select the right system for the neighborhood: Median usage is 100 people per site, not the intended develop simplified sewer systems, or combined 50 to 100 households (250-500 people). The lower systems, as the default wherever local conditions the number of users per site, the higher the capital permit. Communities are more likely to use the fa- cost and life cycle cost per capita, and wastewater cilities and take responsibility for daily operations treatment capacity is wasted. The difference between and maintenance if they are what people want and planned and current use is greatest in systems with need, and are the right type of system to meet the community sanitation centers. Some were developed needs of a particular neighborhood. Community in neighborhoods where many residents already had sanitation centers work best where there is no space their own toilets, indicating poor site selection; in for households to build their own toilets or soak pits/ other areas, residents subsequently invested in their septic tanks, the area is prone to flooding or subsid- own toilets. If median levels of use were applied ence, there is a high population of tenants or non- across all installations nationally, current programs permanent residents, and/or the water source serving would need to develop five times as many sites to the community sanitation center will be the primary meet government targets. local source of reliable, good quality water. Com- • Low usage raises the capital cost per capita sub- bined systems are the most inclusive, as they accom- stantially. Systems with a high number of users are modate household connections and those unable to very cost-effective, with costs well below US$150 connect to the network. Depending on the topogra- per person. Median usage below planned use is most phy and slope, a combined system may allow com- pronounced at community sanitation centers, and munity sanitation center users who invest in their consequently the median cost per capita of com- own toilet to connect to the network and communal munity sanitation centers (US$294) is considerably wastewater treatment plant. higher than for systems with house connections and • Build understanding of the merits of anaerobic simplified sewers (US$228). Combined systems baffled reactors as the most suitable treatment generally have the highest installation cost but retain technology for the majority of installations. ABRs the highest levels of utilization and serve the widest achieve a higher level of chemical oxygen demand range of users. 16 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia • Capital costs are significantly lower than for ally cheaper and more convenient for users to pay centralized systems. Data collected for the WSP’s monthly rather than per use. Casual users frequently Economics of Sanitation Initiative in Indonesia in- pay more per use and more consistently than resi- dicate that the optimal capital cost per household of dential users, but it is local users who contribute a centralized sewer and treatment system was 50% to ad hoc collections to cover big expenses. Most greater than the optimal cost of a community sanita- households resist paying more than a nominal tariff. tion center with DEWATS. The actual capital cost • More than a quarter of community sanitation cen- per household of a centralized sewer and treatment ters have no regular income at all, and over half system was more than four times the actual cost of a of simplified sewer systems rely solely on ad hoc community sanitation system with DEWATS. Op- collections as necessary. Low payment levels appear erating and maintenance costs were substantially to be shaped more by weak financial administration lower for the DEWATS. than unwillingness to pay. These findings call into • The income of the facility is too low to support question the long-term viability and sustainability of sustainable operation and management at a sig- most installations, and suggest that local government nificant number of sites. Most user communities will need to make provision for funding the shortfall. are addressing only day-to-day operations and basic • Over half the operators surveyed are working maintenance; few set funds aside for desludging and without cash payment, although many receive non- major maintenance, and expenses like pump repairs cash benefits like a room. Low or no wages contrib- or replacement are usually funded by ad hoc collec- ute to a frequent turnover in operators, and the loss tions. Community sanitation centers that charge of any benefits from one-off operator training during per use generally have higher incomes, but it is usu- the project phase. Table 2. Indicative User Charges Figure 13: Median Capital Cost Per Capita of a Sample of SANIMAS Projects Implemented in 2006- Simplified Community Sanitation 2009 Sewer System Center 350 No regular 47% of sites 30% of sites payment 300 250 Cost per person (USD) Pay 53% of sites 29% of sites monthly Graywater and Toilets, washing and laundry per blackwater US$0.11-2.10* 200 household US$0.11-1.05 Median: US$0.53 Median: 150 US$0.31 100 Pay per Not applicable 41% of sites use Toilet: US$0.03-0.11 50 Median: US$.05 Shower: US$0.03-0.11 Median: US$0.05 0 Laundry: US$0.05-0.3 SSS CSC Combined Median: US$0.11 Designed used Use in 2011 *Includes water for home use Source: BORDA-WSP (2011) www.wsp.org 17 Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia Figure 14: Well-run DEWATS Facilities Have a Significant communal facilities, or where there is no central lo- Impact on Local Health and Hygiene cation that is easily accessible by most residents, con- sider building several smaller community sanitation centers rather than one large one. • Build understanding of the real costs of keeping DEWATS facilities working long term. Give great- er emphasis to financial management and raising sufficient revenue when training community man- agement representatives. Increase understanding among users of the benefits of improved sanitation and a clean environment, and use social marketing and other methods to maintain willingness to pay for these benefits. Ensure local government budgets for its co-management responsibilities, including monitoring, ad hoc support and major maintenance. EQUITY AND PRO-POOR ASPECTS KEY FINDINGS: • Targeting of low-income areas is good. The major- ity of DEWATS installed serve neighborhoods where average household incomes are below US$104 per month. No significant differences were detected be- tween system choices: a slightly higher proportion of sites with simplified sewer systems serve users with average monthly incomes above US$104, but roughly the same proportion of poor households earning below US$52 (typically bicycle taxi drivers or factory workers) live in neighborhoods served by RECOMMENDATIONS: either community sanitation centers or simple sewer systems. • Optimize the system size for impact, cost-effec- • Communal facilities can provide substantial sani- tiveness and financial viability. Developing dis- tation improvements. This review found numerous crete DEWATS and equipping the user community facilities that were attractive, well managed and well to manage routine operation and maintenance can maintained, and serving local needs effectively where be resource-intensive unless each installation is able toilets for individual households were not feasible to serve at least a hundred households. With fewer for a range of reasons. This challenges the percep- users, the cost per capita is high, the improvement in tion that communal toilets fall outside the category service coverage and public health is limited, and the of ‘improved’ sanitation facilities. tariff income is too low to cover costs. In less dense • DEWATS facilities are poor inclusive – but not settlements, if there are sound reasons for building accessible to everyone. The evidence suggests that 18 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia facilities are enjoyed by people with limited means simplified sewer system are considerably more acces- as well as those who are better off. The strong ethos sible for those with disabilities, further reinforcing prevailing in many parts of Indonesia of accommo- the need to make these the ‘default’ option for the dating those with meager resources results in poor majority of future installations. families being asked to contribute what they can. At • Sustain improvements in sanitation and hygiene the same time, inclusiveness on the basic of physi- practices through ongoing reinforcement, sup- cal mobility is more qualified. Users generally have port and monitoring. Forge close links between to climb some stairs to use the facilities, and most infrastructure development, health, community de- community sanitation centers are raised above the velopment and other departments to achieve a more ground; this saves excavation costs as they are gener- integrated approach to sanitation improvement, and ally built on top of the treatment plant, and prevents to ensure ongoing interaction and support beyond storm water ingress or flooding, but leaves those the project phase. Adapt community-led total sani- with disabilities without access. tation approaches to trigger demand and reinforce • Improvements in hygiene were evident based on support for community-managed DEWATS. Recip- a health impact assessment in 2010. BORDA’s as- rocally, community-managed DEWATS offer com- sessment of 68 sites across Indonesia revealed lower munities the means to act collectively on key mes- rates of open defecation, higher toilet usage and us- sages of community-led total sanitation approaches, age of soap at critical times, and reportedly better especially the achievement and sustaining of an open quality of water from the main source of water for defecation-free community, and sustainable sanita- bathing and cooking as well as an improvement in tion and hygiene improvements. privacy for women compared to the baseline. There was a very low incidence of reversion to unimproved toilets and open defecation. Figure 15: A Woman Feeds a Small Child at a Community Sanitation Center RECOMMENDATIONS: • Build attractive, disability-accessible community sanitation centers, not just public or communal toilets. Attractive communal sanitation facilities that are customized to the needs and preferences of the targeted user community are more likely to be valued and cared for than standard institutional designs which focus solely on generic functional- ity. Attractive community sanitation centers which residents readily keep clean and enjoy using meet the criteria for an improved sanitation facility. The dis- ability accessibility is more difficult to convey, as this is not a widely recognized problem in the sector in Indonesia. Community members often do not rec- ognize the need, and while local governments have a role to play in public education, they are often ill equipped to do so. Home-based facilities linked to a www.wsp.org 19 VII. Overall Assessment This review found that community-managed DEWATS can own. Sustained use of the infrastructure and good treat- deliver substantial benefits and enable far-reaching changes ment performance long term is unlikely without external in environmental health and personal behavior in urban monitoring and support for technical and non-technical areas otherwise likely to remain unserviced for some time. problem solving. Community-managed DEWATS are effective for serving Community management needs to be reconceived as co- poor communities in dense urban settlements where management, where user-communities take responsibility for routine operation and maintenance, and local govern- • the appropriate type of system is built well and in the ment and its partners provide greater technical and non- right location technical support. Local authorities should monitor DE- • the number of users is optimized and sustained WATS regularly, budget for interventions, and develop their • responsibility for operation and maintenance is co-management capacity as an integral of part of address- shared with government ing their sanitation, wastewater and septage management • the development forms part of a broader sanitation responsibilities. Central government can provide financial plan incentives to municipalities to pursue this. SUSTAINABILITY COST-EFFECTIVENESS The majority of DEWATS are functioning well day to day. The cost-effectiveness of DEWATS is shaped primarily by The sustainability of service provision with community-man- the number of people using a particular facility. Where the aged DEWATS is vulnerable to a range of challenges: varying number of users per site is above 50 households, the average levels of motivation by community management structures, cost is substantially lower than centralized systems. Simpli- inadequate operating income to cover major repairs, limited fied sewer and combined systems retain higher usage rates concern for wastewater treatment performance relative to than community sanitation centers, serve more people, and functioning facilities and free-flowing sewers, and inadequate collect wastewater from a far wider area. Greater cost-ef- external support when things go wrong. fectiveness may be achieved by developing simplified sewer systems, not community sanitation centers, as the default, The assumption that communities can and will manage and by developing systems that reach as many people as facilities and wastewater treatment on their own without possible. The most important consideration is to develop external support is overstated. CBOs lose enthusiasm; des- facilities at sites where people want and need them, with ludging is neglected and even the most committed users are systems that are appropriate to the needs of the majority of reluctant to fund major repairs and refurbishment on their local residents. 20 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia Review of Community-Managed Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia INTEGRATED SANITATION IMPROVEMENT Community-managed DEWATS do not absolve local au- thorities from their sanitation management responsibilities, Most community-managed DEWATS developments to and must not be allowed to retard more comprehensive date have been discrete and scattered, with usage well planning and investment in the centralized systems that In- below what government’s plans and budgets presuppose. donesia’s cities need. Most have been implemented outside of a larger strategic plan which maps how or whether they will relate to pos- Indonesia’s government regards DEWATS as an intermedi- sible future sewer networks, or what external monitoring, ate technology; as a bridge towards centralized sewerage and support or third party servicing is needed to keep them wastewater management. In areas where community-man- working. aged DEWATS will be integrated into a centralized network within the next ten to fifteen years, it can be seen as both DEWATS are a complementary third option for urban san- intermediate and interim. But there are many areas that are itation, alongside centralized and on-site systems, and each likely to remain outside of centralized sewer networks for the system has its place. Decentralized systems that can be op- foreseeable future. In time, management of decentralized sys- erated and managed by local users are much more likely to tems by communities there could in due course perhaps be reach the poor in the short and medium term (in the next taken over by local utilities or private operators. five to ten years) than centralized piped systems and treat- ment works. But DEWATS as a scalable urban sanitation Indonesia’s first priority should be to develop citywide sani- option makes sense only in the context of a bigger picture tation strategies, with clear plans and time frames for devel- that maps where decentralized systems fit into a broader oping centralized networks and decentralized systems and city sanitation strategy. the linkages between them. www.wsp.org 21 VIII. Next Steps In response to a preliminary report on the findings of is adapting the national community-led total sanita- this review presented to the Government of Indonesia, tion program to an urban context: it aims to promote key senior government stakeholders worked swiftly to sanitation-related behavior change through campaigns adjust some aspects of the community-managed DE- that complement and reinforce community-managed WATS programs to strengthen their impact, reach and DEWATS. sustainability. Government has endorsed the idea of co- management by user communities and local authorities, These responses signal government’s readiness to address and has revised its implementation guidelines to empha- vulnerabilities in DEWATS programs, and a renewed com- size long-term service sustainability. It is also exploring mitment to supporting successful implementation of com- new institutional models for septage management, and munity-managed DEWATS at scale. 22 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia Bibliography Asian Development Bank, 2011. Urban Sanitation and Ru- Government of Indonesia: BAPPENAS et al, 2003. Na- ral Infrastructure Support to PNPM Mandiri Project: Indo- tional Policy. Development of Community-Based Water Supply nesia. Report and recommendation of the President to the and Environmental Sanitation Board of Directors, July 2011. Government of Indonesia: Ministry of Public Works. 2010. Australian Agency for International Development / Indo- Improvement of Sanitation in Indonesia. (Achieving in IYS nesia Infrastructure Initiative. 2011. Project Design Docu- and Next Step). Directorate General of Human Settlements. ment. Australia Indonesia Infrastructure Grants for Munici- Presentation to the Follow up Conference, International pal Sanitation. Year of Sanitation. Tokyo, January 26-27, 2010. Australia Indonesia Partnership, 2011. Prakarsa Compen- Government of Indonesia: Ministry of Public Works. Mon- dium. Highlights from the Journal of the Australia Indo- itoring dan Evaluasi Sanitasi Berbasis Masyarakat (SANI- nesia Partnership, 2011. Special issue on Urban Sanitation, MAS). July 2011. Issue 7 Prakarsa Journal of the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative. International Water Association (n.d.) ‘Decentralized waste- water management – an overview.’ Prepared by: Specialist Australia Indonesia Partnership, Indonesia Infrastructure Group on Sanitation and Water Management in Develop- Initiative, 2010. Program Design Document. Urban Water ing Countries of the International Water Association. http:// Supply and sanitation components. Water and Sanitation www.iwahq.org/contentsuite/upload/iwa/all/Specialist%20 Initiative – Indonesia. Australia Indonesia Partnership. groups/Specialist%20groups/Water%20Management%20 in%20Developing%20Countries/SG%20resources/Decen- BORDA Indonesia, ‘Health Impacts Assessment for CBS tralised%20wastewater%20management-draft.doc DEWATS 2009’. Unpublished results of monitoring across 68 sites implemented in 2008. Kerstens, S. M., Legowo, H B and & Hendra Gupta, & I B, 2011. Evaluation of DEWATS systems in Java, Indonesia. BORDA-WSP, 2011. ‘Survey of 298 SANIMAS sites us- ing DEWATS, August-November 2011’. Unpublished da- Japan Sanitation Consortium (JSC), 2010. ‘Contact Mis- tabase. sion to Indonesia’ (Nov.30-Dec.4, 2009). Mission report. Knowledge Hub for Sanitation. January 18, 2010. http:// Collende G, 2011. Urban sanitation: an unprecedented ebookbrowse.com/jsc-report-1st-mission-to-indonesia-30- and growing challenge. In Water Lines, Vol. 30: 4, October nov-5-dec-2009-pdf-d80236357 2011. Lambertus, A, 2005. Mainstreaming Community-Based Foley, S., Soedjarwo, A. & Pollard, R., 2000. Of the people, Sanitation: Lessons Learnt from the SANIMAS Project. Un- by the people, for the people : community-based sewer systems in published paper prepared for Indowater 2005. Malang, Indonesia : case study. [online] Jakarta, Indonesia: Water and Sanitation Program, WSP. Marfai, M A, King, L., Sartohadi, J., Sudrajat, S., Budiani, S R. and Yuianto, F. 2008. ‘The impact of tidal flooding on Government of Indonesia: BAPPENAS, 2010. Report on a coastal community Semarang, Indonesia’. Environmen- the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in In- talist, 28 2008. http://dev.thegncs.org/sitefiles/file/Indone- donesia. sia_Coast_Marfai_2007b.pdf 24 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia Mungkasa, O, 2010. Mainstreaming of Sanimas as the solu- Rochmadi, R., Ciptaraharja I. and Setiadi, T. 2010. Evalu- tion for urban sanitation development in Indonesia. Direc- ation of the Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Plants in torate of Settlement and Housing, National Development Four Provinces in Indonesia’, Water Practice & Technology Planning Agency/BAPPENAS. Presentation to the IWA Vol. 5:4 Conference on DEWATS, Surabaya, 2010. Salendu, B. 2010. ‘Quality assessment and interrelations Parkinson, J & Taylor, K. 2003. ‘Decentralized wastewa- of water supply and sanitation; a case study of Yogyakarta ter management in peri-urban areas in low-income coun- City, Indonesia. Unpublished Urban Planning and Man- tries’, in Environment & Urbanisation, Vol. 15:1 April agement Master’s thesis, International Institute for Geo- 2003 Information Science and Earth Observation, Ensche, The Netherlands.http://www.itc.nl/library/papers_2010/msc/ Pillay, S & Buckley, C. 2010. ‘Closing the loop with upm/salendu.pdf decentralized wastewater treatment systems’. Second Small Wastewater Treatment Systems Conference, East Susila, B, Fladerer, F and Gressiadi, A. (2011) ‘Lessons London, 23 November 2010. www.ewisa.co.za/misc/ learned from Health Impact Assessment on 68 locations CONFERENCESWISA/2ndSWWTW.htm DEWATS-CBS 2008 in Indonesia’. Unpublished presenta- tion to the IWA-DEWATS International Conference, Ma- Pokja AMPL/Drinking Water and Environmental Sanita- nila, Philippines, 25-28 May 2011 tion Task Force in cooperation with BORDA, Balifokus, LPTP, BEST, 2011. Seven Years of Sanimas. PERCIK Spe- TTPS/Sanitation Development Technical Team, 2010. cial Edition, March 2011. Roadmap to Sanitation Development, 2010-2014. Govern- ment of Indonesia. Porter, R.C. & Singh, K.A. 1995. ‘Jakarta: the economics of water and waste’. Case study 4 produced for USAID’s Ulrich, A., Reuter,S & Gutterer, G. 2009. Decentralized Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Train- Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS) and Sanitation in ing (EPAT) project. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bit- Developing Countries. A Practical Guide. stream/11876/1/cs4.pdf UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs / Popu- Prihandrijanti, M and Firdayati, M. 2011. ‘Current situa- lation Division. 2012. World Urbanization Prospects: The tion and considerations of domestic wastewater treatment 2011 Revision systems for big cities in Indonesia (Case Study: Surabaya and Bandung)’. Journal of Water Sustainability 1:2 Septem- UNESCAP/Pro-Poor Water and Wastewater Management ber 2011. in Small Towns.2007. Sanitation by the Community in Den- pasar, Indonesia (SANIMAS). PT Qipra Galang Kualita (2012). Sanitation Training and Capacity Study. Water and Sanitation Program, March UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, 2012. 2012. Levels and Trends in Child Mortality: Report 2012. Estimates Developed by the UN Inter-agency Group for PT Waseco Tirta. 2012. ‘Report of SANIMAS Monitoring Child Mortality Estimation (UNICEF, WHO, World Program 2008-2009 by PT Waseco Tirta for the Ministry Bank, UN DESA, UNPD). of Public Works’. www.wsp.org 25 UNICEF/World Health Organization, Joint Monitoring Water and Sanitation Program, 2011b. The Political Econ- Program for Water Supply and Sanitation, 2012. Progress omy of Sanitation: How can we increase investment and im- on Drinking Water and Sanitation. 2012 Update. prove service for the poor? Operational experiences from case studies in Brazil, India, Indonesia and Senegal. WSP Sanita- USAID, 2006. Comparative Study. Centralised Wastewater tion Global Practice Team. Treatment Plants in Indonesia. Wedgewood, A 2005, ‘Practical challenges for Demand USAID 2009, Support on Water and Sanitation. Sector Anal- Responsive Approaches: A Discussion Paper’. Presented to ysis and Program. Final. 2009-2014. the Overseas Development Institute ESRC Seminar on Ac- cess, Poverty and Social Exclusion, London, 1 March 2005. USAID, 2010. A Rapid Assessment of Septage Management http://www.odi.org.uk/events/docs/3228.pdf in Asia. Weitz, A, Blackett, I & NT Utomo, ‘Accelerating Sanitation Utomo, N T, 2012a. Indonesia Sanitation Development Development in Urban Settlements. How Sanitation in In- 2010-14 and Beyond. Presentation to ICSS-Asia 2012: Sus- donesia has been Transformed’. Presentation to World Wa- tainable Sanitation in Developing Countries. ter Week, August 2011. http://www.worldwaterweek.org/ documents/WWW_PDF/2011/Wednesday/K23/Getting- Utomo, N. T. 2012b. Managing Transformation. Sanitation the-Drive-to-2015-on-track-in-Urban-Settlements/Accel- Development in Indonesia 2006-2011. Presentation to the erating-sanitation-development-in-urban-settlements.pdf World Water Forum, Marseille, France, 13 March 2012. World Bank/WSP 2012, East Asia and Pacific Regional Wa- WASPOLA, 2006. Report: Sanimas Outcome Monitoring ter and Sanitation Sector Review. Study (SOMS). Final Report. April 2006. Water and Sanitation Program, 2000. Case Study: Of the people, by the people, for the people: community-based sewer systems in Malang, Indonesia. Field Note. Water and Sanitation Program , 2009. Urban Sanitation in Indonesia. Planning for Progress. Field note. Water and Sanitation Program, 2010. ‘SANIMAS: A sani- tation model for decentralized local government. ‘ Unpub- lished report. Water and Sanitation Program, 2011a. Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia. A six country study conducted in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, the Philippines and Vietnam under the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI). 26 Review of Community-Managed DEWATS in Indonesia THE WORLD BANK