Report of Inception - Report - Issdp

BAPPENAS
Inception Report
August 2006
Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development

Program
VOLUME 2 ANNEXES
DHV BV
in association with:
PT Arkonin Engineering SP
IRC International Water & Sanitation
PT Mitra Lingkungan Dutaconsult
PEM Consult
Yayasan Indonesia Sejahtera
Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program
CONTENTS PAGE
VOLUME 1 MAIN REPORT
VOLUME 2 ANNEXES
ANNEX 1 Sanitation Sector Assessment
Kajian Sektor Sanitasi
ANNEX 2 Sanitation Awareness and Hygiene Promotion
Market Studies, Campaign and Communication Packages
ANNEX 3 Quality Management and Assurance System
Annex 1 SANITATION SECTOR ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Policies and Sanitation Strategy ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Strategic approach ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Legal Aspect and Regulation ........................................................................................... 3
2 Institutional Aspects ................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Stakeholders .................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Non-Governmental Organizations: .................................................................................. 9
2.3 Vision and Mission (national level)................................................................................. 11
2.3.1 The Ministry of Environmental Affairs ............................................................................ 11
2.3.2 Health department.......................................................................................................... 11
2.3.3 Public Work Department ................................................................................................ 12
2.3.4 Department of Home Affairs........................................................................................... 13
3 Existing Sanitation Condition .................................................................................................. 14
4 Environmental condition .......................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Water contamination ...................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Health affairs .................................................................................................................. 15
4.3 Sanitation Services......................................................................................................... 16
5 Investment and Financing ........................................................................................................ 17
5.1 Existing Condition........................................................................................................... 17
5.2 Medium and Long-Term Policy Objectives .................................................................... 18
5.3 The Economics of Sanitation Infrastructure ................................................................... 19
5.4 Investment Requirements and Financing Strategy ........................................................ 21
5.5 Key Elements of an Implementation Strategy................................................................ 22
5.6 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 23
5.6.1 Financing arrangements. ............................................................................................... 23
5.6.2 Institutional arrangements.............................................................................................. 23
6 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 23
6.1 Sanitation Findings......................................................................................................... 23
6.2 Feedbacks from Workshop ............................................................................................ 25
6.2.1 Institution: ....................................................................................................................... 25
6.2.2 Regulation: ..................................................................................................................... 25
6.2.3 Financial ......................................................................................................................... 25
6.3 Action Plan for the next six months................................................................................ 25
6.3.1 Institutional Aspect .......................................................................................................... 25
6.3.2 Advocacy ......................................................................................................................... 26
6.3.3 Policy and Regulation...................................................................................................... 26
6.3.4 Financial Aspect .............................................................................................................. 26
6.3.5 Guideline for Local Government ..................................................................................... 26
i
KAJIAN SEKTOR SANITASI............................................................................................................... 27
1. Pendahuluan.............................................................................................................................. 27
1.1 Kebijakan dan Strategi Sanitasi ..................................................................................... 28
1.2 Kerangka pendekatan srategis ...................................................................................... 28
1.3 Aspek Hukum dan Regulasi........................................................................................... 28
2 Aspek Kelembagaan ................................................................................................................. 32
2.1 Stakeholders .................................................................................................................. 32
2.2 Lembaga non Permerintah............................................................................................. 34
2.3 Visi dan Misi Stakeholders (tingkat nasional) ................................................................ 36
2.3.1 Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup....................................................................................... 36

2.3.2 Departemen Kesehatan: ................................................................................................ 37
2.3.3 Departemen PU.............................................................................................................. 38
2.3.4 Departemen Dalam Negeri ............................................................................................ 39
3 Kondisi Sanitasi Saat Ini........................................................................................................... 40
4 Kondisi Lingkungan.................................................................................................................. 42
4.1 Pencemaran Air.............................................................................................................. 42
4.2 Isu Kesehatan ................................................................................................................ 42
4.3 Pelayanan Sanitasi.........................................................................................................43
5 Investasi dan Pendanaan ......................................................................................................... 44
5.1 Kondisi Saat Ini .............................................................................................................. 44
5.2 Tujuan Kebijakan Jangka Menengah dan Jangka Panjang .......................................... 45
5.3 Aspek Ekonomi Prasarana Sanitasi............................................................................... 46
5.4 Kebutuhan Investasi dan Strategi Pembiayaan ............................................................. 48
5.5 Unsur-Unsur Kunci dari Suatu Strategi Pelaksanaan.................................................... 50
5.6 Kesimpulan dan Rekomendasi ...................................................................................... 50
5.6.1 Sistem Pendanaan .........................................................................................................50

5.6.2 Pengaturan institusional.................................................................................................51
6 Ringkasan..................................................................................................................................... 51
6.1 Temuan Sanitasi ............................................................................................................51
6.2 Umpan Balik Pelaksanaan Workshop............................................................................ 52
6.2.1 Kelembagaan ................................................................................................................. 52

6.2.2 Regulasi: ........................................................................................................................ 53
6.2.3 Finansial ......................................................................................................................... 53
6.3 Action Plan untuk 6 bulan Mendatang ........................................................................... 53
6.3.1 Aspek Kelembagaan ...................................................................................................... 53

6.3.2 Advokasi......................................................................................................................... 53
6.3.3 Kebijakan dan Peraturan................................................................................................ 54
6.3.4 Aspek Keuangan ............................................................................................................ 54
6.3.5 Panduan untuk Pemerintah Daerah............................................................................... 54
ii
ANNEX 2 SANITATION AWARENESS AND HYGIENE PROMOTION ............................................. 55

1.1 Market Studies, Campaign and Communication Packages........................................... 55
1.2 National Sanitation Awareness Campaigns................................................................... 56
1.3 City level sanitation awareness campaigns ................................................................... 58
ANNEX 3 Quality Management System ............................................................................................ 66
A. PROJECT MONITORING ........................................................................................................... 67

1. OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................ 67
2. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................. 67
3. WORK METHOD ........................................................................................................ 68
3.1 Project monitoring by team members ......................................................................... 68

3.2 Project monitoring by the project manager ................................................................. 68
3.2.1 External progress report ............................................................................................. 68

3.2.2 Internal progress report............................................................................................... 68
3.2.3 Documentation of results ............................................................................................ 69
3.3 Project monitoring by the project director ................................................................... 69

3.4 Making adjustments .................................................................................................... 69
3.4.1 Making adjustments for nonconformities .................................................................... 69

3.4.2 Dealing with shortcomings, complaints and claims .................................................... 69
4. ACTIVITIES/POSITION MATRIX................................................................................ 70
4.1 QUARTERLY PROJECT MONITORING FORM ........................................................ 71

4.2 PROJECT COMPLETION .......................................................................................... 74
4.2.1 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................74

4.2.2 WORK METHOD ........................................................................................................ 74
4.2.2.1 Draw up a draft final report ......................................................................................... 74

4.2.2.2 Sign and send draft final report................................................................................... 74
4.2.2.3 Formulate comments and criticisms ........................................................................... 74
4.2.2.4 Draw up final report..................................................................................................... 74
4.2.2.5 Sign and send final report ........................................................................................... 74
4.2.2.6 Employer satisfaction and certificate of completion.................................................... 74
4.2.2.7 Internal final discussion............................................................................................... 74
4.2.2.8 Project Reference System (PRS) .............................................................................. 75
4.2.2.9 Complete project......................................................................................................... 75
4.2.2.10 After-care and follow-up..............................................................................................75
5. ACTIVITIES/POSITION MATRIX ................................................................................................ 76

5.1 Handling of Project documents ................................................................................... 77
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 5-1 Services delivered by a sanitation system ........................................................................20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Laws and Regulations Relating to Sanitation...................................................................... 5
Table 2-1 Agencies managing IPLT, IPAL and other sanitation facilities ........................................... 7
Table 2-2 Government and non-governmental agencies related with Supplying Infrastructure for
Drinking Water and Sanitation............................................................................................. 9
Table 5-1 Households with access to improved sanitation* .............................................................. 18
Table 5-2 Service level targets for the sanitation sector ................................................................... 18
Table 5-3 Estimated economic costs of public health ....................................................................... 19
Table 5-4 Classification of economic benefits of sanitation infrastructure ........................................ 20
Table 5-5 Financing responsibilities by sanitation service ................................................................ 21
iv
ANNEX 1 SANITATION SECTOR ASSESSMENT
1 INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is so far still facing various types of sanitation problems. Management of sanitation
elements such as drinking water, waste water, fresh air and solid waste is getting more
demanded in line with a more modern life, but conditions in rural and urban areas in the country
have yet to support its environmental sanitation, in terms of availability of resources,
infrastructure, and facilities.
From these elements, waste water is a complex element which is often abandoned, and
untouched in terms of management and as a priority for the public and Government. It does not
mean there is no attention and handling, but its management is still insufficient.
Aiming at improving health condition, environmental conservation and social life through better
environmental sanitation in selected urban areas Indonesia, this sanitation sector assessment
discusses about better services for poor areas in cities by formulating policies, institutional
reformation, and effective and coordinated planning strategy.
Healthy environment is our dream. Unhealthy environment and poor sanitation will cause rare
clean water, environmental contamination due to human feces, waste, trash, etc. which may
cause diseases or even death. Generally, when a village or community is poor, it will have a poor
drinking water and environment health, and poor access to sanitation. Therefore, better sanitation
and environment health are developments which support the poor. Besides, it is also in line with
human rights because everyone basically has the right for better environment.
This study methodology is based on information and documents available, and our interviews
with key officials in key agencies such as the Ministry of Environment, Department of Public
Works, and the Department of Health focusing on the said topic of discussion.
The condition of existing sanitation is apparently stagnant from time to time because
development of sanitation cannot catch or even surpass high population growth. After performing
7 Pelita (five year development plan) and PROPENAS/RPJM until 2005, total population in
Indonesia is about 2015 million, but the number of sanitation facility is equal or even lower
compared with population growth, that there is no significant improvement in its sanitation.
1.1 Policies and Sanitation Strategy
From 1999 to 2003, each agency related with sanitation prepared an RPJM, including sanitation
based on existing condition and its purpose (tupoksi) but it has yet to be fully coordinated.
Although its aim is similar i.e., to repair sanitation, but they are not synergized, that it does not
produce any significant improvement.
Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 1

Since 2004, by referring to RENSTRANAS/RPJMN and National AMPL Policies (agency and
RPJMN UPAYA MEMPERBAIKI

Kebijakan AMPL
Perencanaan
Nasional Policy & Startegi
SANITASI
Lembaga terkait Startegis, Program,
(LAMPU MERAH) AP, NSPM
Kondisi NPB +AP

sanitasi saat
ini
MOH + AP
Deliveri ? Desentralisasi!
Policy & Startegi MOI + AP Rule? Regulasi?
Lembaga terkait
tercemar berta air limbah

hususnya air permukaan
Kondisi Air Baku A.M.
Water born diseases tinggi
Akses ke Sanitasi terbatas,
MOHA + AP
NDPA + AP MOF + AP
MOH + AP MPW + AP Pemprop

Pemkab/Pemkot
MOI + AP MOE + AP
MOE + AP
MOHA + AP
Policy & Startegi, RPJM,
RENSTRADA,AP; RPJP
MOF + AP
Kebijakan &
Strategi belum MPW + AP ????
terkoordinir dengan
baik
IMPIAN :
Demand Driven; Kota sehat &
Tidak/ belum bersih; (masyarakat sehat &
berhasil Kualitas Air Baku AM. baik)
7/16/2006 2
community-based), each sector prepares RPJM, including sanitation based on existing condition
specified in the National AMPL Policies. Each sector (agency) based on its TUPOKSI, prepares a
strategic plan with the same aim i.e., to improve sanitation, synergize one another, only
implement untested ones (but with the high expectation), except for handling community-based
sanitation (SANIMAS) in certain promising cities.
1.2 Strategic approach
As specified in the introduction, ISSDP approach does not start from the beginning, because this
activity is a follow up of activities performed
earlier, not long from studies performed by
Strategic Framework
WSP.
Where are we Dedo Based on this latest study document, what
enow
n Where mawe want to be
u p p ly driv (Vision,
nd driv
Mission)en have been obtained and are relevant with
(present condition)
S
sanitation problem will be summarized.
In studying sanitation problems, ISSDP

How do we get there
refers to current condition by learning
Demand responsive
(Strategy and Action)

relevant and clear WSP, where sanitation
services are supply driven. What to expect
by referring to this vision and mission,
How to stay there
(Sustainability)
sanitation then developed into demand
6/17/2006 3
driven, how to achieve it and how to
maintain it so that demand responsive can

be achieved and how to maintain what have been achieved continuously and sustainable.
From approach viewpoint, there is a change from “supply driven” to “demand driven”. In terms of
target, for example, its focus was to enable community to have their own latrine (“supply driven”).
But now, it is no longer about having a latrine, but it is the community’s choice where they want to
defecate, as long as they understand its consequence. One important thing is they do not
defecate in the river, or public areas, etc. (“demand driven”).
It is easy to say but difficult to perform. Change of mind needs high awareness and long time.
1.3 Legal Aspect and Regulation
The effectiveness of sanitation services is highly influenced by government policy both at central
and local levels. Legal and regulatory aspects were identified as a key element of the enabling
environment for sanitation. To achieve better urban domestic wastewater management, it is
necessary to analyse each element of the management process: (1) planning and programming,
(2) design, (3) constructions, (4) operation and maintenance, and (5) monitoring. A clear
framework should be designed to regulate these management processes smoothly. A thorough
study is needed to evaluate existing conditions as follows: current regulation of all aspects of
domestic wastewater management, identification of aspects of regulation which need
strengthening, central and local government roles, and recommendations.
At present, there is no specific law regulating urban domestic wastewater management; most
relevant regulatory instruments are linked to environmental protection and environmental health
rather than wastewater management. In other words, domestic wastewater management is seen
as an important aspect in environmental protection and environmental health. Under
decentralisation, environmental protection is the responsibility of local government at provincial
and district levels (Law 32/2004, articles 13 and 14). Law 32/2004 regulates the responsibility of
local government for environmental protection in: designing and monitoring construction, regional
planning, providing facilities, and environmental management.
The functions of local government are monitored and assisted by central government (Law
32/2004, article 217). Central government should deliver the norms, manuals and standards
(NSPM), training and courses. Nationally, assistance and monitoring of local government
functions is coordinated by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Law 32/2004, article 222). At regency
and city level they are coordinated by the governor and at district level by the head of city.
The functions of local government are monitored and assisted by central government (Law
32/2004, article 217). Central government should deliver the norms, manuals and standards
(NSPM), training and courses. Nationally, assistance and monitoring of local government
functions is coordinated by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Law 32/2004, article 222). At regency
and city level they are coordinated by the governor and at district level by the head of city.
The current conditions of domestic wastewater facilities in cities are poor. The concern of local
government, which has responsibility in this area, are low and the consequence is that the
development of domestic wastewater facilities is very slow. Possible reasons identified include1):
o No clear institutional roles;
o No specific/explicit central government regulation on domestic wastewater management, as a
reference for local government;
o Ambiguous national role in assisting local government to develop domestic wastewater
management;
o Inadequate local government resources;
o Low awareness of domestic wastewater management in local government and communities;
1
)Partly based on workshop discussions, Gren Alia Hotel, June 27-28, 2006

o Lack of domestic wastewater management plans and strategies in local government;

o Inadequate local and central government regulations to enforce domestic wastewater
management;
o Lack of financial resources.
The GOI is commited to the MDG targets in 2015, and this commitment is included in Rencana
Pembangunan Jangka Menengah (RPJM) written in PP7, 2005. The RPJM target for domestic
wastewater is to end open defecation in all cities by 2009; to increase the utiliisatiin rates of IPLT
and IPAL to 60%; to decrease faecal pollution of surface water to 50% of 2004 values and to
develop centralised sewerage systems in metropolitan cities. To achieve these targets,
Bappenas, Ministry of Public Works and Ministry of Health have all developed strategies and
plans. Bappenas is creating National Policies for Community Based Drinking Water Supply and
Environmental Sanitation Development and Institution Based Drinking Water Supply and
Environmental Sanitation Development. On the other hand, the Ministry of Public Works has
made a National Action Plan for Wastewater and the Ministry of Health has made a National
Environmental Health Plan for 2005-2009.
Government decree (PP) 16/2005 regulates the Development of Drinking Water Supply Systems,
protecting raw water, and the potential of solid and liquid waste to pollute the raw water.
Law 23/1992 gives Ministry of Health responsibility for controlling solid and liquid wastes in
relation to environmental health. It is stated in article 22 that “Environmental health is managed
through creating a healthy environment in public places, settlements, the working environment,
public transport and other environments, including efforts for improving water and air quality,
control of solid waste, liquid waste, gas emissions, radiation, noise and disease vectors and other
efforts or security on the above matters”.
People’s rights to well being and environmental health are regulated by Law 23/1997 article 5,
chapter V, which regulates environmental preservation, and chapter VI, requirements for
environmental arrangement.
In terms of financial arrangements, local government has autonomy in financial management, as
stated in Law 33/2004 (Financial Balance between Central and Local Government) including the
determination of health development priorities as appropriate to local capabilities, conditions and
needs.
Government decree (PP) 82/2001 regulates water quality management and water pollution
control, including sanctions for any action polluting water and the authority of the Bupati/Walikota
to issue wastewater discharge permits.
Ministry of Health Decree (Kep. Menkes) 1457/2003 rules on the Minimum Standard of Health
Services (MSHS) in Kabupaten/Kota, as follows: the prevention of diarrhoea and dengue fever;
environmental health and hygiene services in public places; and responsibilities of the
Bupati/Walikota for health services in accordance with MSHS.
The strategic plan of the Ministry of Health is set out in Ministry of Health Decree (Kep. Menkes)
1274/2005, which states that the environment health program includes: clean water supply and
basic sanitation; environmental quality management; environmental pollution control; and
development of healthy areas.
Technical guidelines and manuals have been developed by the Ministries of Public Works and
Health. Some were developed in cooperation with other Ministries with financing from
international institutions, including: CLTS (Community Led Total Sanitation) equipped with
module and the team; MPA (Methodology for Participatory Assessment), and PHAST
(Participatory Hygiene Transformation); Guidelines on Sanimas (Community Sanitation);

Technical Guideline (Juknis) on air and liquid waste quality assessment (By Dirjen P2MPLP in
1994); Guidelines on Installation of Hospital Liquid Waste Management (Dirjen Yanmedik, 1993).

The Draft law on regional planning (UU Tata Ruang) makes no explicit consideration of
sanitation.
It appears that at the moment, the current laws and regulations are not working properly in the
various sectors responsible for the domestic wastewater management. Water quality
degradation in surface and ground water is an indication of poor wastewater management in
every management process, especially aspects of monitoring such as construction and the
performance of built infrastructure (effluent standards, surface water standards, etc).
Key Laws and regulations identified so far are described in Table 1.1.
Table 1-1 Laws and Regulations Relating to Sanitation
No Law / Regulation Stipulation

1 UUD 45:
Article 33 Alinea 3 ‘Land and water and the wealth beneath governed by state and
utilized for the greatest benefit of people’s welfare’
2 UU No.23 Year 1992: Health
Chapter IV, Article 9 Government has the task of mobilising community participation in
administering and financing health
Article 10 Efforts to realize optimum health for community as a preventive

approach
Chapter V, Environmental health covers healthiness of water and air, protection

Fifth Part. Article 22 against solid waste, liquid waste, gas emissions, radiation, noise,
control of disease vectors, and other protection.
Environmental health, disease abatement and health education

represent part of health efforts.
Article 38 Health education is administered to improve knowledge,

awareness, willingness, and capacity for healthy life
3 UU No. 23 Year 1997 Environmental Management
Chapter III, Article 5 Clause 1 Each person has a right to well-being and a healthy environment
Chapter V, Article 14-17 Environmental preservation function
Chapter VI Requirement for environmental arrangement

4 GBHN 1999-2004 Health development is directed to improve human resource and
environment which support one with another with health paradigm,
which providing priorities on health improvement, prevention,
recovery and rehabilitation from the foetus to elder age.
5 UU No. 22 Year 1999 Local Government: Province, Kabupaten, and Kota have authority
to govern and administer local community interest according to their
own aspiration based on community aspiration.
6 UU No. 25 Year 2000 National Development Program (2000-2004) on healthy
environment, healthy behaviour, and community empowerment.
Settlement infrastructure and facilities development programme at
local level.
7 UU No.7 Year 2004 Governance of water resources: community participation in
management and fulfilment of water supply demands
Chapter III Water resource conservation

Article 23-25 Control of water pollution
8 UU No. 32 Year 2004 Local Autonomy
9 PP No.25 Year 2000 Government and provincial authority as autonomous district

No Law / Regulation Stipulation

10 PP No.7 Year 2005 Rural development
Acceleration of infrastructure development
11 PP No. 16 Year 2005 Development of SPAM integrated with sanitation infrastructure and
facilities development
Wastewater infrastructure and facilities
Solid waste infrastructure and facilities related to raw water source
protection
13 KepMen Permukiman dan Administration of KPS (Government-Private Sector Cooperation) in
Prasarana Wilayah No. 409 administration and/or management of water supply and sanitation
Year 2002
14 Kep Men LH No. 111 year 2003 Requirements and procedures for wastewater facilities discharge
permit
15 Kep Men LH No. 112 Year 2003 Domestic wastewater quality standards
2 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
2.1 Stakeholders
Sanitation cannot be handled by many sectors because all should synergize to handle this issue.
At the central level, in addition to Bappenas, Finance Department and Department of Home
Affairs, the Health ministry, the Minister of Environment, the Department of industry, and the
Department of public works shall also take part. At the regional level, local government offices at
province level, and the regency and city administration shall take a part. In addition, NGOs,
private sector and individuals shall also take part. When they are synergized one another toward
the same final result, sanitation may be improved more significantly.
Role sharing has yet been identified and the role of each agency (regulator, operator, provider,
enabler, empowering body) has yet been clearly organized and who should be its beneficiaries. It
is related with awareness about public services. Serving the community is placing community as
beneficiaries, and if beneficiaries are project executors, as a number of previous developments
did not involve the community from initial planning, work/project “waste” may occur again.
Therefore, it is very important to share or clarify the role so that there won’t be any overlapping
which will reduce each party’s performance. Who shall act as regulator, operator, provider and
beneficiaries should be clear.
The State Minister for Environmental Affairs shall play a major role in handling environment
problems so as to enable development and to anticipate possible environmental contamination.
Particularly for sanitation, it shall regulate requirements for all waste water which may be
disposed of to irrigation, because it may affect our limited water resources; Health ministry shall
play a major role as a regulator in managing the quality of potable water, and possible spread of
disease through water; The Ministry of Industry shall deal with home industry of which liquid
waste may contaminate water e.g., batik and tofu industry, etc.
Similarly, other departments related with sanitation should also have a clear role. However, at the
operational level within regional government, the role of agencies and local government offices
concerning sub-sanitation sector is varied and apparently not properly coordinated. Agencies
related with the management of sanitation facilities are available in the following Table 2.1.

Table 2-1 Agencies managing IPLT, IPAL and other sanitation facilities
OPERATOR. PAL IPLT MANY MCK SANIMAS/ Septic Tank, HOME

LATRINES COMMUNITY LATRINE INDUSTRY
PD.PAL +
PDAM + +
Dinas Kebersihan +
DKP +
RT/RW + + +
Local Office for + + +
Environment Affairs
Communal groups + + +
LKMD + +
BEST (NGO) +
Individual +
REGULATOR IPAL IPLT MANY MCK SANIMAS/ Septic Tank, HOME
LATRINES COMMUNITY LATRINE INDUSTRY
HEALTH MINISTRY + + + + + + +
Environmental + + + + + + +
Affairs
Local Industry Office +

Decentralization should expedite development, including sanitation, but it is not the case now.
Decentralization has handed over most tasks from the central to regional governments,
bringing sanitation provider closer to those who need access to sanitation. Therefore, the
development of sanitation should be better than pre-decentralization.
Decentralization was firstly performed in 2001/2002. Now it has been performed for four to
five years, but the development of sanitation is apparently stagnant. There are indeed many
problems. Beside monetary crisis, the community has yet to need sanitation as a priority, and
therefore the regional government probably considers sanitation is not a priority to develop. It
is apparent from low budget for sanitation in the regional budget (APBD).
Some regional governments have made plans from the bottom, starting from discussions on
the need for its development at kelurahan and city level, which was attended by NGOs and
local agencies/offices, but it has not been their priority based on their RPJM and activity plan
in each local agency/office.
It is recommended that capacity should be improved through facilitators at kelurahan forum

so as to discuss the people’s actual need so as to improve health through better access for
sanitation facility (preventive), so that real need for sanitation can be identified by related local
agencies/offices and be made a basis to prepare regional program and its annual action plan.
Since the relation between central and regional governments in handling sanitation is not
clear, policies and strategies at the national level have yet been references for local
government, because they have yet been supported by its regulations. Each agency and
department related with sanitation has prepared policies, strategies, RPJM, Action Plan, and
NSPM, but it is not clear if they have been implemented in the regions.
A clear government regulation should be issued and local governments should have the
same understanding so as to avoid confusion when it is applied at the operational level. At
the regional government, it is necessary to clarify it in a local regulation so as to operate it
well. At this level, it is necessary to have a clear relation between the national and local
regulations. With the issuance of a local regulation concerning sanitation which refers to the
national government, it is expected that national strategies and policies concerning sanitation
can be in line with those prepared at local level and be part of RENSTRADA/ RPJM which
explicitly and clearly describe about development of sanitation. For example, in achieving
target sanitation related with MDGs commitment, the regional governments are generally
aware of it, but their target achievements in every municipality/regency are varied
proportionally depending on total population and resources (capacity).
Sanitation sector has yet become a priority, stakeholders in general, and the community in
particular, has yet to consider sanitation their main requirement (they are more concerned
about what to eat today). The development of sanitation is generally top down, except for
several cases such as SANIMAS, CLTS, WSSLIC, and PAMSIMAS which have their own
success-story. It is necessary to have a better understanding through an advocation program,
so that all stakeholders will have the same understanding on how to improve priority for
sanitation when it is not yet deemed necessary to develop.
In Indonesia, a clear research has yet been performed (for example Making the Case) that
with easy access to sanitation facility, people’s health can be improved. Better health can
improve work productivity, and economy of the family and community in general.
Investment in sanitation facility is so far deemed unable to obtain cost recovery, even less
when it is related with off-site sanitation (sewerage). However, we should also consider its
economic value due to better sanitation facility that we don’t have to apply for a sick leave,
pay hospital cost, time lost and better performance. It is probably necessary for managers
who develop sanitation to apply an entrepreneurship way of thinking.

Government agencies related with Sanitation:

At the central level: Bappenas, Public Work Department, Health Department, Home Affairs
Department, Finance Department, State Ministry for Environmental Affairs, and Department
of Industry (particularly home industry)
At local level: Local Offices/Agencies related with sanitation based on their TUPOKSI, and
various levels, names and types from one region to another.
2.2 Non-Governmental Organizations:
NGO, Profession Associations, High learning institutions, Social Groups/Associations;

Developers, Local Social Communities (RT, RW) etc. Following is a table on government and
non-governmental agencies related with sanitation.
Table 2-2 Government and non-governmental agencies related with Supplying

Infrastructure for Drinking Water and Sanitation
No Agency Tasks/Functions
1 Bappenas Bappenas shall be responsible for infrastructure plan, coordinating
policy reforms at the national level concerning water resources and
supply of drinking water and community-based environmental health
2 Public works department: Technical framework for developing rural infrastructure and facilities
The directorate of Cipta Karya covers: promotion, arrangement, development, training and
technical assistance. Participates in providing healthy settlement
and houses including affordable basic infrastructure.
3 Health Department:
The Directorate General of Provider and developer of health information, maintenance of water
Environmental Health and Contiguous quality and health education
Disease Control
The Directorate of Settlement Conditions which may affect people’s health in settlement areas and
Environmental Health disease contiguous places (Malaria, Dengue Fever)
The Directorate of Water Sanitation Monitoring water quality including waste water disposal areas.
4 Department of Home Affairs:
The Directorate General of Regional Managing development fund and improve administration plan, and
Development environment including drinking water and sanitation services
Developer at kelurahan level through Lembaga Ketahanan

The Directorate General of Village Masyarakat Desa (LKMD) so as to initiate bottom up plans and
Community Development people’s self supports
The Directorate General of General Supervisor for local companies (PDAM, PDAL, PD Kebersihan), has
Affairs and Regional Autonomy a Human Resource development program
5 Finance Department:
The Directorate General of Allocate sectoral development project fund which covers
Development budget development in cities, regencies and province and national
development, annual budget shall be distributed through related
Departments and Regional government
The Directorate General of Other Manages other funds, other than development fund
Development Budget
The Directorate General of Foreign Manages bilateral and multilateral funds.

Fund
6 The Ministry of Environmental Affairs Developes policies and regulations concerning control over
contamination and environmental issues
Plans and performs environmental programs and supports people’s

participation in managing their environment

No Agency Tasks/Functions
7 Provincial Government Planning
Board:
Physical Field and Infrastructure Planning, coordination, monitoring program and development
and/or Socio-culture activities
8 Provincial Secretary (Setwilda):
Financial and Development Bureau Formulating development policies, monitoring and preparing
commitment for development fund at province level
9 Provincial Bapedalda Performing and applying policies and governance in environmental
management affairs at the region
10 Provincial Public Work Department Coordinating the development programs and projects at the
province level
11 Village Community Empowerment Development of Village community
Agency (province)
12 Provincial Health Office
13 Regional Government Planning Board
at Regency/municipality:
Physical Fields and Infrastructure and Planning, coordination, monitoring of programs and development
or Socio-Culture activities at Regency and/or Municipal Level
14 Regional Secretary (Setwilda) in
Regency/municipality: Formulating development policies, monitoring and preparing
Financial and Development Bureau commitment for development fund at Regional level
15 Bapedalda at Regency/municipality Performing and applying policies and governance in environmental
management affairs at the region
16 Public Work Department at Be responsible for the implementation of the state budget (APBN).
Regency/municipality INPRES (Rural Clean Water and Environment Sanitation at
Settlement Areas) and other development fund from APBD.
Kimtawil office (Bandung Regency) Be responsible for planning and developing village drainage
Public Work Department (Tasik Be responsible for planning and developing village drainage
Regency)
17 Local Office for Sanitation and Operating and maintaining trash disposal system and drainage.
Gardens Mostly at city level
18 Local Office for City and Regional Planning, layout and monitoring the city and regency layout.
Layout Authorized to grant the Building Establishment License (IMB) which
contains requirement to establish waste water processing unit
(cubluk or septic tanks)
19 Local Health Office at City or Region Coordinating and implementing health services at regency and/or
city level, through People’s health centers
20 Regional-owned Corporations
(BUMD): Supplying drinking water and managing domestic waste water
PDAM in several cities
Only available in Jakarta
PDAL (Regional Corporation for
Waste Water)
21 Village Community Development Community development
Office
22 Kelurahan or Village Office It is a government unit under kecamatan which also has a functional
relationship in community development. Village chief has the
autonomy for village administration.
23 LKMD Semi governmental organization at village level which shall be
responsible for planning and implementing village development
24 PKK Semi governmental organization which is responsible for social
issues including health protection and environmental conservation
and shall also be responsible for trash management in several sites

2.3 Vision and Mission (national level)
2.3.1 The Ministry of Environmental Affairs
Vision: To establish the State Ministry for Environmental Affairs as a reliable and proactive
institution in materializing sustainable development through Good Environmental Governance
(GEG), so as to improve the prosperity of Indonesian people.
Explanation on program, among others PROKASIH which is aimed at reducing contamination

due to liquid waste; ADIPURA Program which is aimed at establishing a clean and green city;
and management of domestic waste and small-scale businesses which is aimed at reducing
contamination from the source, and that program implementation based on the Decree of the
Minister of Environmental Affairs No.93/ 2004 concerning Bangun Praja Program. Adipura
award, for waste water aspect will only be included in the calculation/evaluation in 2008.
Mission of Deputy II: To improve environment quality; to develop a professional performance

in controlling environmental contamination; to encourage application of Good Environmental
Governance principles
KLH is of the opinion that one of its main tasks is to handle waste by considering that waste is
a resource; it is still impeded by the meaning of other stakeholders/agencies as specified in
Law no.7/2004 concerning water resources and Government Regulation no.16/2005
concerning Development of Supply of Drinking Water, Article 1 which says:
“Solid wastes are wastes arising from settlement areas, not hazardous or toxic material,
which is deemed useless”2). By understanding that waste is a resource, then handling or
management of this resource will be optimal when it covers its amount in communal level
than individual level. Although at individual level, it is motivated by the spirit to seriously
perform it so as to produce a significant result. In this case, we may refer to Mexico where
development of individual septic tank has been prohibited so as to conserve its environment.
2.3.2 Health department
Vision: People have a healthy behavior and life in a healthy environment.

Mission:
o To control environmental risks and behaviors;
o To encourage the independence of health-oriented community;
o To encourage network and partnership;
o To develop technology and application of analysis on environmental health impacts;
o To provide information concerning environmental health;
o To improve HR professionalism concerning environmental health; and
o To improve even, quality and affordable environmental health services.
The central government has the authority to perform surveillances concerning epidemiology,
eradication and elimination of epidemics/extraordinary events and application of policies to
support macro development, preparation of national plan, development and supervision on
regional autonomy which covers issuance guidance, guidelines, training, directions and
supervision and eradication of epidemics and national disasters.
Agencies within the environmental ministry which support healthy environment based on their
respective tasks are: Directorate of Environmental sanitation, it is a leading unit. Health
Promotion Center, Planning & Budgeting Bureau; Legal & Organization Bureau, Center for
Health Facility, Infrastructure and Equipment, Directorate of Community Health etc., Local
Health Offices at the Province and Regency/Municipality (DKK) levels.
2)
Definition: Solid wastes are all the wastes arising from human and animal activities that are normally
solid and are discarded as useless or unwanted. Because of their intrinsic properties, discarded waste
materials are often reusable and maybe considered a resource in another setting. (G.Tchobanolous,
Integrated solid waste management)

This DKK shall be authorized for decentralization of health affairs and providing assistance
and determining types of levels of health services. Province Health Office has the authority for
limited decentralization which covers health services which cannot be performed inter
sectoral by the community or regional government at the regency/municipality level.
Past five years experiences shows that the regional governments still require supports so that
healthy environment priorities can be performed well. Limited fund sources and lack
understanding about healthy environment cause poor commitment in this field. Environmental
sanitation actually has a specific characteristic which does not recognize administrative
boundaries. Their solutions require integrated and inter province/regency/ municipality
handling. Otherwise, it may cause worse KLB/epidemic and environmental damages which
may harm our health.
In sanitation field, its targets are among others: to improve the percentage of families who live
in healthy homes (75%); families who use clean water (85%); and families who use latrines
which are of healthy standard (80%). However there is a slight change in its approach. In
terms of target, for example, its focus was to enable the community to own latrines (which is
“government driven”). But now, it is up to the community, they are free to defecate in locations
of their choices, as long as they know the consequences of their choices. So long they do not
do that in the river or in public areas, etc. (“community driven”). On the other hand, sanitation
is also an investment. People have needs to develop. Its “return rate” is actually high. Many
are interested in it.
Its implementation is so far so good. Previously, some villages had no water/latrine, but now
their homes have water (in 1,300 villages), serving for some 10 million people. WSSLIC
project produces a good result. For example, in Lumajang it is reported that within three
months only, no one in 16 villages within one kecamatan defecates in any place. Similarly, in
Muara Enim, WSSLIC 2 has been developed in 2,500 villages. And WSSLIC 3 will be
developed in 11 provinces, 70 regencies, 5,000 villages. It is planned for 2007-2012. Some
5,000 clean water facilities will be built with a better hygiene (washing hands with soap).
2.3.3 Public Work Department
Vision: To provide reliable, useful and sustainable Public Infrastructure so as to support safe,
peaceful, justified, democratic and prosperous Indonesia.
The Directorate General of Cipta Karya, Vision:

o To establish regional independence in developing infrastructure and facilities so as to
materialize urban and rural areas which are convenient, fair, producctive and
sustainable, and supports each other in developing the region.
o To supply public infrastructure in urban and rural areas in order to materialize
convenient, productive and sustainable settlement areas, and to arrange buildings and
environment, develop a standard safety of homes, settlement and private buildings.
Directorate of PPLP, Vision:

To establish health environmental infrastructure and facilities in order to materialize
convenient, healthy, safe and sustainable settlement areas through better quality of people’s
health and environmental conservation.
Directorate general of CK, Mission:

o To supply public infrastructure in urban and rural areas in order to materialize
convenient, productive and sustainable settlement areas.
o To improve the capacity of regional government, community and businesses in
developing public infrastructure.
o To arrange urban and rural areas and buildings which comply with standard safety and
building security of buildings.
o To construct village roads, city streets and water infrastructure and facility (village
irrigation and water resources).

o To materialize efficient organization, effective performance and professional human

resources by applying” Good Governance” principles.
Directorate of PPLP, Mission:

o To provide services for waste water, trash and drainage infrastructure and facility, so as
to improve the quality of people’s health in urban and rural areas.
o To establish and develop sanitation infrastructure and facility at settlement areas, to
prevent environmental contamination.
o To improve the capacity of Regional Government and the community effectively,
efficiently and sustainable.
o To encourage issuance of regulation which can be applied by the Government and
community in managing environmental sanitation in settlement areas.
o To improve self-finance.
o To promote people’s participation in development process.
o To improve the roles of entrepreneurship, and high learning institutions by creating a
conducive climate for developing environmental sanitation infrastructure and facility in
settlement areas.
Policies and Strategies (JAKSTRA) of the Directorate of PPLP in developing environment

sanitation at settlement areas, including the management of domestic waste water in 2006
are still being considered for possible issuance of the Resolution of Public Works Minister. At
present, there are draft regulations of the Public work Minister which shall be issued. When
JAKTRA, regulation, standard, implementation procedure related with sanitation prepared at
the national level can be integrated with RENSTRADA related with sanitation and prepared at
Regency/City administration level, including local regulations, sanitation is assumed better
than present one.
Agencies within the Department of Public Works related with sanitation issues in addition to
the Directorate of PPLP are the Directorate of Program Development, the Directorate General
of CK which prepare budgets and the Secretary General of the Department of Public Works
related with legal products/regulations.
2.3.4 Department of Home Affairs
Vision: To establish decentralistic governance, democratic political system, regional

development and people’s empowerment within the Unitary State of the Republic of
Indonesia.
Mission:
Missions of the Department of Home Affairs among others are: To issue a national policy and
to facilitate governance, in order to: (3) improve effectiveness and efficiency of decentralistic
government; (4) improve management of regional finance effectively, efficiently, accountably
and auditable; (6) improve people’s economy, socio-culture, and politics; (7) develop
harmony between central and regional governments, between regions and areas, and
regional independence in managing sustainable and community based development.
When we see vision and mission of departments/agencies related with sanitation, it apparent
that all of them have supported the development of sanitation, but in its operation in regions
(based on decentralization system) it is in accordance with their vision and mission.
Therefore, a more intensive coordination is required so that similar perception can be
synergized so as to achieve sanitation targets and it should be coordinated with regional
governments to be in line and the development of sanitation can be part of main activity of the
regional government.
People’s and Private Sector’s Participation

o People’s awareness about the importance of sanitation is still poor
o People have yet to have an optimum participation. It is due to low tariff/retribution
o Development of waste water, particularly community-based ones is still limited

o Private companies are not interested to invest in waste water field
Role sharing
From these stakeholders above, role sharing between stakeholders or development
executors has yet been identified or clearly organized, for example who shall be the regulator
or operator, provider, enabler, empower body, and who shall be its beneficiaries.
3 EXISTING SANITATION CONDITION
Studies about sanitation have been made in order to study conditions, main issues and efforts
to handle them by preparing policies, strategies, short (annual), mid and long term plans, five
year development plan (Pelita), RPJM and RPJP with possible different names depending on
their periods.
Therefore in preparing materials for Enabling Framework Sanitation workshop in this program
(ISSDP), study on existing condition of sanitation, and identification of main issues are not
performed. But it is based on results of past studies, particularly on what has been presented
in the Waspola (2005) study and summarize them, except for finding new main issues based
on current development. In special documents, particularly WASPOLA, it has explained why
the development of sanitation in Indonesia did not run as it should be
Main issues concerning sanitation are clearly documented in community-based and agency-
based AMPL Policies and Strategies.
Main topic of discussion, particularly for sanitation of WSP is:

o Domestic wastewater and water supply management are not integrated. As we
understand, we use + 70% of water for daily requirement will turn into waste water.
o Pollution of Bodies of Water as Sources of Raw Water. Total fresh water in the world
during hydrological cycle is relative the same, but total human who need water is
increasing rapidly (for example in 1965, total population in Indonesia is 80 million and it
becomes 215 million 40 years later (2006). Rapid population growth will surely increase
the use of natural resources, particularly the limited fresh water, settlement which
develops with all its implications due to limited lands for water catchments area including
forest damages, that fresh water in the hydrological cycle which should be longer on
lands (including ground water), at present, it flows fast into the sea and it is difficult to be
used as fresh water for people’s needs (it will be very expensive to process seawater into
fresh water). Limited water resources is further battered by contamination due to waste
water which is not properly and correctly managed, that water for drinking water is getting
more limited, or water which has been contaminated to be processed into clean water or
drinking water will more expensive (additional treatment is required in its process such as
more chemicals needed etc.).
o People’s access particularly urban-poor to waste water (sanitation) infrastructure and

facility (PS) is still low (Low Access to Wastewater Facilities). Up to present, urban-poor
generally do not think they need sanitation. They are more concerned about what to eat
today. They do not realize that sanitation is a tool which may cut the spread of diseases
(preventive). They do not realize that such prevention can make them healthy, they do
not need to spend money to stay healthy, work productivity remains high and therefore,
will improve their income and prosperity.
o Institutions related with sanitation (at regions) are generally weak and their managements
are not professional (Weak Institutional Position and Poor Management Performance).
Competent institutions cannot fulfill people’s need for sanitation, they have not been
empowered (through hygiene sanitation marketing), that the community is of the opinion
that sanitation is not a demand. Renstrada, RPJM, Action Plan have been prepared and
approach has been developed starting from Kelurahan to city forums. However, the
number of plans related with sanitation is still low. It is due to low priority to develop

sanitation compared to other sectors or sub-sectors and the economic benefits of a better
sanitation, through higher human resource productivity, have yet been fully understood.
o Low Budget Allocation. It is understood that many city/regency administrations have low
source of fund due to poor exploration of existing potency. However, some
administrations have high fund but low budget allocation for sanitation. If we study harder,
we will find low awareness about sanitation that priority for development of sanitation is
still low and this will eventually result in low supply of fund.
o Lack of Regulations at the Operational Level and Weak Law. At the national level,
number of regulations is still low that products to develop sanitation, such as policies and
strategies have yet to have a clear legal basis. Therefore, delivery process will not run
well because some regions would find difficulty to obey them. Regions tend to prepare
their own local regulations by referring to existing limited national regulations (concerning
sanitation) or prepare local regulations which are not in accordance with targets. In
addition, there are multi-interpretations or different understandings between one
government to another about the same problem. For example, there is a different
understanding about trash between the Resolution of the Public Works Department
No.16/2005 and Law no. 23/1997. Both regulations may be right. But it requires an
explanation based on its context so as to avoid confusion among those who would read
or apply them.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION
4.1 Water contamination
In Indonesia, 50 % of its population has yet to manage their waste water (20.71 % in urban
and 73.99 % in rural areas). Only 1.36% of the target for policies concerning water
conservation can be achieved. Some 76.3 % of 53 rivers in Java, Sumatra, Bali and Sulawesi
are severely contaminated by organic pollutants, and 11 major rivers are severely
contaminated by Ammonium.
Major rivers in urban areas are generally contaminated with high content of BOD (34.48 %),
and COD (51.73 %); 33.34 % samples of pipe water and 54.16 % samples of non-pipe
drinking water contain Coli bacteria. Supply of raw water in three provinces, namely DKI
Jakarta, DIY Jogyakarta and East Java is critical (< 1000 m3/capita/annum). Many IPLT are
not working well or utilized optimally. Local Waste Water Processing Unit (IPAL) service is not
running optimally.
4.2 Health affairs
Lack of domestic liquid waste service result in many contiguous diseases in Indonesia. Result
of SKRT (Survey on Family Health) in 1992 shows that diarrhea is the second most deadly
disease for infants in the country. Based on Surkernas 2001 (Profil Kesehatan Indonesia,
2001), starting from 1995 to 2001, diarrhea went down to third spot.
Increased infant mortality rate is 49 per 1000 births in 1998 and 50 per 1000 births in 2001.
Infant mortality rate and types of diseases which cause the highest mortality are indicators
that supply facility and infrastructure of drinking water and sanitation are very poor.
Up to present, many contiguous diseases still spread among the community and they are
deadly.
Many of them are due to poor environment and sanitation. Unfortunately, on some 30% of
them who know about this problem and able to resolve it by providing sufficient sanitation
facilities. Some 50% don’t know but they can actually afford it, and 20 % don’t know and
cannot afford it.

As we understand, contiguous disease is one of the most deadly diseases for infants and
under five year old children. According to SKRT 1995, proportion of contiguous diseases
which cause infants’ dead are: pneumonia (16.4%), diarrhea (11.4%), tetanus 4.7%), acute
respiration infection (3.9%), encephalitis, bronchitis, emphysema and asthma (2.5% each).
And proportion of contiguous diseases which cause the death of under five years old children
are; pneumonia (22,5%), diarrhea (19,2%), acute respiration infection (7,5%), stomach
typhus and malaria (7% each) and measles (5,2%). Some contiguous diseases identified as
the causes for death are TB (9.2%), diarrhea (7,2%), pneumonia (6,9%), bronchitis,
emphysema and asthma (6,1% each) and stomach typhus (5,2%). These contiguous
diseases are due to among others, poor environmental health and people’s poor health
In Southeast Asia, sanitation service in Indonesia in 2000 is ranked 6th among 9 (nine)
countries. Indonesia is under Thailand, Philippine, Malaysia and Myanmar. Sanitation service
in Indonesia is 8.85% lower than average rate of sanitation service in Southeast Asia
(Depkimpraswil, 2003).
This condition is certainly alarming because Indonesia gained her independence longer than
Myanmar, but its sanitation services is still poor.
It is important for the local government (Regional government) to manage (as regulator) and
to facilitate any effort to over come this emerging problem. There are, however, found many
local governments (Regional government) do not take any action due to lack of
understanding to the problem, do not know the opportunity as well as how to handle the
issue. In fact there is business opportunity at this aspect which may interest to the investor.
4.3 Sanitation Services
Coverage and service of liquid waste management in most cities in Indonesia are very small.
Based on the result of a study performed by the Department of Public Works in 2005, up to
2003, waste water service using new septic tank covers 43,87%, while the rest of 20,12%
throw (feces) into the river or lake, 23 % to holes while the rest thrown (feces) into beaches,
gardens, ponds or rice fields. The worst condition is in Kalimantan, where only 37% of its
population use of new septic tanks, 25% throw (their feces) into the river or lake and 31%
throw (feces) into holes.
In 1999, sanitation coverage reaches 77% in urban and 51% in rural areas. While clean water
coverage reaches 92% in urban and 68% in rural areas. However, coverage of sanitation and
clean water by provinces are varied. Coverage of clean water in rural areas in Central
Kalimantan is 35% while in Bali 89%. There are some regions with above 90% sanitation
coverage but some regency have 12 to 20% coverage.
These figures have yet to indicate an effective use, and only 50% of existing clean water
facility has complied with bacteriologic standards. Based on MDG agreement, Indonesia will
reduce total population who do not have proper access to sanitation by half in 2015.
In 2006, national program of Sanimas in 105 areas in 34 City/Regency administrations in 23

Provinces is launched. Socialization about this program and its pilot project in Regency/City
administrations has been, and therefore, it is expected to run smoothly as it is a replication of
the existing one. Regency/City administration which have yet to receive socialization about
Sanimas, may find it difficult to implement it. They are expected to have a valuable lesson
from their experiences in performing SANIMAS program in 2006. They could use it as an
evaluation and recommendation for their next action plans.
It is necessary to develop community-based sanitation (Sanimas) in other forms (by copying
guidance samples for the community, existing building designs or other proper types).
However, they are basically still a community-based sanitation, as a replacement for MCK
which only prioritize physical building without considering its sustainability (its environment,
social, operation and maintenance). It is necessary to study possible development of
Sanimas for settlement within areas with sewerage piping system (off-site) such as in
Surakarta, Denpasar, Banjarmasin etc.

Approach used to socialize a program like Sanimas needs to consider local sanitation culture
such as using local language including profile/drawings/sketch of local inhabitants and
eliminating behaviors which are no longer suitable for present condition. For example,
Javanese jingle song of "Ee dayohe teko, ……, ee asune mati, ee buang ning kali", should be
removed, because it does not respect river as a water resource for drinking water but as a
place to throw trash/waste (dead dog is thrown into the river). Perhaps in the past, this song
did not create any problem because of their high self purification. However, it is no longer
suitable for present condition, where urban areas are highly populated, and lands and water
resources are limited.
In sanitation field, the Health Ministry has following targets: to improve percentage of families
who live in healthy home (75%); families who use clean water (85%); and families who use
standard latrine (80%).
However there is a slight change in its approach. In terms of target, for example, its focus was
to enable the community to own latrines (which is “government driven”). But now, it is up to
the community, they are free to defecate in locations of their choices, as long as they know
the consequences of their choices. So long they do not do that in the river or in public areas,
etc. (“community driven”).
On the other hand, sanitation is also an investment. People have needs to develop. Its “return
rate” is actually high. Many are interested in it. Even the World Bank has indicated its
interests to invest.
Its implementation is so far so good. Previously, some villages had no water/latrine, but now
their homes have water (in 1,300 villages), serving for some 10 million people. WSSLIC
project produces a good result. For example, in Lumajang it is reported that within three
months only, no one in 16 villages within one kecamatan defecates in any place. Similarly, in
Muara Enim, WSSLIC 2 has been developed in 2,500 villages. And WSSLIC 3 will be
developed in 11 provinces, 70 regencies, 5000 villages. It is planned for 2007-2012. Some
5000 clean water facilities will be built with a better hygiene (washing hands with soap).
The Health Ministry’s data and experiences, for the past five years, show that regional
governments still require support so that priorities in healthy environment can be performed
well. Limited fund and unawareness about healthy environment result in poor commitment in
this field. Environmental sanitation has a specific characteristic which does not recognize
administrative boundaries. These solutions require integrated and inter
province/regency/municipality handling. Otherwise, it may cause worse KLB/epidemic and
environmental damages which may harm our health. Regional enthusiasm to open a
sanitation clinic shows a better commitment to resolve environmental health problem.
5 INVESTMENT AND FINANCING
5.1 Existing Condition
The sanitation sector in Indonesia – now. Indonesia has one of the lowest rates of off-site
sanitation services in the world. At present, less than 2% of the population is connected to
piped sewerage networks, which served about 200,000 urban households in 2004. About
60% of population relies on septic tanks and pit latrines for human waste discharge. Over ten
million households, or 25% of the total, are currently not served by some form of on-site
sanitation (Table 1). A large portion of the rural population, as well as many low-income
households in urban areas, discharge human waste directly into rivers, lakes and open
space. The resulting contamination of surface and groundwater has led to high incidences of
faecal-borne diseases and environmental degradation of water sources, especially in densely
populated areas. In 1999, the ADB estimated the economic cost of wastewater pollution in
Indonesia at almost US$ 4.7 billion per year.

The ‘do-nothing’ scenario. Since 1998, investment in new sanitation infrastructure has been
negligible. Although the proportion of households with access to improved sanitation facilities
(piped sewerage, septic tanks and pit latrines) has remained around 65% in recent years,
over 90% of human waste remains untreated. Because population densities and
environmental pressures continue to rise, the situation is likely to deteriorate without a radical
change in government policy.
Table 5-1 Households with access to improved sanitation*
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Urban 80.4% 77.0% 77.4% 76.2% 77.5%
Rural 55.6% 50.8% 52.3% 50.3% 52.2%
Indonesia 64.9% 61.1% 62.7% 61.5% 63.5%
Source: BPS
* Defined as: off-site sanitation, septic tanks and pit latrines
5.2 Medium and Long-Term Policy Objectives
A vision for 2015. Ten years from now, 75% of the population will have access to improved
sanitation services, up from 63% in 2000. Most of the increase has been financed by
households themselves, who have been made aware of the economic benefits of reducing
open defecation. Specialized local government agencies provide sludge treatment services to
minimize wastewater pollution. The full cost of these services is financed from local service
charges that are levied on the basis of ‘the-polluter-pays’ principle. Water utilities in large and
metropolitan cities provide off-site sanitation services to almost four million households, a
twenty-fold increase from the service level in 2004. Due to large improvements in the asset
utilization rates, tariffs have not increased substantially in recent years, and off-site sanitation
will soon become affordable to low-income groups.
Medium and long-term policy objectives. In 2002, the Government of Indonesia (GOI)
committed itself to achieving Millennium Development Goal (MDG) #7, known as ‘Ensuring
Environmental Sustainability’. As a means to achieve this goal, GOI pledged to halve, by
2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to basic sanitation. In 2004, the
Ministry of Public Works (MPW) issued the National Action Plan on Sanitation, which contains
a detailed proposal for operationalizing MDG #7.
The National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJM) for 2004-2009 prescribes an

alternative to improving service levels in the sanitation sector. Instead of targeting a direct
increase in the number of sanitation facilities, it plans for public information campaigns to
encourage households to improve their own facilities. The RJPM also contains quantitative
targets concerning an increased in the utilization rates of waste treatment facilities and a
reduction in the proportion of wastewater that remains untreated (Table 2). To improve
sanitation services in the country, it is likely that a combination of approaches is required.
Table 5-2 Service level targets for the sanitation sector
Source Service level target Coverage*

Millennium Develop- Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without 75%
ment Goal #10 sustainable access to basic sanitation
National Action Plan Increase, by 2015, coverage of improved sanitation 75%
on Sanitation in urban areas to 80% and coverage in rural areas to
70%
RPJM 2004-2009 No open defecation by 2009 100%
Sources: UNDP, MPW (DG Cipta Karya), BAPPENAS
* Percentage of total population with access to improved sanitation

Increase the number of households with access to improved sanitation. According to

the National Action Plan on Sanitation, the number of persons with access to off-site
sanitation, septic tanks or pit latrines needs to increase from 114 million in 2000 to 184 million
in 2015, an increase of 60%. To achieve this objective, GOI would need to:
i. Promote investment in off-site sanitation facilities (the construction of which is normally

co-financed by the central government).
ii. Encourage the construction of on-site sanitation facilities. BAPPENAS is currently

supervising the implementation of a highly successful program to promote ‘open
defecation free’ neighborhoods. This program demonstrates that households are willing
to finance improved sanitation facilities from own sources if they are aware of the
economic benefits of such facilities.
Increase the volume of wastewater treated. In 2000, the Ministry of Health conducted a
survey that showed that human waste generated by over 96% of all households in the country
is not treated in a specialized facility. The remainder is treated in sewage treatment plants
(Instalasi Pengolahan Air Limbah or IPAL) or sludge treatment facilities (Instalasi Pengolahan
Lumpur Tinja or IPLT). The actual volume of wastewater treated is even lower than these
figures may suggest, as many IPALs and IPLTs are used at very low utilization rates (or are
not used at all). Although the optimization of existing treatment facilities is needed, additional
capacity is also required to reduce the share of untreated human waste from over 90% to
50%, as targeted in the RPJM. For these reasons, the National Development Plan prescribes
that the Government should:
iii. Optimize the capacity of existing treatment facilities. The RPJM stipulates that at least
60% of the capacity of an IPAL or IPLT should be in use by 2009.
iv. Promote an increase in total treatment capacity. No quantitative targets given.
5.3 The Economics of Sanitation Infrastructure
Capturing economic benefits. The economic benefits of sanitation systems are significant
(Table 5-3). However, most of these benefits do not accrue to households that are connected
to the system, but to other households in the service area who benefit from, for example, an
improvement in groundwater quality or a reduction in faecal-borne diseases that sanitation
systems usually generate (Table 5-4). In other words, the public benefits of a sanitation
system are much larger than the benefits of an individual user of that system.
Table 5-3 Estimated economic costs of public health
Proper sanitation infrastructure is an effective means to improve public health. In 1999,

three surveys were undertaken in Indonesia to estimate the economic costs of public
health systems and days lost due to illness. As shown in the table below, the average
economic cost is in the order of IDR 128,000 per person per year. This amounts to a total
cost of IDR 63 billion per year for a medium-sized town such as Surakarta (pop. 489,000).
Economic losses
Survey undertaken in
(IDR/capita/year)
Yogyakarta 104,100
Medan 95,900
Several medium-size cities (ADB) 185,100
Average 128,300
Source: National Action Plan on Clean Water, MPW (2003)
Note: Economic losses were estimated as the sum of health expenditures (borne by the
public and the government), and working days lost as a result of illness.

What does this mean for the financing of sanitation infrastructure?

i. Users are unwilling to pay a full cost-recovery tariff for sanitation services, because a
significant portion of tariff revenues would be used to provide services that users do not
wish to buy (e.g. sludge treatment at the other side of town).
ii. Sanitation services should be charged on the basis of ‘the-polluter-pays’ principle. This
means that a household is charged on the basis of waste generation –whether or not it
is connected to the service – on the grounds that it automatically benefits from the
presence of the sanitation system.
A sanitation system delivers several services (such as waste collection and sludge
treatment). Users are able to capture the full economic benefits of some of these services.
This means that ‘the-polluter-pays’ principle should not be applied indiscriminately.
Table 5-4 Classification of economic benefits of sanitation infrastructure
1. Improved public health.

Reduction in health expenditures directly borne by the public (such as lower
expenditures on medicines, medical services and transportation to hospitals).
Reduction in health expenditures borne by the government (these consist primarily in
reduced subsidies to health clinics and hospitals and lower expenditures on
immunization and other preventive programmes).
Improvements in labor productivity. Improved sanitation has a significant positive impact
on public health, thereby reducing the number of working days (and school days) lost.
2. Reduced water treatment costs. Improve sanitation reduces pollution in surface and
groundwater sources, thereby lowering the cost of treating water for consumption.
3. Recycling potential. Some waste products can be converted into products with
revenue-generating potential (such as compost and bio-gas).
4. Improved quality of life. Improved sanitary facilities normally result in a more
pleasant living environment (such as a cleaner river or less odorous drains).
A typology of sanitation services. A sanitation system delivers three types of services: (i)
disposal; (ii) collection and transportation; and (iii) treatment and storage. An off-site
sanitation system is managed by a single service provider, who collects, transports, treats
and stores waste. In an on-site sanitation system, several service providers play a role: (i)
households construct their own septic tanks or pit latrines; (ii) vacuum trucks and hand carts
periodically collect and transport waste; and (iii) local government agencies provide sludge
treatment services. Most users are willing to pay a full-cost recovery tariff for on-site disposal
and septic tank emptying, presumably because these benefits are immediately visible. This
argument does not apply to waste treatment and off-site sanitation (where treatment accounts
for a major share of the total cost of the service).
Disposal Collection/transport Treatment/storage
On-site Vacuum truck, Treatment facility

Toilet
hand cart (IPLT)
Off-site Treatment facility

Toilet Pipe network
(IPAL)
Source: Consultant
Figure 5-1 Services delivered by a sanitation system

5.4 Investment Requirements and Financing Strategy
Estimated investment requirements. The Ministry of Public Works (MPW) estimates that
annual investments in the sanitation sector must increase to IDR 3.1 trillion (appr. US$ 350
million) to reach the objective stated in the National Action Plan on Sanitation of providing
75% of the population with improved sanitation facilities by 2015. The plan assumes that 70%
of the investment requirements would be borne by households, presumably to finance septic
tanks, pit latrines and transport vehicles (vacuum trucks and hand carts). The remainder
would be financed by central, provincial and district governments, to finance off-site sanitation
and treatment facilities. This amount, estimated at (30% x 3,100 =) IDR 930 billion, is far
higher than current government investments in sanitation, which are believed not to exceed
IDR 100 billion per year.
Financing responsibilities. The Ministry of Home Affairs has recently completed a draft
revision to PP25/2000, which allocates responsibilities to central, provincial and district
governments. According to the revised PP, the National Action Plan on Sanitation and RPJM
2004-2009:
i. Local governments are responsible for on-site sanitation. It is recommended that local
governments would only finance sludge treatment facilities, as the private sector can
(and usually does) provide disposal and collection/transportation services.
ii. The central government is responsible for off-site sanitation in large and metropolitan
cities. It is expected that, until 2015, no new off-site sanitation projects will be
implemented in other cities.
Table 5-5 Financing responsibilities by sanitation service
Sanitation service Assumed responsibility % Cost recovery

On-site sanitation (disposal Private sector 100% of full cost at time
and collection/transportation) of delivery
On-site sanitation Public sector (local governments) 100% of full cost over
(treatment/storage) economic lifetime
Off-site sanitation Public sector (central government) 70% of full cost over
economic lifetime
(2015)
Sources: Ministry of Home Affairs, MPW (DG Cipta Karya), BAPPENAS
Options for closing the financing gap. To mobilize additional sources of funding for the
sanitation sector, the following funding sources may be considered:
i. central government grants;
ii. private sector investments;
iii. domestic commercial bank loans;
iv. bilateral and multilateral bank loans; and
v. user charges.
Option 1: central government grants. Most sludge treatment facilities in Indonesia were
financed by central government grants (many of these grants were, in turn, financed from
multilateral loan proceeds). Because the central government has traditionally assigned a low
priority to sanitation infrastructure, public investments in sanitation have remained at very low
levels (estimated at appr. US$ 5 million in 2005). Although the Ministry of Public Works
intends to increase investments in IPLTs and off-site sanitation, it is unlikely that central
government grants can be relied upon to close the financing gap. At present, the channeling
of central government grant was though Dana Dekonsentrasi, even though the provision of
on-site sanitation is a local government responsibility. The appropriate mechanism for
channeling such grants is the DAK (Dana Alokasi Khusus).

Option 2: private sector investment. Private investors are reluctant to invest in piped
sewerage or sludge treatment facilities, the main reasons being: (i) no established demand
for off-site sanitation and sludge treatment services; (ii) dependence on local government
subsidies, as sanitation services at currently not provided at full-cost recovery tariffs; (iii) small
size of investment projects; and (iv) limited access to long-term project financing.
Option 3: domestic commercial bank loans. Most commercial banks (private or state-
owned) are unwilling to lend long-term to local governments without guarantees. However, a
kabupaten or Kota is by law not allowed to issue a guarantee or offer revenues or assets as
collateral. In addition, few banks have experience in financing sanitation infrastructure and
have difficulties in sourcing funds that match the economic lifetime of sanitation systems (15-
20 years).
Option 4: bilateral and multilateral bank loans. Virtually all off-site sanitation systems in
Indonesia, as well as and many sludge treatment facilities, were financed by multilateral bank
loans. The World Bank and ADB have repeatedly expressed interest in funding a large
portion of the financing gap through long-term loans. Although GOI has established a
mechanism to channel multilateral loan proceeds as sub-loans (SLA) to local governments
through the Ministry of Finance, it has been reluctant to use this mechanism since the
1997/98 monetary crisis. In view of the limited availability of other funding sources, it is likely
that multilateral bank loans will nevertheless play a major part in closing the financing gap in
the sanitation sector.
Option 5: user charges. Worldwide, few governments impose full cost-recovery tariffs for
off-site sanitation or sludge treatment services, partly in recognition of substantial positive
externalities (such as health and environmental benefits). In most local governments in
Indonesia, revenues from sanitation fees are negligible and sanitation services are almost
totally subsidized. In view of political and social implications, it is not realistic to expect local
governments to introduce full cost-recovery tariffs any time soon. At best, they may be
prepared to impose tariffs that cover O&M costs in the long run. This means that a local
government would need to mobilize additional funding sources to cover the investment cost
and, at least initially, part of the cost of operations and maintenance.
5.5 Key Elements of an Implementation Strategy
DAK, not Dekon. At present, most sludge treatment facilities in Indonesia continue to be
financed by central government grants (usually as Dana Dekonsentrasi), even though the
provision of on-site sanitation is a local government responsibility. The appropriate
mechanism for channeling such grants is the DAK (Dana Alokasi Khusus).
Implementation of ‘the-polluter-pays’ principle. At present, this principle is not applied

anywhere in Indonesia. It is recommended that local governments will start charging
‘communal sanitation fees’ to finance:
i. 100 percent of the full cost of sludge treatment; and
ii. 30 percent of the full cost of off-site sanitation services (the remainder would be
financed from user charges paid by households connected to the service).
It is proposed that local governments would to set the communal fees at a fixed percentage of
the street lighting tax, and collect the fees together with this tax. This is transparent (simple
fee structure), efficient (PT. PLN already collects the street lighting tax, which is a surcharge
to the electricity bill), equitable (only households with an electricity connection pay), and likely
to be politically acceptable (as the street lighting tax is a local tax). The implementation of the
proposal requires the issuance of a local tax regulation (Regional government) and the
cooperation of PT. PLN. It does not require a change to national legislation.

Clarification of responsibilities for sanitation at the local government level. In most local
governments, in addition, the responsibility for sanitation is shared among the Department of
Public Works, the Department of Health, the PDAM, the Local Cleaning Department (Dinas
Kebersihan dan Pertamanan) and various other agencies. It is recommended that local
governments assigns the responsibility for sanitation services to a single agency and ensures
that the agency would have the funds at its disposal to properly implement its responsibilities.
5.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.6.1 Financing arrangements.
The Ministry of Public Works (MPW) estimates that public investments in the sanitation sector
must increase from less than IDR 100b to over IDR 900b per year to reach the objective
stated in the National Action Plan on Sanitation of providing 75% of the population with
improved sanitation facilities by 2015. These investments would mainly be allocated to: (i)
sludge treatment facilities; and (ii) off-site sanitation systems. The proposed financing
arrangements can be summarized as follows:
• Sludge treatment. Local governments would cover the full cost of sludge treatment
facilities from communal user charges (set as a fixed percentage of the electricity bill).
Investments in IPLT would either be financed from: (i) central government grants
channeled to local governments as DAK; (ii) sub-loans financed by multilateral and
bilateral development banks.
• Off-site sanitation. In the long run, local governments would cover 30% of the full cost of
the service from communal user charges. The remainder would be covered from user
charges paid by households connected to the service. The central government would
finance the construction of new systems from its budget, augmented with the proceeds
of multilateral and bilateral development loans.
In the short and medium term, it is unlikely that private investors or domestic commercial
banks will play a role in closing the financing gap.
5.6.2 Institutional arrangements.
These can be summarized as follows:

• Central government grants for sludge treatment facilities will be fully channeled to local
governments as DAK (Dana Alokasi Khusus), and no longer as Dana Dekonsentrasi.
• Local governments will start charging ‘communal sanitation fees’ to finance 100% of the
full cost of sludge treatment (and 30% of off-site sanitation, if any). The fees would be
set as a fixed percentage of the street lighting tax, and collected together with this tax.
• Local governments will assign the responsibility for sanitation services to a single
agency and properly fund that agency.
6 SUMMARY
6.1 Sanitation Findings
(i) Institutional organisation at the central level: It is considered necessary to

strengthen coordination, so that all stakeholders agree to develop sanitation with the
tools already prepared or now being prepared. These include the decentralisation of
authority for sanitation, the existence of policies and strategies, RPJM, National
Action Plan, NSPM, and increased funding for sanitation (e.g. Binpram CK-MPW will
increase funds for the sanitation sub-sector up to 25% of the water supply sub-sector,
starting 2007).
What is still needed is to intensify coordination of sanitation development at the

central level. At the local level, the roles and responsibilities of the institutions
responsible for sanitation (wastewater) development need to be clarified and the
roles of regulator and operator separated.

(ii) Institutional capacity: The institutions at central level tend to be more established,
and understand very well the problems facing sanitation in Indonesia, including the
targets and commitments of the MDGs. Their human resources are quite
professional, but policy development, in particular at the operational level in local
areas, still falls far short of what is expected. These conditions are highly influenced
by many factors, such as (i) the diversity of the existing local institutions; (ii) the
availability of human resources with the right qualifications and professions; (iii) the
frequent rotation of duties or positions without consideration of the competences
needed; (iv) human resources, or personnel trained in sanitation are not being posted
to the relevant positions. Consideration could be given to establishing a BPPSPAM
(regulatory body), or to the formation of special units at the Kabupaten or city levels,
such as a Sanitation Management Unit (Unit Pelaksana Teknis Pengelola Sanitasi,
UPTPS).
(iii) Capacity building for sanitation operation: Under decentralisation, sanitation is to

be managed within the community/local environment. Service providers and users
are close to one another. The critical issue is the how local governments (kabupaten
and kota) will implement sanitation development. It is therefore necessary to assess
constraints at the operational level, the reasons for stagnation in the sanitation sector,
the existing capacity of sanitation-related institutions, agencies and boards, capacity
building needs for sanitation empowerment, and how capacities can be improved.
(iv) Advocacy: Advocacy is needed at city level to increase understanding and

awareness of the importance of sanitation and hygiene, to promote change from a
supply-driven to a demand-responsive paradigm, and to promote sustainability. If
there is a regulation stating that the development of public sanitation infrastructure is
a government responsibility, and the communities consider that they need it, it would
then be possible for a class action to be brought, if government sanitation services
are below expectation.
(v) Regulation: At the central level there already are enough regulations. Regulations
related to sanitation already exist. What is needed is to add some clarification or
revisions to ease delivery of national policy and strategy at the local level. However,
there is no regulation to function as an umbrella for sanitation, covering matters such
as community- and institution-based sanitation, NAP, policy, strategy, and the
development of healthy cities. Other sanitation regulations are still in draft.
Regulations, policy, strategy, RPJM, RPJP and annual activity plans related to
sanitation at local level do not relate to the existing central regulations, due to the lack
of the above-mentioned umbrella to constitute the point of reference.
(vi) Financial, one of the main issues is to improve sanitation so as to achieve MDG
targets for 2015. NAP said that to achieve MDG targets, a huge amount of fund is
required. This amount is fantastic for current economic condition in the country.
Similar to fund requirement at national level, regional governments face problems in
increasing fund to develop sanitation. Besides, sanitation is not their priority to
develop compared to other infrastructures.
A certain breakthrough is required so as to obtain fund to develop sanitation.

Obtaining fund from the community?; Domestic loan?; Loan?; Soft Loan?; Grant? ;
NGO? Developing sanitation business with a clear business plan? Developing
entrepreneurship?.

6.2 Feedbacks from Workshop
6.2.1 Institution:
o Agency should be supported with coordination and policies concerning community-

based and Institution-based sanitation within one agency
o Agency shall be responsible for sanitation
o Separation between regulator and operator
o Technical assistance
o Operator may be varied, but tend to be more independent, but IPAL (sewerage) and
IPLT operators should be under one agency
o Advocacy/socialization from DPRD is necessary, because they play important role in
budgeting right, and local regulation concerning retribution should also be approved
by DPRD
o Advocacy, and marketing concerning sanitation are required so as to improve
awareness and to turn supply driven into demand driven
o Training for operators of IPLT, IPAL, SOP and Maintenance M&E, particularly for
cities with IPAL, and Facilitators
6.2.2 Regulation:
o Policy concerning community-based sanitation (CBS) and institution-based sanitation

(IBS) should be immediately issued by the Government, so that it can be a reference
for issuing Local Regulations concerning sanitation (legal basis)
o Law concerning sanitation (special) at national level is required.
o Standard substance of local regulations concerning sanitation is required, including
meaning of sanitation
o The Government should provide access to sanitation facility for urban-poor despite
their illegal residence, for example by providing MCK Sanimas or MCK with a
connection to waste water pipes (sewerage)
o More SNI related with sanitation such as norms, standards, guidance, implementation
procedure (NSPM) as a reference for regions (implementation).
6.2.3 Financial
o The meaning of business plan (BP), preparation of BP and its supporting aspects
(guidance, manuals etc.);
o Investment fund, operation and maintenance (O&M) for at least the first five years or
other stimulants (pilot project).
6.3 Action Plan for the next six months
6.3.1 Institutional Aspect
Task: develop institutional framework at national level

• To advocate GOI to approve WASPOLA policies;
• Identify and assessment institutional options;
• Initiate dialogue with national stakeholders & identify / recruit champions;
• Develop institutional options: (Management guideline; Guideline for strengthening of
human resources; Guideline for intersection for planning and management; Preparing
rules, responsibility and relation ships in sanitation);
• Sanitation Support Program: (education, certification, research, technical support,
guideline).

6.3.2 Advocacy
Task: Develop capacity of key policy makers and stakeholders (advocacy)

• Develop communication for change strategy (plan to advocate local leaders and talk
with woman);
• Agree on key messages (Making the case of sanitation);
• Make media plan;
• Develop advocacy course outline & implementation; Engage allies;
• Find communicators;
• Find champion.
6.3.3 Policy and Regulation
Task: strengthen policy and regulation

• Set framework for minimum service levels;
• Suggest mechanism for agreeing & monitoring city targets insentives? Supervision /
sanctions;
• Propose solutions to legal constrains to local action;
• Prepare outline of sanitation regulation.
6.3.4 Financial Aspect
• Prepare guideline of Cost recovery and sustainability:

• Substances for tax incentive for sanitation development;
• Propose Funding Mechanism Policy;
• Propose window for investment-criteria;
• Identify actual source of funding;
• Estimate capacity utilization rates of existing infrastructure;
• Analyze funding requirements;
• Analyze funding gap;
• Estimate projected source of fund during 2007 and after.
6.3.5 Guideline for Local Government
Task: Develop strategies and action plan guidelines for local government
• Set-up working group with PU to discus sourcebook;
• Identify content for LG’s manual (sanitation sourcebook);
• Prepare model of PERDA Sanitation;
• Set framework for minimum service levels.

KAJIAN SEKTOR SANITASI
1. PENDAHULUAN
Kehidupan di Indonesia yang berlangsung selama ini masih menghadapi persoalan sanitasi
dalam tingkat yang berbeda-beda. Unsur sanitasi seperti air minum, air limbah, udara segar
dan limbah padat semakin berkembang tuntutan pengelolaannya sejalan dengan kehidupan
yang semakin maju, sementara keadaan di Indonesia, baik di perdesaan maupun perkotaan
masih pada taraf yang dapat dinilai tidak cukup memadai sanitasi lingkungannya, baik dilihat
dari ketersediaan dari sumber daya, prasarana, maupun sarananya.
Dari sekian unsur yang tersebutkan diatas, maka unsur yang complex, nyata
terkesampingkan, dan tidak tersentuh secara managerial apalagi sebagai prioritas oleh
banyak perhatian publik maupun Pemerintah adalah unsur air limbah. Bukanlah berarti tidak
ada samasekali perhatian atau penanganan, namun pengelolaannya masih dapat
teridentifikasi diselenggarakan dalam pencapaian yang tidak memadai.
Dengan tujuan perbaikan kondisi kesehatan, kelestarian lingkungan dan kehidupan

masyarakat melalui perbaikan sanitasi lingkungan di daerah perkotaan yang ditentukan di
Indonesia, kajian sektor sanitasi ini membahas kerangka kemantapan pelayanan terhadap
daerah-daerah miskin perkotaan dengan perumusan kebijakan, reformasi kelembagaan yang
terlibat, dan strategi perencanaan yang efektif dan terkoordinasi.
Lingkungan sehat merupakan dambaan kita semua. Lingkungan yang tidak sehat dan
sanitasi yang jelek akan mengakibatkan: kelangkaan air bersih, pencemaran lingkungan dari
kotoran manusia, limbah, sampah, dll yang kesemuanya itu dapat menyebabkan penyakit
bahkan kematian. Pada umumnya apabila desa atau masyarakat itu miskin, keadaan air
minum dan penyehatan lingkungannya juga jelek, sedangkan akses terhadap sanitasi juga
rendah. Karenanya perbaikan sanitasi dan penyehatan lingkungan adalah pembangunan
yang pro orang miskin. Selain itu upaya tersebut juga sesuai hak asasi, karena pada
dasarnya semua orang berhak untuk memperoleh lingkungan yang baik.
Methodologi kajian ini didasarkan pada pengumpulan informasi dan bahan bahan yang
tersedia, selain melakukan wawancara dengan para pejabat kunci di Lembaga kunci antara
lain Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup, Departemen Pekerjaan Umum, dan Departemen
Kesehatan dengan fokus pokok bahasan tersebut diatas.
Kondisi eksisting sanitasi dari waktu kewaktu seolah-olah stagnant (jalan ditempat) karena
relative pembangunan sanitasi
RPJMN UPAYA MEMPERBAIKI
tidak dapat mengejar dan
Kebijakan AMPL
Perencanaan
Nasional Policy & Startegi
SANITASI
(LAMPU MERAH) melampaui perkembanganLembaga terkait Startegis, Program,
AP, NSPM
Kondisi penduduk yang masih tinggi. NPB +AP

sanitasi saat
ini Setelah melaksanakan 7 Pelita MOH + AP
Deliveri ? Desentralisasi!
kemudian dilanjutkan dengan
Policy & Startegi
Lembaga terkait
MOI + AP Rule? Regulasi?
tercemar berta air limbah
hususnya air permukaan
Kondisi Air Baku A.M.
Water born diseases tinggi
Akses ke Sanitasi terbatas,
PROPENAS/RPJM
NDPA + AP
sampai
MOHA + AP
MOF + AP
tahun 2005,
MOH + AP
penduduk
MPW + AP Pemprop
Pemkab/Pemkot
Indonesia menjadi sekitar 2015
MOI + AP MOE + AP
juta jiwa, namun pertambahan

MOE + AP
fasilitas sanitasi di indikasikan

MOHA + AP
Policy & Startegi, RPJM,
RENSTRADA,AP; RPJP
Kebijakan &
Strategi belum ????
seimbang atau lebih rendah
MOF + AP
MPW + AP
terkoordinir dengan
baik dibandingkan dengan
Demand Driven; Kota sehat &
perkembangan penduduk, IMPIAN :
bersih; (masyarakat sehat &

Kualitas Air Baku AM. baik) sehingga sanitasi relative tidak
Tidak/ belum
berhasil
ada perbaikan yang significant.

7/16/2006 2

1.1 Kebijakan dan Strategi Sanitasi
Dari tahun 1999 sampai dengan tahun 2003, masing-masing lembaga terkait dengan sanitasi
menyusun RPJM termasuk sanitasi berdasarkan kondisi eksisting sesuai kepentingannya
(tupoksi) namun belum/tidak terkoordiner. Sekalipun tujuannya sama yaitu untuk
memperbaiki kondisi sanitasi, tetapi tidak saling bersinergi, sehingga relative tidak
menghasilkan kemajuan yang signifikan.
Sejak 2004, dengan mengacu RENSTRANAS/RPJMN dan Kebijakan AMPL Nasional

(berbasis lembaga dan berbasis masyarakat), masing-masing sector menyusun RPJM
termasuk sanitasi berdasarkan kondisi eksisting yang dibakukan dalam Kebijakan AMPL
Nasional. Masing-masing sector (lembaga) sesuai dengan TUPOKSI-nya, menyusun
rencana strategis dengan tujuan yang sama yakni untuk memperbaiki kondisi sanitasi,
saling bersinergi, hanya implementasi belum teruji (namun mempunyai harapan tinggi),
kecuali untuk penanganan sanitasi berbasis masyarakat (SANIMAS) pada beberapa kota
cukup menjanjikan.
1.2 Kerangka pendekatan srategis
Seperti telah dikemukakan dalam butir pendahuluan, bahwa ISSDP pendekatannya tidak
mulai dari awal, karena kegiatan ini merupakan penerus dari kegiatan-kegiatan yang telah
dilakukan sebelumnya yang relative rentang waktunya tidak jauh seperti yang studi-studi
yang telah dilakukan oleh WSP.
Berangkat dari dokumen studi terbaru
Strategic Framework tersebut, disini akan dirangkum apa
yang telah diperoleh dan relevan untuk
Where are we
rivenow
n Dedo
Where mwe
andwant to be
pply d driven
(Vision, Mission)
masalah sanitasi.
Su
(present condition)
ISSDP dalam mengkaji masalah sanitasi

berangkat pada kondisi saat ini dengan
How do we get there mengambil dari studi WSP yang masih
Demand responsive
(Strategy and Action) relevan dan cukup jelas, dimana

pelayanan sanitasi masih pada tingkatan
supply driven. Apa yang diharapkan
How to stay there dengan mengacu pada visi dan misi
(Sustainability) maka pengembangan sanitasi menjadi
6/17/2006 3 demand driven, bagaimana untuk
mencapainya serta bagaimana
mempertahankannya agar terselenggara demand responsive dan apa yang telah diperoleh
tersebut dapat dipertahankan terus secara kontinyu sehingga berkesinambungan
(sustainability).
Dari segi pendekatan ada pergeseran dari “supply driven” kepada “demand driven”. Misalnya
dalam hal target, dulu fokusnya adalah agar masyarakat mempunyai jamban (yang
merupakan “supply driven”). Sekarang tidak lagi menekankan harus ada jamban, melainkan
terserah pada masyarakat, mereka bebas mau BAB di mana, sesuai pilihan mereka, asalkan
mereka tahu konsekwensi dari pilihan-pilihan itu. Yang penting tidak BAB di sungai, di tempat
umum, dll. (Ini merupakan “demand driven”).
Cukup atraktif untuk dikemukakan tetapi cukup sulit untuk dilaksanakan. Perlu ada
perubahan pola pikir, membutuhkan kesadaran tinggi dan waktu yang cukup panjang.
1.3 Aspek Hukum dan Regulasi
Keberhasilan jasa sanitasi sangat dipengaruhi oleh kebijakan pemerintah, baik di tingkat
pusat maupun daerah. Aspek hukum dan peraturan diidentifikasi sebagai salah satu dari
sejumlah aspek yang perlu didorong untuk menciptakan lingkungan yang mendukung. Untuk
mencapai penatalaksanaan air limbah domestik perkotaan yang lebih baik diperlukan
perhatian terhadap tiap-tiap bagian proses penatalaksanaannya: (1) perencanaan dan

pengembangan program, (2) perancangan, (3) pembangunan, (4) operasional dan

pemeliharaan, dan (5) pemantauan.
Kerangka perundangan dan peraturan yang jelas harus dirancang untuk mendorong
bagaimana proses penatalaksanaan in dapat diatur dengan baik. Sebuah penelitian
menyeluruh diperlukan untuk mengevaluasi kondisi yang ada sebagai berikut: bagaimana
peraturan mengatur penatalaksanaan air limbah domestik secara keseluruhan, identifikasi
aspek-aspek peraturan diperlukan untuk mencipatkan peran lebih banyak dari pemerintah
dan pusat serta rekomendasi.
Sejauh ini, tidak ada perundangan khusus yang mengatur penatalaksanaan limbah domestik
kota karena sebagian besar peraturan ditetapkan untuk perlindungan lingkungan dan
kesehatan lingkungan, bukan penatalaksanaan air limbah. Dengan cara lain, untuk mencapai
perlindungan lingkungan dan kesehatan lingkungan, penatalaksanaan air limbah domestik
menjadi bagian yang penting.
Dalam periode desentralisasi, perlindungan lingkungan menjadi tanggung jawab pemerintah

daerah di tingkat propinsi dan kota/kabupaten (UU 32 tahun 2004, ayat 13 dan 14). UU 32
tahun 2004 mengatur tanggung jawab pemerintah daerah untuk perlindungan lingkungan
dalam: merancang dan memantau pembangunan, perencanaan regional, pemberian fasilitar
dan penatalaksanaan lingkungan.
Fungsi pemerintah daerah dipantau dan dibantu oleh pemerintah pusat seperti tertulis pada
UU 32 tahun 2004 ayat 217. Pemerintah pusat harus memberikan norma, panduan dan
standard (NSPM), pelatihan dan kursus.
Secara nasional, fungsi pemerintah daerah dalam membantu dan memantau dikoordinasi
oleh kementerian dalam negeri (ayat 222, UU 32 tahun 2004). Di tingkat kabupaten dan kota,
fungsi ini dikoordinasi oleh gubernur dan di tingkat distrik dikoordinasi oleh walikota.
UU 7 tahun 2004 yang memaparkan mengenai penatalaksanaan kualitas air dan

perlindungan polusi air sehubungan dengan bertahannya dan dipulihkannya sumber air. Ayat
24 (UU 7 tahun 2004) mengatur bahwa orang dan organisasi bisnis dilarang untuk
melakukan aktifitas apapun yang dapat merusak sumber air.
Saat ini, kondisi fasilitas air limbah domestik di kota masih kurang. Perhatian pemerintah
daerah yang bertanggung jawab untuk bisnis sangat rendah dan konsekuensinya
pengembangan fasilitas air limbah domestik menjadi sangat lambat.
Masalah-masalah yang telah diidentifikasi sebagai penyebab adalah *):

*) berdasarkan pada diskusi lokakarya, Gren Alia Hotel, Juni, 27-28, 2006
o Tidak adanya institusi

o Tidak ada peraturan spesifik/eksplisit dari pemerintah pusat untuk penatalaksanaan air
limbah domestik sebagai acuan untuk pemerintah daerah
o Peran yang tidak jelas dalam mendampingi pemerintah daerah dalam mengembangkan
penatalaksanaan air limbah domestik
o Sumber daya pemerintah daerah yang tidak memadai
o Kurangnya kesadaran akan sanitasi air limbah domestik di kalangan pemerintah daerah
dan masyarakat
o Tidak adanya rencana penatalaksanaan air limbah domestik dan strategi di pemerintah
daerah
o Peraturan pemerintah daerah yang tidak memadai untuk mendorong penatalaksanaan air
limbah domestik
o Kurangnya dana
Pemerintah Indonesia telah berkomitment terhadap target MDG pada tahun 2015 dan
komitmen ini diungkapkan dalam Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah (RPJM) yang
tertulis dalam PP 7 2005. Target RPJM untuk air limbah domestik adalah bebas BAB di
tempat terbuka di semua kota pada tahun 2009, peningkatan pemakaian IPLT dan IPAL

hingga 60%, mengurangi polusi air sungai dari faeses sampai dengan 50% berdasarkan
kondisi tahun 2004 dan pengembangan sistem pembuangan air/selokan terpusat di kota
metropolitan.
Untuk mencapai target-target tersebut, Bappenas, Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan

Kementerian Kesehatan telah mengembangkan strategi dan rencana mereka. Bappenas
membuat Kebijakan Nasional untuk Penyediaan Air Minum dan Sanitasi Lingkungan
Berbasis Masyarakat dan Penyediaan Air Minum dan Sanitasi Lingkungan Berbasis Institusi.
Di sisi lain, Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum menetapkan Rencana Aksi Nasional Air Limbah
dan Kementerian Kesehatan menetapkan Rencana Nasional dalam Kesehatan Lingkungan
2005-2009.
Sejauh ini, belum ada peraturan khusus yang mengatur pengelolaan air limbah domestik
perkotaan. Peraturan Pemerintah No.16 tahun 2005 mengatur pengembangan sistem
penyediaan Air Minum, khususnya melindungi air baku, potensi sampah padat dan limbah
cair yang mencemari air baku.
Di tingkat nasional ada seperangkat Undang-undang, Peraturan Pemerintah atau kebijakan

nasional, a.l. :
UU No. 23 Tahun 1992 tentang Kesehatan, yang a.l dalam pasal 22 menyebutkan bahwa:
“Kesehatan lingkungan diselenggarakan untuk mewujudkan kualitas lingkungan yang sehat
yang dilaksanakan terhadap tempat umum, lingkungan permukiman, lingkungan kerja,
angkutan umum dan lingkungan lainnya yang meliputi penyehatan air dan udara,
pengamanan limbah padat, limbah cair, limbah gas, radiasi dan kebisingan, pengendalian
vektor penyakit dan penyehatan atau pengamanan lainnya”.
Hak masyarakat terhadap kesejahteraan dan kesehatan lingkungan diatur dalam Undang-
Undang 23 tahun 1997 ayat 5, bab V yang mengatur pelestarian fungsi lingkungan dan bab
VI untuk persyaratan pengaturan lingkungan.
Dalam hal pengaturan keuangan, pemerintah daerah memiliki kewenangan untuk menangani
keuangannya sendiri seperti yang tercantum dalam UU 25 tahun 1999 Neraca Keuangan
antara Pemerintah Pusat dan Daerah termasuk penentuan prioritas pengembangan
kesehatan daerah tersebut sesuai dengan kemampuan, kondisi dan kebutuhan lokal.
PP No. 82 Tahun 2001 tentang pengelolaan kualitas air dan pengendalian pencemaran air,
yang a.l. menyebutkan ada sanksi terhadap pencemaran air dan kewenangan pemberian izin
pemanfaatan air limbah ada pada Bupati/Walikota.
Pada tataran departemen, terdapat sejumlah keputusan menteri yang telah diterbitkan,
termasuk: Keputusan Meteri Kesehatan No. 907/2002 mengenai kualifikasi dan pengendalian
kualitas/mutu air minum, yang memerlukan Perda untuk menindaklanjutinya.
Kep.Menkes No. 1457/2003 tentang Standar Pelayanan Minimal Bidang Kesehatan di

Kabupaten/Kota, yang a.l. mengatur tentang: Pencegahan dan pembrantasan penyakit diare,
demam berdarah dengue, pelayanan kesehatan lingkungan dan pelayanan hygiene sanitasi
di tempat umum, serta menempatkan bupati/walikota sebagai pihak yang bertanggung jawab
dalam pelayanan kesehatan sesuai SPM ini.
Kep.Menkes No. 1274/2005 tentang Rencana Strategis Depkes, yang menyebutkan adanya
program lingkungan sehat, yang meliputi: penyediaan sarana air bersih dan sanitasi dasar,
pemeliharaan dan pengawasan kualitas lingkungan, pengendalian dampak risiko
pencemaran lingkungan dan pengembangan wilayah sehat.
Selanjutnya juga telah dikembangkan Petunjuk Pelaksanaan/Teknis atau Manuals (beberapa

di antaranya dikembangkan bersama departemen lain dan bantuan lembaga internasional),
a.l.: CLTS: Community Lead Total Sanitation, dilengkapi dengan modul dan timnya. Gerakan
MPA (Methodologi Participation Assessment), dan PHAST (Participatory Hygiene
Transformation). Panduan Sanimas (Sanitasi Masyarakat). Juknis pengukuran kualitas
udara dan limbah cair (Oleh Dirjen P2MPLP tahun 1994).

Pedoman Pemeliharaan Instalasi Pengelolaan limbah cair RS (Dirjen Yanmedik, 1993).
UU Tata Ruang pada dewasa ini sedang dalam proses perubahan termasuk persiapan PP
terkaitnya. RUU ataupun RPP tidak menyebutkan secara explisit aspek sanitasi; Pengaturan
akan hal itu dicakup dalam pengaturan ruang untuk sirkulasi (orang, jasa, barang termasuk
limbah). Diusulkan agar aspek perlimbahan dapat masuk sebagai bahan yang diterakan dan
kesempatan untuk perubahan khususnya bagi RPP masih tersedia.
Pada saat ini setiap sektor yang bertanggung jawab pada manajemen air limbah domestic
kelihatannya sudah ada peraturan dan penundang-undangan yang mengaturnya namun tidak
berjalan (operasional) dengan baik.
Table 1-1 Undang-undang & Peraturan Terkait dengan Penyediaan Air Minum &
Sanitasi
No UU/Peraturan Pengaturan
1 UUD 45:
Pasal 33 Alinea 3 ‘Bumi dan air dan kekayaan alam yang terkandung didalamnya
dikuasai oleh negara dan dipergunakan untuk sebesar-besarnya
kemakmuran rakyat’
2 UU No.23 Tahun 1992: Kesehatan
Bab IV, Pasal 9 Pemerintah bertugas dalam menggerakkan peran serta masyarakat
dalam menyelenggarakan dan pembiayaan kesehatan
Pasal 10 Upaya mewujudkan kesehatan yang optimal bagi masyarakat

sebagai suatu pendekatan pencegahan penyakit (preventif)
Bab V, Kesehatan lingkungan meliputi penyehatan air dan udara,

Bag. Kelima, Pasal 22 pengamanan limbah padat, limbah cair, limbah gas, radiasi dan
kebisingan, pengendalian vektor penyakit, dan penyehatan atau
pengamanan lainnya.
Kesehatan lingkungan, pemberantasan penyakit dan penyuluhan

kesehatan merupakan bagian dari upaya kesehatan.
Pasal 38 Penyuluhan kesehatan masyarakat diselenggarakan guna

meningkatkan pengetahuan, kesadaran, kemauan, dan kemampuan
untuk hidup sehat
3 UU No. 23 Tahun 1997 Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup
Bab III, Pasal 5 Ayat 1 Setiap orang mempunyai hak yang sama atas lingkungan hidup
yang baik dan sehat
Bab V, pasal 14-17 Pelestarian fungsi lingkungan hidup
Bab VI Persyaratan Penataan Lingkungan Hidup

4 GBHN 1999-2004 Pembangunan kesehatan diarahkan untuk meningkatkan mutu
sumber daya manusia dan lingkungan yang saling mendukung
dengan paradigma sehat, yang memberikan prioritas pada upaya
peningkatan kesehatan, pencegahan, penyembuhan, pemulihan dan
rehabilitasi sejak dalam kandungan sampai usia lanjut.
5 UU No. 25 Tahun 2000 Program Pembangunan Nasional (2000-2004), tentang lingkungan
sehat, perilaku sehat, pemberdayaan masyarakat. Program
pengembangan prasarana dan sarana permukiman di daerah.
6 UU No.7 Tahun 2004 Pengaturan Sumber Daya Air: Peran serta masyarakat dalam
pengelolaan; Pemenuhan kebutuhan air minum masyarakat
Bab III Konservasi Sumber Daya Air

Pasal 23-25 Pengendalian pencemaran air
7 UU No. 32 Tahun 2004 Otonomi Daerah
8 PP No.25 Tahun 2000 Kewenangan Pemerintah dan Kewenangan Propinsi sebagai daerah

otonom

No UU/Peraturan Pengaturan
9 PP No.7 Tahun 2005 Pembangunan Perdesaan
Percepatan Pembangunan Infra Struktur
10 PP No. 16 Tahun 2005 Pengembangan SPAM terpadu dengan pengembangan sarana dan
prasarana sanitasi
Sarana dan prasarana air limbah
Sarana dan prasarana sampah terkait dengan perlindungan sumber
air baku
11 Kep Men Kesehatan No. 907 Persyaratan Kesehatan Air Minum
Tahun 2002 Jenis air minum
12 Kep Men Permukiman dan Penyelenggaraan KPS (Kerjasama Pemerintah-Swasta) dalam
Prasarana Wilayah No. 409 Penyelenggaraan dan atau pengelolaan air minum dan atau sanitasi
Tahun 2002
13 Kep Men LH No. 111 Tahun Syarat dan tatacara perijinan pembuangan sarana air limbah
2003
14 Kep Men LH No. 112 Tahun Baku mutu air limbah domestik perumahan
2003
2 ASPEK KELEMBAGAAN
2.1 Stakeholders
Sektor sanitasi tidak bisa ditangani oleh satu sektor saja, tetapi harus multi sektor, karena itu
semua perlu bersinergi untuk menangani. Ditingkat pusat yang berperan disamping
Bappenas, Dep.Keuangan dan Depdagri, juga DepKes, Men.LH, Dep. Perindustrian,
Dep.PU. Di pemda ada lembaga, dinas ditingkat propinsi, pemkab dan pemkot. Disamping itu
juga LSM/NGO, swasta dan perorangan. Bila mereka bersinergi satu terhadap lainnya
dengan tujuan ahir yang sama kemajuan penanganan sanitasi akan lebih signifikan.
Belum terindentifikasi role sharing (pembagian peran) dan belum terorganisasikan secara
jelas peran masing-masing lembaga (regulator, operator, provider, enabler, empowering
body) dan siapa berkedudukan sebagai beneficiaries. Hal ini terkait dengan pemahaman
pelayanan masyarakat (public service). Melayani masyarakat menempatkan kedudukan
masyarakat sebagai beneficiaries, akan tetapi apabila beneficiaries adalah pelaksana proyek
sebagaimana sejumlah hasil pembangunan terdahulu yang tidak melibatkan masyarakat
sejak awal perencanaannya, maka pengalaman ke’mubaziran’ kerja/proyek dapat
berlangsung kembali.
Oleh karena itu, pembagian atau kejelasan peran sangat penting agar tidak terjadi tumpang
tindih dan perbenturan yang akan menurunkan kinerja masing-masing. Siapa yang akan
berperan sebagai regulator, siapa yang menjadi operator, siapa berperan sebagai pemberi
dan penerima manfaat haruslah jelas adanya.
Meneg.LH sangat berperan dalam menyiapkan peraturan mengenai masalah lingkungan

sebagai payung semua pembangunan dari kemungkinan terjadinya pencemaran lingkungan.
Khususnya untuk sanitasi, tentunya dalam hal pengaturan persyaratan semua air limbah
yang boleh dibuang ke perairan, karena kemungkinan dampaknya terhadap sumber air baku
air minum yang jumlahnya terbatas.
Depkes sangat berperan sebagai regulator berkaitan dengan kualitas air yang dapat
dikonsumsi, kemungkinan penyebaran penyakit melalui media air. Dep.Perindustrian terkait
dengan industri rumah (home industry) yang limbah cairnya dapat mencemari badan air,
seperti industri batik, pembuatan tahu dll.
Demikian pula dengan Departemen lainnya yang terkait dengan masalah sanitasi perannya
cukup jelas. Namun ditingkat operasional di pemerintah daerah, peran lembaga dan dinas-
dinas pada sub-sektor sanitasi sangat variatif dan terkesan tidak terkoordinasi dengan baik.

Lembaga-lembaga yang terkait dengan pengelolaan fasilitas sanitasi dapat dilihat pada tabel
berikut ini.
Table 2-1 Lembaga yang mengelola IPLT, IPAL dan fasilitas sanitasi lainnya
OPERATOR. IPAL IPLT JAMBAN MCK SANIMAS/ SepticTank, HOME

BANYAK KOMUNAL LATRIN INDUSTRY
PD.PAL +
PDAM + +
Dinas Kebersihan +
DKP +
RT/RW + + +
Dinas LH + + +
Kelompok + + +
masyasarakat
LKMD + +
BEST (NGO) +
Individu +
REGULATOR IPAL IPLT JAMBAN MCK SANIMAS/ SepticTank, HOME
BANYAK KOMUNAL LATRIN INDUSTRY
DEPKES + + + + + + +
LH + + + + + + +
Din.Perindustrian +
Desentralisasi seharusnya mempercepat pembangunan termasuk sanitasi, tapi sampai saat

ini tidak demikian. Desentralisasi telah menyerahkan sebagian besar tugas-tugas pemerintah
pusat kepada daerah, sehingga mendekatkan penyedia pelayanan sanitasi dengan
masyarakat yang membutuhkan akses sanitasi, jadi seharusnya pengembangan sanitasi
menjadi lebih baik daripada sebelum desentralisasi.
Implementasi desentralisasi efektif mulai tahun 2001/2002, sekarang sudah berjalan 4 - 5

tahun, tetapi kelihatan seolah-olah pengembangan sanitasi masih berjalan ditempat.
Memang kendala cukup banyak, disamping masalah ekonomi (krismon) belum pulih benar,
masyarakat juga merasa belum membutuhkan sanitasi sebagai prioritas, sehingga kemudian
pemda kemungkinan menganggap sanitasi juga belum menjadi prioritas untuk
dikembangkan. Hal ini terlihat dari rendahnya anggaran sanitasi yang disediakan dalam
APBD.
Pemda yang telah menerapkan perencanaan dari bawah dimulai dari pembahasan
kebutuhan pembangunan pada forum level kelurahan berjenjang sampai forum tingkat kota
yang dihadiri oleh LSM maupun lembaga/dinas, namun kegiatan-kegiatan yang tercantum
dalam RPJM maupun rencana kegiatan pada masing-masing lembaga/dinas kelihatan belum
jadi prioritas.
Direkomendasikan agar ada penguatan kapasitas melalui fasilitator di tingkat forum

kelurahan untuk mengkaji kebutuhan dasar masyarakat yang sebenarnya harus ada dalam
menunjang kesehatan melalui peningkatan akses ke fasilitas sanitasi (preventif), sehingga
ada kebutuhan nyata sanitasi dari masyarakat kemudian untuk ditangkap lembaga/dinas
terkait dan menjadi dasar penyusunan program daerah dan penyiapan action plan
tahunannya.
Belum jelasnya mekanisme kaitan pusat dan daerah dalam penanganan sanitasi, menjadikan
kebijakan dan strategi di level nasional belum menjadi acuan daerah, karena belum didukung
regulasi yang mengaturnya. Setiap lembaga dan departemen yang terkait dengan masalah
sanitasi telah menyusun kebijakan, strategi, RPJM, Action Plan, dan NSPM, namun apakah
hal itu sudah operasional di daerah, masih menjadi pertanyaan.
Diperlukan peraturan/regulasi yang jelas dan peraturan-peraturan yang dibuat dipusat juga
perlu mempunyai pemahaman arti yang sama (tidak bertentangan) sehingga tidak

membingungkan bila akan diterapkan di tingkat operasional. Ditingkat pemda, peraturan

tersebut perlu dijabarkan dalam bentuk perda agar lebih bersifat operasional.
Pada tataran ini perlu kejelasan hubungan antara peraturan yang dibuat secara nasional dan
perda. Dengan adanya perda sanitasi yang mengacu pada peraturan nasional diharapkan
deliveri kebijakan dan strategi sanitasi nasional juga sejalan dengan kebijakan dan strategi
sanitasi yang disusun di daerah yang merupakan bagian dari RENSTRADA/ RPJM yang
secara ekplisit pengembangan sanitasi disebutkan dengan jelas.
Misalnya dalam upaya mencapai target sanitasi yang terkait dengan komitmen MDGs, pemda
umumnya sudah mengetahui, namun target pencapaian tiap kota/kabupaten berbeda-beda
secara proporsional disesuaikan dengan jumlah penduduk dan sumber daya (kemampuan)
yang dimilikinya.
Sektor sanitasi belum menjadi prioritas, umumnya stakeholders, khususnya masyarakat

belum menganggap sanitasi merupakan kebutuhan utama (urban-poor lebih memikirkan
makan apa hari ini). Pengembangan sanitasi umumnya masih berlangsung top down, kecuali
beberapa kasus seperti SANIMAS, CLTS, WSSLIC, PAMSIMAS yang mempunyai success-
story tersendiri. Diperlukan perubahan kesadaran melalui suatu program advokasi, sehingga
semua stakeholders mempunyai pemahaman yang sama. Bagaimana sanitasi akan
meningkat prioritasnya bila masih menganggap sanitasi belum diperlukan untuk
dikembangkan.
Di Indonesia belum dilakukan penelitian yang jelas (perlu contoh Making the Case) bahwa
dengan kemudahan akses ke fasilitas sanitasi akan meningkatkan kesehatan masyarakat,
kesehatan yang baik akan meningkatkan produktifitas kerja, dan meningkatkan ekonomi
yang bersangkutan, ekonomi keluarga dan masyarakat umumnya.
Selama ini hanya dikatakan bahwa investasi fasilitas sanitasi tidak bisa cost recovery, apalagi
bila dikaitkan dengan off-site sanitation (sewerage), tetapi belum dihitung berapa nilai
ekonominya karena peningkatan fasilitas sanitasi yang baik sehingga tidak perlu cuti sakit,
biaya berobat, kehilangan waktu dan peningkatan kinerja. Mungkin perlu dipikirkan bagi
pengelola yang mengembangkan sanitasi untuk menerapkan pola pikir secara
entrepreneurship.
Lembaga Pemerintah terkait Sanitasi:

Tingkat Pusat: Bapenas, Departemen PU, Departemen Kesehatan, Dep.Dalam Negeri,
Departemen Keuangan, Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup, dan Departemen
Perindustrian (khususnya industri rumah tangga)
Tingkat Daerah : Dinas/Badan di Daerah yang terkait sanitasi sesuai TUPOKSI-nya, dengan
tingkat, variasi nama, yang beraneka ragam antar satu daerah dengan daerah lainnya.
2.2 Lembaga non Permerintah
LSM, Asosiasi Profesi, Perguruan Tinggi, Perhimpunan/Perkumpulan sosial; Pengembang

(Developer), Komunitas sosial setempat (RT,RW) dll.
Berikut ini adalah tabel lembaga-lembaga baik pemerintah maupun non pemerintah yang
terkait dengan sanitasi.
Table 2-2 Lembaga Pemerintah dan non Pemerintah terkait Infrastruktur Penyediaan
Air Minum dan Sanitasi
No Lembaga Tugas/Fungsi
1 Bappenas Bertanggung jawab pada perencanaan infrastruktur. Koordinasi
proses reformasi kebijakan pada tingkat nasional mengenai
sumber daya air serta penyediaan air minum dan penyehatan
lingkungan berbasis masyarakat
2 Departemen Pekerjaan Umum: Kerangka kerja teknis pembangunan prasaran dan sarana
- Direktorat Cipta Karya perdesaan meliputi: promosi, pengaturan, pembinaan,
pelatihan dan bantuan teknis. Berperan dalam menyediakan
perumahan dan permukiman yang sehat termasuk prasarana

dasar yang terjangkau.

3 Departemen Kesehatan:
Direktorat Jenderal Kesehatan Penyedia dan pembina informasi kesehatan, pemeliharaan
Lingkungan dan Pengendalian kualitas air dan pendidikan kesehatan
Penyakit Menular
Direktorat Penyehatan Lingkungan Kondisi yang mempengaruhi kesehatan masyarakat di daerah

Permukiman permukiman serta tempat-tempat penularan penyakit (Malaria,
Demam Berdarah)
Direktorat Penyehatan Air Monitoring kualitas air termasuk lokasi pembuangan air limbah
4 Departemen Dalam Negeri:
Direktorat Jenderal Pembangunan Pengelola dana pembangunan dan memperbaiki perencanaan
Daerah administrasi, lingkungan termasuk pelayanan air minum dan
sanitasi
Direktorat Jenderal Pembangunan Pembina kelurahan melalui Lembaga Ketahanan Masyarakat

Masyarakat Desa Desa (LKMD) untuk memprakarsai perencanaan dari bawah
dan upaya-upaya swadaya masyarakat
Direktorat Jenderal Umum dan Pengawas perusahaan daerah (PDAM, PDAL, PD

Otonomi Daerah Kebersihan), memiliki program pengembangan SDM
5 Departemen Keuangan:
Ditjen Pembinaan Anggaran Mengalokasikan dana proyek pembangunan sektoral yang
Pembangunan mencakup pembangunan kota, kabupaten dan propinsi serta
pembangunan nasional, anggaran tahunan disalurkan melalui
Departemen terkait dan Pemda
Ditjen Pembangunan Anggaran Mengelola dana lain selain dana pembangunan

lain
Ditjen Dana Luar Negeri Mengelola dana bilateral maupun multilateral

6 Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup Mengembangkan kebijakan dan pengaturan tentang
pengendalian pencemaran dan isu-isu lingkungan
Merencanakan dan melaksanakan program-program

lingkungan hidup serta mendukung partisipasi masyarakat di
bidang pengelolaan lingkungan
7 Badan Perencanaan Pemerintah
Daerah Propinsi:
Bidang Fisik dan Prasarana dan Perencanaan, koordinasi, monitoring program dan kegiatan-
atau Sosial Budaya kegiatan pembangunan
8 Setwilda Propinsi:
Biro Keuangan dan Pembangunan Merumuskan kebijakan pembangunan propinsi, monitoring dan
menyiapkan komitmen dana pembangunan propinsi
9 Bapedalda Propinsi Melaksanakan dan menegakkan kebijakan dan peraturan di
bidang pengelolaan lingkungan hidup di daerah
10 Dinas Pekerjaan Umum Propinsi Mengkoordinasikan pelaksanaan program dan proyek-proyek
pembangunan skala propinsi
11 Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Pengembangan Masyarakat Desa
Desa (propinsi)
12 Dinas Kesehatan Propinsi
13 Badan Perencanaan Pemerintah
Daerah Kabupaten/Kota:
Bidang Fisik dan Prasarana dan Perencanaan, koordinasi, monitoring program dan kegiatan-
atau Sosial Budaya kegiatan pembangunan di tingkat Kabupaten dan atau Kota

14 Setwilda Kabupaten/Kota:
Biro Keuangan dan Pembangunan Merumuskan kebijakan pembangunan daerah, monitoring dan
penyiapan komitmen dana pembangunan daerah
15 Bapedalda Kabupaten/Kota Melaksanakan dan menegakkan kebijakan dan peraturan di
bidang pengelolaan lingkungan hidup di daerah
16 Dinas Pekerjaan Umum Bertanggung jawab terhadap pelaksanaan APBN. INPRES (Air
Kabupaten/Kota Bersih Perdesaan dan Penyehatan Lingkungan Permukiman)
dan dana pembangunan lainnya yang bersumber dari APBD.
Bertanggung jawab dalam perencanaan dan pembangunan

Dinas Kimtawil (Kab. Bandung) drainase desa
Bertanggung jawab dalam perencanaan dan pembangunan

Dinas Pekerjaan Umum (Kab. drainase desa
Tasik)
17 Dinas Kebersihan dan Pertamanan Pengoperasian dan pemeliharaan sistem pembuangan
sampah dan drainase, kebanyakan masih ada pada tingkat
perkotaan
18 Dinas Tata Kota dan Daerah Perencanaan dan penataan ruang serta monitoring
pelaksanaan pengisian ruang kota maupun ruang kabupaten.
Berwenang memberi Ijin Mendirikan Bangunan (IMB) yang di
dalamnya terdapat persayaratan pembuatan bangunan
pengolahan air limbah (cubluk atau tangki septik)
19 Dinas Kesehatan Kota atau Koordinasi dan pelaksanaan pelayanan kesehatan kabupaten
Daerah dan atau kota, melalui Pusat-pusat Kesehatan Masyarakat
20 Badan Usaha Milik Daerah
(BUMD): Penyediaan air minum dan pengelolaan air limbah domestik
PDAM pada beberapa kota Baru tersedia di Jakarta
PDAL (Perusahaan Daerah Air
Limbah)
21 Kantor Pembangunan Masyarakat Pembangunan masyarakat
Desa
22 Kantor Kelurahan atau Desa Unit organisasi pemerintahan dibawah kecamatan yang juga
mempunyai hubungan fungsional di bidang pembangunan
masyarakat. Kepala desa mempunyai otonomi di bidang
administrasi desa.
23 LKMD Organisasi semi pemerintah tingkat desa yang bertanggung
jawab terhadap perencanaan dan pelaksanaan pembangunan
perdesaan
24 PKK Organisasi semi pemerintahan yang bertanggung jawab
terhadap isu-isu di masyarakat termasuk masalah kesehatan
perlindungan dan pelestarian lingkungan, pada beberapa
tempat bertanggung jawab pula terhadap pengelolaan sampah
2.3 Visi dan Misi Stakeholders (tingkat nasional)
2.3.1 Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup
Visi: Terwujudnya Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup sebagai institusi yang handal dan
proaktif dalam mewujudkan pembangunan berkelanjutan melalui Good Environmental
Governance (GEG), guna meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat Indonesia.
Penjabaran program, antara lain PROKASIH yang bertujuan untuk menurunkan beban
pencemaran limbah cair; Program ADIPURA yang bertujuan untuk mewujudkan kota bersih
dan teduh (clean and green city); serta pengelolaan limbah domestik dan usaha skala kecil
yang bertujuan mengurangi pencemaran yang berasal dari sumber tersebut.
Pelaksanaan program berdasarkan pada KepMen LH No.93/ 2004 tentang Pelaksanaan
Program Bangun Praja.

Misi Deputi II: Meningkatkan kualitas lingkungan hidup; Membangun kinerja yang profesional
di bidang pengendalian pencemaran lingkungan; Mendorong penerapan prinsip-prinsip Good
Environmental Governance
Penilaian Adipura, untuk aspek air limbah baru akan dimasukkan dalam perhitungan/
penilaian pada tahun 2008.
KLH memandang bahwa salah satu inti tugasnya menangani limbah dengan pemahaman
bahwa limbah adalah sebagai sumber daya; masih terkendala oleh pemahaman pemangku
kepentingan/lembaga lainnya sebagaimana tertuang dalam UU no.7/2004 tentang Sumber
Daya Air serta PP no.16/2005 tentang Pengembangan Sistem Penyediaan Air Minum pasal 1
yang menyebutkan bahwa : “Sampah (Limbah) adalah limbah padat yang berasal dari
lingkungan permukiman, bukan bahan berbahaya dan berracun, yang dianggap tidak
berguna lagi”3).
Berkait dengan pemahaman bahwa limbah adalah sumber daya, maka penanganan atau
pengelolaan sumber daya ini akan lebih optimal bila dicakup besarannya dalam skala
komunal daripada skala individual, walaupun pada skala individual sejauh terdorong
semangat melaksanakan dengan sesungguhnya dapat mempunyai hasil yang signifikan juga.
Untuk hal ini dapat diacu informasi bahwa negara Mexico telah melarang pembangunan
septik tank individual demi untuk capaian kelestarian lingkungannya.
2.3.2 Departemen Kesehatan:
Visi: Masyarakat berperilaku sehat dan hidup dalam lingkungan sehat.

Misi:
o Mengendalikan faktor risiko lingkungan dan perilaku;
o Mendorong tumbuhnya kemandirian masyarakat yang berwawasan kesehatan;
o Menggalang jejaring kerja dan kemitraan;
o Mengembangkan teknologi dan penerapan analisis dampak kesehatan lingkungan;
o Menyediakan informasi kesehatan lingkungan;
o Meningkatkan profesionalisme SDM kesehatan lingkungan; dan
o Meningkatkan pelayanan kesehatan lingkungan yang merata, bermutu dan terjangkau.
Pemerintah pusat mempunyai wewenang untuk melaksanakan surveilans epidemiologi,

pengaturan pemberantasan dan penanggulangan wabah/kejadian luar biasa serta penetapan
kebijakan untuk mendukung pembangunan secara makro, penyusunan rencana nasional
secara makro, pembinaan dan pengawasan atas penyelenggaraan otonomi daerah yang
meliputi pemberian pedoman, bimbingan, pelatihan, arahan dan supervisi serta
penanggulangan wabah dan bencana yang berskala nasional.
Lembaga di lingkungan Depkes yang mendukung upaya penyehatan lingkungan sesuai

dengan bidang tugas masing-masing: Dit. Penyehatan Lingkungan, merupakan leading unit.
Pusat Promosi Kesehatan, Biro Perencanaan & Penganggaran; Biro Hukum & Organisasi,
Pusat Sarana, Prasarana dan Peralatan Kesehatan, Dit. Kesehatan Komunitas, dll. Dinas
Kesehatan propinsi dan Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten/Kota (DKK).
DKK ini memegang wewenang desentralisasi di bidang kesehatan dan tugas pembantuan
serta menentukan jenis dan tingkat pelayanan kesehatan. Dinas Kesehatan Propinsi
mempunyai wewenang desentralisasi secara terbatas yang mencakup upaya kesehatan
yang belum mampu dilaksanakan secara lintas batas baik oleh masyarakat atau pemerintah
daerah kabupaten/kota.
3)
Definisi: Limbah padat (sampah) merupakan semua limbah yang dihasilkan oleh aktifitas manusia dan
hewan yang biasanya berbentuk padat dan dibuang karena tidak digunakan lagi atau tidak diinginkan.
Karena sifat-sifat intrinsiknya, bahan limbah yang telah dibuang seringkali dapat digunakan kembali dan
dapat dianggap sebagai sumber daya di tempat lain. (G.Tchobanolous, Integrated solid waste
management)

Pengalaman selama 5 tahun terakhir menunjukkan pemerintah daerah masih memerlukan

dukungan sehingga prioritas-prioritas lingkungan sehat dapat dilaksanakan dengan baik.
Keterbatasan sumber dana dan ketidak mengertian permasalahan lingkungan sehat
menyebabkan lemahnya komitmen di bidang ini. Sebenarnya upaya penyehatan lingkungan
memiliki karakteristik spesifik yang tidak mengenal batas wilayah administrasi. Penyelesaian
masalahnya memerlukan penanganan secara terintegrasi dan lintas propinsi/kabupaten/kota.
Apabila tidak, berpotensi terjadinya KLB/wabah dan kerusakan lingkungan yang semakin
parah dan mengganggu kesehatan.
Di bidang sanitasi, sasarannya a.l.: meningkatnya prosentase keluarga yang menghuni

rumah sehat (75%); keluarga yang menggunakan air bersih (85%); dan keluarga yang
menggunakan jamban memenuhi syarat kesehatan (80%). Namun dari segi pendekatan ada
pergeseran. Misalnya dalam hal target, dulu fokusnya adalah agar masyarakat mempunyai
jamban (yang merupakan “government driven”). Sekarang tidak lagi menekankan harus ada
jamban. Tetapi terserah pada masyarakat, mereka bebas mau BAB (buang air besar) di
mana, sesuai pilihan mereka. Mereka tahu konsekwensi dari pilihan-pilihan itu. Yang penting
tidak di sungai, di tempat umum, dll. (Ini merupakan “community driven”).
Di pihak Iain penanganan masalah sanitasi juga dapat merupakan investasi. Kebutuhan
masyarakat ada, tetapi perlu ditumbuhkan. Sebenarnya “return rate” nya cukup tinggi. Melihat
hal ini banyak yang tertarik
Pelaksanaan sebegitu jauh, cukup baik. Di beberapa desa tadinya tidak ada air/jamban,
tetapi sekarang air sudah mengalir di rumah-rumah (di 1.300 desa), mencakup sekitar 10
juta penduduk. Melalui proyek WSSLIC diperoleh hasil yang menggembirakan. Misalnya di
Lumajang dilaporkan, dalam 3 bulan saja di 16 desa di satu kecamatan sudah tidak ada
penduduk yang buang air besar sembarangan. Demikian pula berita menggembirakan di di
Muara Enim. Hal seperti ini melalui WSSLIC 2 telah dikembangkan di 2500 desa. Kemudian
nanti melalui WSSLIC 3 akan dikembangkan di 11 provinsi, 70 kabupaten, 5000 desa. Ini
direncanakan pada 2007-2012. Maka akan dibangun l.k. 5000 sarana air bersih dan
peningkatan hgiene nya (cuci tangan dengan sabun).
2.3.3 Departemen PU
Visi: Tersedianya Infrastruktur Pekerjaan Umum yang handal, bermanfaat dan berkelanjutan
untuk mendukung terwujudnya Indonesia yang aman dan damai, adil dan demokratis, serta
lebih sejahtera.
Dirjen Cipta Karya (Ditjen CK), Visi:

o Terwujudnya kemandirian daerah dalam penyelenggaraan pembangunan prasarana dan
sarana guna mewujudkan kawasan perkotaan dan perdesaan yang layak huni,
berkeadilan sosial, berbudaya, produktif dan berkelanjutan, serta saling memperkuat
dalam mendukung pengembangan wilayah.
o Tersedianya infrastruktur Pekerjaan Umum (PU) di perkotaan dan perdesaan dalam
rangka mewujudkan permukiman yang layak huni, produktif dan berkelanjutan, serta
melaksanakan penataan bangunan dan lingkungan, pembinaan standar keselamatan
bangunan perumahan dan permukiman dan gedung swasta.
Dit.PPLP, Visi:
Terwujudnya penyelenggaraan prasarana dan sarana penyehatan lingkungan permukiman
dalam rangka mewujudkan kawasan permukiman yang layak huni, sehat, aman dan
berkelanjutan melalui peningkatan kualitas kesehatan masyarakat dan menjaga kelestarian
lingkungan.

Dirjen CK, Misi:

o Fasilitasi penyediaan/mengembangkan infrastruktur Pekerjaan Umum (PU) di perkotaan
dan perdesaan dalam rangka mewujudkan permukiman yang layak huni, produktif, aman
tentram dan berkelanjutan.
o Meningkatkan kapasitas Pemerintah daerah, masyarakat dan dunia usaha dalam
penyelenggaraan pembangunan infrastruktur PU.
o Melaksanakan pembinaan penataan kawasan perkotaan dan kawasan perdesaan serta
penataan bangunan gedung yang memenuhi standar keselamatan dan keamanan
gedung.
o Melaksanakan pembinaan pengembangan jalan desa, jalan dalam kota dan
pengembangan prasarana dan sarana sumber daya air (irigasi desa dan air baku).
o Mewujudkan organisasi yang efisien, tata laksana yang efektif dan SDM yang profesional
dengan menerapkan prinsip ” Good Governance”.
Dit.PPLP, Misi:
o Menyelenggarakan pelayanan prasarana dan sarana air limbah, persampahan dan
drainase untuk meningkatkan kualitas kesehatan masyarakat di perkotaan dan
perdesaan.
o Membangun dan mengembangkan prasarana dan sarana penyehatan lingkungan
permukiman, mendukung pencegahan pencemaran lingkungan.
o Membangun kapasitas kelembagaan Pemerintah Daerah dan masyarakat yang efektif
dan efisien dan bertanggung jawab.
o Mendorong terciptanya pengaturan berdasarkan hukum yang dapat diterapkan
Pemerintah dan masyarakat untuk membangun pengelolaan pembangunan penyehatan
lingkungan permukiman.
o Meningkatkan kemampuan pembiayaan menuju kearah kemandirian.
o Membangun peran masyarakat dalam proses pembangunan.
o Meningkatkan peran dunia usaha, perguruan tinggi melalui penciptaan iklim kondusif bagi
pengembangan prasarana dan sarana penyehatan lingkungan permukiman.
Kebijakan dan Strategi (JAKSTRA) Dit.PPLP pengembangan penyehatan lingkungan

permukiman termasuk pengembangan air limbah domestik tahun 2006 masih dalam proses
untuk ditetapkan dalam Kepmen PU. Saat ini terdapat beberapa Rancangan Kepmen PU
yang akan diterbitkan. Bila JAKTRA, Regulasi, standard, Juklak yang berkaitan dengan
sanitasi yang disusun dilevel nasional dapat terintegrasi dengan RENSTRADA yang terkait
dengan sanitasi dan yang disusun pada level Pemkab/Pemkot, termasuk regulasi (perda),
rencana aksi dapat diasumsikan perkembangan sanitasi akan lebih baik dari saat ini.
Lembaga di lingkungan Dep.PU yang terkait dengan masalah sanitasi disamping Dit.PPLP
adalah Dit.Bina Program Ditjen CK yang menyiapkan anggaran dan Sekjen Dep.PU yang
terkait dengan masalah produk hukum/ regulasi.
2.3.4 Departemen Dalam Negeri
Visi: Terwujudnya penyelenggaraan pemerintahan yang desentralistik, system politik yang

demokratis, pembangunan daerah dan pemberdayaan masyarakat dalam wadah Negara
Kesatuan Republik Indonesia.
Misi:
Misi Departemen Dalam Negeri antara lain: Menetapkan Kebijaksanaan Nasional dan
Memfasilitasi Penyelenggaraan Pemerintahan, dalam upaya: (3)Memantapkan Efektifitas dan
Efisiensi Penyelenggaraan Pemerintahan yang Desentralistik; (4)Memantapkan pengelolaan
keuangan daerah yang efektif, efisien, akuntabel dan auditable; (6)Meningkatkan
keberdayaan masyarakat dalam aspek ekonomi, sosial budaya, dan politik;
(7)Mengembangkan keserasian hubungan pusat-daerah, antar daerah dan antar kawasan,
serta kemandirian daerah dalam pengelolaan pembangunan secara berkelanjutan dan
berbasis kependudukan.

Bila kita meninjau visi dan misi dari departemen/ lembaga yang terkait dengan sanitasi,
kelihatannya semua telah mendukung pengembangan sanitasi, namun dalam operasionalisai
di daerah (sesuai azas desentralisasi) masih belum sesuai harapan seperti tercantum dalam
visi dan misi. Oleh karena itu masih diperlukan koordinasi lebih inten agar pandangan sama
tersebut saling bersinergi untuk mencapai tujuan sanitasi bersama dan dikoordinasikan pula
dengan pemda agar sejalan dan pengembangan sanitasi menjadi bagian dari kegiatan utama
pemda.
Peran serta Masyarakat dan Swasta

o Kesadaran masyarakat tentang pentingnya sanitasi masih rendah
o Bentuk partisipasi masyarakat belum optimal, terbatas pada tarif/retribusi yang rendah
o Pembangunan di bidang air limbah terutama yang berbasis masyarakat masih terbatas
o Badan usaha swasta tidak tertarik untuk investasi dalam bidang air limbah
Role sharing
Dari sejumlah stakeholders diatas, belum teridentifikasi bahwa role sharing (pembagian
peran) antar stakeholders atau para pelaku pembangunan tersebut, dan belum
terorganisasikan secara jelas peran masing-masing, misalnya sebagai regulator atau
operator, sebagai provider, enabler, empower body (lembaga Pembina), belum pula siapa
berkedudukan sebagai beneficiariesnya.
3 KONDISI SANITASI SAAT INI

Studi-studi mengenai sanitasi sudah banyak melakukan kajian kondisi, isue utama, dan
upaya penanganan dengan menyusun kebijakan, strategi, Rencana Jangka Panjang,
menengah dan pendek (tahunan), Pelita, RPJM dan RPJP dengan nama-nama yang dapat
berbeda-beda sesuai dengan kurun waktu yang berlaku pada waktu pemerintahan
berlangsung.
Oleh karena itu dalam penyiapan bahan lokakarya Enabling Framework Sanitasi dalam
program ini (ISSDP) tidak lagi melakukan kajian kondisi sanitasi eksisting, dan
mengidentifikasi isu-isu utama yang dominan. Tetapi kita berangkat dari hasil studi-studi
terdahulu, terutama apa yang telah dikemukakan dalam kajian Waspola (2005) dan
merangkumnya. Keculai menemukan isu-isu utama baru sesuai perkembangan sampai saat
ini. Dalam dokumen-dokumen khususnya WASPOLA, sudah menjelaskan mengapa
pengembangan sanitasi di Indonesia tidak berjalan sebagai mana mestinya
Isu-isu utama sanitasi didokumentasikan secara jelas dalam dokumen Kebijakan dan Strategi
penanganan AMPL berbasis komunitas maupun yang berbasis kelembagaan.
Pokok bahasan utama hususnya untuk sanitasi dari WSP tersebut adalah:
o Tidak terintegrasinya penanganan air minum dan air limbah (Domestic wastewater and
water supply management are not integrated), yang telah kita ketahui bahwa + 70% dari
air yang kita pergunakan untuk keperluan sehari-hari akan menjadi air limbah.
o Pencemaran badan air yang merupakan sumber air baku air minum (Pollution of Bodies
of Water as Sources of Raw Water). Jumlah air tawar di dunia dalam proses siklus
hidrologi relative sama, namun jumlah masnusia yang membutuhkan air semakin
bertambah dengan cepat (missal pada tahun 1965 penduduk Indonesia berjumlah 80 juta
dan setelah 40 tahun menjadi 215 juta penduduk (2006).Pertambahan penduduk yang
pesat sudah tentu akan meningkatkan menggunakan SDA, khususnya air tawar yang
terbatas, pemukiman berkembang dengan segala implikasinya akibat makin terbatasnya
lahan daerah tangkapan air termasuk perusakan hutan, sehingga air tawar dalam siklus
hidrologi yang seharusnya lebih lama didaratan (termasuk air tanah), pada saat ini
mengalir dengan cepat ke laut yang sulit untuk dapat dimanfaatkan sebagai air tawar
bagi kebutuhan penduduk (akan sangat amat mahal untuk mengolah air laut menjadi air
tawar).

Sumber daya air yang terbatas masih diperparah dengan pencemaran akibat masalah air
limbah yang tidak dikelola secara baik dan benar, sehingga air yang layak sebagai bahan
baku air minum juga menjadi semakin terbatas, atau air yang sudah tercemar tersebut
untuk dilakukan pengolahan menjadikannya air bersih atau air minum juga menjadi
mahal (dalam prosesnya perlu perlakuan tambahan seperti perlu bahan kimia yang
lebih banyak dan sebagainya).
o Akses masyarakat khususnya masyarakat miskin perkotaan (urban-poor) ke prasarana

dan sarana (PS) air limbah (sanitasi) masih rendah (Low Access to Wastewater
Facilities). Masyarakat urban-poor sampai saat ini pada umumnya merasa belum
membutuhkan sanitasi. Mereka masih berputar pada kebutuhan makan untuk hari ini.
Mereka tidak menyadari bahwa sanitasi adalah salah satu perangkat yang dapat
memutuskan mata rantai penyebaran penyakit (preventif). Belum menyadari bahwa
dengan pencegahan tersebut, menjadikan dia sehat, tidak perlu mengeluarkan dana
untuk kembali sehat, produktifitas kerja tetap tinggi dan dengan demikian akan
meningkatkan pendapatan mereka menuju masyarakat yang lebih sejahtera.
o Institusi yang terkait dengan sanitasi (didaerah) umumnya masih lemah dan kinerja
manajemennya juga kurang professional (Weak Institutional Position and Poor
Management Performance). Kelembagaan yang berkompeten belum dapat menangkap
kebutuhan masyarakat atas sanitasi, belum memberdayakan (melalui pendekatan
pemasaran sanitasi hygiene), sehingga masyarakat masih merasa sanitasi bukan suatu
kebutuhan. Renstrada, RPJM, Action Plan sudah disusun dan penyusunannya ada yang
sudah mengembangkan dengan pendekatan dari mulai tingkat forum Kelurahan
berjenjang sampai ketingkat forum kota, namun bila dilihat rencana yang terkait dengan
sanitasi masih sangat rendah. Hal ini tidak lepas dari prioritas pengembangan sanitasi
yang masih rendah dibandingkan sektor atau sub-sektor lainnya dan belum disadari
adanya potensi ekonomi yang besar bila sanitasi dapat lebih baik dari yang ada
sekarang, karena produktifitas SDM yang tinggi
o Alokasi dana untuk keperluan sanitasi masih rendah (Low Budget Allocation). Disadari
banyak pemkot/pemkab mempunyai sumber dana yang rendah karena potensi yang ada
belum tergali secara baik, namun tidak kurang juga yang mempunyai sumber dana cukup
besar, tetapi alokasi budget untuk pengembangan sanitasi masih tetap rendah. Bila
ditinjau lebih lanjut hal ini tidak lepas dari kesadaran akan sanitasi yang masih rendah,
sehingga prioritas pembangunan sanitasi juga masih rendah dan ahirnya penyediaan
dana untuk sanitasi juga masih akan tetap rendah.
o Regulasi untuk tingkat operasionalisasi yang terkait dengan sanitasi tidak atau belum ada
dan peraturannya lemah (Lack of Regulations at the Operational Level and Weak Law).
Pada level nasional, regulasi masih sangat kurang sehingga produk-produk untuk
pengembangan sanitasi, seperti kebijakan dan strategi ditingkat nasional yang belum
mempunyai payung hukum yang jelas, dengan demikian proses deliveri akan tidak
berjalan karena daerah merasa belum mengetahui atau sulit untuk dapat mengikuti
karena ketiadaan payung hukum yang melandasi keharusan mengikuti kebijakan dan
strategi nasional yang mungkin ada. Daerah cenderung menyusun Perda dengan
mengacu pada regulasi nasional yang ada/yang masih terbatas (untuk sanitasi) atau
kalau belum ada, akan menyusun perda yang kurang mengena pada sasaran karena
ketiadaan acuan. Disamping itu masih adanya multi tafsir atau pengertian yang saling
berbeda antara peraturan yang satu dengan yang lainnya untuk suatu masalah yang
sama. Misalnya dalam Permen PU No.16/2005 dengan UU 23/1997 terdapat perbedaan
dalam pengertian mengenai sampah. Bisa terjadi kedua-duanya benar, hanya diperlukan
lembar penjelasan tambahan sesuai konteksnya sehingga tidak membingungkan bagi
yang membaca atau akan menerapkannya.

4 KONDISI LINGKUNGAN
4.1 Pencemaran Air
Secara nasional 50 % penduduk belum mengolah air limbahnya (terdiri dari 20,71 % di
perkotaan dan 73,99 % di perdesaan). Pencapaian sasaran kebijakan konservasi air secara
nasional, baru mencapai 1,36 % Sebanyak 76,3 % dari 53 sungai di Jawa, Sumatera, Bali
dan Sulawesi tercemar berat oleh cemaran organic, dan 11 sungai-sungai utama tercemar
berat oleh unsur Amonium.
Sungai-sungai utama di perkotaan umumnya sudah tercemar dimana rata-rata kadar BOD-
nya telah melampaui ambang batas (34,48 %), dan juga kadar COD-nya (51,73 %).
Dari 33,34 % sampel air minum perpipaan dan 54,16 % sample air minum non perpipaan
ternyata mengandung bakteri Coli. Ketersediaan air baku di tiga propinsi, yaitu DKI, DIY dan
Jatim telah memasuki ambang kritis (< 1000 m3/kapita/tahun). IPLT banyak yang tidak
berfungsi dan termanfaatkan secara optimal. Pelayanan instalasi Pengolahan Air Limbah
(IPAL) domestik yang ada, belum pada tingkatan optimum.
4.2 Isu Kesehatan
Minimnya pelayanan limbah cair domestik menyebabkan angka kejadian penyakit menular
bawaan air di Indonesia selalu tinggi. Hasil SKRT (Survey Kesehatan Rumah Tangga) pada
tahun 1992, menunjukkan bahwa diarhe merupakan penyebab kematian bayi kedua di
Indonesia, peringkatnya menurun pada tahun 1995 menjadi penyebab kematian ketiga.
Sampai dengan tahun 2001 diarhe masih merupakan penyebab kematian bayi ketiga sesuai
dengan data Surkesnas 2001 (Profil Kesehatan Indonesia, 2001).
Angka kematian bayi mengalami peningkatan dari tahun 1998 sebesar 49 per 1000 kelahiran
dan 50 per 1000 kelahiran pada tahun 2001. Angka kematian bayi (AKB) dan jenis penyakit
penyebab kematian bayi tertinggi merupakan indikator bahwa sarana dan prasarana
penyediaan air minum dan sanitasi ini masih sangat minim.
Sampai saat ini di tingkat masyarakat masih banyak penyakit menular yang dapat
menyebabkan kematian. Banyak diantaranya yang disebabkan oleh lingkungan dan sanitasi
yang kurang baik. Sayangnya hanya sekitar 30% masyarakat yang tahu masalah itu dan
mampu mengatasinya, dengan mengadakan sarana sanitasi yang memadai. Diperkirakan
50% belum tahu tapi sebenarnya mampu, sedangkan yang 20 % belum tahu dan belum
mampu.
Sebagaimana diketahui, penyakit menular merupakan penyebab kematian yang tinggi pada
bayi dan balita. Menurut SKRT 1995, proporsi penyakit menular penyebab kematian pada
bayi, adalah: pnemonia (16,4%), diare (11,4%), tetanus 4,7%), infeksi saluran pernafasan
akut (3,9%), ensephalitis, bronchitis, emfisema dan asthma (masing-masing 2,5%). Adapun
proporsi penyakit menular penyebab kematian pada balita, yaitu; pneumonia (22,5%), diarhe
(19,2%), infeksi saluran pernafasan akut (7,5%), tifus perut dan malaria (masing-masing 7%)
serta campak (5,2%). Beberapa penyakit menular diidentifikasi sebagai penyebab kematian
kasar, seperti; TB (9,2%), diare (7,2%), pneumonia (6,9%), bronchitis, emfisema dan asma
(masing-masing 6,1%) serta tifus perut (5,2%). Penyakit menular tersebut diatas adalah
sebagai akibat, antara lain, kesehatan lingkungan yang buruk dan perilaku kesehatan
masyarakat yang belum memenuhi harapan
Di kawasan Asia Tenggara, pelayanan sanitasi di Indonesia pada tahun 2000 menduduki
peringkat ke-6 (enam) diantara 9 (sembilan) negara, dibawah Thailand, Philipina, Malaysia
dan Myanmar. Tingkat pelayanan sanitasi Indonesia 8,85% lebih rendah dari tingkat
pelayanan rata-rata di Asia Tenggara (Depkimpraswil, 2003). Kondisi ini tentunya sangat
memprihatinkan, mengingat Indonesia telah merdeka lebih lama dari Myanmar, tetapi
pelayanan sanitasinya masih sangat rendah.

Sangat penting bagi pemerintah daerah (Pemda) untuk mengatur (sebagai pengatur) dan
memfasilitasi setiap upaya untuk mengatasi masalah yang muncul ini. Meskipun demikian,
terdapat banyak pemerintah daerah (Pemda) yang tidak bertindak akibat kurangnya
pemahaman terhadap masalah, tidak mengetahui kesempatan dan tidak mengetahui
bagaimana cara menangani masalah tersebut. Bahkan, terdapat kesempatan bisnis dalam
aspek ini yang mungkin menarik bagi investor.
4.3 Pelayanan Sanitasi
Cakupan dan pelayanan pengelolaan limbah cair di sebagian besar kota-kota di Indonesia
masih sangat minim. Hasil studi yang dilakukan oleh Dep.PU, 2005 menunjukkan bahwa
sampai dengan tahun 2003, pelayanan air limbah dengan menggunakan tangki septik baru
mencakup 43,87%, sisanya sebanyak 20,12% membuang ke sungai atau danau, 23 % ke
lobang tanah sementara sisanya dibuang di pantai, kebun, kolam atau sawah. Kondisi paling
buruk adalah di pulau Kalimantan, dimana penggunaan tangki septik baru mencapai 37%,
dan 25% dibuang ke sungai atau danau dan 31% dibuang ke lobang tanah.
Pada tahun 1999, cakupan sanitasi mencapai 77% di perkotaan dan 51% di perdesaan.
Adapun cakupan air bersih mencapai 92% di perkotaan dan 68% diperdesaan. Namun
demikian cakupan sanitasi dan air bersih antar propinsi sangat bervariasi. Cakupan air bersih
di perdesaan Kalimantan Tengah adalah 35% sementara di Bali 89%. Ada daerah yang
sanitasinya sudah mencapai diatas 90% dan sejumlah kabupaten yang cakupannya masih
sekitar 12–20%. Disamping itu angka-angka tersebut belum mengambarkan tingkat
pemakaian yang efektif, dan hanya 50% dari sarana air bersih yang ada telah memenuhi
standar bakteriologis. Sesuai kesepakatan MDG, Indonesia akan menurunkan jumlah
penduduk yang tidak memperoleh akses terhadap sanitasi yang baik sampai separuhnya
pada tahun 2015.
Pada tahun 2006 terdapat program Sanimas secara nasional untuk 105 lokasi di 34
Pemkot/Pemkab dari 23 Propinsi. Pemkab/Pemkot yang sudah mendapat sosialisasi
Sanimas atau telah melaksanakan percontohan SANIMAS, implementasi diperkirakan dapat
berjalan lancar karena merupakan replikasi dari yang telah ada. Bagi Pemkab/Pemkot yang
belum pernah mendapat sosialisasi mengenai Sanimas, mungkin pelaksanaannya mendapat
kesulitan. Dari pengalaman pelaksanakaan program SANIMAS tahun 2006 akan
mendapatkan suatu pembelajaran yang berharga, bisa menjadi bahan evaluasi dan
rekomendasi untuk rencana aksi program selanjutnya.
Perlu mengembangkan kegiatan sanitasi berbasis masyarakat (Sanimas) dalam bentuk-

bentuk lain (dengan mengikuti contoh pendampingan kepada masyarakat, disain bangunan
yang ada sekarang atau tipe lain yang tepat guna), tetapi pada prinsipnya tetap sebagai
program pembangunan sanitasi berbasis masyarakat, sebagai pengganti MCK yang hanya
mementingkan target pembangunan fisik tanpa memperhatikan keberlanjutannya
(lingkungan, sosial, operasi dan pemeliharaannya). Perlu dikaji kemungkinan
mengembangkan sanimas untuk pemukiman diwilayah yang sudah terdapat sistem
perpipaan sewerage (off-site) seperti di Surakarta, Denpasar, Banjarmasin dll.
Pendekatan dalam melakukan sosialisasi suatu program seperti Sanimas perlu

memperhatikan budaya sanitasi setempat seperti menggunakan bahasa setempat termasuk
profil/gambar/sket penduduk setempat serta menghilangkan kebiasaan-kebiasaan sanitasi
yang bila diterapkan pada masa kini sudah tidak sesuai lagi . Sebagai contoh, misalnya lagu
jingle dari etnis jawa "Ee dayohe teko, ……, ee asune mati, ee buang ning kali", perlu di
dihilangkan, karena di situ digambarkan sejak kecil diberi masukan untuk kurang menghargai
sungai sebagai sumber daya air/ sumber air baku air minum tetapi digunakan untuk tempat
membuang sampah/ limbah (anjing mati buang di sungai). Mungkin pada masa lagu tersebut
dibuat belum menimbulkan masalah karena kemampuan purification secara alamiah (self
purification) masih tinggi. Namun hal itu sudah tidak tepat untuk masa kini, dimana penduduk
perkotaan cukup padat, sedangkan lahan dan sumber daya air terbatas.

Dalam bidang sanitasi, Depkes mempunyai sasaran a.l.: meningkatnya prosentase keluarga
yang menghuni rumah sehat (75%); keluarga yang menggunakan air bersih (85%); dan
keluarga yang menggunakan jamban memenuhi syarat kesehatan (80%).
Namun dari segi pendekatan ada pergeseran. Misalnya dalam hal target, dulu fokusnya
adalah agar masyarakat mempunyai jamban ( “government driven” ). Sekarang terserah
pada masyarakat, mereka bebas mau BAB (buang air besar) di mana, sesuai pilihan mereka.
Mereka tahu konsekwensi dari pilihan-pilihan itu. Yang penting tidak di sungai, di tempat
umum, dll. (Ini merupakan “community driven”).
Pada sisi lain penanganan masalah sanitasi juga dapat merupakan investasi. Kebutuhan
masyarakat ada, tetapi perlu ditumbuhkan. Sebenarnya “return rate” nya cukup tinggi. Melihat
hal ini banyak yang tertarik. Juga World Bank sudah tertarik untuk investasi.
Pelaksanaan sebegitu jauh, cukup baik. Di beberapa desa tadinya tidak ada air/jamban,
tetapi sekarang air sudah mengalir di rumah-rumah (di 1.300 desa), mencakup sekitar 10
juta penduduk. Melalui proyek WSSLIC diperoleh hasil yang menggembirakan. Misalnya di
Lumajang dilaporkan, dalam 3 bulan saja di 16 desa di satu kecamatan sudah tidak ada
penduduk yang buang air besar sembarangan. Demikian pula berita menggembirakan di di
Muara Enim. Hal seperti ini melalui WSSLIC 2 telah dikembangkan di 2500 desa. Kemudian
nanti melalui WSSLIC 3 akan dikembangkan di 11 provinsi, 70 kabupaten, 5000 desa. Ini
direncanakan pada 2007-2012. Maka akan dibangun l.k. 5000 sarana air bersih dan
peningkatan hygiene-nya (cuci tangan dengan sabun).
Berdasarkan data dan pengalaman Depkes, selama 5 tahun terakhir menunjukkan

pemerintah daerah masih memerlukan dukungan sehingga prioritas-prioritas lingkungan
sehat dapat dilaksanakan dengan baik. Keterbatasan sumber dana dan ketidak mengertian
permasalahan lingkungan sehat menyebabkan lemahnya komitmen di bidang ini.
Upaya penyehatan lingkungan memiliki karakteristik spesifik yang tidak mengenal batas
wilayah administrasi. Penyelesaian masalahnya memerlukan penanganan secara terintegrasi
dan lintas propinsi/kabupaten/kota. Apabila tidak, berpotensi terjadinya KLB/wabah dan
kerusakan lingkungan yang semakin parah dan mengganggu kesehatan. Antusiame daerah
untuk membuka klinik sanitasi menunjukkan perkembangan komitmen wilayah untuk
menangani masalah kesehatan lingkungan.
5 INVESTASI DAN PENDANAAN
5.1 Kondisi Saat Ini
Sektor sanitasi di Indonesia – saat ini. Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara dengan
palayanan sanitasi terpusat di antara paling rendah di dunia. Saat ini, kurang dari 2% dari
populasi dihubungkan dengan jaringan selokan berpipa, yang melayani sekitar 200.000
rumah tangga di daerah perkotaan pada tahun 2004. Sekitar 60% dari populasi bergantung
pada septik tank dan jamban untuk buangan air limbah. Lebih dari sepuluh juta rumah
tangga, atau 25% dari jumlah, saat ini tidak dilayani oleh bentuk sanitasi on-site apapun
(Tabel 1). Sebagian besar populasi pedesaan, serta sejumlah besar rumah tangga
berpendapatan rendah di daerah perkotaan, buangan air limbah dibuang langsung ke sungai,
danau dan ruang terbuka. Kontaminasi yang dihasilkan pada air permukaan dan air tanah
telah mengarah ke insidensi penyakit yang ditularkan lewat faeses yang tinggi serta
kerusakan sumber air di lingkungan, terutama di daerah yang berpopulasi padat. Pada tahun
1999, ADB memperkirakan biaya ekonomi dari polusi air limbah di Indonesia mencapai
hampir US$ 4,7 milyar per tahun.
Skenario “tidak melakukan kegiatan apapun”: Sejak tahun 1998, investasi untuk
prasarana sanitasi baru dapat diabaikan. Meskipun proporsi rumah tangga dengan akses
terhadap fasilitas sanitasi yang ditingkatkan (selokan berpipa, septik tank dan jamban) masih
berkisar pada 65% pada tahun-tahun belakangan ini, lebih dari 90% limbah manusia tetap
tidak diberi pengelolaan apapun. Karena kepadatan populasi dan tekanan lingkungan terus
meningkat, situasinya akan menjadi lebih parah tanpa adanya perubahan radikal dalam
kebijakan pemerintah.

Table 5-1 RT dengan akses terhadap fasilitas sanitasi yang ditingkatkan*

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Perkotaan 80,4% 77,0% 77,4% 76,2% 77,5%
Pedesaan 55,6% 50,8% 52,3% 50,3% 52,2%
Indonesia 64,9% 61,1% 62,7% 61,5% 63,5%
Sumber: BPS
* Didefinisikan sebagai: sanitasi terpusat, septik tank dan jamban
5.2 Tujuan Kebijakan Jangka Menengah dan Jangka Panjang
Visi untuk tahun 2015. Sepuluh tahun dari sekarang, 75% dari populasi akan memiliki akses
untuk fasilitas sanitasi yang ditingkatkan, meningkat dari 63% pada tahun 2000. Sebagian
besar dari peningkatan tersebut telah dibiayai oleh rumah tangga itu sendiri yang telah dibuat
menyadari keuntungan ekonomi untuk menurunkan BAB di tempat terbuka. Badan
pemerintah daerah khusus memberikan pelayanan pengelolaan lumpur untuk meminimalkan
polusi air limbah. Biaya penuh dari pelayanan-pelayanan ini dibiayai dari pembayaran
pelayanan daerah yang didasarkan pada prinsip “yang membuat polusi yang membayar”.
Perusahaan air minum di kota-kota besar dan metropolitan menyediakan pelayanan sanitasi
terpusat hingga hampir empat juta rumah tangga, suatu peningkatan duapuluh kali lipat dari
tingkat pelayanan pada tahun 2004. Karena peningkatan besar-besaran dalam peningkatan
pemakaian aset, tarif tidak banyak meningkat dalam tahun-tahun ini dan sanitasi terpusat
akan segera menjadi terjangkau bagi kelompok berperndapatan rendah.
Tujuan jangka menengah dan jangka panjang. Pada tahun 2002, Pemerintah Indonesia
telah berkomitmen untuk mencapai Millennium Development Goal (MDG) #10, yang dikenal
sebagai “Memastikan Kelestarian Lingkungan”. Sebagai cara untuk mencapai tujuan ini,
Pemerintah menetapkan untuk menurunkan jumlah orang tanpa akses sanitasi dasar yang
dapat dipertahankan menjadi setengah dari jumlahnya sekarang pada tahun 2015. Pada
tahun 2004, Departemen Pekerjaan Umum (PU) menerbit Rencana Aksi Nasional untuk
Sanitasi yang mencakup proposal rinci untuk mengoperasionalkan MDG #7. Rencana
Pengembangan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJM) untuk tahun 2004-2009 memaparkan
suatu alternatif untuk meningkatkan tingkat pelayanan di bidang sanitasi. Alternatif tersebut
tidak menargetkan peningkatan langsung jumlah fasilitas sanitasi, tetapi merencanakan
kampanye informasi masyarakat untuk mendorong rumah tangga meningkatkan fasilitas
mereka sendiri. RJPM juga mengungkapkan target-target kuatitatif mengenai peningkatan
tingkat pemakaian fasilitas proses limbah dan penurunan proporsi air limbah yang tetap tidak
dikelola (Tabel 2). Untuk meningkatkan pelayanan sanitasi, kelihatannya kombinasi
pendekatan diperlukan.
Table 5-2 Target tingkat pelayanan untuk sektor sanitasi

Sumber Target tingkat pelayanan Cakupan*
Millennium Menurunkan hingga limapuluh persen proporsi orang 75%
Development Goal tanpa akses berkesinambungan terhadap sanitasi dasar
#10 pada tahun 2015
Rencana Tindakan Meningkatkan cakupan sanitasi yang ditingkatkan di 75%
Nasional untuk daerah perkotaan hingga 80% dan di pedesaan hingga
Sanitasi 70% pada tahun 2015
RPJM 2004-2009 Tidak ada pembuangan faeses ke tempat terbuka pada 100%
tahun 2009
Sumber: UNDP, MPW (DG Cipta Karya), BAPPENAS
* persentase populasi total dengan akses terhadap sanitasi yang ditingkatkan

Meningkatkan jumlah rumah tangga dengan akses terhadap sanitasi yang

ditingkatkan. Menurut Rencana Aksi Nasional terhadap Sanitasi, jumlah orang dengan
akses terhadap sanitasi terpusat, septik tank atau jamban perlu ditingkatkan dari 114 juta
pada tahun 2000 menjadi 184 juta pada tahun 2015, yaitu peningkatan sebanyak 60%. Untuk
mencapai tujuan ini, Pemerintah Indonesia perlu untuk:
i. Mendorong investasi dalam bidang fasilitas sanitasi terpusat (Pembangunan
biasanya dibiaya bersama dengan pemerintah pusat).\
ii. Mendorong pembangunan fasilitas sanitasi on-site. BAPPENAS saat ini tengah
mengawasi penerapan program yang sangat berhasil untuk mendorong lingkungan
“bebas dari BAB di tempat terbuka”. Program ini memperlihatkan bahwa rumah
tangga bersedia untuk mendanai fasilitas sanitas dari sumber daya mereka sendiri
jika mereka memahami keuntungan ekonomis dari fasilitas semacam itu.
Meningkatkan volume air limbah yang dikelola. Pada tahun 2000, Departemen Kesehatan
melaksanakan survei yang memperlihatkan bahwa buangan air limbah yang dihasilkan oleh
lebih dari 96% dari semua rumah tangga di negara ini tidak dikelola di fasilitas khusus.
Sisanya dikelola di Instalasi Pengolahan Air Limbah (IPAL) atau fasilitas Instalasi Pengolahan
Lumpur Tinja (IPLT). Volume sesungguhnya dari air limbah yang dikelola bahkan lebih
rendah dari yang terungkap dalam angka ini karena banyak IPAL dan IPLT digunakan pada
tingkat pemakaian yang sangat rendah (atau tidak digunakan sama sekali). Meskipun
optimalisasi fasilitas pengelolaan limbah yang ada diperlukan, kapasitas tambahan juga
diperlukan untuk menurunkan jumlah buangan air limbah yang tidak dikelola dari lebih dari
90% menjadi 50% seperti yang ditargetkan dalam RPJM. Berdasarkan alasan ini, Rencana
Pengembangan Nasional menyarankan bahwa Pemerintah harus:
iii. Mengoptimalkan kapasitas fasilitas pengelolaan limbah yang ada. RPJM menetapkan
bahwa setidaknya 60% dari kapasitas IPAL atau IPLT harus digunakan pada tahun
2009.
iv. Mendorong peningkatan dalam kapasitas pengelolaan limbah total. Tidak ada target
kuantitatif yang telah ditetapkan.
5.3 Aspek Ekonomi Prasarana Sanitasi
Menangkap manfaat ekonomi. Manfaat ekonomi sistem sanitasi sangat jelas (Kotak 6.1).
Meskipun demikian, sebagian besar manfaat ini tidak nyata bagi rumah tangga yang
terhubung dalam sistem ini, tetapi untuk rumah tangga lain di wilayah pelayanan yang
mengambil manfaat, misalnya, dari peningkatan kualitas air tanah atau penurunan penyakit
yang ditularkan melalui faeses yang biasanya dihasilkan oleh sistem sanitasi (Kotak 6.2).
Dengan kata lain, manfaat masyarakat dari sistem sanitasi lebih besar daripada manfaat
individu dalam sistem tersebut.
Table 5-3 Estimasi biaya ekonomi kesehatan masyarakat

Prasarana sanitasi yang baik merupakan cara efektif untuk meningkatkan kesehatan masyarakat.
Pada tahun 1999, tiga survei dilakukan di Indonesia untuk memperkirakan biaya ekonomi sistem
kesehatna masyarakat dan hari yang terlewat akibat sakit. Seperti yang terlihat dalam tabel di bawah
ini, biaya ekonomi rata-rata adalah dalam kisaran 128.000 rupiah per orang per tahun. Jumlah ini
mengarah ke jumlah total 63 milyar rupiah per tahun untuk kota berukuran sedang seperti Surakarta
(populasi 489.000).
Survei yang dilakukan mengenai kerugian ekonomi (rupiah/kapita/tahun)
Yogyakarta 104.100
Medan 95.900
Beberapa kota berukuran sedang (ADB) 185,100
Rata-rata 128.300
Sumber: National Action Plan on Clean Water, MPW (2003)
Catatan: Kerugian ekonomi diperkirakan sebagai jumlah pengeluaran kesehatan (ditanggung oleh
masyarakat dan pemerintah ) dan hari kerja yang hilang akibat sakit.

Apa artinya kondisi ini untuk pembiayaan prasarana sanitasi?

iii. Pengguna tidak mau membayar full-cost recovery tariff untuk pelayanan sanitasi,
karena sebagian tarif akan digunakan untuk menyediakan pelayanan yang tidak ingin
dibeli oleh pengguna (misalnya proses pengelolaan lumpur tinja di bagian lain kota
tersebut).
iv. Pelayanan sanitasi harus dibebankan berdasarkan prinsip “yang membuat polusi yang
membayar”. Ini berarti bahwa rumah tangga dikenai biaya berdasarkan limbah yang
diproduksikan – baik ketika rumah tangga itu terkait ataupun tidak dengan palayanan –
berdasarkan pendapat bahwa rumah tangga tersebut secara otomatis memperoleh
manfaat dari keberadaan sistem sanitasi.
Suatu sistem sanitasi menghasilkan beberapa pelayanan (seperti pengumpulan limbah dan
pengelolaan lumpur tinja). Pengguna dapat memperoleh manfaat ekonomi penuh dari
beberapa pelayanan ini. Ini berarti bahwa sistem “yang membuat polusi yang membayar”
tidak boleh digunakan untuk semua jenis pelayanan.
Table 5-4 Klasifikasi manfaat ekonomi fasilitas sanitasi
1. Peningkatan kesehatan masyarakat.

Penurunan pengeluaran di bidang kesehatan yang secara langsung dibebankan pada
masyarakat (seperti pengeluaran yang lebih rendah untuk obat-obatan, pelaynan
kesehatan dan transportasi ke rumah sakit).
Penurunan pengeluaran di bidang kesehatan yang ditanggung oleh pemerintah
(biasanya terutama terdiri dari penurunan subsidi untuk klinik kesehatan dan rumah
sakit serta pengeluaran yang lebih rendah untuk imunisasi dan program pencegahan
lain).
Peningkatna produktifitas pekerja. Sanitasi yang ditingkatkan memiliki pengaruh
positif bermakna terhadap kesehatna masyarakat sehingga menurunkan jumlah hari
kerja (dan hari sekolah) yang hilang.
2. Penurunan biaya pengelolaan air. Sanitasi yang ditingkatkan menurunkan polusi

pada sumber air permukaan, sehingga menurunkan biaya pengelolaan air untuk
konsumsi.
3. Potensi daur ulang. Sejumlah produk limbah dapat diubah menjadi produk dengan
potensi menghasilkan pendapatan (seperti kompos dan bio gas).
4. Meningkatkan kualitas hidup. Peningkatan fasilitas sanitasi biasanya menghasilkan

lingkungan hidup yang lebih menyenangkan (seperti sungai yang lebih bersih atau
selokan yang tidak terlalu bau).
Tipologi pelayanan sanitasi. Suatu sistem sanitasi menghasilkan tiga jenis pelayanan: (i)
pembuangan; (ii) pengumpulan dan transportasi; dan (iii) pengelolaan dan penyimpanan.
Suatu sistem sanitasi terpusat ditangani oleh suatu provider pelayanan tunggal yang
mengumpulkan, membawa, memberi pengelolaan dan menyimpan limbah. Dalam suatu
sistem sanitasi on-site, beberapa pihak pelayanan berperan: (i) rumah tangga membangung
septik tank atau jambannya sendiri; (ii) truk tinja dan gerobak secara berkala mengumpulkan
dan memindahkan limbah, dan (iii) badan pemerintah daerah menyediakan pelayanan
pengelolaan lumpur tinja. Sebagian besar pengguna mau membayar tarif full cost recovery
untuk pembuangan onsite dan pengosongan septik tank, mungkin karena manfaatnya
langsung terlihat. Argumen ini tidak berlaku untuk pengelolaan limbah dan sanitasi terpusat
(dimana biaya pengelolaan menjadi sebagian besar dalam biaya total pelayanan).

Pembuangan Pengumpulan/transport Perlakuan/penyimpanan
On-site Truk tinja, Fasilitas pen-

Toilet
gerobak gelolaan (IPLT)
Off-site Fasilitas pen-

Toilet Jaringan pipa
Sumber: Konsultan gelolaan (IPAL)
Figure 5-1 Pelayanan yang diberikan oleh sistem sanitasi
5.4 Kebutuhan Investasi dan Strategi Pembiayaan
Estimasi kebutuhan investasi. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum memperkirakan bahwa

investasi tahunan di sektor sanitasi harus meningkat hingga 3,1 triliun rupiah (sekitar US$
350 juta) untuk mencapai tujuan yang diungkapkan dalam Rencana Aksi Nasional untuk
memberikan fasilitas sanitasi yang ditingkatkan kepada 75% populasi pada tahun 2015.
Rencana ini mengasumsikan bahwa 70% dari kebutuhan investasi akan ditanggung oleh
rumah tangga, terutama untuk membiayai septik tank, jamban dan fasilitas transportasi (truk
tinja dan gerobak). Sisanya akan dibiayai oleh pemerintah pusat, propinsi dan
kota/kabupaten untuk membiayai sanitasi terpusat dan fasilitas pengelolaan. Jumlah ini
diestimasi pada (30% x 3100 =) 930 milyar, jauh lebih besar dari investasi pemerintah saat ini
di bidang sanitasi yang tidak melebihi 100 milyar rupiah per tahun.
Tanggung jawab pembiayaan. Departemen Dalam Negeri baru-baru ini telah

menyelesaikan draf revisi untuk PP25/2000, yang mengalokasi tanggung jawab pemerintah
pusat, propinsi dan kota/kabupaten. Berdasarkan PP yang telah direvisi, Rencana Aksi
Nasional mengenai Sanitasi dan RPJM 2004-2009:
i. Pemerintah daerah bertanggung jawab untuk sanitasi on-site. Direkomendasikan

bahwa pemerintah daerah hanya akan membiayai fasilitas pengelolaan atau proses
lumpur tinja karena sektor swasta dapat (dan biasanya memang melakukan)
pelayanan pembuangan dan pengumpulan/transport.
ii. Pemerintah pusat bertanggung jawab untuk sanitasi terpusat di kota besar dan
metropolitan. Diperkirakan bahwa, sampai tahun 2015, tidak ada proyek sanitasi
terpusat baru yang akan diterapkan di kota-kota lain.
Table 5-5 Tanggung jawab pembiayaan pelayanan sanitasi
Pelayanan sanitasi Asumsi tanggung jawab % perolehan keuntungan

Sanitasi on-site (pembuangan Sektor swasta 100% full-cost recovery
dan pengumpulan/transportasi) pada saat jasa diberikan
Sanitasi on-site Sektor pemerintah (pemerintah lokal) 100% full-cost recovery
(pengelolaan/penyimpanan) selama masa hidup
ekonomis
Sanitasi terpusat Sektor pemerintah (pemerintah pusat) 70% full-cost recovery
selama masa hidup
ekonomis (2015)
Sumber: Departemen Dalam Negeri, PU (DG Cipta Karya), BAPPENAS
Pilihan-pilihan untuk menutup kesenjangan pembiayaan. Untuk memobilisasi sumber

tambahan pendanaan bagi sektor sanitasi, sumber pendanaan berikut dapat
dipertimbangkan:

i. Bantuan pemerintah pusat;

ii. Investasi sektor swasta;
iii. Pinjaman bank komersial domestik;
iv. Pinjaman bank bilateral dan multilateral, dan
v. Retribusi.
Pilihan 1: Bantuan pemerintah pusat. Sebagian besar fasilitas pengelolaan lumpur tinja di
Indonesia dibiayai oleh bantuan pemerintah pusat (banyak bantuan ini berasal dari pinjaman
multilateral). Karena pemerintah pusat secara historis menetapkan prioritas yang rendah
untuk prasarana sanitasi, investasi pemerintah dalam sanitasi tetap berada di tingkat yang
sangat rendah (diperkirakan sekitar (US$ 5 juta pada tahun 2005). Meskipun Departemen
Pekerjaan Umum ingan meningkatkan investasi untuk IPLT dan sanitasi terpusat,
kelitahannya tidak mungkin bahwa bantuan pemerintah dapat diandalkan untuk menutup
kesenjangan pembiayaan. Saat ini, penyaluran bantuan pemerintah pusat dilakukan melalui
Dana Dekonsentrasi meskipun penyediaan sanitasi on-site merupakan tanggung jawab
pemerintah daerah. Mekanisme yang sesuai untuk penyaluran bantuan semacam ini adalah
DAK (Dana Alokasi Khusus).
Pilihan 2: Investasi sektor swasta. Investor swasta ragu-ragu untuk berinvestasi dalam
sanitasi terpusat atau fasilitas pengelolaan lumpur tinja dengan alasan: (i) tidak ada
kebutuhan tetap untuk sanitasi terpusat dan pelayanan pengelolaan lumpur tinja; (ii)
ketergantungan pada subsidi pemerintah daerah, karena pelaynaan sanitasi saat ini tidak
disediakan dengan tarif penuh; (iii) proyek investasi yang kecil; dan (iv) akses terbatas
terhadap pembiayaan proyek jangka panjang.
Pilihan 3: pinjaman bank komersial domestik. Sebagian besar bank komersial (swasta
atau milik pemerintah) tidak mau memberikan pinjaman jangka panjang kepada pemerintah
daerah tanpa jaminan. Meskipun demikian, kabupaten atau kota tidak diperbolehkan oleh
undang-undang untuk memberikan jaminan atau menawarkan pendapatan atau aset daerah
sebagai jaminan. Selain itu hanya sedikit bank berpengalaman dalam pembiayaan prasarana
sanitasi dan memperoleh kesulitan untuk mencari dana yang sesuai dengan masa hidup
ekonomis dari sistem sanitasi (15-20 tahun).
Pilihan 4: pinjaman bank bilateral dan multilateral. Hampir semua sistem sanitasi terpusat
di Indonesia, serta sejumlah besar fasilitas pengelolaan lumpur tinja, didanai oleh pinjaman
bank multilateral. Bank Dunia dan ADP terus menerus menyatakan ketertarikan untuk
mendanai sebagian besar kesenjangan pembiayaan melalui pinjaman jangka panjang.
Meskipun pemerintah Indonesia telah menetapkan mekanisme untuk proses penyaluran
pinjaman multilateral sebagai penerusan pinjaman (SLA) kepada pemerintah daerah melalui
Departemen Keuangan, pemerintah ragu untuk menggunakan mekanisme ini sejak krisis
moneter tahun 1997/98. Dalam sudaut pandang ketersediaan sumber pendanaan lain,
mungkin saja bahwa pinjaman bank multilateral ini akan berperan besar dalam menutup
kesenjangan pembiayaan di sektor sanitasi.
Pilihan 5: retribusi. Di seluruh dunia, sedikit pemerintah menetapkan tarif full-cost recovery
untuk sanitasi terpusat atau pelayanan pengelolaan lumpur tinja yang sebagian disebabkan
oleh pemahaman terhadap eksternalitas positif yang besar (seperti manfaat kesehatan dan
lingkungan). Pada sebagian besar pemerintah daerah di Indonesia, pendapatan dari retribusi
sanitasi dapat diabaikan dan pelayanan sanitasi hampir seluruhnya disubsidi. Dari sudut
pandang implikasi politik dan sosial, tidaklah realistis untuk mengharapkan pemerintah
daerah menetapkan tarif full cost recovery dalam masa jangka pendek. Paling mungkin
adalah bahwa mereka mungkin bersiap untuk menerapkan tarif yang dapat membiayai biaya
O&M di masa jangka panjang. Ini berarti bahwa pemerintah daerah akan perlu memobilisasi
sumber pendanaan tambahan untuk menangani biaya investasi dan, setidakny apada
awalnya, sebagian dari biaya operasional dan pemeliharaan.

5.5 Unsur-Unsur Kunci dari Suatu Strategi Pelaksanaan
DAK, bukan Dekon. Saat ini, sebagian besar fasilitas pengelolaan lumpur tinja di Indonesia
terus dibiayai oleh bantuan pemerintah pusat (biasanya sebagai Dana Dekonsentrasi),
meskipun pemberian sanitasi on-site merupakan tanggung jawab pemerintah daerah.
Mekanisme yang sesuai untuk menyalurkan dana semacam ini adalah Dana Alokasi Khusus.
Implementasi prinsip “yang membuat polusi yang membayar”. Saat ini, prinsip ini tidak
diterapkan di manapun di Indonesia. Direkomendasikan bahwa pemerintah mulai kena
retribusi “sanitasi komunal” untuk membiayai:
i. 100 persen biaya pengelolaan lumpur tinja penuh; dan
ii. 30 persen dari biaya penuh pelayanan sanitasi terpusat (sisanya akan dibiayai dari
retribusi rumah tangga yang terkait dengan pelayanan ini).
Diajukan bahwa pemerintah daerah harus menetapkan retribusi komunal dengan persentase
tetap pada pajak penerangan jalan umum dan mengumpulkan pajaknya bersama dengan
pajak ini. Ini merupakan pembayaran yang transparan (struktur pembayaran sederhana),
efisien (PT. PLN sudah mengumpulkan pajak penerangan jalan umum yang merupakan
tambahan dalam rekening listrik), setara (hanya rumah tangga dengan listrik yang
membayar) dan dapat diterima secara politik (karena pajak penerangan jalan umum
merupakan pajak daerah). Implementasi usulan ini memerlukan dikeluarkannya peraturan
pajak daerah (Peraturan Daerah) dan kerjasama PT PLN. Tindakan ini tidak memerlukan
perubahan peraturan nasional.
Klarifikasi tanggung jawab untuk sanitasi pada tingkat pemerintah daerah. Pada
sebagian besar pemerintah daerah, tanggung jawab sanitasi ditanggung bersama antara
Departemen Pekerjaan Umum, Departeman Kesehatan, PDAM, Departemen Kebersihan
Daerah (Dinas Kebersihan dan Pertamanan) dan berbagai badan lain. Direkomendasikan
bahwa pemerintah daerah menetapkan tanggung jawab untuk pelayanan sanitasi pada suatu
badan tunggal dan memastikan bahwa badan tersebut akan menerima dana yang cukup
untuk pelaksanaan tanggungjawabnya.
5.6 Kesimpulan dan Rekomendasi
5.6.1 Sistem Pendanaan
Departemen Pekerjaan Umum memperkirakan bahwa investasi pemerintah di sektor sanitasi

harus meningkat dari kurang dari 100 milyar rupiah menjadi lebih dari 900 milyar rupiah per
tahun untuk mencapai tujuan yang ditetapkan dalam Rencana Aksi Nasional Sanitasi untuk
peningkatan penyediaan fasilitas sanitasi untuk 75% dari populasi pada tahun 2015. Investasi
ini terutama akan dialokasikan untuk: (i) fasilitas pengelolaan lumpur tinja, dan (ii) sistem
sanitasi terpusat. Sistem pendanaan yang diajukan dapat dirangkum sebagai berikut ini:
• Pengelolaan limbah tinja. Pemerintah daerah akan menanggung biaya penuh fasilitas
pengelolaan lumpur tinja dari retribusi komunal (ditetapkan sebagai persentase tetap
dalam rekening listrik). Investasi dalam IPLT akan dibiayai dari: (i) bantuan pemerintah
pusat yang disalurkan kepada pemerintah daerah sebagai DAK; (ii) penerusan
pinjaman yang dibiayai oleh bank multilateral dan bilateral..
• Sanitasi Terpusat. Dalam jangka panjang, pemerintah daerah akan menanggung 30%
dari biaya penuh pelayanan dari retribusi komunal. Sisanya akan ditanggung dari
retribusi rumah tangga yang mendapatkan pelayanan ini. Pemerintah pusat akan
membiayai pembangunan sistem-sistem baru dari anggarannya yang ditambah dengan
pinjaman multilateral dan bilateral.
Dalam jangka pendek dan sedang, tidak mungkin bahwa investor swasta atau bank
komersial domestik akan dapat berperan dalam penanggulangan kesenjangan pembiayaan
tersebut.

5.6.2 Pengaturan institusional.
Pengaturan ini dapat dirangkum sebagai berikut:

• Pinjaman pemerintah pusat untuk fasilitas pengelolaan lumpur tinja akan disalurkan
sepenuhnya ke pemerintah daerah dalam bentuk DAK (Dana Alokasi Khusus) dan tidak
lagi sebagai Dana Dekonsentrasi.
• Pemerintah daerah akan mulai memungut “retribusi sanitasi komunal” untuk membiayai
100% dari biaya penuh pengelolaan lumpur tinja (dan 30% dari sanitasi terpusat, jika
ada). Biaya ini akan ditetapkan sebagai persentase tetap dalam pajak penerangan jalan
umum dan dikumpulkan bersama-sama dengan pajak ini.
• Pemerintah daerah akan memberikan tanggung jawab untuk pelayanan sanitasi ini
kepada suatu badang tunggal dan mendanai badan tersebut sesuai dengan
tanggungjawabnya.
6 RINGKASAN
6.1 Temuan Sanitasi
(i) Institusional (organisasi), untuk di level pusat yang sudah berjalan, dipandang
perlu memperkuat kemampuan berkoordinasi; semua stakeholders sepakat untuk
mengembangkan sanitasi dengan segala ‘tools’ yang telah disiapkan seperti
pelimpahan wewenang sanitasi (desentralisasi), adanya kebijakan, strategi, RPJM,
Action Plan, NSPM, peningkatan dana untuk sanitasi (contoh: Binpram CK mulai
2007 akan meningkatkan dana sub-sektor sanitasi menjadi 25% dari dana untuk sub-
sektor air minum). Yang masih diperlukan adalah pelaksanaan koordinasi yang lebih
intens dari institusi di tingkat pusat dalam mengembangkan sanitasi. Pada level di
pemerintah daerah, lembaga yang menangani sanitasi (air limbah) mempunyai
nomenklatur yang bervariasi dan perlu ditunjukkan pemeran yang berkewenangan
dan dilakukan pemisahan yang jelas antara peran regulator dan peran operator.
(ii) Kapasitas Lembaga/ institusi ditingkat pusat cenderung lebih mantap, mereka
sangat memahami masalah sanitasi di Indonesia termasuk target komitmen MDGs,
dan SDM professional, namun mengembangkan kebijakannya apalagi sampai tingkat
operasionalisasi di Daerah masih jauh dari apa yang diharapkan. Keadaan ini
dipengaruhi oleh berbagai faktor antara lain: (i) keberbagaian (variasi) lembaga
Daerah yang ada; (ii) demikian pula dengan ketersediaan sumber daya manusia
yang tepat kualifikasi dan profesinya; (iii) sering terjadi pergeseran jabatan SDM yang
tidak sesuai dengan kompetensinya; (iv) SDM terlatih atau telah mendapat training
sanitasi tetapi tidak ditempatkan pada posisi yang tarkait, (v) penugasan SDM untuk
mengikuti pelatihan tetapi bukan berasal dari instansi terkait dengan sanitasi dan
setelah selesai mengikuti training tidak ditempatkan pada instansi yang sesuai
(sanitasi). Perlukah dibentuk institusi khusus atau badan otoritas yang menangani
sanitasi, seperti halnya badan otoritas lain yang sudah ada atau seperti BPPSPAM?
(iii) Capacity Building. Operasionalisasi Sanitasi; Sesuai dengan dengan OTDA,

sanitasi sudah berada pada lingkungan masyarakat langsung. Penyedia dan
pengguna sudah dekat. Selanjutnya tinggal bagaimana pemkab dan pemkot
melaksanakan implementasi pengembangan sanitasi. Perlu pengkajian lebih lanjut
apakah ada permasalahan di tingkat operasional, mengapa sanitasi jalan ditempat,
apakah diperlukah capacity building untuk memberdayakan dalam pengembangan
sanitasi, kemudian seberapa jauh kapasitas lembaga/instansi/dinas yang terkait
dengan sanitasi dan bagaimana untuk meningkatkan kapasitas.

(iv) Advokasi; Diperlukan advokasi untuk level kota berkaitan dengan pemahaman dan
penyadaran pentingnya sanitasi dan promosi hygiene. Untuk menggulirkan
pemahaman supply driven menjadi demand driven, keberlanjutan dan demand
responsive. Bila ada suatu peraturan yang menyatakan bahwa pengembangan
sanitasi kota kecuali untuk individu adalah menjadi kewajiban pemerintah dan
masyarakat sadar bahwa sanitasi kota sudah merupakan kebutuhan masyarakat,
maka adalah sangat mungkin muncul class action bila masyarakat merasa
pelayanan sanitasi umum tidak memadai/ buruk.
(v) Regulasi, pada level pusat, regulasi sudah cukup banyak. Peraturan yang berkaitan
dengan sanitasi sudah tersedia. Yang diperlukan adanya penjelasan tambahan atau
revisi-revisi agar lebih jelas dan mempermudah proses deliveri kebijakan dan strategi
nasional sektor sanitasi ke tingkat daerah. Namun demikian kebijakan, dan strategi
nasional masih belum disiapkan payung hukumnya, seperti kebijakan sanitasi
berbasis masyarakat dan yang berbasis lembaga, NAP, kebijakan dan strategi
pengembangan penyehatan lingkungan pemukiman. Demikian juga beberapa
rancangan perturan mengenai sanitasi juga masih dalam bentuk rancangan. Perda,
kebijakan, strategi, RPJM, RPJP, kegiatan tahunan di pemkab/pemkot terkait dengan
sanitasi masih belum mengacu pada regulasi ditingkat nasional atau belum mengacu
pada kebijakan dan strategi naional karena belum mempunyai payung hukum untuk
diambil sebagai referensi.
No. REGULASI
1 UU Kes. 23/92
2 UU 23/92
3 UU 23/97
4 UU25/00
5 UU 7/04
6 PP 16/05
7 PP 82/01
8 PERPRES 67/2005
9 Kep Menkes 1575/05
10 Kep.Menkes 1274/05
11 Kepmen LH 112/03
(vi) Finansial, untuk peningkatan sanitasi apalagi untuk mencapai target MDGs tahun
2015 menjadi salah satu masalah utama. Dokumen NAP menyampaikan untuk
mencapai target MDGs perlu dana yang sangat besar. Dengan kondisi ekonomi
seperti sekarang besarannya bisa cukup fantastis. Seperti halnya kebutuhan dana di
tingkat nasional, pemda juga kesulitan dalam meningkatkan dana untuk
pengembangan sanitasi, disamping sanitasi belum menjadi prioritas untuk
dikembangkan dibandingkan pembangunan infrastruktur lainnya.
Perlu terobosan khusus untuk menggali dana bagi pengembangan sanitasi. Menggali
dari dana masyarakat?; Pinjaman dalam negeri?; Loan?; Soft Loan?; Grant? ; NGO?
Mengembangkan bisnis sanitasi dengan bisnis plan yang jelas? Pengembangan
entrepreneurship?. Mengembangkan bisnis sanitasi dengan bisnis plan yang jelas?
6.2 Umpan Balik Pelaksanaan Workshop
6.2.1 Kelembagaan
o Kalau lembaga tetap mengikuti tupoksi agar diperkuat koordinasi dan kebijakan
sanitasi yang terintegrasi baik berbasis masyarakat maupun berbasis lembaga;
o Lembaga penanggung jawab sanitasi agar dalam satu instansi;
o Pemisahan regulator dan operator;
o Bantuan teknis;

o Operator dapat bervariasi, tetapi lebih cenderung yang independent, tetapi

hendaknya operator IPAL (sewerage) dan IPLT dalam satu instansi;
o Perlu advokasi/sosialisasi DPRD, karena sangat berperan dalam hak budget,
termasuk perda retribusi juga harus acc DPRD;
o Perlu bantuan advokasi, marketing sanitasi untuk peningkatan kesadaran agar terjadi
perubahan dari suplay driven menjadi demand driven;
o Pelatihan operator IPLT, IPAL, SOP dan Maintenance M&E terutama yang kotanya
terdapat IPAL, serta Fasilitator.
6.2.2 Regulasi:
o Kebijakan sanitasi berbasis masyarakat (CBS) dan sanitasi berbasis kelembagaan

(IBS) agar segera dikeluarkan Peraturannya, sehingga dapat menjadi acuan Perda
mengenai sanitasi (payung hukum);
o Perlu UU sanitasi (khusus) ditingkat nasional;
o Perlu standarisasi substansi perda sanitasi termasuk pengertian dalam sanitasi;
o Peraturan yang memungkinkan diberikan akses ke fasilitas sanitasi bagi urban-poor
sekalipun tempat tinggalnya ilegal, misalnya dengan menyediakan MCK Sanimas
atau MCK dengan koneksi ke saluran air limbah perpipaan (sewerage);
o Perbanyak SNI yang berkaitan dengan sanitasi seperti norma, standar, pedoman,
juklak (NSPM) sebagai referensi di daerah (implementasi).
6.2.3 Finansial
o Pengertian business plan (BP), bantuan penyusunan BP dengan segala aspek yang
mendukungnya (pedoman, manual dll).
o Bantuan dana investasi, operasi dan pemeliharaan (O&M) minimal untuk 5 tahun
pertama atau stimulan lainnya (pilot project)
6.3 Action Plan untuk 6 bulan Mendatang
6.3.1 Aspek Kelembagaan
Tugas: mengembangkan kerangka kerja kelembagaan di tingkat nasional

• Mengadvokasi Pemerintah Indonesia untuk menyetujui kebijakan WASPOLA;
• Mengidentifikasi dan menilai pilihan-pilihan kelembagaan;
• Memulai dialog dengan pengampu kepentingan (stakeholder) nasional &
mengidentifikasi/merekrut pemenangnya;
• Mengembangkan pilihan kelembagaan: (panduan penatalaksanaan, panduan untuk
memperkuat sumber daya manusia, panduan untuk perpaduan perencanaan dan
penatalaksanaan, menyiapkan peraturan, tanggung jawab dan hubungan dalam
sanitasi).
• Program Dukungan Sanitasi: (pedidikan, sertifikasi, penelitian, dukungan teknis,
panduan)
6.3.2 Advokasi
Tugas: Mengembangkan kapasitas pembuat kebijakan kunci dan pengampu keputusan

(advokasi)
• Mengembangkan komunikasi untuk perubahan strategi (merencanakan untuk
advokasi pemimpin daerah dan berbicara dengan wanita);
• Sepakat untuk pesan-pesan kunci (membuat kasus sanitasi);
• Membuat rencana media;
• Mengembangkan outline & implementasi arah advokasi;
• Mengumpulkan sekutu;
• Mencari komunikator;
• Mencari pemenang.

6.3.3 Kebijakan dan Peraturan
Tugas: memperkuat kebijakan dan peraturan

• Menetapkan kerangka kerja untuk tingkat pelayanan minimal;
• Menyarankan mekanisme untuk menyepakati & memantau insentif target kota,
supervisi/sanksi;
• Mengajukan pemecahan untuk keterbatasan-keterbatasan hukum bagi tindakan
daerah;
• Menyiapkan outline peraturan sanitasi.
6.3.4 Aspek Keuangan
• Menyiapkan panduan untuk Cost Recovery dan kesinambungan:

• Substansi untuk insentif pajak bagi pengembangan sanitasi;
• Mengajukan Kebijakan Mekanisme Pendanaan;
• Mengajukan kerangka untuk kriteria investasi;
• Mengidentifikasi sumber pendanaan sesungguhnya;
• Mengestimasi tingkat pemakaian kapasitas infrastruktur yang telah ada;
• Menganalisis persyaratan pendanaan;
• Menganalisis kesenjangan pendanaan;
• Mengestimasi proyeksi sumber dana selama tahun 2007 dan setelahnya.
6.3.5 Panduan untuk Pemerintah Daerah
Tugas: Mengembangkan strategi dan panduan rencana aksi untuk pemerintah daerah
• Membentuk kelompok kerja dengan PU untuk membahas buku sumber;
• Mengidentifikasi isi manual LG (buku sumber sanitasi);
• Menyiapkan model sanitasi PERDA;
• Menyiapkan kerangka kerja untuk tingkat pelayanan minimal.

ANNEX 2 SANITATION AWARENESS AND HYGIENE PROMOTION
1.1 Market Studies, Campaign and Communication Packages
The national, segmented sanitation awareness and hygiene promotion campaigns, (with
related preparatory market studies), includes an array of smaller, self-contained packages.
For each package, distinct target groups, objectives, media channels and communication
materials apply. This break-down into smaller packages is a practical way to manage the
potential C3 workload.
The general purpose of each package in the process of change (awareness - change -
sustenance of change) is indicated in Table 3-1, Volume I, Main Report, Chapter 3.
Except for the priority campaigning in poor urban pilot areas, the Program does not envisage
large scale roll-outs of campaign packages. The Program outputs are defined as campaign
designs, pre-tested master materials and funding proposals for roll-out. In reality, the
packages listed here will not be "preserved" until such time when funding sources are
secured. Using own funding sources, several packages described here will be developed and
implemented on a pilot basis in the course of 2006 and early 2007, including typical advocacy
and community empowerment events. For immediate and future roll-outs, a campaign
implementation strategy will be worked out in the coming months, in consultation with the
SANWG, which addresses such issues as package sequencing, linkages, standardization
etc., issues that do not per se alter the production contents of each package.
Study package 1: KAM assessments

The best opportunities to know KAM-related barriers among decision makers would be their
response to milestone events in the sanitation planning process, both at National and City
levels, including bilateral meetings, workshops etc.
To make this work, meeting reviews will always include interpretive assessments on the
deeper KAM reasons that explain why officials are interested or reserved about sanitation
issues or proposed solutions. Findings will be specifically reported throughout the Program
period.
Study package 2: projected sanitation demand

The type and volume of city sanitation demands will be extrapolated from secondary data that
are available for Kelurahan level, including population data and socio-economic
characteristics. These projections of potential sanitation demand will be published as part of
the Sanitation White Books.
Study package 3: real sanitation demand assessments at community level

Real demand surveys will be implemented in problematic and poor city areas, as prioritised
for improvement in the coming 3-5 years by the Kelurahan. These PSA based sessions will
be the first in a series of events in related communities, as indicated in package 6.2, and will
be followed up with demand raising campaigns and sosialisasi events at the time of
implementation.
Implementation: November 2006 - March 2007, starting in Blitar, Surakarta and Banjarmasin
with the other cities to follow.

Study package 4: sanitation supply studies

Supply study components 1-7 will be implemented as separate or combined activities. Study and survey
findings will form the basis for general capacity conclusions and specific promotion, briefing or training
packages recommended for each target group to increase their quality and quantity of supply, promote
public-private partnerships, development of supportive regulations, credit facilities etc.
Implementation: August - December 2006, international and local experts being mobilized.
Study package 5: hygiene behavior

As defined in package 10.1 and 10.2, the HWWS campaigns will be segmented for various mass media
and target groups, each requiring specific styling and triggers. Concept master materials (posters, video
clips, guidelines) will be extensively pre-tested prior to expensive roll-outs and duplication. Where
campaigning is based on personal intermediates (teachers, office bosses, women groups, medical staff)
it is assumed that they have sufficient feeling for their target group to determine additional convincing
triggers for their audience, while maintaining the basic ingredients of the HWWS message. Close
monitoring of the pilot campaigns should confirm the validity of this assumption (action research).
1.2 National Sanitation Awareness Campaigns
Sanitation Awareness Package 1.1: National sanitation mass media campaign

Includes series interrelated messages in one or more mass media. Possible main theme: disgust, shock,
enough-is-enough, shame, clean/healthy city. The main theme will be sequentially combined with sub-
themes such as open defecation, human waste disposal, solid waste issues, drainage, school sanitation,
washing hands with soap etc.
Actions
o SANWG to articulate campaign ownership, strategy and concrete topics as per GOI policies
o C3 to assist SANWG with exploring media interests and establishing campaign partnerships
o C3 to subcontract national baseline and monitoring mechanism
o C3 to pre-design and pre-test short media messages and materials
Sanitation Awareness Package 1.2: National newspaper coverage
Free press coverage

Invite major national newspapers and weeklies. Brief on the need to expose urban sanitation issues,
seek official responses, explore role of private sector, the cost of doing nothing, provoke with pictures
and statements, keep up the heat.
Focus on journalists with demonstrated interest in ISSDP/development issues. Negotiate regular

coverage. Ask journalists to act on their own initiative and follow-up on ISSDP hints. Regularity is key:
e.g. at least twice a week for 6-12 months.
Concept cartoons
Subcontract cartoonist to publish a series of 3-4 picture cartoons, e.g. once every week, related to
behaviors we wish to expose. Introduce anti-pollution “wise cracker”.
Advertising
Buy newspaper space for special announcements from Ministries, ISSDP etc on policies, new projects
and, especially, solid work progress.
Start-up by September 2006.

Sanitation Awareness Package 1.3: National TV and Radio Coverage

For further exploration required: inserted messages in popular sitcoms, talk shows etc., reports,
documentaries, news items.
1.3 City level sanitation awareness campaigns
Sanitation Awareness Package 2.1: city level campaigns

Includes series of interventions with public displays in streets, coverage by local media etc. Possible
main theme: disgust, shock, enough-is-enough, shame, clean/healthy city. The main theme will be
sequentially combined with sub-themes such as open defecation, human waste disposal, solid waste
issues, drainage, washing hands with soap.
Actions
o Local contests e.g. to develop clean/healthy city logo, essay on creative solutions etc.
o Establish local coalition for health improvement: Koalisi untuk <City name> Sehat, following the
example of Jakarta (KUJS). This would open the door for collaboration with KUIS.
o Review existing experience with larger city campaigns, popular channels, production capacity
o Establish working relation with INFOKOM Kota Madya and assess their interest
o C3 to provide technical assistance and limited or no funding.
Sanitation Awareness package 2.2: local press coverage

1 Prepare city specific press briefings
2 Identify and mobilize local journalists with demonstrated interest. Brief on ISSDP, City
sanitation and role of the (free) press.
3 Repetition/regularity in publicity is key: e.g. at least twice a week for a whole year.
4 Monitor what happens. Maintain clipping dossier
5 Buy advertising space to make public statements, report on tangible progress, special
sanitation column.
6 Optional (nice but not critical): publication of nationally produced cartoon series, or
locally contracted version
Start-up (1-2): August - September 2006. Implementation: continuous
Sanitation Awareness package 2.3: local TV and radio coverage

For further exploration: inserted messages in local popular programs, talk shows, news reports.
Sanitation Awareness Package 2.4: local rules, regulations and adat
Sanitation programs often include initiatives that can hardly be labeled as systematic “campaigns”.
However, with proper follow-up these loose ideas can help to create awareness and demand.
Examples:
o Open defecation, polluting sceptic tanks etc. are declared “illegal”, or “environmental offences”.
As per current legislation this is already the case, but enforcement is not considered. Activation
of these rules, even without immediate penalties for the time being, will make polluters
wonder… and officials have some basis to issue official “warnings” or create embarrassment.
o Building permissions and as-build inspections are only issued if the minimum requirements for
sanitation are met.

o PUSKESMAS Sanitarians already have an official responsibility to check the location and
functioning of sceptic tanks and soak pits. As part of local campaigning they step up their
supervision role.
o Couples registering their intended marriage are explained that their new responsibilities include
sanitation at home, as basis for a healthy family life.
o Candidate Hadj pilgrims, about to become respected religious and social role models, are
required to have adequate sanitation at home or, alternatively, help to solve pollution issues in
their direct living area.
o Authorities start to test groundwater samples in suspected problem areas and provide feedback
on the results to households, creating appropriate unrest and awareness.
o Public monitoring (by schools, students, volunteers) of restaurants, hotels, food stalls, polluted
places, public toilets, using simple indicators. Immediate start possible.
Implementation / try-outs: continuous
Sanitation Awareness Package: ISSDP visibility and public relation materials
1. House style for printed materials, including logo.

2. ISSDP brochure
3. Fact sheets one page topical leaflets e.g. urban sanitation strategy, newsletter, city profiles, etc.
4. Posters, as produced by PT Qipra Galang Kualita. For further adaptation, expansion, printing and
distribution. Office use.
5. Sector booklet Ini bukan lagi urusan pribadi! Produced by PT Qipra Galang Kualita and printed as
nd
part of ISSDP Fast Track Studies. Additional copies and revised 2 edition required.
6. Stock materials with collection of digital pictures for re-use in presentations, reports etc. Started
and still growing.
7. Promotion items (optional)
8. Calendar 2007, in co-production with WASPOLA. Distribution: December 2006.
9. Web site with downloadable documents, counter, chatbox, newsletter etc.
10. Who is who in ISSDP booklet, with staff photos and profiles
11. Sanitation Solutions. Several versions / adaptations will be required:
1. Very basic and large (flip chart) set of pictures/drawings to generate informed decisions during
Participatory Sanitation Assessment and Planning sessions at community level. Production:
August - September 2006.
2. Same set, adapted as posters. Production: August - September 2006.
3. Same set, adapted as pocket book for households: "People's catalogue of sanitation solutions".
Production: August - September 2006.
4. Loose leaf collection of sanitation solutions (technologies and approaches) for decision makers,
following Philippines example. Production: September 2006 - March 2007.
5. Same as 11.4, including decision flow charts etc. as manual for sanitation experts/planners,
following Philippines example. Production: September 2006 - March 2007.
Also considered:
Sanitation Development Partners: resource book / yellow pages with institutions, resource persons,
programs, donors, sponsor profiles etc.
Sanitation Champions & Initiatives : collection of example case histories and initiatives, covering the
whole spectrum of sanitation solutions. Includes pictures, interviews etc. Mainly from ISSDP cities.

Advocacy Package 3.1: National milestone events
1. ISSDP's core management and SANWG members to recognize and prepare for their role as
advocates, lobbyists and negotiators in enabling framework.
2. Map enabling framework, including key positions, movers and shakers, champions.
3. Define key messages and outputs of ISSDP, including selling points and anticipated ambiguities.
4. Based on 1-3 above: Define advocacy communication plan as series of events and opportunities
linked to general ISSDP work plan: who says what to whom, when and how in workshops, bilateral
and topical meetings, etc. This will probably result in new and adapted designs of advocacy
materials.
5. Formalized training in personal advocacy and lobbying skills might be required.
6. Most advocacy events will require: (a) presentation rehearsals, (b) review of documents, handouts
and presentation materials with respect to clarity, solutions, house style, and (c) review of events
and meetings with respect to barriers and motivators (=KAM assessments).
Start-up (1-5): August - November 2006. Implementation (6): continuous
Advocacy package 3.2: City level milestone events
1. POKJAs and City Facilitators decide on milestone meetings in the sanitation strategy development
process and treat these as advocacy opportunities.
7. Formalized training in personal advocacy and lobbying skills might be required. For CFs a first
exposure session is scheduled on 16 August 2006
2. POKJAs and City Facilitators identify credible local facilitator/lobbyist for all crucial meetings and
related pre & post meeting lobbying. It is advised to use the same facilitator/lobbyist for all events to
guarantee continuity and consistency.
3. For crucial meetings: invite Mayor, SEKDA or Kepala BAPPEDA to chair. Rehearse presentations
with feedback from internal team. Review documents, handouts and presentation materials with
respect to clarity, solution-orientation, consistent house styling.
4. Internally review each crucial meeting, keeping track of personal barriers and motivators, subjects to
avoid or exploit with key decision makers (KAM assessment).
5. Production of standard support materials, including posters, booklets and brochures, pictures/slides
for use in presentations, video programs and other materials that would be difficult or too expensive
to produce locally. City Facilitators to personally distribute these materials, monitor actual usage and
responses, and keep copies at hand in their office.
Start-up (1-2): August - September 2006. Implementation (6): continuous
Advocacy package 3.3: Multi-city summits
1. Mayor+SEKDA+Kepala BAPPEDA+CFs = 6 x 4 persons. Rotate venue. Add external facilitator and

person to take minutes. 1.5 day (two nights) in conducive environment.
2. Who will issue the invitation: Minister of Home Affairs, DG, national ambassador for sanitation?
Avoid sending of delegated staff (how?).
3. If these summits pick up momentum, they could rotate, with each city hosting in turn. First summit in
Jakarta by November/December 2006.
4. Proceedings/topics: exchange urban planning visions and logical links with sanitation improvement,
compare notes on experiences in ISSDP and articulate expectations, introduce elements of peer
pressure and competition.
5. Next meeting in 2007 could be used to meet directly with Donors and discuss funding criteria and
mechanisms.
6. Lobby in advance with possible champions to play a key role. Include interesting site visits or guest
speakers.
Note: City Facilitators to make their own arrangements for ad hoc local “twinning” such as Solo – Blitar
(already happing), Payakumbuh - Jambi.
Implementation: One meeting in 2006 + two in 2007

Participation and empowerment package 4.1: Kelurahan consultation and information

sessions
Basic agenda:
Morning:
1. Overview of city dreams and urban planning (15 min)
2. Overview of sanitation issues in the city, seriousness, risks etc (15 min)
3. Summary of PEMDA planning cycle and position of Kelurahan (15 min)
4. Open inventory sanitation issues and possible solutions in the Kelurahan. Results of
previous PSAP among poor communities are tabled. (extensive)
5. Additional information on sanitation solutions: catalogue materials (15 min)
Afternoon:
6. Priorities, plans, implementation modalities, willingness to pay etc. (extensive)
7. Summary sessions: potential demands, trends etc. as input for sanitation strategy, next
steps (30 minutes)
Notes:
1. Opening by Mayor (c.s.) to confirm relevance of event and pave the way for sanitation
priorities.
2. All presentations to be checked for clarity and appeal to the audience
3. Requires good external facilitator
4. Mainly Lurah are invited, not other higher up dignitaries as they would dominate or inhibit
discussions with their presence. POKJA members as observers in the background.
5. Focus on participation of Kelurahan with poor areas and focus on sanitation for the poor
6. Compile findings and to make sure these are channeled to the right persons/agencies to
make the voice and choice of the kelurahan heard.
7. Plans and priorities for "total sanitation": human waste, solid waste and drainage
8. Seek coverage by local media
Participation and empowerment package 4.2: Community sanitation assessments
1. Includes a series of events, in quick logical succession, including local awareness

campaigns as warming-up and practical information dissemination on sanitation solutions.
Targets will be set in the range of 50-80% coverage.
2. Warming-up campaigns will include production of banners, music, contests, appearances
of popular personalities etc. Usually, local organizers can be found to organise such
happenings in a creative manner.
3. The main features of Participatory Sanitation Assessments (PSA) sessions include:
guided self-discovery of the main issues, open-ended priority setting for human waste,
drainage, solid waste solutions, extensive use of local knowledge and creativity, no
promises of subsidies for households and stressing collective community participation as
condition for LG involvement.
4. PSA sessions will include initial efforts to negotiate community tasks/contributions and the
involvement of the private sector and the local government. It is important that facilitators
know all the ins and outs of sanitation solutions (catalogue) that are on offer.
5. Protocols for PSA are available from other programs. Lack of local facilitators may limit
the volume of PSA sessions in all prioritized areas.
6. Results of PSA sessions (mainly primary qualitative data) are fed into the existing annual
planning cycle at Kelurahan level. Perhaps additional lobbying and promotion of results is
required at higher planning levels (Kecamatan, City) and in the private sector.

Special issues package 5.1: hazardous sceptic tanks
Mainly in better-off areas, where ground water pollution is a demonstrated public health issue.
If there is no immediate health threat, neighborhoods may still be interested to improve
dysfunctional or smelly tanks, resolve sludging issues etc.
The package will include local awareness campaigns and public consultations with
households in problem neighborhoods, including information, presentation of various options
to improve tanks and negotiations / agreements with municipal or private service providers.
Special issues package 5.2: optimization of sewer systems
Standard campaigns include timely pre-, during and post construction information of what is
happening, what it will mean (services, payments) and what the benefits are. Door-to-door &
public hearings expected.
Issues may include:

o Number of house connection remains below expectations (Banjarmasin)
o Many in-house toilets are not connected to the system.
o Inconvenience/protest caused by delays, successive repairs, street break-ups (Denpasar)
o Pockets of uncovered areas within the system
o Industries drain hazardous waste water in the system
o Services and payment issues, including lack of willingness to pay.
Special issues package 5.3: Polluting small industries and medical wastes in living
areas
Campaign details to be worked out. Includes: promotion of on-site or nearby treatment tanks
for the industry with enough capacity to link households in the same area.
Schools Sanitation package 6.1: total school sanitation

Campaign details to be worked out. Individual projects should include provisions for sceptic
tank, hygiene promotion, solid waste management, "3-R" contests, curriculum inserts etc.
Example school packages are available from other programs and will be compiled and
translated for distribution.
Sanitation Supply Promotion Package 7.1: NGOs, Universities and consulting firms.
Studies and assessments may confirm the need stimulate capacity building and training in
community facilitation, sanitation project management and other areas of assistance. The
success and scale of ISSDP initiatives depend on sufficient capacity in these areas.

Sanitation Supply Promotion Package 7.2: Media and campaign resources, including
local press, TV, radio, internet providers, material designers, publishers, printers etc. who
might play an independent or subcontracted role in local campaigning and the public
coverage of sanitation issues and developments.
Sanitation Supply Promotion Package 7.3: Potential sponsors. Once the potential of
CSR-based sponsoring (national and in the cities) is defined, a special package is required to
stimulate interest of potential in ISSDP activities. This includes news letters, workshop, visits
and, ultimately, the submission of funding proposals for long term commitments. At short
term, selected candidate sponsors will be approached for the funding of HWWS and school
campaigns.
Sanitation Supply Promotion Package 7.4: Door-to-door service providers, including

latrine and sceptic tank builders, plumbers for installation and unblocking services. Studies
and assessments may show a need to inform door-to-door providers on potential sanitation
markets and to arrange for training on skills, technical standards etc.
Sanitation Supply Promotion Package 7.5: Public services and businesses, including
shared toilet facility operators in neigborhoods and busy public places, private carriers, solid
waste recyclers and middle men. Where studies and assessments confirm a potential market
and entrepreneurial interest, information campaigns and coaching support will be defined.
Sanitation Supply Promotion Package 7.6: Shops and manufacturers of components.

Studies may confirm the need to stimulate commercial interest in the growing urban sanitation
markets.
Sanitation Supply Promotion Package 7.7: Learning, research and information centres.
Based on study and assessment findings, recommendations for institution, professional
networking and capacity building will be drafted and promoted. The actual implementation of
capacity building plans for sanitation knowledge management will be outside the scope of
ISSDP. For immediate use, City Facilitators establish local libraries of printed and electronic
documents.

Hygiene Promotion Package 8.1: National HWWS initiatives and media campaign
Still open for debate and decisions:

1. Positioning of GOI or non-government coalitions (KUIS) as national HWWS campaigner.
2. Public Private Partnerships
3. Recruitment of a national HWWS Coordinator
4. Direct involvement of national agencies in local City campaigns (Package 8.2)
5. By April - August 2007: proposals for continued mass media campaigning and scaling-up
of campaigns based on direct consumer contacts whereby HWWS coalition partners
dispatch tested guidelines and materials to all schools, all mosques, all PUSKESMAS, all
GOI offices, all PKK units in the country etc.
National mass media:

1. Newspapers/magazines: continuous ads, articles and local campaign reports
2. Radio and TV: repeated commercials, talk shows, demonstrations
3. Stickers/inlays with HWWS details provided with soap, as constant reminder at a national
scale. Soap is the only single medium that will repeatedly reach all target groups at
national scale with very low cost.
Hygiene Promotion Package 8.2: hand-washing with soap - city level
Objective: Reduced incidence of sanitation related diarrhoea and mortality among children
between 0 - 5 years in selected problem zones of six ISSDP pilot cities.
Main events in the cities

With personal intermediates:
1. PKK (Pendidikan Kesejahteraan Keluarga) with topical sessions in selected
poor/problem areas.
2. Mosques/Imams providing HWWS and cleanliness messages during Friday prayers
as part of the existing Clean Friday Movement.
3. PUSKESMAS & POSYANDU with personal advise, demos, practice and display
points, focusing on mothers with children in the critical age range.
4. GOI / PEMDA to ensure availability of soap and HWWS reminders in toilets of offices.
5. Schools to ensure availability of soap, HWWS reminders and educational activities to
change pupils' behaviour.
6. (Self-)monitoring and evaluation.
Optional simultaneous local media coverage:

1. Local newspapers: including adverts, cartoon series, news coverage
2. Local TV: adverts, inserted messages in talk shows, interviews
3. Local radio: adverts, talk shows, news and event coverage
4. Street displays: busses, public buildings, active city areas
Detailed activities: August 2006 - March 2007

a) Prepare HWWS campaign write-up and inform POKJAs and local intermediates.
Explore interest and decide on the basics: priority areas, strategy, funding, indicators.
b) Meetings with potential local sponsors, secure commitments
c) Undertake preparatory base line studies in selected city zones: health situation, media
channels, local styling. Some, but not all, data collection takes place as part of
preparation of the Sanitation White Book
d) Local launches and implementation
e) Prepare end-of-campaign reports and evaluations

Materials for central ISSDP production and pre-testing

1. Summary of HWWS research evidence (fact sheet)
2. Reader with collected short articles providing more evidence
3. Sticker "How to wash your hands with soap", for inclusion and distribution with soap
4. Booklet with quotes on cleanliness from the Quran, as available from the Council of
Ulamas
5. Commercials (30/60 seconds) for TV and Radio, newspaper ads etc.

ANNEX 3 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
These quality management procedures are referred to DHV Quality Management System
conform to ISO 90001:2000 and other documents. The procedures related to the consultants
work on ISSDP include:
A. Project Monitoring
B. Project Completion
C. Handling of Project Document
However, further consultant’s specific quality management and quality assurance plan will be
developed after the inception report. This being a first draft only.

A. PROJECT MONITORING
1. OBJECTIVE
This procedure describes the activities and associated responsibilities involved in managing,
monitoring and adjusting the implementation of the project in relation to the project plan. In
cases where DHV acts as the leading partner or the sole consultant, the reference framework
consists of the ToR and the project plan from the inception (reporting) phase, while for small
assignments it is the ToR and the plan from the proposal.
2. DEFINITIONS
Project monitoring Managing the project development on the basis of the

project plan and internal and external progress reports.
Project control Managing the financial and economic aspects of project

development on the basis of the internal task-setting
project budget, current financial reports and bookings.
External progress report Progress reports made for the employer.
Internal progress report Progress reporting between the project manager and
project director.
Documentation of results Studies, specifications, etc., for the employer that are
specified in the project plan as an output/result of the
project.
Adjustment within the margins Adjustment of a project (activity) while no changes are
being made to the contract and/or budget/profits.
Adjustment outside the margins Adjustment of a project (activity) that cause changes to be
made to the contract and/or budget/profits.
Project progress review A systematic, documented and periodic review of the

progress of the project by the project director, carried out if
possible during his/her visit to the project location or
otherwise based on reports and contacts with the project
manager, in order to:
- simplify management control over the activities that
affect any changes made to the project plan and/or the
contract.
- determine the activities required and responsibilities
for any adjustments that may be made.
Shortcoming A shortcoming is an undesired, incomplete or missing

project result—reported by an employee of DHV —which
has far-reaching consequences for the profit margin and/or
contract/project plan, and which can be traced back to
internal activities/procedures.
Internal complaint A complaint submitted in writing by an employee of DHV.
External complaint A complaint submitted in writing by an external party.

contract
project plan
periodic
project
planning
internal progress project project team member

analysis
review director manager activities
measure
external
progress
reporting
internal
progress
reporting
3. WORK METHOD
3.1 Project monitoring by team members
Each team member is responsible for carrying out input checks, and for monitoring the
progress of the project plan in relation to his/her contribution to the project concerned. He/she
reports on the findings periodically to the project manager. DHV team member may request
for an internal progress review if he/she thinks this is necessary.
3.2 Project monitoring by the project manager
The project manager is responsible for collecting, measuring, systematizing and analyzing
progress. This periodic review of the state of affairs is carried out at evaluation points
specified before and in the project plan. The monitoring can be based on the quarterly project
monitoring form. The progress achieved is systematized and compared with the project plan.
The causes and effects of good and poor results and of delays or advances on the time
schedule are analyzed, and corrective activities are formulated if necessary. External and
internal progress reports are written based on the before mentioned information.
3.2.1 External progress report

In consultation with the project director, the project manager is responsible for external
progress reporting in accordance with the ToR/project plan/contract. The project manager is
responsible for ensuring that at least one copy of each progress report that has been
authorized and sent to the employer is available in the relevant sector of DHV.
3.2.2 Internal progress report

The project manager is responsible for producing short written progress reports to the Project
Director periodically (monthly, or at least quarterly) with the he frequency of such reports is
determined and recorded for each project at the point when responsibilities and powers of the
Project Director are delegated to the project manager.

The styles of the reports have to follow the house style standard of the project approved by
employer. These reports must contain at least the following details:
- Financial accounts as laid down in the financial and administrational procedures of DHV
(including a budget update, cash/bank details and copies of invoices sent to the
employer)
- Progress report (between one and a maximum of three pages long). This report
supplements the progress report to the employer. The points to be covered in this report
include working with third parties, and risks and problems that may potentially be
expected
- Copy of any letters that are relevant to risk management; i.e. letters which can give rise
to (substantial) changes which cannot be agreed to without further consultation with the
employer.
The Project Director is responsible for providing written feedback in response to these
reports. This must comprise at least the following:
- Financial feedback as laid down in the Financial Manual (including a budget update and
payments of invoices sent to the employer)
- Feedback in response to internal progress reports.
3.2.3 Documentation of results

The project manager is responsible for ensuring that at least one copy of each ‘results
document’ that has been authorized and sent to the employer is available in the relevant
sector of DHV.
3.3 Project monitoring by the project director
The project director is responsible for project monitoring based on the written communication
recorded in the external and internal progress reports and the monthly financial summaries
generated by project control (refer to financial/administrational procedures DHV). In addition
to this, a systematic, documented periodic review of the project's progress is carried out at
least once a year.
3.4 Making adjustments
3.4.1 Making adjustments for nonconformities

A distinction can be drawn between the following four control measures for carrying out
adjustments:
- change nothing because the nonconformity is negligible (project manager's
responsibility).
- make adjustments within the margins (project manager's responsibility). Improvements
are formulated, in consultation with the project team, until the (sub-)project is found to be
closer to, or completely in accordance with, the project plan when the next check on the
state of affairs is carried out.
- make adjustments outside the margins (Project Director responsibility). The contract,
subcontract, joint venture agreement or service agreement is changed, in consultation
with the employer/partner, in accordance with the Contract Changes sections of the
Concluding a Contract Procedure, Working with Third Parties Procedure, and the Buying
in Expertise Procedure. Changes to budgets/profit margins are carried out in accordance
with the Financial Manual.
- stop a sub-project/activity in cases where it appears to be pointless or impossible to
continue the activity in its present form. If this falls within the margins of the project plan,
it is the responsibility of the project manager, while if it falls outside the margins, it is the
Project Director’s responsibility.
3.4.2 Dealing with shortcomings, complaints and claims

Any shortcomings, complaints or claims that may be observed and/or reported are notified.


4. ACTIVITIES/POSITION MATRIX
Project Secretary
Sector Controller
Sector Secretary
Project Manager
Project Director
POSITIONS
Specialist
Activities
Project monitoring by team members
Project monitoring by project manager
Project monitoring by project director
External progress reports
Internal progress reports
Feedback on internal progress reports
Documentation of results
Adjustments within the margin
Adjustment outside the margin

4.1 QUARTERLY PROJECT MONITORING FORM
GENERAL DATA OF THE PROJECT
Project Name/Country
Reference Number
Project Director
Project Manager
Reporting Period
PROJECT PROGRESS PERIOD

01 Progress of the project 1
General progress of the consultancy services:
Bottlenecks in the implementation:
Bar chart of activities, progress line (to be annexed):
Copy of progress report made for the client (to be annexed):
Copy of important correspondence with client/financier; minutes of meetings, etc. (to be

annexed if not yet sent separately):
02 Personnel 2
Personnel engaged in the project (bar charts and time sheets to be annexed, if not yet sent
separately):
Bottlenecks:
Personnel approved/disapproved by the client:
Personnel from the partners, local consultants:
Miscellaneous matters (salaries, insurance, accommodation, education, vehicles, etc.):

03 Finance 3
Status of invoices and payments (status report/chart to be annexed, if not yet sent
separately):
Need for change in established transfers from DHV/HQ and local transfer schedules:
Specific problems in running costs, budget and expenditures:
Cash/Bank statements (to be annexed if not sent separately):
04 Contractual matters 4
Claims:
Litigation matters (if any):
End of contract:
Proposals for contract extension:
Contract of local partner(s)/local (sub)consultant(s):

05 Miscellaneous 5
Study tours for client’s representatives/others:
Political developments in country of project:
Conferences/Workshops:
Project possibilities in country of project (copies of announcements to be annexed):
Information on project in local media:
06 Actions required by DHV HQ/Project Director 6

Personnel:
Finance:
Contractual matters:
Miscellaneous:

4.2 PROJECT COMPLETION
4.2.1 OBJECTIVE
This procedure describes the activities and responsibilities related to completing a project.
4.2.2 WORK METHOD
4.2.2.1 Draw up a draft final report

In consultation with the team members and the project reports
director, the project manager is responsible for drawing

up the draft final report in accordance with the project plan
and contract.
draw up
draft final report
4.2.2.2 Sign and send draft final report
The project manager signs the draft final report, sends it
to the principal, the partner(s) and the project director for
comments and approval. sign and
send draft
4.2.2.3 Formulate comments and criticisms

The project director is responsible for ensuring that the
draft final report is drawn up in accordance with the client's
internal
agreements laid down in the contract. If necessary, a comments and
criticisms comments and
short report (action list with comments and criticisms) is criticisms
sent to the project manager.
4.2.2.4 Draw up final report

In consultation with the project director, the project
manager is responsible for ensuring that the comments draw up
final report
and criticisms of both the principal and the project director
are incorporated in the final report.
4.2.2.5 Sign and send final report sign and send

final report
Unless the project director decides otherwise, the project final report
manager signs and sends the final report to the principal,
the partner(s) and to the sector of DHV concerned.
4.2.2.6 Employer satisfaction and certificate of

completion Certificate of
Client Completion of
For each project an evaluation of the satisfaction of the satisfaction Services
employer will be carried out, and using one of the
following scenarios:
- on the basis of an interview by the project
manager with the Employer and/or the beneficiary
(if different);
- by the project director him/herself, in DHV head office
The approach will preferably be to visit and interview representatives of the employer and the
beneficiary party. Employer’s pertinent questions can be responded to during the interview
and the project manager can react to the responses given on the questionnaire.
4.2.2.7 Internal final discussion

After completion of projects with a value over and above EU 250,000 or project duration
longer than 6 months, a final evaluation takes place between at least the project director and

project manager. This discussion is based on the Internal Final Discussion Checklist and will
also take into account the findings from the principal satisfaction interview.
Any relevant issues are recorded in writing. Evaluations of partners and of procured services
are handled in accordance with the Working with Third Parties Procedure including filling of
form CONS 14f2) and the Buying in Expertise Procedure.
4.2.2.8 Project Reference System (PRS)

The project manager ensures that the project description data
are in a suitable form to serve as input data for PRS. A project
description is written at the start of a project and brought into
Internal final
the PRS; if necessary, this description should be adjusted by discussion
the project director during the project and in any case by the
project manager at project completion, including roles of
PRS
partners, achievements and results.
fin/adm.
4.2.2.9 Complete project procedures
Preferably, the project should be finished and closed by the close project
project manager or, if this can only be done at a later stage, by administration
the project director. The decentralized project file is closed in archiving
accordance with the Archiving Procedure no earlier than after
final payment has been received.
after-care
follow-up
4.2.2.10 After-care and follow-up
The project director is responsible for the after-care and follow- end
up towards the principal in case this is specified in the contract.
If relevant (for the Institutional Memory), after some time has elapsed, the project director or
his/her representative inquires into the employer’s experiences with the project in question.
The employer is entitled to request copies of the results reports for at least ten years after
completion of the project.

5. ACTIVITIES/POSITION MATRIX
Project Secretary
Sector Controller
Sector Secretary
Quality Manager
Project Manager
Project Director
Sector Director
POSITIONS
Specialist
Activities
Draw up draft final report
Sign and send draft final report
Formulate comments and criticism
Draw up final report
Sign and send final report
PRS data
Certificate of Completion of Services
Principal satisfaction
Internal final discussion
Complete and close the project
After-care and follow-up

5.1 HANDLING OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS
• INTRODUCTION
During the project, project documents are received, produced and mailed. Rules exist for
this process, aiming at a correct distribution and that guarantee the recovering of project
documents.
• PROJECT DEFINITION AND FILE NUMBERS

There is a distinction between contract-related and non contract-related projects.
1. Contract-related project
A contract-related project is a set of activities resulting from acquisition or from a contract
with a customer.
2. Non contract-related project

A non contract-related project (NOW) is a set of activities that are performed on DHV own
costs.
3. Special non contract-related project

A special non contract-related project is an activity (i.e. for: structural co-operations,
alliances, V.O.F.’s, etc.) which for filing and archiving is treated as a contract-related project
(see 2.1).
4. File number
Each project is identified by a unique and permanent file number. Under the file numbers of
NOW activities no (parts of) projects as mentionned in 2.1 and 2.3 are archived.
• ELECTRONIC MAIL REGISTRATION

Registration of incoming and outgoing mail on project locations that are not connected
to DHV-LAN, is performed on the guidelines/instruction of the project leader or team
leader.
• HANDLING OF INCOMING PROJECT DOCUMENTS

Project documents arriving in the central mail room, are sorted by the mail department,
after which it is distributed to the secretaries, who register and distribute the documents
within their own sector/department. Depending on the contents and the nature of the
documents, it is distributed to the different employees. There is a distinction between
class A and class B documents. At project locations outside the central accommodation,
handling takes place on instruction of the project leader or team leader.

1. Class A documents (financial/legal)

Class A documents concern financial and legal aspects of a project. The project manager
is responsible for these aspects. After registration, the project manager receives a copy of
the documents. He determines the subsequent actions. The original documents are
transferred to the company archivist for inclusion in the Central Project File (CPF) or for
keeping in the safe.
2. Class B documents (technical)

Class B documents concern the technical aspects of the project. These documents are
handed over to the team members to deal with. Subsequent treatment depends on the
guidelines/indications given by the project leader or team leader.
3. E-mail, fax
The recipients are responsible for the registration and distribution (refer to 4.1 and 4.2) of
mail which is sent to the organisation in other ways (e-mail, fax) and which is received by
DHV in external meetings.
• IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS

The identification of produced project documents is very important. Refer to the
relevant procedure(s).
• DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS

When distributing project documents, a distinction is made between project
documents that are for internal use only and documents that are sent to third parties.
1. Project documents for internal use only

The distribution of these documents depends on the guidelines/directions, given
by the project leader or the team leader. In most cases, the distribution is
performed by the team members, who also take care of the filing in the Local
Project File (LPF). In case of a discipline integrated Local Project File, a secretary
may perform this task.
2. Project documents destined for third parties

The author takes care of the signing by an authorised employee . The author also
decides which persons within the organisation receive a copy. The secretary
registers the documents, performs the internal distribution and the dispatch to the
post department. A copy of each document is included in the Local Project File
(LPF), or if applicable in the discipline integrated Local Project File. The original of
class A documents is sent to the company archivist for inclusion in the Central
Project Files (CPF) or for keeping in the safe, a copy is sent to the project
administration. It is not necessary to submit copies of class B documents to the
Information Management Department or to the project administration.
• E-MAIL
After sending a class A document by e-mail, a signed analogue document is
forwarded also.
A copy of the signed analogue document is submitted to company archivist
for inclusion in the Central Project File (CPF) or for keeping in the safe.

Report of Inception - Report - Issdp

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Report of Inception - Report - Issdp

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BAPPENAS

Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development

VOLUME 1 MAIN REPORT

Annex 1 SANITATION SECTOR ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 1

4 Environmental condition .......................................................................................................... 15

KAJIAN SEKTOR SANITASI............................................................................................................... 27

2.3.1 Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup....................................................................................... 36

5.6.1 Sistem Pendanaan .........................................................................................................50

6.2.1 Kelembagaan ................................................................................................................. 52

6.3 Action Plan untuk 6 bulan Mendatang ........................................................................... 53

6.3.1 Aspek Kelembagaan ...................................................................................................... 53

ANNEX 2 SANITATION AWARENESS AND HYGIENE PROMOTION ............................................. 55

ANNEX 3 Quality Management System ............................................................................................ 66

A. PROJECT MONITORING ........................................................................................................... 67

3.1 Project monitoring by team members ......................................................................... 68

3.2.1 External progress report ............................................................................................. 68

3.3 Project monitoring by the project director ................................................................... 69

3.4.1 Making adjustments for nonconformities .................................................................... 69

4.1 QUARTERLY PROJECT MONITORING FORM ........................................................ 71

4.2.1 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................74

4.2.2.1 Draw up a draft final report ......................................................................................... 74

5. ACTIVITIES/POSITION MATRIX ................................................................................................ 76

Figure 5-1 Services delivered by a sanitation system ........................................................................20

ANNEX 1 SANITATION SECTOR ASSESSMENT

1.1 Policies and Sanitation Strategy

Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 1

RPJMN UPAYA MEMPERBAIKI

Kondisi NPB +AP

tercemar berta air limbah

MOH + AP MPW + AP Pemprop

1.2 Strategic approach

In studying sanitation problems, ISSDP

(Strategy and Action)

Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 2

1.3 Legal Aspect and Regulation

Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 3

o Lack of domestic wastewater management plans and strategies in local government;

Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 4

Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 5

Table 1-1 Laws and Regulations Relating to Sanitation

No Law / Regulation Stipulation

Article 10 Efforts to realize optimum health for community as a preventive

Chapter V, Environmental health covers healthiness of water and air, protection

Environmental health, disease abatement and health education

Article 38 Health education is administered to improve knowledge,

Chapter V, Article 14-17 Environmental preservation function

Chapter VI Requirement for environmental arrangement

Chapter III Water resource conservation

Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 6

No Law / Regulation Stipulation

Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 7

OPERATOR. PAL IPLT MANY MCK SANIMAS/ Septic Tank, HOME

Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 8

It is recommended that capacity should be improved through facilitators at kelurahan forum

Inception Report (Volume 2)_Annex 1 9

Government agencies related with Sanitation:

2.2 Non-Governmental Organizations:

NGO, Profession Associations, High learning institutions, Social Groups/Associations;

Table 2-2 Government and non-governmental agencies related with Supplying

Developer at kelurahan level through Lembaga Ketahanan

The Directorate General of Foreign Manages bilateral and multilateral funds.

Plans and performs environmental programs and supports people’s