USDP Urban Sanitation Development Program

Transcription

1 USDP Urban Sanitation Development Program PPSP Implementation Issues and Recommendations May 2014 USDP-R-PMU-10081

2

3 PPSP Implementation Issues and Recommendations May 2014 USDP-R-PMU-10081

4

5 CONTENTS CONTENTS... I LIST OF TABLES... II LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS... III 1. SANITATION IN THE NATIONAL CONTEXT THE ACCELERATED SANITATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (PPSP) The purpose of PPSP The PPSP development cycle The PPSP Roadmap Funding for the PPSP Roadmap Program management Central level Provincial level District level THE PLAN INSTRUMENTS Environmental Health Risk assessment (EHRA) Sanitation White Book or Buku Putih Sanitasi (BPS) District Sanitation Strategy (SSK) Sanitation Program Memorandum (MPS) Provincial Roadmap Modifications to the plan documents during the course of PPSP SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES Institutional development and capacity building for PPSP management Provincial level District level Capacity Building Process-oriented support Advocacy and promotion Provincial and City Facilitators Quality assurance Monitoring and evaluation Institutionalization of sanitation management ISSUES ARISING The technical challenge The implementation challenge in the districts The program management challenge The capacity challenge The funding challenge The institutional challenge RECOMMENDATIONS The technical challenge The implementation challenge in districts The program management challenge The capacity challenge The funding challenge The institutional challenge COLOPHON i

6 List of Tables Table 1 List of pilot districts for updating SSK... 5 Table 2 Progression of districts through the program stages during PPSP and beyond... 6 Table 3 Number of districts progressing to budgeting and implementation... 7 Table 4 Progression of districts through the second cycle of PPSP planning... 7 Table 5 Funding for PPSP Roadmap... 8 Table 6 Roadmap PPSP: funding from central government for sanitation development... 8 Table 7 Funding for PPSP Roadmap... 9 Table 8 Roadmap PPSP: funding from central government for sanitation development Table 9 Training Programs Table 10 Coverage of different wastewater systems by 2019 and Table 11 Funding for PPSP Roadmap Table 12 Funding available for PPSP Roadmap Table 13 Funding need for sanitation development in different scenarios ii

7 List of Abbreviations AMPL : Air Minum dan Penyehatan Lingkungan (Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation) APBD : Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (Provincial or Local Government Budget) APBN : Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (National Government Budget) AusAID : Australian Agency for International Development Bappenas : Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (State Agency for National Development Planning) CF : City Facilitator DAK : Dana Alokasi Khusus (Special Funding Allocation to local government) EHRA : Environmental Health Risk Assessment EKN : Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands GOI : Government of Indonesia Kab/Kota : Kabupaten/Kota (Regency/City) KMP : Konsultan Manajemen Provinsi (Provincial Management Consultant) KMW : Konsultan Manajemen Wilayah (Regional Management Consultant) Loknas : Lokakarya Nasional (National Workshop) MDGs : Millennium Development Goals MonEv : Monitoring and Evaluation Pamsimas : Penyediaan Air Minum dan Sanitasi Berbasis Masyarakat (Community-Based Water Supply and Sanitation Program) PF : Provincial Facilitator PHBS : Perilaku Hidup Bersih Sehat (Campaign for Clean and Hygienic Behavior) PIU : Program Implementation Unit PIU-AE : Program Implementation Unit-Advocacy and Empowerment PIU-IF : Program Implementation Unit-Institutional and Finance PIU-T : Program Implementation Unit-Technical PMM : Program Management Manual PMU : Program Management Unit POKJA : Kelompok Kerja (Working group) PPP : Public Private Partnership PPSP : Percepatan Pembangunan Sanitasi Permukiman (Accelerated Sanitation Development for Human Settlements) QA : Quality Assurance Rakernas : Rapat Kerja Nasional (National Meeting) RPIJM : Rencana Program Investasi Jangka Menengah (Medium Term Investment Program) RPJM : Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah (Medium Term Development Plan) RPJMN : Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (National Medium Term Development Plan) Sanimas : Sanitasi Berbasis Masyarakat (Community-Based Sanitation Program) SC : Steering Committee SSA : Sanitation Supply Assessment SSK : Strategi Sanitasi Kota/Kabupaten (City/Regency Sanitation Strategy) STBM : Sanitasi Total Berbasis Masyarakat (Community-Led Total Sanitation) TNA : Training Needs Assessment TOR : Terms of Reference Unicef : United Nations Children's Fund USDP : Urban Sanitation Development Program BPS : Buku Putih Sanitasi (Sanitation White Book) WSP-EAP : Water and Sanitation Program East Asia and Pacific iii

8 iv

9 1. Sanitation in the national context Urban Sanitation Development Program A seminal development in the water and sanitation sector in Indonesia was the creation of the water supply and sanitation policy formulation and action planning project (Waspola), which initially ran from 1999 to 2003 and continues (with an amended mandate) as the Waspola Facility to this day. The purpose of Waspola was to facilitate adoption of a national policy framework for water supply and environmental sanitation. To coordinate its activities in connection with the Waspola project, GOI created a multi-agency Working Group on Water and Environmental Sanitation, known as the Pokja AMPL, which comprised a steering committee and a technical committee both chaired by Bappenas and supported by a project secretariat in Bappenas. Gradually, the activities of the Pokja MPL reached beyond Waspola only to more general advocacy and promotion of water and sanitation development in Indonesia. As such, the Pokja AMPL eventually has come to support and cooperate with other projects in sanitation development supported by the government, international donor organizations, etc. After completion of policy formulation, it became necessary to develop and pilot implementation options. GOI decided to do this separately for the water supply and sanitation subsectors: the Indonesian Sanitation Sector Development Program (ISSDP) was created to pilot approaches for sanitation development, while Waspola continued with the water supply activities. Throughout this period, and continuing during ISSDP, there was growing attention for sanitation, as reflected in a number of seminars, policy initiatives, etc. In 2007, the National Sanitation Conference- I confirmed the GOI commitment to achieve the Millennium Development Goals for sanitation was the International Year of Sanitation, which saw a number of city sanitation summits organized under the auspices of the Pokja AMPL. Subsequently, the Urban Sanitation Convention of April 2009 identified issues and targets and confirmed the integrated approach to city sanitation planning and development that had been piloted in ISSDP. In its National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) the GOI set out a number of policies and strategies to overcome various constraints in sanitation development. This resulted in the establishment of the national Accelerated Sanitation Development Program (PPSP), with the following objectives and targets: 1. Providing off-site sewerage and treatment systems for 10% of the population (5% communitybased and 5% city scale systems) and on-site treatment facilities for 90% of the population, to achieve 100% eradication of open defecation; 2. Reducing solid waste at source and providing sanitary or controlled landfills and other safe technologies for final disposal to serve 80% of the population; 3. Reducing inundation in a total of hectares of flood-prone areas in 100 districts 1. Under the auspices of the Pokja AMPL, PPSP is implemented by four ministries: Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas), Ministry of Public Works (PU), Ministry of Health (MOH), and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA). Each of the ministries has established a designated unit for this purpose, and each of these units receives technical assistance by a team of consultants from USDP, which is funded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 1 A district is the administrative level below province and is either a completely urban territory (known as city or Kota) or comprises a rural territory with possibly one or more urbanized areas (known as regency or Kabupaten). Indonesia has 508 districts, of which 98 are classified as cities and 410 as regencies. 1

10 2. The Accelerated Sanitation Development Program (PPSP) 2.1 The purpose of PPSP Initially, PPSP was to implement the approach and methodology developed and piloted under ISSDP to over 300 cities faced most seriously with problems in one or more of the sanitation sub-sectors: waste water, solid waste, and urban drainage. This was subsequently changed to include all 508 cities and regencies in Indonesia. PPSP provides a framework for all stakeholders in sanitation development (government institutions at all levels as well as foreign donors and the private sector) to align their programs and projects. Specifically, it encourages all districts to formulate an integrated strategy for sanitation development (Strategi Sanitasi Kota/Kabupaten, known as SSK) and to describe a program for its implementation (Memorandum Pembangunan Sanitasi, known as MPS). GOI has provided an incentive for districts to do this inter alia by making the availability of an SSK a criterion for the distribution of its specific allocation grants for sanitation in the system of fiscal transfers to local governments (Dana Alokasi Khusus, or DAK). The objectives and principal characteristics of the process through which PPSP aims to accelerate sanitation development are described in the Roadmap for Accelerated Sanitation Development in Human Settlements (Roadmap PPSP), published by the Pokja AMPL in June Once PPSP was underway, the objectives of the roadmap were incorporated in the PPSP Results Framework (2012). The framework stipulates the overall objective of PPSP as: Realization in 2014 of proper sanitation conditions for (urban) settlements, meeting technical standards and based on a comprehensive and integrated planning process, so as to avoid negative impacts on the environment. Technical approaches Situation in 2010 Prior to PPSP, in 2008, PU issued a ministerial regulation on wastewater making STBM (Community Led Total Sanitation) the preferred approach in rural areas and Community Based Sanitation (Sanimas) in urban slums, reserving piped sewerage with centralized treatment for large and metropolitan cities. The corresponding minimum service standard (SPM 2008) indicated that by % of the population should have access to on-site wastewater facilities and 5% to community based off-site systems. In 2010 the PPSP Roadmap formulated the following development goals: Open Defecation Free (ODF) in urban and rural areas, by constructing off-site sewerage networks for 5% of the urban population (5 million people in 16 cities) and community-based facilities in all cities, with priority for 226 selected cities; At-source reduction of waste and more environmentally friendly waste management by applying sanitary landfill or controlled landfill systems for final disposal, together with other safer technology by Implementing 3R practices to achieve a 20% reduction in waste generation and improving waste management in 240 priority cities; Reduction of flooding in 100 cities/urban areas for a total area of 22,500 ha. The PPSP Roadmap initially pursued these goals in some 300 selected cities / urban areas: Megapolitan, metropolitan large and medium-size cities (kota); Provincial capitals; Urban conglomerations with autonomous status (kota); Urbanized areas within regencies (kabupaten) with advanced exposure to sanitation risk. 2

11 Situation in 2014 Waste water Much of the approach, geared towards providing solutions in higher-risk areas with selected types of interventions has been maintained, although the roll out ultimately included all districts in Indonesia. Open defecation has decreased, but will not have been eradicated by In rural areas, the promotion of on-site systems through STBM is ongoing, but the number of facilities built is below plan. Community Based Sanitation (CBS) has been strongly promoted through ADB s USRI (Urban Sanitation and Rural Areas) program, targeting the specific regional transfer (DAK) for sanitation to CBS, other ABPN funding, and funding from the Islamic Development Bank. Between 2012 and 2014 a more than 5,000 CBS systems have been planned or constructed. For on-site systems, there has been a lot of attention for the development of IPLT (septage sludge management systems). Large off-site systems are being planned or constructed in more than the originally planned 16 cities, but the number of household connections is below plan. Typical obstacles to developing off-site systems are land acquisition and effective transfer of assets to the cities for operation and maintenance. Solid waste An increasing number of cities are planning or have constructed facilities for sanitary final disposal of solid waste (TPA). With the increasing number of systems the need for proper management of structures is becoming more important. As for all infrastructure development, land acquisition is an important issue. An accepted way to reduce the spatial requirement for landfill is to minimize residual waste entering the TPA by implementation of 3R (reduce/re-use/recycle). The target for construction and planning of 3R installations is likely to be achieved. The increasing development of sanitary TPAs has also resulted in more attention for managing the existing non-sanitary landfills. Most districts have certain areas (informally) allocated for dumping waste, but these facilities lack protective measures for soil and groundwater or management of landfill gas. Even after they have been closed, non-sanitary landfills continue to pose a threat to public health and the environment and management is required. Urban Drainage There is increasing acceptance of international trends in urban drainage management that focus on (1) retaining, (2) storing (3) draining, rather than immediate discharge. An example is the zero delta run-off policy, which requires a new urban development to manage its runoff in such a way that the new development does not result in increased peak discharges (water sensitive urban developments). During primary drainage projects were constructed, and this number is planned to reach 92 at the end of 2013 in line with the planned PPSP activities. There is also progress in the development of secondary and tertiary works (which the districts must fund themselves), but completion is behind schedule. 2.2 The PPSP development cycle PPSP s integrated sanitation planning and implementation approach involves five more or less consecutive stages and one continuous stage, i.e.: Stage 1 Awareness raising by Campaigns, Education and Advocacy activities Stage 2 Institutional and regulatory preparation for participation (in the district) Stage 3 Preparation of the District Sanitation Strategy (SSK) Stage 4 Preparation of the Program Memorandum (MPS) Stage 5 Program Implementation Stage 6 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Guidance (this stage runs from the start and continues throughout the other stages) 3

12 The original targets of PPSP include the development of City Sanitation Strategies (SSKs) by 306 Districts, with plans for subsequent implementation of technical and non-technical sanitation interventions in at least 160 of these districts by However, with the broadening of the scope to both urban and rural areas, all 508 districts in principle became eligible for participation in the program. A basic element of the approach is that districts establish an interagency working group on sanitation (Pokja Sanitasi), and that the members of these Pokjas put together the plan documents themselves. PPSP assists the district Pokjas through Provincial and City Facilitators, who are appointed by PU Cipta Karya and paid from the PPLP budget. Both the facilitators and the Pokja members received extensive training, funded by PPLP, PIU-IF, and PIU-AE and conducted by central PPLP staff with support from USDP. There are also Pokjas at provincial level, whose role is to guide and supervise district Pokjas in preparing the plan documents. The provincial Pokja is also responsible for quality assurance of these documents and the process in which they are produced. With this role, the Provincial Pokjas are potentially in a good position to ensure that all sanitation interventions by central, provincial, and district agencies conform to the priorities expressed in the different SSKs. Participating districts go through the different stages more or less consecutively. Each batch of districts goes through Stages 1 and 2 in the first year (Year 0), during which PPSP approaches prospective districts through Campaign, Promotion and Advocacy, and cities make preparations to meet the readiness criteria for joining the program. Prominent among these are the establishment of their Pokja Sanitasi, confirmed by decree of the district chief (SK Bupati/Walikota) and the allocation of budget for the operational costs of the Pokja itself and for implementing the EHRA survey and study. Districts conduct a household survey to collect data for the EHRA study during this period. From the perspective of the participating cities, the starting point of PPSP (Year n) is when the Pokja is ready to begin the substantive activities in the program, i.e. completing the basic plan documents: EHRA, the BPS, and the SSK. In Year n+1 they go through Stage 4 by formulating a coherent program (MPS) of activities and investments to implement the SSK. The implementation of this program (Stage 5) will begin in Year n+2. However, because the MPS is only a plan document and not a budget, what actually happens in Year n+2 is only preparing for physical implementation by using the MPS as a framework for entering activity proposals in the consultative planning process (musrenbang process) that is to produce the annual budget for the following year. Concrete, project-related activities will then begin in Year n+3 (for physical works this will mostly involve preparatory activities such as feasibility studies, detailed design, etc.). Because the planning horizon of the SSK is 5 years, the districts need to update it in Year n+4. In principle, all three planning documents have a planning horizon of 5 years (medium term) and are linked with the Medium Term Development Plans (RPJMD) at district level, which also have a planning period of 5 years. It should be noted, however, that conceptually, the outlook of the SSK is the longer term: it is the strategic development plan contained within it that must be updated every 5 years, along with the MPS. At that time, the entire SSK should be revisited to amend if necessary the long term vision it presents if conditions have changed due to e.g. changes in demand, sanitation infrastructure, financial capacity, and so on. Since the SSKs of 22 districts would already expire in 2013, the PMU has drawn special attention to the need to develop a methodology for updating them, along with a facilitation mechanism for supporting the districts in this. PPSP conducted a pilot activity in 2013 to test the draft methodology and support mechanism in six districts in six different provinces: 4

13 Table 1 List of pilot districts for updating SSK Urban Sanitation Development Program No. District Province Program in which SSK developed 1 Jambi Jambi ISSDP-1 2 Banjarmasin South Kalimantan ISSDP-1 3 Surakarta Central Java ISSDP-1 4 Batu East Java ISSDP-2 5 Denpasar Bali ISSDP-1 6 Manado North Sulawesi USAID ESP The methodology for updating is based on experiences of PPSP implementation in Using Simplicity as leading principle, two Excel-based tools were developed to assist the process: (i) a zoning tool and (ii) a selection and costing tool for sanitation systems. These tools have been tested in several districts in The draft methodology aims to produce one single document with information on the current sanitation profile ( White Book section), a 5-year sanitation development strategy ( SSK section), and details the process to obtain funding commitment (currently framed in the MPS). As a basic concept, it should be possible to complete the entire updating in one single year. Implementation of the methodology involves achieving a number of milestones: - Milestone 1 : Internalization and synchronization of perceptions; - Milestone 2 : description of the sanitation profile and progress on sanitation development; - Milestone 3 : Sanitation development scenario; - Milestone 4 : Budgeting consolidation and sanitation marketing; - Milestone 5 : Finalization. Seven events are conducted in each pilot city to assist in applying the methodology to reach the milestones. A central kick off meeting was conducted in May The updating of expired SSKs in the coming years will also provide an opportunity to better link sanitation planning with the national targets framed in the RPJMN ( ) and the Provincial Sanitation Road Maps that have been or are going to be prepared in 2013 and 2014, respectively. 2.3 The PPSP Roadmap Situation The PPSP Roadmap originally projected a gradual increase in the number of participating districts joining the program, rising from 41 during the first year to 82 in Overall, 306 districts were expected to join and all of these were supposed to complete at least their sanitation development strategy during the five years of PPSP. The decision to open PPSP to all 507 districts in Indonesia, and not only to 306 cities and urban areas, resulted in vastly increased participation. Table 2 shows that by end of 2013 a total of 428 districts were involved in PPSP. This number takes into account the 22 districts that completed their SSK prior to PPSP under ISSDP or other programs, as well as the 98 districts that began Stages 1 and 2 in 2013 and which should now have met the criteria to begin PPSP planning in

14 Table 2 Progression of districts through the program stages during PPSP and beyond Stage Activity 2009 PPSP Total in PPSP Balance to Campaign, education, advocacy, and assistance Annual Cumulative Institutional and regulatory preparation Annual Cumulative Formulation of Whitebooks (BPS) & District Sanitation Strategies (SSK) Annual Cumulative Formulation of program memorandum (MPS) Annual Cumulative Implementation (budget preparation and concrete activities in next year) Annual Cumulative Monitoring, evaluation, counseling, and guidance Cumulative In all, 348 districts have completed their SSK and 217 districts have progressed to or even completed the MPS during In all, 108 districts have reached Stage 5 implementation by However, it should be noted that upon entering Stage 5 districts must first move their MPS proposals through the annual planning and budgeting process, so actual activities planned and funded in this manner will only take place during Situation 2014 Assuming that 446 districts can complete their SSK in 2014, and given a total of 507 districts in Indonesia, PPSP can use 2014 to commence advocacy, etc. (Stage 1) in the remaining 61 districts, which should result in these 61 districts working to meet the readiness criteria (Stage 2) in the same year. They would go through the different substantive program stages from 2015 through 2017 (Stages 3, 4, and 5). As mentioned before, it takes several years for districts to progress from initial planning activities to the implementation stage. Based on data from Nawasis, Table 3 shows that 107 districts have entered Stage 5 in 2013, of which 49 are actually involved in some form of concrete implementation. With 109 districts now in Stage 4, it is expected that a further 109 districts will begin budgeting in

15 Table 3 Year Urban Sanitation Development Program Number of districts progressing to budgeting and implementation Stage 3 BPS + SSK < Stage 4 MPS * Budgeting Stage 5 Implementation (est.) * this includes 8 MPSs prepared for the 22 cities that completed an SSK prior to PPSP Updating the SSK Second Cycle PPSP planning Given that preparation of an SSK occurs in Year n, the plan period of the SSK is Years n+1 through n+5. This makes it necessary to update the SSK in Year n+5 to provide a framework for development in the subsequent plan period n+6 through n+10. To ensure immediate relevance for actual budgeting, the SSK and the MPS must be updated in the same year. The process in which the SSKs and MPSs are updated is known as the second cycle of PPSP planning. If districts are to have their Second Cycle plan ready for budgeting in Year n+6, they must complete Stage 3 and Stage 4 within nine months during Year n+5. A pilot to determine whether this is possible began in 2013 continues in The pilot involves 5 of the 22 SSKs that were prepared prior to Another 9 early SSKs will be included in the 2014 batch. Table 4 presents an overview of the SSKs that become due for updating in the coming years, based on the progress of the first cycle as it was implemented during PPSP, and the projected progression of the second cycle in subsequent years. Table 4 Progression of districts through the second cycle of PPSP planning Stage Activity PPSP-1 PPSP Campaign, education, Annual advocacy, and assistance Cumulative Institutional and Annual regulatory preparation Cumulative Formulation of Second Cycle SSK and MPS Implementation (budget preparation and concrete activities in next year) Monitoring, evaluation, counseling, and guidance Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative Cumulative Funding for the PPSP Roadmap The ministries responsible for PPSP have dedicated budgets for guiding the provinces and districts through the different stages of implementation, and provincial and district administrations also make operational funds available for the activities of the different Pokjas. However, the financial impact of the program is much greater, because the PPSP process provides an umbrella for integrated planning 7

16 of all activities in sanitation development. As formulated by the Pokja AMPL, the funding requirements for implementing the PPSP Roadmap therefore involve all present and future sanitation-related budgets of all involved stakeholders, be they government organizations, donors, communities, or private enterprise. Situation Table 5 Funding for PPSP Roadmap (Rp. Billion) 2010 estimate Five Year Total PPSP Funding need 4,247 7,146 10,657 23,298 17,277 62,625 Available funding 6,220 9,478 9,177 9,922 10,140 44,937 Sources: APBN 1,799 3,443 3,600 3,757 3,921 16,520 APBD Province ,093 APBD District 3,138 3,232 3,329 3,429 3,532 16,660 Donors 485 1,967 1,366 1,776 1,729 7,323 CSR and Communities Funding Gap -1,973-2,332 1,480 13,376 7,137 17,688 In 2009 the financial impact of PPSP was estimated at Rp 62.6 trillion over five years. This included Rp 44.9 trillion in present allocations, and thus projected a shortfall of Rp trillion. Analysis shows that of all funding projected to be allocated to sanitation between 2010 and 2014, 26.6% was expected to come from local government. On average in 2010 districts spent less than 1% of their total budget on sanitation. While the objective in PPSP is for districts to double their outlays for sanitation, the projection over shows the level of local expenditure on sanitation to grow only modestly from Rp 3.1 to Rp 3.5 trillion. Given the steep increase in the projected funding need, the local government share would thus decline from 74% of the total funding need in 2010 to little over 20% in Table 6 Roadmap PPSP: funding from central government for sanitation development (Rp billion 2009 Estimate) Source Total 5 Years DAK Sanitation ,452.4 DAK Environment Ministry of Public Works (PU) 1, , , , , ,114.4 Ministry of Health Ministry of Housing & Settlements Ministry of Environment PIU-PMU PPSP Total 1, , , , , ,520.5 These are only estimates, some of which are difficult to make. This is particularly true for district spending on sanitation. Local budgets do not specify all sanitation expenditures directly, and especially for drainage it is difficult to find definitive data. The same is true for some central government ministries and agencies, which may include sanitation spending as part of programs not specifically directed at sanitation development. One estimate that is easy to track is the regional 8

17 transfer funds (DAK) for sanitation and environment. Table 6 shows that the 2009 estimate calculated the DAK Sanitation to represent some 20% of total spending by central government in 2010, while DAK Environment stood at less than 1%. According to this estimate, the DAK Sanitation was expected to rise very rapidly over the years, ultimately to represent 15% of sanitation spending from the central budget over the five year program period. DAK Environment was expected to remain less than 1% of the total. Another source where sanitation expenditures are easy to identify is PU, which represents in fact by far the greatest source of central government spending on sanitation development. According to the 2009 estimate, the PU share was expected to represent some 69% of 2010 expenditures and some 60% overall for the five-year period. Situation in 2014 Four years hence it seems that availability of funds has developed better than expected. Table 7 shows the updated estimate of 2013, which suggests that funding from all sources has increased by 25%, from Rp 44 trillion to Rp 55 trillion over the 5-year period. Contributions increased from all sources except provincial budgets. Based on the assumption that districts would double their appropriations for sanitation, the five-year total of district spending would increase 50% from Rp 16.6 trillion to Rp 24.7 trillion, ultimately putting district spending at some 40% of the five-year total. The overall impact of these developments would be a reduction of the funding gap from Rp 17.7 trillion to Rp 7.5 trillion. Table 7 Funding for PPSP Roadmap (Rp. Billion) 2013 Estimate Five Year Total PPSP Funding need 4,247 7,146 10,657 23,298 17,277 62,625 Available funding 6,169 10,058 10,656 13,022 15,184 55,089 Sources: APBN 1,883 3,796 4,022 4,302 4,766 18,769 APBD Province ,436 APBD District 2,815 3,703 4,540 5,944 7,796 24,798 Donors 1,096 2,097 1,223 1,633 1,454 7,503 CSR and Communities Funding Gap -1,922-2, ,276 2,093 7,536 However, the updated estimate may need further investigation. It takes at least two years before the PPSP plan documents can be entered into the budget preparation process, and actual budget allocations based on them only result in the year after that. With participation in PPSP only growing step by step over the years, the previous section showed that only 107 districts would have actually reached the stage of MPS-based budgeting by Only 49 of these districts have progressed to concrete implementation, i.e. spending based on budgets formulated last year, so the macro impact of PPSP-originated spending cannot be very great. In fact, experience on the ground does not suggest vastly increased sanitation development activities, and the increased numbers of district spending may therefore be overly optimistic. 9

18 Table 8 Urban Sanitation Development Program Roadmap PPSP: funding from central government for sanitation development (Rp billion 2013 Estimate) Source Total 5 Years DAK Sanitation ,829.4 DAK Environment ,836.0 DAK Housing&Settlements Ministry of Public Works (PU) 1, , , , , ,177.0 Ministry of Health Ministry of Housing&Settlements Ministry of Environment PIU-PMU PSP Total 1, , , , , ,768.3 Table 8 shows details on spending from the national budget in the 2013 estimate. Total central government spending would now be Rp 18.8 trillion for the five years, representing an increase from 26% to 30% of the total five-year funding need since the 2009 estimate. The share of the DAK Sanitation in this total has declined to slightly less than 10%, but this decline was more than compensated by an increase in the share of sanitation expenditures funded from the DAK Environment, which increased from an average of less than 0.5% in the 2010 estimate to almost 10% in the 2013 update. Together, these two sources now represent an average of 19.5% of total central government spending, and if sanitation spending from the DAK Housing&Settlements is also taken into account, DAK spending on sanitation averages almost 24% of total central government sanitation spending. Next year the share of DAK spending will increase even more rapidly, as the DAK Sanitation is expected to double to some Rp. 900 billion, although its availability will be limited to fewer cities than to date. Taken together, this represents a real shift in central budget spending, i.e. from the central ministry budgets to regional transfers for sanitation, as is reflected by the fact that PU spending on sanitation now stands at 70% of total spending compared to 79% in the 2010 estimate. 2.5 Program management In 2010 the ministries, provinces, and local administrations participating in PPSP essentially had to start from scratch to conduct a nationwide rollout of a relatively sophisticated planning process that had been tested in only a few cities. Familiarity with the approach was naturally limited everywhere, and there was a natural tendency to continue business as usual with existing donor-supported sanitation programs. Increasing awareness that these programs alone would not achieve the MDG target by 2015 led all parties to pursue better coordination and thereby strengthened the appeal of the PPSP approach. By 2013, there are Pokjas coordinating PPSP activities at both provincial and district level. These Pokjas include participation from relevant agencies such as BAPPEDA, Public Works Service, Health Service, Sanitation Service, Agency for Community Empowerment and Women, Environment Agency, and others. The Communities are represented by entities such as the PKK or NGOs, while there sometimes is also participation from higher education institutions or representatives of the media / press. In this setup the district level Pokja has the lead in identifying sanitation development needs. The provincial Pokja provides process support and could eventually become a force for coordination of funding and implementation of sanitation interventions by other government agencies that are complementary to the ones carried out by the districts themselves. The central level continues its role in setting national sanitation development targets and priorities (such as the MDGs), making 10

19 funding sources and channels available to the districts, monitoring quality of implementation, and ensuring correct application of the relevant regulations. The following paragraphs describe the development of program management capacity at the different levels that has made this result possible Central level A major challenge has been the organization of the multi-sectoral decision making that is the hallmark of PPSP. At central level, this has been the responsibility of the Pokja AMPL. However, this required some adjustments to this platform because it had originally been created for the implementation of Waspola more than 10 years ago and remained mostly focused on this program. The decision to divide responsibility for development of water supply and sanitation between Waspola and ISSDP, respectively, led to the establishment of the Sanitation Development Technical Team (TTPS) under the Pokja AMPL. This was revamped following adoption of the PPSP Roadmap by embedding the responsibilities for implementing PPSP in five working groups: Working group on Advocacy and Health responsible for developing policies to improve the quality of living and strategies for effecting clean and hygienic behavior; Working Group on Technical Issues responsible for feasibility assessment and assessment of compliance with standards and regulations, and for recommending designs and supervising development of sanitation infrastructure; Working group on institutional aspects responsible for streamlining institutional arrangements and organizing the necessary capacity building; Working group on Empowerment and Community Participation responsible for developing strategies to empower communities to participate in sanitation development; Working group on Funding responsible for identification of (alternative) funding sources and developing financing strategies including private sector participation. However, it soon became clear that these working groups were too far removed from the daily activities in PPSP to manage the program in a dynamically changing policy environment. Their responsibilities were then more instrumentally established within PPSP itself, through the creation of a program management unit (PMU) at Bappenas and three program implementation units (PIU) in the three ministries most closely involved in PPSP implementation: PMU in Bappenas coordinates overall planning and management of the program, develops networks, and fosters partnerships with various stakeholders; PIU-AE (advocacy and empowerment) in the Ministry of Health manages and coordinates activities for community preparedness, awareness of health risks, inclusion of the poor, gender specific roles, and private sector participation; PIU-T (technical) in the Ministry of Public Works manages and coordinates activities to improve district level sanitation planning (BPS, SSK, MPS) and implementation of local, provincial, and central level sanitation interventions; PIU-IF (institutional and finance) in the Ministry of Home Affairs - manages and coordinates all activities for capacity building and access to funding for local sanitation development. In this setup, the PMU and the PIUs have become the platforms for decision making on operational strategies and arrangements for implementation, in close consultation with decision makers in the respective ministries. The Pokja AMPL remains responsible for aspects of policy coordination and strategy development that the PMU-PIU structure cannot independently decide. To this end, the Pokja AMPL has conducted a number of breakfast meetings with directors general and directors of the relevant ministries. 11

20 The program management unit (PMU) The PMU was established in the office of the Director of Settlements and Housing in Bappenas and began operating in 2010 with a limited budget and a small group of junior civil service staff. Gradually, the PMU recruited additional support on a contract basis and has thus grown in its ability to manage the program. The Director of Settlements and Housing is also the chairman of the Pokja AMPL, and this has ensured that the PMU receives adequate functional support from Bappenas and could maintain a close link with the Pokja AMPL. The PMU has been able to increase the operating budget for its own activities, but was unable to facilitate the same level of operational funding for the PIUs. Coordination between PMU and PIUs improved in 2013 following the start of monthly coordination meetings. A major achievement of the PMU was the establishment of Nawasis, a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system that merges components of systems developed by USDP and Waspola. However, some stakeholders remain hesitant to submit data, and this affects the still limited monitoring capacity of the PMU. The PIU Advocacy and Empowerment (PIU-AE) At the beginning of PPSP the MOH had not allocated staff to the PIU-AE, and consequently activities such as design of awareness campaigns, EHRA, media analysis, etc. came only to a slow start. However, MOH ultimately assigned a number of staff and the PIU-AE recruited a number of external consultants during to increase operational capacity. By the end of 2013, two MOH staff are formally in charge of the PIU-AE s daily activities. Another 13 staff from other parts of the Ministry have been trained by USDP. EHRA master trainers have been prepared and fielded. Operational funds have been secured for 2013, and significant allocations have been proposed for PIU-AE activities in the 2014 budget. The PIU Institutional and Finance (PIU-IF) At the beginning of PPSP in 2010, MOHA designated a team of junior civil service staff on a part-time basis to the PIU-IF. Moreover, these staff were new to the PPSP approach and most of them had an administrative background and no training skills. The unit received only a very small operating budget. By 2013, the PIU-IF continues to suffer from a lack of adequate financial resources and, while it now has clear job descriptions, still only few staff are capable on institutional matters. Nevertheless, PIU- IF has grown in its guiding role for national policy implementation in the regions, and it leads in defining, formulating, and disseminating PPSP s working mechanisms at the provincial and local level and between the three levels of government. Moreover, the unit has been successful in convincing the different MOHA sub directorates that are responsible for guiding drinking water development and sanitation development to coordinate their respective approaches to guidance of local government. The PIU Technical (PIU-T) Initially, PU was not heavily committed to PPSP, likely because it already had many ongoing activities in sanitation development for which it had its own planning and budgeting system. Perhaps as a consequence, the PIU-T was severely understaffed when it began in As appreciation of the potential of PPSP slowly grew this has gradually changed: three staff members were appointed to the unit; the Satkers were given a significant role in executing PU s PPSP-related tasks at the provincial level; and groups of consultants were hired to support the PIU-T. 12

21 The PIU-T now has three civil service staff members who oversee coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of PPSP stages 3, 4, and 5 by the external consultants. Although as a group the PIU-T has significantly increased its PPSP-related skills, its capacity for training/coaching provincial target groups needs further development Provincial level While PPSP initially focused on selecting districts that met the criteria to join the program and supporting them to produce the BPS, SSK, and MPS, it soon became clear that the key to successful program implementation lay in enabling provinces to take on two important roles: Assisting the center in rolling out the program over the entire country; Assisting districts by coordinating with other institutions as needed to implement the local SSK/MPS. The provincial role of coordinator and facilitator proved especially important in quality assurance of the plan documents and in negotiating solutions for sanitation issues involving more than one district. However, the limitations of the setup for strategic decision making and dedicated program management at central level have delayed the creation of an effective decision making umbrella at the provincial level. One of the complications has been the institutional separation between water supply and sanitation development. While this was positive in the sense that it served to raise the profile of sanitation, it contradicts the total water cycle approach and, moreover, has resulted in parallel but unequal attention to development of the two subsectors. While the organization at central level continues to stress integration at least in name ( AMPL comprises both water supply and wastewater), ISSDP and subsequently PPSP could only assist local level Pokjas on sanitation. This has proved problematic because provinces that were early adopters of the Waspola approach established a Pokja AMPL to be able to coordinate with the central Pokja AMPL, and therefore are reluctant to create a separate Pokja Sanitasi under PPSP. This seems only logical from the substantive perspective (the total water cycle), but the difference between the two approaches is very real: while Pokjas AMPL have a long history in water supply development they have paid much less attention to sanitation. Moreover, their role under Waspola focuses on general policy making and promotion, while the Pokjas under PPSP are very hands on in taking charge of sanitation development District level The motor of sanitation development in the PPSP approach is the district Pokja, which must increase sanitation awareness, prepare plan documents, search (local) funding, identify options for strategic cooperation, and monitor the implementation by different agencies. This clearly positions the SSK produced by the Pokja as the central plan document that should become the focus for stakeholders at all levels. However, district governments have historically not had such a leading role in development, and in fact have in large part been dependent on central government initiative. The PPSP approach therefore represents a real paradigm shift from the perspective of local government and requires a corresponding change of mindset. By itself, the Pokja concept is nothing new: for decades government administrations at all levels have established such fora to coordinate the implementation of projects requiring participation by different agencies. But coordination seldom went beyond convening meetings to discuss issues, following which the participants would return to their individual offices to do their regular duties. Conversely, PPSP requires a much greater commitment, which is to be reflected in a hands-on approach to implementing the program and a concern for some degree of institutional memory to guide development for the long term. 13

22 During the early years of PPSP most district Pokjas were reluctant to embrace this new approach: they were very loosely organized, had to absorb frequent staff replacements, lacked a clear management structure, and often did not have an adequate operating budget. Gradually this has changed as PPSP specified stricter selection criteria and provided guidance for structure and process of PPSP implementation by the Pokjas, as formalized in MOHA s Circular Letter SE 660/4919SJ/2012 (hereafter referred to as Circular SE 660 ). By 2013, selection of districts for participation in PPSP is based on formal criteria (although the target orientation of the central authorities still influences the process). A concern is that although most Pokjas have managed to produce the requisite plan documents on time, the quality of these documents remains poor. This also poses limitations to the ability of the Pokjas to ensure that the activities and investments proposed in the documents are actually entered into the regular musrenbang planning and budgeting process. Nevertheless, the SSK/MPS have been an eye opener for local government and they are here to stay. The capacity of many district Pokjas to systematically plan for sanitation development has greatly increased. Together, this has resulted in a sense of ownership and commitment. 14

23 3. The plan instruments Districts participating in PPSP go through a structured process of data collection and processing to support comprehensive analysis and decision making on the sanitation condition in relation to the general development aspirations of the district. During this process, they produce four documents: Environmental Health Risk Assessment (EHRA) collects primary data on level and quality of sanitation facilities at neighborhood level and presents Risk Areas that are exposed to a higher environmental and/or (public) health risk resulting from poor sanitation; Sanitation White Book (BPS) mainly based on secondary data and describes all aspects related to the present sanitation condition and potential efforts to improve it (technical, institutional, financial, etc.). Incorporates the results of the EHRA if available; District Sanitation Strategy (SSK) describes a long-term vision for sanitation in relation to the general aspirations of the district and identifies medium-term (five years) policies and priorities for development in order to get there; Sanitation Sector Program Memorandum (MPS) identifies programs of sanitation development interventions and lists specific investments and other activities to be considered for funding. EHRA BPS SSK MPS The districts depend heavily on the provinces to help them in getting support for local development. This makes use of the formal position of the governor as representative of central government, which makes him the prime coordinator of all government activity in his jurisdiction. But provincial administrations should not limit themselves to coordination of other institutions, because sanitation is designated a shared responsibility for all levels of government and provinces thus have their own role to play. Apart from taking care of cross district issues such as regional facilities for final solid waste disposal, they can also specify e.g. targeted financial support for district level activities. 2 To structure this support PPSP has begun to promote the development of a provincial plan document: Provincial Roadmap for sanitation development classifies districts by relative sanitation risk exposure and sets out vision and mission of the province in supporting sanitation development. 3.1 Environmental Health Risk assessment (EHRA) The EHRA studies provide scientific data on the availability of sanitation solutions at the household level and can be applied not only in urban areas, but in scattered settlements in rural areas as well. The studies cover domestic wastewater, solid waste, drainage, environmental hygiene, and sanitation behavior, and follow the 5 pillars of STBM (community based sanitation) of the Ministry of Health. One of the most important outputs of the EHRA is the sanitation risk index (IRS), which is the basis for determining clusters of sanitation risk in the district. The IRS serves to: 1. Provide information to compare specific sanitation issues between clusters; 2. Provide a basic component for determining the relative risk that poor sanitation poses to (public) health in different areas. 2 An example is East Java and several other provinces that provide funding for programs in district MPSs. 15

24 The aggregated IRS data base can produce a matrix that links typical IRS problem situations to typical solutions suitable for areas with different characteristics (e.g. flood-prone, industrialized, and periurban). At national level the Ministry of Health maintains an EHRA data base to inform its policy on sanitation development, sanitation infrastructure development, and synchronization of interventions across districts. A practical guideline is available to assist district Pokjas in carrying out the EHRA survey and study. Upon request, the PIU-AE now supports district Pokjas that request assistance in analyzing the results. The EHRA employs random sampling for data collection and presents results of the analysis for clusters of neighborhoods. The sampling methodology is flexible and districts may adapt it depending on their available budget. There is no limit to the number of samples, but it should at least be sufficient to provide a statistical confidence level of 95%. Before determining the number of samples, district Pokjas now cluster the sampling areas (desa/kelurahan) based on: 1. Population density; 2. Poverty rate; 3. Prea drained by rivers or drainage/irrigation channels potentially impacted by latrines and/or waste disposal; 4. Flood-prone areas where submersion is more than 30cm and lasts more than 2 hours. 3.2 Sanitation White Book or Buku Putih Sanitasi (BPS) The purpose of the White Book or Buku Putih Sanitasi (BPS) is to describe the existing sanitation situation in a district to establish a point of departure for future development. For specifics on sanitation, the BPS draws on primary data of the EHRA study (which becomes part of the BPS), but for other aspects it mainly relies on secondary data. Collection and presentation of this data is structured along formats provided by PPSP, mainly in the form of tables in MS Excel and MSWord. Data collection and analysis involves general data (such as demography) and more specific data on wastewater, solid waste, and drainage. The BPS presents the Risk Areas identified through the EHRA, i.e. clusters of administrative units within the district that are exposed to a higher environmental and/or (public) health risk due to the absence of (effective and efficient) sanitation facilities. The BPS also contains information on the regulatory environment for sanitation, the distribution of institutional authorities and responsibilities, sources of funding including general budget allocations and dedicated sanitation service fees, and other aspects that are relevant for the way in which the district administration approaches and decides on sanitation development. 3.3 District Sanitation Strategy (SSK) The District Sanitation Strategy or Strategi Sanitasi Kota/Kabupaten (SSK) describes the district s longterm vision for sanitation development starting from the baseline described in the BPS, together with a medium term (5 year) strategic plan for investments and other activities to realize that vision. The SSK preparation flows along four milestones. Establishment of Accelerated Sanitation Development Strategy Finalization of SSK Preparation of Sanitation Preparation of Programs and Activities 16

25 The principal contents of an SSK are: 1. A long-term (10-15 year) plan indication of the kind of sanitation system (e.g. on-site versus off-site) that would be most appropriate, with due regard to the Spatial Plan (RTRW); 2. A 5-year strategic sanitation development plan that reflects a stated vision and mission and conforms to the district s Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMD) 3 ; 3. Sanitary zones for each sub-sector, indicating clusters within district boundaries that face similar problems and for which the same/similar system can be applied; 4. Sanitation development stages that coincide with the mid-term planning periods (RPJMD); 5. Sanitation development strategy and defined targets; 6. A program of activities, a long-list of identified projects and activities to meet the targets; 7. Analysis of the district s financial capacity to fund the projected sanitation requirements. The final document must be approved by all relevant stakeholders. As an indication of commitment for full implementation support, it must be signed off by the Mayor or Bupati. 3.4 Sanitation Program Memorandum (MPS) This plan document consists of a series of volumes and constitutes an integral and inseparable part of the BPS and SSK mentioned above. There are 5 (five) milestones to be achieved in preparing the MPS. Milestones in MPS Preparation Program Consolidation and Commitment Preparation of Funding Proposals Review and Establishment of Prioritized Programs Implementation Plan and Program Management Annual Follow-Up The most important parts of the document are a Budgeting Plan and a Common Agreement or Commitment from the different stakeholders to support the investment program. Technically, the MPS is based on: the outcomes of studies in PPSP; synchronization with all other plan documents related to sanitation; assessment of the district s institutional capacity to implement the strategy; assessment of the district s fiscal capacity to fund the various interventions it contains; other supporting data relating to implementation. The MPS is a rolling document that is to be updated every year depending on progress achieved and funding available. This puts a premium on effective and efficient monitoring and evaluation of annual budget implementation, an aspect that is, however, poorly developed in local government. 3 By Law, the district head (mayor or Bupati) must issue an RPJMD by decree within 3 months of his election. As such, it is in part a political document and its validity cannot exceed the term of office of the district head. If the SSK is to conform to the RPJMD, it should logically be revisited if new elections take place before the end of its own 5-year plan horizon and a new district head issues a new RPJM. It is thus in the first year of the term of office that the opportunity arises to synchronize the plan horizons of the RPJM and SSK. 17

26 3.5 Provincial Roadmap Within PPSP, there is agreement that a sanitation policy of their own, provinces will not be able to do more than distributing support to all regions in their territory based on general characteristics such as, e.g. population size. A provincial policy should spell out the objectives of sanitation development and related priorities from the provincial perspective identify the means to be made available, and lay out a path with specific milestones to get there. This has become known as the Provincial Roadmap for Sanitation Development. Essentially, a province would use this roadmap to: describe the role it sees for itself in sanitation development; ensure the link with national sanitation policy documents (e.g. Renstra PU, PPSP); coordinate sanitation development with other relevant policies (national and provincial). Because PPSP initially continued the approach piloted under ISSDP, which focused on district level planning and did not include facilitation of provincial Pokjas to do sanitation planning, the roadmap is not part of the original PPSP plan documents. However, MOHA has included roadmapping as one of the prime responsibilities of the provincial Pokja in its Circular SE 660 on sanitation program management in the regions. 3.6 Modifications to the plan documents during the course of PPSP Situation Early on in PPSP it became clear that the manuals and guidelines developed under ISSDP for preparing the BPS and the SSK were too complex, especially given the fact that districts had to prepare these documents with considerably less support from facilitators and/or consultants compared to the resources available during ISSDP. It thus became evident that for a large up-scaling of the ISSDP approach under PPSP, it was essential to: a. revise and streamline existing procedures, manuals and guidelines to allow a shorter implementation time (maximum 10 months) but without jeopardizing the established mix of bottom-up/top-down planning; b. prepare practical guidelines to support the existing manuals for the BPS, the SSK, and the MPS, including standard templates to prepare these products; c. design a Quality Assurance (QA) procedure with workable QA criteria, to improve and ensure minimum quality standards; d. ensure an end-product that can be used as input for the regular planning and budgeting procedures of the local, provincial and central governments. This resulted in a substantial simplification of the original manuals 4, but it has not been possible to simplify the procedures so much that local governments can complete them within ten months with the existing pokja setup. It still takes well over two years to go through the entire PPSP planning process. An important objective of streamlining was to ensure a final product that could immediately serve as input in the regular planning and budgeting process of local, provincial, and central government. This would really impact on the utility of the entire PPSP planning cycle, something that local and even provincial levels increasingly began to recognize during Because SSK and MPS are not part of the formal planning cycle mandated under the National development planning system (Law 25/2004), they recognized that any and all proposals need to: meet readiness criteria of various funding sources; be integrated in standard district plan documents (e.g. the RPIJM); comply with established procedures. 4 The original manuals developed under ISSDP, known as Manual Tahab B and C, remain available as reference material. 18

27 With the decision to roll out the SSK approach all over Indonesia to implement the GOI s PPSP program with a view to attaining the millennium development goals for sanitation, it became imperative to enlist the provinces in translating the national policy for implementation at the regional level. This is entirely in line with the governor s official role of central government representative, under which provinces can coordinate and facilitate access to central level funding. Moreover, there is great scope for the provinces to play an independent role in furthering sanitation in their jurisdiction, because many provinces have considerable funds available that they could use to assist districts in pursuing sanitation targets (e.g. through Bantuan Keuangan, i.e. financial support to districts). However, not all provinces recognize sanitation as a concept requiring a multi-sectoral approach on which they can provide leadership. PPSP has therefore begun to assist provinces on putting together a Provincial Roadmap for sanitation. This began with a pilot activity in three provinces during 2012 and continued with formal roadmap planning in 10 provinces during Situation in 2014 Circular SE 660 on sanitation program management, which obliges provincial Pokjas to produce a roadmap, applies to all provinces, not only the 13 provinces that have received consultant support through This means that the remaining 21 provinces should at least begin their roadmapping activities in The PIU-IF work plan 2013 provides for assistance to these provinces, but the latter will need continued support to complete the process in The districts have been using the streamlined procedures for preparing the PPSP plan documents starting in Since then, the guidelines have been reviewed again, which resulted in a number of further improvements saw a similar and last round of review and finally the materials have been fine tuned for use in Of course it is important that the PPSP planning process can be completed within a reasonable time, but it is even more important that the outputs (the plan documents) are of good quality. To this end, PPSP introduced a quality assurance (QA) protocol in Together, the streamlined practical guidelines and the QA protocol have contributed to better and more comprehensive plan documents. Recent MPS are now effectively being used in the Government s regular planning and budgeting process. Still, there is a need for continued vigilance to make sure that the districts go beyond the protocol instead of just ticking off the relevant format requirements. Another factor that has contributed to improved performance is the introduction and further improvement of Nawasis from 2010 onwards. With Nawasis it is now possible to monitor and evaluate progress of the planning process. Because Nawasis also contains QA scores for the documents, both progress and quality assessment data are now publicly accessible on line. This has resulted in some form of peer pressure, which has contributed to increased awareness of the need to comply with QA criteria and readiness criteria for funding, and there is now more attention for the need to link the sanitation development projects and activities proposed in the MPS with the strategy formulated in the SSK. This has made recent MPS documents much more realistic than the more randomly formulated shopping lists produced in

28 4. Supporting activities As mentioned earlier, the PPSP approach represents a significant departure from the traditional ways of planning and implementation of development in Indonesia. Therefore, PPSP has taken up a number of supporting activities to enable the provincial and district Pokjas to perform their tasks under the program. These activities include (a) institutional development and capacity building of the PPSP management structure; (b) more process-oriented support through advocacy, facilitators, quality assurance, and monitoring and evaluation; and (c) efforts to prepare for long-term sustainability of sanitation interventions following from PPSP planning. 4.1 Institutional development and capacity building for PPSP management Provincial level Situation PPSP launched an innovative sanitation development planning approach featuring an empirical assessment of real sanitation conditions (EHRA), local ownership of sanitation development, strategic planning (SSK) and integrated programming (MPS). Taken together this has required an effort from all stakeholders to join in a holistic sanitation development approach. This has necessitated modifications in the existing legal framework and institutional mechanisms. To give direction to the PPSP implementation process, the PIU-IF produced guidelines for institutional preparation and indication of the PPSP activities at local level ( Pedoman penyiapan kelembagaan dan indikasi kegiatan PPSP di daerah ). These guidelines are crucial for effective management and coordination of PPSP implementation. Among other issues, they list selection criteria for PPSP participation. Subsequently, the enrollment of large numbers of districts during and the concomitant institutional challenges led MOHA in 2012 to issue Circular SE 660 to clarify PPSP management responsibilities at local and provincial level. The directive establishes the provincial role in sanitation development, with responsibility directly under the Governor, and promotes the creation of a provincial Pokja Sanitasi with terms of reference specifying its organizational structure and task description. Circular SE 660 attributes six functions to the provincial Pokja Sanitasi and specifies how they are to be performed: 1. Coordination; 2. Advocacy; 3. Advisory; 4. Facilitation; 5. Supervision; 6. Synchronization. The provincial Pokja has three instruments at its disposal for carrying out its responsibilities: The QA Panel, to review the quality of the documents submitted by the districts and provide feedback for improvement; The Provincial Roadmap, to formulate a sanitation strategy based on provincial hotspots as a basis for prioritizing assistance to districts in sanitation development; The Lokakarya MPS, a meeting with all districts in the province, to pull together and prioritize proposals from their MPSs in preparation for regular coordination in the context of the budget preparation process. During provinces have established a provincial Pokja Sanitasi including the QA Panel. These so-called Tim Panel differ in size, capacity, and operating mechanisms. All have received regular coaching sessions to strengthen their capacity. 20

29 The introduction of the Provincial Sanitation Roadmap provided an opportunity for on-the-job training / coaching of the provincial pokjas. This was begun in 2012, initially in 3 provinces, and continued during 2013 in another 10 provinces. By end of 2013, all 13 provinces involved have produced a (draft) Sanitation Roadmap. At least 20 Satkers from PU have conducted some form of coordination meeting on the MPS documents submitted to the provincial Pokja. This old style Lokakarya MPS will be replaced by a new, more inclusive process involving all stakeholders. South Kalimantan province conducted a new style Lokakarya MPS on a pilot basis. This pilot (which only included part of the Pra-Lokakarya MPS process) brought the message home that good quality planning documents are of crucial importance. Without such documents, it is not possible to make adequate funding arrangements, nor to begin preparing for implementation. It further showed that more work is required for the key stakeholders to achieve a thorough, mutual understanding of one another s programs and capacities if they are to develop a truly integrated sanitation development program. Situation in 2014 Both local and central government have gradually recognized the essential need for collaboration between the provincial and district Pokjas on sanitation planning, quality control of BPS/SSK/MPS, (shared) funding, and implementation of programs. The central government remains responsible for determining national policies and priorities, providing adequate funds for sanitation development, and overall monitoring and evaluation of program implementation. Under the working title Permendagri 2014, MOHA is currently working on a Ministerial Decree that will strengthen the directives on the functions and tasks laid down in its Circular SE 660. The 13 provinces that have prepared a Provincial Roadmap will likely continue using this as a baseline for decision making on sanitation development. The remaining 21 provinces are expected to prepare their Roadmap during By end 2014 all provinces should have gone through strategic policy formulation based on actual data of real sanitation conditions in the province. All provinces are ultimately expected to organize a Lokakarya MPS to synchronize and prioritize sanitation development in their jurisdiction. Key ingredients for this are the Provincial Roadmap and the MPSs from all the districts in the province. By mid-2014 there will be up to 13 provinces that have completed a roadmap and consequently have met the basic conditions for conducting an effective Lokakarya MPS. This will give these 13 provinces a better starting point for securing budgets, which will continue to be a major challenge for each district Pokja in its own. Used effectively, the Lokakarya MPS can become a forum for all stakeholders (local, provincial, national, and private sector and donors) to agree on funding activities that are mutually complementary in pursuing the goals and targets set out in the SSKs. Whether this will actually materialize and, more importantly, whether all provinces will be able to do this after 2014, depends mainly on: The quality of the MPSs in terms of whether they include all necessary sanitation interventions along with relevant details to meet funding requirements; The quality of the Provincial Roadmap in terms of whether it provides clear criteria for decision making; The capacity of the provinces for planning and subsequent monitoring and evaluation with a view to providing feedback to planning in future years. 21

30 District level Situation The responsibility for improving sanitation conditions in the country lies with local government. Early in PPSP, before the PMU-PIU structure became effective, representatives of the TTPS Working Groups conducted a number of roadshows to convince the districts to participate in the program. This task was subsequently taken over by the PMU and PIUs, occasionally with representatives of the core Ministries. The readiness criteria for selecting participating local governments were initially rather lenient to encourage as many districts as possible to apply. However, this soon proved counterproductive because in many cases the districts needed un-scheduled support once implementation got underway. A particular obstacle proved to be the requirement that Pokjas need to have an operational budget for their activities and for implementing the EHRA: while all districts promised to make budget allocations, actual release of funds was often late or did not occur at all. Eventually in 2013 the criteria have been made more specific, and these have been applied for selecting the 2014 batch of districts. A major challenge remains the quality of the BPS/SSK and MPS prepared by the district Pokjas. Most Pokjas have to go through a steep learning curve to achieve the standard required in PPSP for fieldlevel data collection, processing and analysis, strategic thinking to prioritize sanitation problems, and translating the strategy into effective, bankable measures. While there is a Quality Assurance protocol, this is more directed at completeness of the documents than review of their substance. This has contributed to many Pokjas following an administrative approach in preparing the PPSP plan documents, in which they focus more on filling in all the chapters of the prescribed format than on accuracy and consistency of the information. Notwithstanding the efforts of CFs, PFs, provincial Pokjas, and PROSDAs to facilitate and support the district Pokjas, and despite coaching sessions provided by central level program staff, ultimately it is the district Pokja that is responsible for the quality of the plan documents. Improvement in this regard will require continued guidance of the district Pokjas and further simplification of the PPSP planning process. Bringing local stakeholders together in a district Pokja has raised the self-confidence of the agencies responsible for sanitation. This has reflected on the Pokjas as a whole, which have become increasingly aware that they are the main vehicle for local level sanitation development. However, there has been a limitation in that frequent staffing changes have undermined the effectiveness of the capacity building that PPSP has provided to the Pokjas. This is exacerbated by the fact that there appears to be no culture of systematic transfer of knowledge between those who leave a position and their replacements. Another limiting factor has been the fact that documents such as the SSK and MPS have no formal status in the existing government planning and budget preparation process. Especially in the early phase of PPSP they often merely served as background information during budget planning, but not as basic plan documents. However, all levels in PPSP by now have come to realize the value of the plan documents, and efforts are underway to better incorporate them into the formal planning and budgeting cycle. Situation in 2014 By 2014 all districts throughout the country will have been exposed to the planning concepts of PPSP and given the opportunity to participate in the program. Out of a total of 508 districts, 85 will have participated in Stages 1 and 2 of the PPSP process only, but the rest will have moved to the other stages. Most of those 85 districts are located in Eastern Indonesia, especially Papua, where special conditions apply. Getting these districts on board requires extra advocacy initiatives that are different from the rest of the country. 22

31 Another development is the increasing number of districts that must update their SSK/MPS as the five-year validity period is running out. For this so-called Second Cycle, PPSP has modified its facilitation and other activities, with as most important characteristic that the process is expected to be much shorter than the first time around because Stage 2 and Stage 3 are to be completed within nine months. The most important challenge remains bringing together the project proposals contained in the MPSs with the sources of funding that are available but for which the different responsible ministries and agencies are searching bankable proposals. Unless this happens, larger scale sanitation improvement may remain underfunded. Similarly, on a local scale, districts need to increase their own revenue through sanitation service fees to fund (improvement of) their sanitation services. This will require a change of mindset, as local governments need to understand that income from service fees presupposes delivery of a service that people are willing to pay for, which in turn requires a customer orientation that so far seems to be lacking in most local services. Making sure that districts indeed experience this change of mindset will require considerable institutional and capacity building to keep up with the pace of infrastructure and facilities being completed and the need to use these effectively for improved sanitation services Capacity Building Situation The successful application of the PPSP planning and implementation methodology in the 330 Districts targeted in the original Roadmap PPSP was expected to put a strain on human resources at all levels of Government. However, although the Roadmap PPSP was very specific on the annual targets (e.g. on the numbers of BPS, SSK, MPS, etc. to be produced), it did not address the human resources required. In fact, the various GOI stakeholders took a while to realize the impact of implementing PPSP on their own resources. As a result, the sponsoring ministries were initially slow in filling the PMU and PIUs with sufficiently senior, full-time staff. For operational support, MPW initially recruited consultants (KMW and KMP) to assist provinces and districts in becoming familiar with the PPSP approach and methodology, while the Satkers PU recruited Provincial and City Facilitators to assist the Pokjas by facilitating the formulation of SSK and MPS documents. (The CFs/PFs continue their activities to this day.) In addition, USDP stationed provincial sanitation development advisers (Prosda) in a number of provinces (some with more than one province as their client ) to further strengthen delivery of the message. All these staff were new to PPSP and all required more or less extensive training and coaching from USDP. The table below depicts the training programs organized and funded by PPSP during , for which USDP took charge of planning, design, preparation and implementation. 23

32 Table 9 Training Programs Target Group Main Subject(s) Number of Participants PMU-PIU Media Training Echelon 2 30 PPSP Processes & Products 26 Training of Trainers Monitoring and Evaluation 10 Konsinyasi Road Map 30 EHRA 55 Pokja KK PPSP Socialization Provincial Kick-Off (7x) 280 EHRA Updating PPSP Methodology BP/SSK 191 Institutional Strengthening 120 Pokja Province Institutional Strengthening Identification of Funding Sources 26 Monitoring and Evaluation Quality Assurance and MonEv 84 MonEv of Advocacy Activities 20 Pokja Prov & KK Sanitation Campaign Methods SSK + MPS Methodology 477 Pokja Prov + Satker SSK & MPS 52 National Kick-Off 120 Pokja s + KMW EHRA PF/CF PPSP Methodology + Facilitation Skills MPS Satker PU BPS & SSK 114 KMW PPSP Methodology 62 KMP MPS 70 IUWASH Facilitators PPSP Methodology 24 PROSDA PPSP Methodology 15 PROSDA PPSP Methodology Follow Up 14 TOTAL Situation 2014 The impact of the above and other activities on the capacity of the key implementing actors has been significant and impressive results have been achieved over the years. Most of those capacity development achievements have been reported in other sections of this report. However, challenges remain. In general, capacity of the PMU and PIUs is commensurate with their anticipated post-ppsp role of overall program management, which will especially focus on monitoring, evaluation, and mobilizing sufficient resources. The PMU-PIUs exhibit a structural weakness in the thin layer of ministry staff, which results in a continued dependency on consultants. Moreover, since PMU/PIUs lack staff with PPSP field experience and practical training skills, their responsibility for future training and coaching of provincial/district stakeholders will likely become a challenge. It is anticipated that the provincial Pokjas will play a key role in the post PPSP environment, as they must provide strong coordination within the framework of clearly formulated provincial objectives. However, there is no universal agreement yet on this role, and particularly the provincial policy context within which they must play it. Despite significant training over the years, not all provincial Pokjas are ready for this and more strengthening of their capacity will be required. Frequent 24

33 reassignments of trained staff put further pressure on the performance of the Pokjas and their Tims Panel. The district Pokjas are facing similar constraints, facing a dual challenge of updating their SSK/MPS through the so-called Second Cycle process and speeding up implementation of planned development. In the Second Cycle, the Pokjas will have to internalize the national sanitation development target and formulate more ambitious sanitation development goals for their districts. Moreover, the focus will have to shift to ensuring on-time implementation of the planned investments. All this requires significant capacity and especially where there have been significant reassignments of trained staff this will pose a significant challenge. 4.2 Process-oriented support Advocacy and promotion Situation General advocacy Sanitation development is a priority for several ministries, including PU and MOH. By % of the population should avail of on-site wastewater facilities and 5% should be served by communitybased off-site systems. The general approach to increasing access to wastewater facilities is: Community Led Total Sanitation (STBM) in rural areas; Community Based Sanitation (Sanimas) in urban slum areas; Piped sewerage with off-site treatment in urban areas (metropolitan and large cities). As mentioned, the PPSP approach was piloted under ISSDP from 2006 through Data shows cities that have completed all planning stages in ISSDP ultimately increased their sanitation budgets two to four times. The challenge for PPSP is to scale up the effort with a view to achieving the same impact across Indonesia. While PU pursues development of physical infrastructure, MOH focuses on information, promotion, and triggering, etc., the Ministry of Health is responsible for the activities in stage 1 of the PPSP program cycle: advocacy, campaign, education, empowerment, and general public communication. The sanitation development focus is on large scale systems in a few major cities and promoting community-based systems anywhere else where on-site systems are problematic. The basic premise in promoting community-based systems is that, once energized, communities participate in planning and implementation and accept responsibility for operation and maintenance thereafter. This approach risks local governments concluding that sanitation development is unsustainable unless communities push for it. This undermines the understanding that sanitation is a public sector obligation: government has a responsibility to act if communities remain inactive. PIU-AE has collected data on the cost of doing nothing for each target group, the economy, and the general public. Advocacy focuses on convincing central, provincial, and local governments to actively pursue sanitation development by translating the cost of doing nothing into political and administrative issues and showing that funding sources are available for sanitation development. In this connection, the PIU-AE encourages participating districts to set achievable targets and to develop an appropriate regulatory environment for sanitation. 5 5 This may involve the identification of services to be provided, distribution of responsibilities, determination of tariff structures, etc. 25

34 Promotion of sanitation demand A key concern in sanitation development is how to reach out to the general public to generate effective demand for services the districts could provide. In past, top-down approaches that have characterized development of large-scale sewerage systems with centralized treatment this has often been neglected, with predictable difficulties in convincing households to connect to the system and resulting in underutilization of the system. But the same concern obtains for less infrastructureheavy services such as septic sludge collection, solid waste management, and environmental sanitation in general. The MOH approach has been to focus on triggering interest in sanitation with a view to making people not only aware of the need, but also ready to take action. MOH has used this approach in rural areas through so-called community-based total sanitation (STBM), which focuses on five pillars : 1. Stop open defecation; 2. Hand washing with soap; 3. Proper household drinking water management; 4. Proper household liquid waste management; 5. Proper household solid waste management. Early in PPSP, when rural areas were first being approached to conduct BP/SSK planning, many districts found it difficult to incorporate STBM because the PPSP manuals had been developed in the urban-oriented setting of ISSDP and did not refer to STBM as a potential strategy. This has since been corrected and the inclusion of the more rural regencies in PPSP, in addition to the cities for which it was originally intended, has presented an opportunity to overcome a number of drawbacks of the community-based sanitation approach as practiced until then: Only few institutions used STBM as the vehicle for sanitation development in rural communities; The STBM drive aimed at meeting national MDG targets, and focused on pillar one: stop open defecation, resulting in failure to achieve progress in the other pillars; Other community-based sanitation programs (e.g. Sanimas and Pamsimas) did not involve the community in planning and other project phases and thus did not meet actual needs, leaving facilities underutilized; There was no module for organizing STBM training and the guide for mentoring performance after triggering did not include community leaders. In circular letter SE 132/2013 the MOH instructs that there must be at least one open defecation free neighborhood in the territory of each community health center (puskesmas), and that communities that have completed pillar one must move on to the other pillars of STBM. Sanitation champions It was the experience of ISSDP that no amount of advocacy, triggering, or promotion could make up for lack of top level commitment to sanitation development. A key ingredient for Pokjas Sanitasi to become truly active, and for individual agencies to adhere to coordination, was to have a mayor or at least a district secretary of head of the planning board embrace the cause. In 2009, at the end of ISSDP, 12 mayors signed on to the The Jambi Declaration and agreed to establish AKOPSI, the City Alliance for Better Sanitation. Subsequently, in 2010, AKOPSI resolved to also accommodate heads of rural districts (Bupatis) to join the alliance. The name of the alliance was then changed from AKOPSI to AKKOPSI, to reflect that the platform not only included cities (kota) but also regencies (kabupaten). The AKKOPSI secretariat is located in the PMU-PPSP. The participation of Mayors and Bupatis as members and executives has made AKKOPSI a strategic vehicle for strengthening advocacy, commitment, mutual learning, and the sharing of experiences 26

35 among all the principal actors. This commitment continues to push the Pokjas Sanitasi in the districts to perform effectively in PPSP. In its first four years, AKKOPSI conducted advocacy to each of the provinces and provided information to mayors and Bupatis of other districts on PPSP mechanism and targets for sanitation development. As a result, AKKOPSI was able to increase its membership from 121 to 224 Mayors and Bupatis. Situation in 2014 General advocacy PIU AE has moved to expand the EHRA to include three new subjects: a) communications and media mapping; b) sanitation supply assessment; and c) community and gender mainstream assessment. These products will contribute to quality of BPS, SSK and MPS. The PIU-AE also seeks to further integrate its activities with those of the technical and institutional PIUs and with the PMU for monitoring and evaluation. PIU-AE will review and complete the PPSP Advocacy Kit and other promotional/communications and tools, and update them as necessary. The purpose of most of these materials is to disseminate success stories and lessons learned of PPSP. A major focus of PPSP will be strengthening internal advocacy and internal communications among ministries and provincial and district agencies, to ensure that all stakeholders stay on message. In particular, central ministries must be convinced to direct their activities to support provincial and district governments in accelerating sanitation development. In other words, the SSK/MPS must become the leading benchmark for sanitation development. Promotion of sanitation demand A number of central government programs include demand triggering, or more broadly engaging communities in planning and development of local sanitation solutions. Until recently, these programs, each with their own funding source and specific targets and reporting requirements, operated more or less independently. However, these programs are now better synchronized, and include the following: 1. Water Supply Program and Community Based Total Sanitation ( PAM STBM ): Phase I in 2012 conducted in 20 provinces and 28 regencies Phase II in 2013 conducted in 33 provinces and 159 regencies 2. Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Project ( ICWRMIP ): Phase I ( ) in two regencies and one city Phase II ( ) in 9 regencies and 3 cities 3. a pilot project for implementation of PPSP through strengthening the Pillars of STBM; 4. PAMSIMAS Phase I in ( implementation of STBM demand component ): Implemented in 96 regencies and 15 provinces 5. PAMSIMAS Phase II in ( implementation of STBM demand component ): implemented in 221 regencies and 32 provinces 6. Program Urban Sanitation and Rural Infrastructure (USRI) by Directorate PPLP of PU 7. Specific budget allocation for Community-Based Environmental Sanitation (DAK-SLBM) by Directorate PPLP of PU Carried out in 33 provinces in

36 Apart from improving synchronization, the programs have also been able to incorporate useful ideas and approaches from one another. For example: In urban areas, programs such as USRI employ STBM prior to the construction stage STBM has begun to shift focus to other pillars such as Pillar 4 and 5 as part of improvement of residential sanitation; A new module on using STBM to accelerate sanitation development with community participation uses the Buku Putih Sanitasi as one of the references for determining the STBM locations; MOH will allocate Dekon funds for training provincial Pokjas on strengthening the STBM pillars in PPSP. Sanitation champions AKKOPSI s role in creating awareness and commitment among the district heads is very important because, as expressed by the Minister of Home Affairs, political will of the district head is the key success in providing for the basic needs of the public. Yet AKKOPSI faces a number of challenges: The shortage of experts to support AKKOPSI missions; Shortage of funds to carry out AKKOPSI activities Provincial and City Facilitators Situation At the beginning of PPSP the role and task of the provincial and city facilitators had yet to be determined. There was an obvious example in ISSDP, but in PPSP the facilitators would have to work much more independently from the technical assistance in the USDP cells in the PMU and PIUs. The facilitators were initially provided by PU s regional-based KMW and KMP consultants, but after the latter consultants were phased out the Satkers PPLP in the provinces hired the facilitators directly from 2012 onwards. Apart from having to agree on a workable task description, there was also concern that the many facilitators required to implement the program would have to be recruited from a pool of local consultants that almost universally were unfamiliar with the PPSP approach. While of course the subject matter was to be considered trainable, the main concern was for quality control of their performance. The recruitment process was slow, also because of budget limitations in PU, but ultimately it was possible to recruit all the necessary facilitators. In 2010 USDP and ministry staff provided a two week training course and the facilitators were deployed to their (sometimes remote) locations. A number of reasons limited their effectiveness in 2010: Their late deployment relative to the first implementation year of the PPSP program cycle; The time it took for them to familiarize themselves more intimately with the PPSP approach in the field; The level of complexity of the early planning manuals, which came from ISSDP and had not been prepared for a nationwide rollout. For these reasons the pokjas were unable to complete the planning targets during the first year. This led into another constraint, i.e. the fact that PU could only hire the facilitators on one-year contracts that it could not automatically extend. This meant that new facilitators would have to be recruited in the middle of the planning process, who would then have to familiarize themselves again, etc. Against these odds, the first districts participating in the program managed to complete their plan documents. However, upon review of these first documents it became clear that many of them 28

37 focused more on planning than on implementation. This was a major weakness, because the basic criterion for PPSP planning was that it should result in implementable project proposals. Situation in 2014 The full complement of CFs/PFs has been trained and over 60% are now functioning well. However, because it is not possible for PU to hire this category of staff on multi-year contracts, it is still necessary to go through a cumbersome selection and recruitment process every year. It would appear that this should not be too difficult, because there is now a ready pool of experienced personnel to choose from. However, many Satkers also use criteria other than merit alone to hire facilitators, so it is not clear how much of the capacity established during will remain available for the plan period. In any event, it is clear that the training program for 2014 and beyond will have to be diversified, since recruits that have worked as PF/CF before should only need a refresher course (or may not require training at all) Quality assurance Situation As mentioned above, PPSP had to begin without a methodology for systematic quality assurance for the planning process and the final planning products (BPS, SSK and MPS). Relevant QA criteria and protocols were developed during 2011 for implementation by the provincial Pokjas. Eventually, MOHA institutionalized the quality assurance function in its Circular SE 660. PPSP developed relevant training material and provided training to the provincial Pokjas. Situation in 2014 Quality Assurance (QA) has now become a vested responsibility of the Provincial Pokja, for which it has a specially trained unit (Tim Panel). Since 2012 QA is a permanent subject during training of members of the provincial and district Pokjas and of the Facilitators. Quality assurance is a continuous process and essentially iterative. The district submits their plan documents (BPS/SSK/MPS) chapter by chapter by uploading a soft copy in Nawasis. The Provincial Tim Panel checks the documents and assesses the quality of the document against the agreed upon quality criteria, which obtain nation-wide. In case of shortcomings, the Provincial Tim Panel returns the file to the district Pokja with comments and suggestions for improvement. The district Pokja then amends and returns the document for re-assessment, and so on. During this process, the document receives a QA score, which is displayed in Nawasis. As the quality of the document improves, so does the score. The score displayed in Nawasis at any given moment is therefore not necessarily the final QA score. Average scores are calculated for general reporting purposes. Because these averages also include districts that are still improving their documents and districts that have not yet begun to upload their documents, total averages are by definition lower than could ultimately be expected. Ideally, the QA process should serve two purposes: ensuring that all plan documents give comparable treatment to the different subjects in conformity with agreed standards; and contributing to progressive quality improvement in terms of substance. The apparent assumption is that, if these standards indeed represent a balanced document (e.g. in terms of whether all relevant aspects are mentioned and receive sufficient treatment), working to meet them would automatically drive the Pokjas to continually strive to improve on the substance of the different plan sections describing these aspects as well. This latter purpose requires that the Tim Panel is well informed on all aspects of sanitation development and, moreover, that it is able to establish a relationship of mutual trust with the district Pokjas that allows it to be frank in its feedback. However, like most Q systems in 29

38 use today, the QA process in PPSP mainly addresses administrative requirements and the Tims Panel seem to lack both the expertise and the drive to lead the district Pokjas to further substantive improvement. As things stand today, the QA process has potential, but the Tims Panel need additional capacity building for the interaction between the provincial and district the Pokja to provide substantive benefit to PPSP implementation: 1. to clarify relations between the sanitation problems and the required solutions within the context of the five-year planning horizon at local and provincial levels; 2. to shed light on the suitability of the proposed programs and activities to achieve locally formulated sanitation development goals. A clear justification of proposed projects and activities helps the district Pokja during hearings with the local assembly The process described here derives from the context of local conditions and personal relations within the province. One should thus expect the substantive benefits to develop at different speed and with different effect in the different provinces. It may be possible to speed up the process in all provinces through horizontal learning structured around the QA findings Monitoring and evaluation The fact that monitoring and evaluation (M&E) constitutes a separate and continuous Stage of the PPSP approach, running from the very beginning of advocacy through implementation of sanitation infrastructure and other activities, demonstrates the crucial importance attached to M&E from the very start of PPSP. Effective M&E allows decision-makers to make more informed choices about budget allocations by providing useful information on progress towards meeting key sanitation objectives, serves transparency, and improves accountability. Situation in 2010 While included in a number of individual sanitation projects in the past, in 2010 M&E was not yet being applied in the context of an overall encompassing program. Although (local) governments are required to conduct M&E of their activities, it generally stops at monitoring inputs, focusing on things such as % completion of items in the current budget but without much attention to the reasons for deviations from plan. The challenge for PPSP was to establish nationwide M&E with a view to lessons learned to inform changes in implementation where necessary. At the start of PPSP GOI was in the process of developing improved tools and institutional systems for data management on water supply and sanitation monitoring with support from WASAP-E. Ultimately, USDP and the WASAP-E consultants collaborated on developing the national water and sanitation information system Nawasis. The system is of key importance for monitoring by the PMU, but it is also accessible to all stakeholders in sanitation. In fact, it contains much more than information on the implementation of PPSP (such as numbers of districts participating and numbers of plan documents completed), as it also aims to provide information on concrete sanitation development driven by other programs and projects throughout Indonesia. The design of this system used a standard approach comprising three main building blocks: A planning, process, and decision-making block; A strategic monitoring block; An implementation monitoring block. 30

39 The basic principle of this model is results-based monitoring, which reflects that the effectiveness and efficiency of the sanitation development derives from sanitation sector decision-making (Block 1) based on two types of performance monitoring, i.e.: strategic monitoring (Block 2) and implementation monitoring (Block 3): Planning, process, and decision-making monitoring measures progress towards the establishment of SSK planning and its impact on decision-making on sanitation; Urban Sanitation Development Program Sanitation Monitoring Planning, process and decision-making (Block 1) Strategic Monitoring (Block 2) Measurement of progress towards meeting general objectives, specific objectives, outcomes, and targets Implementation Monitoring (Block 3) Measurement of annual plan implementation (outputs), using SSK Action Plan as guidance for selection of annual Strategic monitoring measures progress towards meeting the desired sanitation results the outcomes and their associated targets, which are a reflection of the specific objective of sanitation development; Implementation monitoring measures progress towards achieving the annual sanitation outputs. It analyzes sector inputs (primarily budget allocations) and their relation to outputs (such as new sanitation infrastructure and other activities). Situation in 2014 Because of the long processing time involved in PPSP planning, it is too early to pronounce verdict on the effectiveness of the three blocks as implemented in Nawasis. As mentioned earlier, to date only 107 districts have actually reached the stage of MPS-based budgeting and only 49 of these districts have progressed to concrete implementation n 2013, i.e. spending based on budgets formulated last year. Consequently, the only one of the three blocks in Nawasis that contains sufficient data to draw conclusions is the planning process and decision-making block, which contains information on the number of plan documents completed by the districts as they progress through the different stages of PPSP, etc. With the implementation monitoring block only drawing information from a few dozen districts, actual development on the ground is too small to feed the strategic monitoring block to draw conclusions on the macro impact of PPSP-originated spending. This realization has in fact become an issue once PPSP began to encourage provinces to formulate their own sanitation strategies in the so-called Provincial Roadmaps. Because provinces need reliable and comprehensive data to take a stand on sanitation development in their jurisdiction, the fact that in 2012 not all districts in all provinces were participating in PPSP meant that provinces could not use Nawasis for roadmapping. To overcome this obstacle, USDP designed a tool for the provinces to collect data in all districts in their jurisdiction. By end of 2014, almost all districts will be participating in PPSP and all provinces will be working on their roadmap. Hence, both Nawasis and the Roadmap Databases will be nearly comprehensive in their coverage. However, there are important differences: The data in Nawasis and the Roadmap Databases are different in nature. The latter are at once more limited (they contain data that is relatively easy to collect) and less basic (they include data reflecting opinion on the quality of facilities and institutional and regulatory arrangements). Nawasis will ultimately include more basic data on sanitation development (investments and non-physical activities). 31