M&E CASE STUDY WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTER PLAN PACKAGE I: SURABAYA

M&E CASE STUDY WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTER PLAN PACKAGE I: SURABAYA

INDONESIA INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE

June 2011

INDONESIA INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE This document has been published by the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII), an Australian Government funded project designed to promote economic growth in Indonesia by enhancing the relevance, quality and quantum of infrastructure investment. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australia Indonesia Partnership or the Australian Government. Please direct any comments or questions to the IndII Director, tel. +62 (21) 230-6063, fax +62 (21) 3190-2994. Website: www.indii.co.id.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report has been prepared by the M&E Team, engaged under the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII) funded by AusAID. The support provided by IndIIs Technical Director of Water and Sanitation, IndIIs management, and the Consultant Team in Surabaya is gratefully acknowledged. The report draws on available documents and results of key interviews. Any errors of fact or interpretation are solely those of the author. IndII M&E Team Jakarta, June 2011

IndII 2011 All original intellectual property contained within this document is the property of the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII). It can be used freely without attribution by consultant and IndII partners in preparing IndII documents, reports designs and plans; it can also be used freely by other agencies or organisations, provided attribution is given. Every attempt has been made to ensure that referenced documents within this publication have been correctly attributed. However, IndII would value being advised of any corrections required, or advice concerning source documents and/ or updated data.

Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................................... ii Executive Summary................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1: Background and Context ....................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Case Study Methodology ....................................................................... 3 Chapter 3: Analysis ................................................................................................ 5 3.1. Achievements and Challenges .............................................................................. 5 3.2. Capacity Building ................................................................................................... 6 3.3. Partnership ............................................................................................................ 7 3.4. Policy Setting and Implementation ....................................................................... 8 Chapter 4: Key Conclusions .................................................................................... 9

Annexes ............................................................................................................... 10 Annex 1: Semi-Structured Interview Questions for WWIMP Package 1: Surabaya .. 10 Annex 2: List of People Consulted ............................................................................. 12 Annex 3: Transcripts of Interviews with Stakeholders .............................................. 13 Annex 4: DGCK Letter to Mayor of Surabaya ............................................................. 20 Annex 5: Bappeko Report to Mayor of Surabaya ...................................................... 22

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AusAID APBD Bappeko Bappenas CSS DED DGCK DGHS EHRA FGD FS GoA GoI IndII ISSDP IUDP LG MoHA MPW PDAM PLP Pokja PPSP RISP RISPKS RPJM RTRW SANIMAS SSDP ToR TTPS Australian Agency for International Development Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (Local Expenditures and Revenues Budget) Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Kota (Local Development Planning Board at City Level) Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional (National Development Planning Agency) City Sanitation Strategy Detailed Engineering Design Directorate General Cipta Karya Directorate General of Human Settlements Environmental Health Risk Assessment Focus Group Discussion Feasibility Study Government of Australia Government of Indonesia Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Programme Integrated Urban Development Project Local Government Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Public Works Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (Local Water Company) Direktorat Penyehatan Lingkungan Permukiman (Directorate of Environmental Sanitation) Kelompok Kerja Sanitasi (Sanitation Working Group or WG) Program Percepatan Pembangunan Sanitasi Perkotaan (Programme to Accelerate Urban Sanitation Development) Rencana Induk Sanitasi Perkotaan (Urban Sanitation Master Plan) Rencana Induk Sanitasi Perkotaan Kota Surabaya (Surabaya Urban Sanitation Master Plan) Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah (Five-year Development Plan) Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (Regional Spatial Planning) Sanitasi Masyarakat (Urban Community Sanitation Programme) Surabaya Sewerage Development Project Terms of Reference Tim Teknis Pembangunan Sanitasi (Technical Team for Sanitation Development)

ii

Tupoksi WG WSI WWIMP

Tugas Pokok dan Fungsi (Working Unit Tasks and Responsibilities) Working Group Water and Sanitation Initiative Waste Water Investment Master Plan

iii

Executive Summary
Urban sanitation conditions have always been very poor in Indonesian cities. This is attributable to a range of causes, including rapid urbanisation, poor governance, low institutional and organisational capacity in this sector, and inappropriate technical solutions. The national government has devised three approaches to respond to this situation: (1) development of an overarching Acceleration of Urban Sanitation Development Programme (PPSP); (2) development of a specific sanitation policy with respect to wastewater management under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Works (MPW), including major input from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA); and (3) a planned ten-fold increase in funding during the period 2010-2014. In regard to PPSP, the Government of Indonesia (GoI) has asked the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII) to assist it in accelerating the development of urban sanitation through support for wastewater planning in several cities. IndII selected a total of eight participating cities in consultation with GoI agencies, one of these cities being Surabaya. IndII commenced Waste Water Investment Master Plan (WWIMP, or the Plan) activity (the Activity) in Surabaya in September 2010. In line with the goal of supporting the GoI initiative to accelerate the development of urban sanitation under the PPSP through support for wastewater planning in a number of cities, IndII defined the objective of this activity as being to prepare a wastewater investment master plan for the city of Surabaya that is acceptable to the local government (LG) and capable of being implemented with external funding support from the GoI1. The WWIMP outputs are primarily reports, including a feasibility study, a capacity building plan, and the master plan itself. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) case study for the WWIMP Activity followed a semi-structured interview process and engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to obtain a series of views and observations. Evidence was sourced and sighted in order to strengthen the case for contributing to the agreed objectives as outlined in the Activity Terms of Reference (ToR), and towards broader IndII key result areas. The case study found that the Activity was able to produce the draft WWIMP and draft feasibility study on schedule. While these documents are considered technically feasible, there are doubts as to the Plans usefulness, since its recommendations for wastewater treatment locations suggest using land that it may be a challenge to acquire. In other words, the Plan is unlikely to be implemented by the LG due to land acquisition issues. The Directorate General of Cipta Karya (DGCK) took the initiative to discuss the issues at a meeting in Jakarta during May 2011. However, it was clear from the interviews that there is still no consensus, and no decision has been made on how to address the

See the ToR for WWIMP activity

iv

land issue. This has impeded the consultants efforts to finalise the master plan and feasibility study. The case study also found a problem with the partnership between the IndII consultants and the key LG counterpart agency, represented by the Sanitation Working Group (Kelompok Kerja Sanitasi, or Pokja Sanitasi), in the wastewater master planning process. Insufficient coordination and consultation occurred in the planning stage for the master plan. Yet it is clear from the Activity ToR that the WWIMP document should be prepared in consultation with the city government. The degree of intensity of the consultation process is important, since it will affect the level of LG buy-in to the Plan. This study recognised that these two major issues need to be overcome urgently in order to avoid repeating the long history of sanitation master plans that have not been implemented. The consultant needs to (a) provide a more detailed analysis and solutions for land, alternative systems and technology, and (b) enhance its approach in order to effectively communicate its concepts to the Working Group (WG) and LG. For its part, the Surabaya WG/LG needs to improve its level of commitment by devoting more resources to the Activity (i.e., in terms of both time and labour).

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Chapter 1:

Background and Context

Urban sanitation conditions have always been very poor in Indonesian cities. This is attributable to a range of causes, including rapid urbanisation, poor governance, low institutional and organisational capacity in this sector, and inappropriate technical solutions. When sanitation services are not up to the desired standard, this causes citywide problems relating to the overall health of the community especially in terms of childrens health, environmental degradation and economic losses. The national government has devised three responses to this situation: (1) development of an overarching Acceleration of Urban Sanitation Development Programme (PPSP); (2) development of a specific sanitation policy with respect to wastewater management, under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Works (MPW) but also with major input from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA); and (3) a planned ten-fold increase in funding during the period 2010-2014. Concerning PPSP, Bappenas has collaborated with MPW, MoHA and the Ministry of Health through the interdepartmental TTPS2 to adopt a range of targets elaborated upon in the Roadmap to Accelerate Urban Sanitation Development (PPSP) 20102014. The roadmap targets 330 cities that have sanitation problems and focuses on three wastewater management goals to be achieved by 2014: i) ii) iii) Providing new sewerage for five cities; Expanding existing sewerage networks in 11 cities to serve an additional five million people; and Constructing decentralised community wastewater management systems (known as SANIMAS) in each city.

The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has asked the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII) to assist it in accelerating the development of urban sanitation under the PPSP by supporting wastewater planning in a number of cities. The initial request for support from the GoI covered preparation of wastewater Master Plans, Feasibility Studies (FS) and Detailed Engineering Designs (DED). IndII selected the participating cities in consultation with GoI agencies, resulting in eight cities being chosen: Surabaya, Bogor, Makassar, Batam, Palembang, Bandar Lampung, Pekanbaru, and Cimahi. Each city was selected through a process designed to ensure it is committed to improving wastewater management services within its jurisdiction. The cities also had to satisfy other applicable prioritisation criteria in order to (a) begin providing a future pipeline of committed regional governments and (b) improve harmonisation of donor and GoI programmes.

Tim Teknis Pembangunan Sanitasi (TTPS) is the official interdepartmental committee responsible for oversight of all GoI sanitation programmes.

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

The Waste Water Investment Master Plan (WWIMP) activity (the Activity) defined its goal as supporting the GoI initiative to accelerate the development of urban sanitation under the PPSP through support to wastewater planning in a number of cities3. The Activity is divided into three packages of work. Package I covers preparation of WWIMPs for the cities of Surabaya, Bogor, and Makassar. The specific objective of the assignment under Package I is to prepare waste water investment master plans for the cities of Surabaya, Bogor, and Makassar4. The investment plans should include a properly prepared investment program that is acceptable to the local government (LG) and can be implemented with external funding support from the GoI. The preparation of the WWIMP is a component of the Water and Sanitation Initiative (WSI) for Indonesia. The Government of Australia (GoA) announced the WSI in December 2008, with an approved allocation for Indonesia of A$ 60.5 million. The bilateral funds were to be expended during the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011. The WSI program for Indonesia is being delivered through IndII, which is a bilateral cooperation project between Australia and Indonesia funded by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).

3 4

See the TOR for WWIMP Activity See the RFT for Package I of WWIMP Activity

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2:

Case Study Methodology

The case study approach is a powerful qualitative tool used by IndII/WSI to assess a sample of activities funded across the broad spectrum of the program. The methodology used to select activities for inclusion includes: Activities of strategic importance to the GoI, AusAID and IndII/WSI Activities of a certain financial size Activities with specific management and advisory functions and services Activities of specific geographical focus Activities in technical areas that are representative of the program (i.e., selecting activities that are representative of the resources used by IndII, such as water and sanitation activities).

The WWIMP activity has been selected as a case study for this round based on the duration of the assignment, the progress made, and the strategic importance to IndII/WSI, AusAID and the GoI of supporting the accelerated development of urban sanitation. Likewise, this activity is strategically important to the future direction of advisory support within the AusAID program. The selection of the city of Surabaya was based on initial discussions with the Technical Director and Senior Project Officer of WSI/IndII, where progress already made was one factor to consider. The limited time and resources available to the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) team meant that conducting case studies in all cities was not a practical option. It is important to note that the case study findings presented in this report are not meant to apply to similar situations found in other cities. Nevertheless, the lessons learned from this case study could be used in other cities to replicate similar successful approaches and avoid similar failures. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the WWIMP activity acknowledge that, in view of (i) the GoIs desire to maximise the use of LG human resources, and (ii) the changes in institutional arrangements likely to be proposed as part of the master plan, the critical success factors under the consultants control relate to: effective engagement with the key LG counterpart agencies in this process in-depth analysis of the existing situation, including identification of key issues and constraints (physical, environmental, institutional, financial, socioeconomic/cultural) a comprehensive, innovative, and rigorous approach to developing alternative solutions the quality of the key outputs (master plan and feasibility study)

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

the quality of the consultants communications (written, oral and presentation materials) with the city government and other stakeholders (government, private, sector and civil society).

The ToR mentions that the consultants performance will mainly be judged against the above criteria, which are therefore the key aspects for the consultant to address in approaching the assignment. It should be noted, however, that in this M&E case study the consultant did not review all such criteria, particular those that would require technical knowledge (such as assessing the quality of the master plan document). Instead, the consultant looked at the processes occurring during the master planning activity, i.e., transfer of knowledge, communication and consultation amongst stakeholders, LG buy-in, and other issues and challenges in activity implementation. The M&E case study for the WWIMP activity followed a semi-structured interview process and engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to obtain a series of views and observations. Evidence was sourced and sighted as a means of strengthening the case for contributing to the agreed objectives as outlined in the Activity ToR, and to the broader IndII key result areas of increased capacity, strengthened partnerships, and improved policy/systems formulation and implementation. The case study was conducted from 16 May to 3 June 2011. The case study used a semi-structured interview (see Annex 1). Various stakeholders involved in the activity were consulted, and their feedback was sought on key questions (see Annex 2). Annex 3 presents the feedback garnered from key stakeholders. The document analysis included a review of the Activity ToR, the M&E monthly reports prepared by the consultant, and other relevant reporting documentation.

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS

Chapter 3:

Analysis

3.1. Achievements and Challenges The Directorate General of Human Settlement (DGHS) at the MPW first approached IndII in 2008 with a view to assisting it in preparing wastewater planning activities for larger urban centres. In response, AusAID approved an initial scoping study in July 2009. This activity resulted in a list of potential locations for further assistance in WWIMP preparation. For the activity to proceed, each LG had to provide a written confirmation outlining their commitment and proposed involvement. The city of Surabaya was one of the largest cities involved in the WWIMP activity. IndIIs consultant commenced the WWIMP activity in Surabaya in September 2010. The main counterpart at the LG was the Sanitation Working Group (Kelompok Kerja Sanitasi, or Pokja Sanitasi)5 headed by the City Development Planning Board (Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Kota, or Bappeko). The Working Group (WG) was established in Surabaya in 2009. The activity ToR mandates that the WWIMP document should be prepared in consultation with the LG based on a long-term master plan for sanitation development that includes physical infrastructure and capacity building in order to ensure sustainable long-term wastewater management. The investment plan is also required to include a properly prepared investment program that is acceptable to the LG and capable of being implemented with external funding support from the GoI. The outputs to be produced are detailed in the activity design. These are primarily reports, a Feasibility Study, a Capacity Building Plan, and the Master Plan itself. To ensure the quality of outputs delivered, the DGHS set up a special team for the city to provide technical oversight and peer review, in close coordination with IndIIs oversight management consultant. The case study found that the activity had produced the draft Waste Water Investment Master Plan and draft Feasibility Study on schedule. Although these documents are considered technically feasible, there are some doubts as to the usefulness of the Plan, since it recommends land to be used for the wastewater treatment facilities that will be challenging to acquire. In other words, the Plan is unlikely to be implemented by the LG due to the associated land acquisition issues. Some comments on this issue from the interviews are reported below. Land availability will be the major problem if the consultant insists on its recommendation. Although the land being proposed is technically appropriate, the acquisition process will be very challenging and may take years to complete.

Pokja Sanitasi is the official inter-agency committee responsible for coordination and oversight of all LG sanitation programmes.

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

In Surabaya, land acquisition is always a problem. We have suggested other locations that would be easier to acquire, but there has been no response from the consultant. If the consultant insists on its recommendation, the municipal government may refuse to implement its recommendation. The Directorate General of Cipta Karya (DGCK) invited all stakeholders to discuss the issues at a meeting in Jakarta during May 2011. To follow up the meeting, the DGCK sent a formal request to the Mayor of Surabaya (reproduced in Annex 4) asking the city to provide land for the wastewater treatment location. It was clear from the interviews that there was no consensus and no decision had been made to resolve the land issue. The consultant reported that this had impeded its efforts to finalise the master plan and feasibility study. In the consultants view, the new locations being proposed by the LG were not technically feasible. The case study also found a problem with the effectiveness of engagement with the key LG counterpart agency (i.e., the Working Group) in the wastewater master planning process. The counterpart was extremely disappointed at the lack of coordination and communication between the key players, namely, the consultant and the Working Group. The Working Group noted the absence of regular meetings, and also that a few reports had been produced by the consultant without consulting the working group. The consultant often acts on its own initiativethis was confusing for us when we had to answer the DGCKs questions. For its part, the consultant argued that it was difficult to follow the LGs schedule when the consultant was restricted by the limited time frame for the project. This communication problem needs to be immediately overcome in the master planning process. The counterpart recognises that this is a prerequisite to the completion of the master plan, as conveyed in the Bappeko report to the Mayor of Surabaya on 13 May 2011 (Annex 5). Furthermore, the ToR for the activity also mandates that the WWIMP document should be prepared in consultation with the city government. There is therefore no justification for disregarding the consultation process, since this will affect the degree of LG buy-in to the Plan. As the activity ToR recognises, urban sanitation interventions tend to require more institutional than community-based solutions, thus the master planning approach should emphasise LG ownership of plans and strengthening the role of LG.

3.2. Capacity Building The ToR explains that the capacity building component under the WWIMP activity will be implemented by assisting (through the WG) the city government and its operational

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS

agencies to prepare plans to build the capacity of the relevant agencies. This includes improving the operational and financial performance of the sector, which is critical for the sustainability of the sanitation investments being proposed. The capacity building proposal should be developed as part of the Master Plan. The discussion of capacity building in this report is not intended to assess the capacity building proposal (which is part of the Master Plan), but to identify whether there has been any transfer of knowledge in the master planning process. It was clear from the interviews that the WG expected to be exposed to new concepts and technologies during the master planning process. But it appears that the coordination problem impeded this transfer of knowledge. As one respondent stated: We really hope we can have substantial involvement in the master planning process to enable transfer of knowledge to occur. The consultant recognised this limitation as being a consequence of the limited time frame for the project. In the consultants view, the limited time frame was what prevented in-depth consultations and capacity building from occurring. The challenge is that each WG member has a different level of background knowledge, making it difficult to develop a common understanding among the members on wastewater issues. A sufficient time frame would need to be provided for the activity to lead to increased capacity among WG members. In the existing circumstances, the consultant was restricted in doing this because of the need to complete the target outputs and deliver the reports before the end of June 2011.

3.3. Partnership The M&E teams interviews found no issues regarding internal coordination among WG members. Nevertheless, there is a need to redefine or clarify the tasks and responsibilities of each WG member. A successful partnership is often based on mutual understanding and obligations. One WG member did not understand why their agency was even involved in the sanitation program. A partnership issue was found in the relationship between the IndII consultant and the WG. As noted in Section 3.1, insufficient coordination and consultation occurred during the master planning process. To some extent, this state of affairs prevented the consultant performing its work efficiently. While each side has its own reasons as to why this disconnect occurred, it is important that both parties improve the situation. Both sides must be willing to learn and adapt, to exchange technical knowledge, and to relate as equals in a shared future. The consultant could improve its approach by engaging in intensive consultations with the WG. Regular meetings should be held with a clear agenda so that the expected output of each meeting is clear. The consultant also needs to engage in two-way

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

consultation on the feedback given by the WG. These were the two issues most commonly raised by the WG on the master planning process. Often we do not know what output/outcome is expected from the meeting. It is not clear whether our feedback is accommodated because the revisions are never shared with us. As for the WG, and the Surabaya LG as a whole, they need to consider their level of commitment to the current engagement. The difficulties in arranging meetings, the limited time devoted to reviewing activity outputs (We havent looked at it because we are busy with our own work), and the land problem are issues that could be addressed through LG high commitment to the activity.

3.4. Policy Setting and Implementation In regard to sanitation development, Surabaya LG began sanitation planning in 19881994 through its involvement in the Integrated Urban Development Project (IUDP). In 1996-2000, a Surabaya Sewerage Development Project (SSDP) resulted in an urban sanitation master plan. How and when this would be implemented was unclear until the Urban Environment Board took the initiative to review this document in 2008 with funding from the municipal budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah, or APBD). This indicated that the city government was concerned about sanitation development. The review led to an academic paper and a detailed design, but there was no implementation due to institutional and land availability issues. The LG also has a City Sanitation Strategy (CSS) document and a Sanitation White Book (Buku Putih Sanitasi). The IndII consultant used these and other documents as reference materials in developing the current WWIMP. Further, based on the 20052025 Surabaya Vision Plan, wastewater and drainage development became an LG priority. So clearly the WWIMP activity is relevant to the needs of the city government. In previous planning work, the city government recognised that land availability was a major issue impeding implementation of the master plan. This led to some comments that it was difficult to understand why the consultant had come up with similar recommendations and had not learned from previous failures. The LG is expecting the consultant to undertake an in-depth analysis of the existing situation and constraints in order to come up with an alternative solution that would allow implementation of the Plan. We would like to see good wastewater management implemented in our city.

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

CHAPTER 4: KEY CONCLUSIONS

Chapter 4:

Key Conclusions

The study found that both technical and non-technical issues impeded the WWIMP preparation work in Surabaya. The land being proposed by the consultant for the wastewater treatment site, while technically feasible, is not acceptable to the LG. The land acquisition process is recognised as the biggest constraint if the Plan is to proceed based on the current recommendation. Non-technical issues such as the lack of coordination and consultation between key players have also impeded the consultants efficient and effective performance of its work. These two major issues are recognised by this study as issues that need to be overcome immediately to avoid perpetuating a long history of unimplemented sanitation Master Plans. It is important for the consultant to provide a more detailed analysis of and solution to the land issue, and an alternative system and technology, as requested by the LG. The consultant also needs to improve its approach in order to communicate concepts effectively to the WG members, and especially to Bappeko as the lead agency. More intensive communication and coordination clearly needs to be established so that the activity objective can be achieved, namely, a well-prepared sanitation investment program that is acceptable to the LG and capable of implementation.

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

Annexes
Annex 1: Semi-Structured Interview Questions for WWIMP Package 1: Surabaya

1. Background and Context Please provide us with some background to the Waste Water Investment Master Plan activity in Surabaya what was the initial problem that the activity was meant to resolve? What have been two major achievements to date for this Activity? What have been major challenges to date for this Activity? In your opinion, have the stated objectives of this Activity been met? Overall how satisfied are you with the input and support of IndII?

2. Capacity Building Was there any evidence of capacity building? If so, what have been positive contributions (i.e., new skills, knowledge application, etc.)?

3. Partnership Has IndII support assisted you to establish partnerships with other working units within local government and other agencies/institutions? Have there been any barriers to forming a strengthened partnership? How is the partnership to be maintained and strengthened?

4. Policy Setting and Implementation In terms of urban sanitation development, what is your priority in this city? Does IndII activity help you to achieve this priority? How? Do you think analysis of key issues and constraints to develop options and policy have been carefully undertaken and consulted with all relevant stakeholders?

5. Concluding Questions Based on your views, understanding and experience, could any improvements be made to the Activity? Is there anything else you would like to add to the discussions?

10

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

ANNEXES

Thank you for your time and effort to contribute to this case study.

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

11

Annex 2: List of People Consulted

Name Jim Coucouvinis Dedi Budianto Sambas Suparman T. Iman Krestian M., ST Wienda Novita Sari, ST Dwi Ratna MD, SSi, MM Andriana S, SSi. Surtauli Sinurat Ulfiani Ekasari, ST Rudi Musbiantoro, S.Sos.

Position Technical Director, Water and Sanitation Senior Programme Officer, Water and Sanitation City Team Leader Head of Sub-Unit of Environmental and Regional Spatial Planning Staff of Sub-Unit of Environmental and Regional Spatial Planning Staff of Sub-Unit of Environmental and Regional Spatial Planning Staff of Research and Development Head of Environmental Impact Mitigation Unit Staff of Environmental Impact Mitigation Unit Staff of Community Empowerment Unit IndII IndII

Organisation

Mott MacDonald Bappeko Bappeko Bappeko PDAM City Environmental Board City Environmental Board Community Development Board and Family Planning Human Settlement and Spatial Planning Office (Dinas Cipta Karya dan Tata Ruang) Road and Drainage Office (Dinas PU Bina Marga dan Pematusan)

Sony Murdo S., ST

Staff of Human Settlement Unit

Eko Juli Prasetyo

Staff of Drainage Unit

12

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

ANNEXES

Annex 3: Transcripts of Interviews with Stakeholders

Questionnaire Section Background and Context

Response Transcript City of Surabaya already had an Urban Sanitation Masterplan or RIPS (Rencana Induk Sanitasi Perkotaan) in 1997. In 2008, the City Environmental Board took the initiative to review the masterplan. It was not clear who had main responsibility for sanitation. However, the revised masterplan document was given to the Human Settlement and Spatial Planning Office. Then, in late 2010, IndII came to Surabaya with the WWIMP (Waste Water Investment Master Plan). In our view, we think IndII consultant just adopted data from our previous studies and did not conduct any more analysis on our biggest constraint, which is land availability. Not sure. We have not received any revision of the draft masterplan. Land availability is the major issue in implementing the masterplan. IndII consultant proposed land for waste water treatment facility without considering the challenge, i.e., land acquisition. In Surabaya, land acquisition is always a problem (e.g., for road development). It could take years to realise. We conveyed this to the consultant, but got no response. Consultant needs to undertake a more in-depth study on land availability; otherwise the masterplan cannot be implemented. No evidence of capacity building or transfer of knowledge The sanitation working group (Pokja or WG) was established in 2009. Nothing has changed in terms of internal WG coordination after IndII project came. Internally, we do not face any coordination problems. As for our coordination with the IndII consultant, there were no regular meetings. Once the WWIMP document is completed, it should be incorporated in the Regional Spatial Plan (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah, or RTRW). So, the process will still take time. We expect to see continuity between the current activities and what we achieved in 2008. But the most important thing is that we would like to see good wastewater management implemented in our city because there is a high level of environmental pollution from domestic waste.

Achievements Issues/challenges

Capacity Building Partnership

Policy Conclusions

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

13

Questionnaire Section Background and Context

Response Transcript The city of Surabaya could be considered as having a strong desire and initiative to develop wastewater planning. The city started to develop sanitation planning in 1988-1994 through Integrated Urban Development Project (IUDP). Then in 1996-2000, there was the Surabaya Sewerage Development Project (SSDP), which produced the urban sanitation masterplan document. Implementation was unclear until the City Environmental Board took the initiative to review this document in 2008. The review was funded by the local budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah, or APBD), showing that the city government is concerned about sanitation development. The review resulted in an academic paper and detailed design, but implementation did not occur due to institutional issues (e.g., the office with the role and responsibility for sanitation affairs is always changing) and land availability issues. The city of Surabaya also has a City Sanitation Strategy (CSS) document and a Sanitation White Book (Buku Putih Sanitasi). These and other documents became a reference for the IndII consultant in developing the current WWIMP. Further, based on the 2005-2025 Surabaya Vision Plan, waste water and drainage development became a priority.

Achievements Issues/challenges

Draft waste water investment masterplan and Draft Feasibility Study (FS) were completed on schedule. IndII and DGCK are satisfied with the consultants outputs. Limited transfer of knowledge due to limited project time frame. Different background of WG members makes it difficult to develop a common perception on waste water issues. Land availability for waste water treatment: IndII consultant proposed treatment locations based on design criteria, technical considerations, environmental conditions, and financial calculations (investment). But city government did not seem to want to bother with land acquisition work. Instead, they proposed other locations that are not technically feasible. The problem is that we can move the wastewater treatment site but not the service area. The city government would prefer to focus on an on-site system first, and then move it off-site system in later years. Difficult to finish the masterplan and FS if there is no clarity around land availability. Limited transfer of knowledge due to limited project time frame and nature of the project, which is product-oriented. No specific capacity building activities. Transfer of knowledge mainly occurred in meetings and/or during discussion sessions. Sanitation working group (WG) was established long before the IndII project came.

Capacity building Partnership

14

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

ANNEXES

Policy

Land availability: Based on information from citizens (initial identification), the proposed land for wastewater treatment sites belongs to the city government. It is also in accordance with the draft city spatial plan (RTRW). Based on their spatial planning draft, there are five locations designated as wastewater treatment locations. The IndII consultant is using two of these five locations. Our proposal is also based on the results of the SSDP and City Sanitation Master Plan (Rencana Induk Sanitasi Perkotaan Kota Surabaya, or RISPKS) studies. On May 20, 2011 the DGCK sent a letter to the mayor of Surabaya asking her to provide and acquire land for treatment locations identified by the IndII consultant we are still awaiting the mayors response to this letter. Actually, we doubt this letter will be effective because in this decentralisation era, the letter indicates a top-down approach. IndII needs to more clearly define its intended output or outcome. If IndII would like to see more engagement and increased capacity of the counterpart, that should be stated in the consultants ToR, and an adequate activity time frame should be provided to enable in-depth consultation and capacity building process. So far, the consultants ToR is product-oriented, with reports being the main deliverables. If the ToR is process-oriented, then increased capacity, increased awareness, community engagement, and so on, should be included in the deliverables. For instance, in the current ToR the expected product in the area of community development is unclear, thus the depth of the Community Focus Group Discussion (FGD) went unnoticed. Land problem: City government has proposed land for project location but these plots are located away from the service area. Actually this will not be a problem if the city government has sufficient funds to finance the pumping facility. But we still do not know.

Conclusions

Questionnaire Section Background and Context

Response Transcript Sanitation working group (WG) in Surabaya city was established long before the IndII project arrived in the city. There were four meetings held by the consultant that were attended by WG members. The meeting topics were orientation/socialisation of the programme, socio-economic survey plan, presentation of survey results, and a discussion on wastewater treatment plant issues. We believe that without assistance from IndII it would be difficult and time-consuming for us to develop a wastewater investment masterplan, mainly because each WG member has been busy with their own Tupoksi (work unit tasks and responsibility). We have just received a draft masterplan but we havent looked at it because we have been busy with our own work. So, currently we are not able to provide further comment.

Achievements

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

15

Issues/challenges

City government is facing land problem. Land availability is the key. If there is no land available, the masterplan document will be useless. There is no defined schedule for masterplan meetings. Meetings are tentative. We just wait for an invitation. We often do not know what output/outcome is expected from the meeting because the meeting agenda is unclear. We do not know what our institutional role is in the new wastewater management. Bappeko is the lead in this sector. We are just waiting for the final masterplan and instructions from the mayor. There should be better coordination between sanitation programmes, particularly if the programme comes from central government. No evidence of capacity building No problem with internal coordination in WG. But IndII needs to improve its communication with the city government. No new partnership was established because the role of each working unit with regard to sanitation task is still unclear. To be able to implement the masterplan, there should be decision from the mayor on land availability. We have heard that Surabaya city will be dropped from this national programme if we cannot provide land for a wastewater treatment plant. But we hope the IndII consultant could provide a solution to this issue, e.g., the wastewater technical specifications should be adapted to land availability. To ensure the effectiveness of each meeting, prior to the meeting the consultant should provide the meeting agenda together with relevant materials and clear expectations on the meeting output/outcome. Meetings must be well planned and not sudden. IndII consultant should establish intensive communication with city government, unlike the present situation.

Capacity building Partnership

Policy

Conclusions

16

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

ANNEXES

Questionnaire Section Background and Context Achievements Issues/challenges Capacity building Partnership Policy Conclusions

Response Transcript We do not exactly know the progress in the masterplan development. We are not sure how our institution will play a role in the sanitation development or what our responsibility will be. We were only asked to provide data to the consultant. Since wastewater connections will be installed for PDAM customers, we provided data on high/middle- and low-income customers. Could not answer this question There is a land problem with this wastewater project, with some of the land being proposed having unclear ownership status Could not answer this question (Note: the interviewee had just been assigned as a WG member to replace a former member who was transferred to another department) There is no problem with coordination and communication among WG members. No new partnerships established. Masterplan development is still underway. So far, no policy has been issued to address the land problem. Land availability/status needs to be clarified prior to finalising the masterplan document.

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

17

Questionnaire Section Background and Context

Response Transcript City of Surabaya started developing sanitation planning in 1988-1994 through the Integrated Urban Development Project (IUDP). Then, in 19962000, there was the Surabaya Sewerage Development Project (SSDP), which produced an urban sanitation masterplan document. The City Environmental Board took the initiative to review this document in 2008, however this document couldn't be implemented due to the unresolved issue of land acquisition. In the current wastewater investment master planning activity, we note that the consultant has come up with the same recommendations on treatment locations that were recommended in the SSDP document. Nothing is new, but we hope we can gain new knowledge on best practices from other cities that have successfully implemented wastewater management. Thus we doubt that the current wastewater master plan can be implemented successfully. We really think the consultant should have learned from previous failures, otherwise they will produce a useless document. To date, the activity has produced a draft feasibility study but with old recommendations, in particular related to treatment locations. There is no improvement yet, although we have provided them with the city governments recommendation on land availability. It is the mayor as the decision maker who will decide on what steps to take to resolve this land problem. From our perspective, land availability and public participation are two key issues that should be considered in waste water planning. We therefore proposed to the consultant other locations for the treatment plan. The acquisition process for our proposed locations would be much easier, and we have noted a high level of public participation there. That is why we are optimistic about our proposal. But there has been a lack of coordination and consultation between the consultant team and the city government. The team often takes its own initiative. We have received information from the Directorate of Environmental Health at DGCK (Direktorat Penyehatan Lingkungan Pemukiman, or PLP) that there is different quality of output between the consultant teams in Surabaya and Bogor. They say that the consultant team in Bogor City has produced a more detailed and comprehensive analysis. There has been a lack of coordination and communication with the city government. No regular meetings. The draft intermediate report was produced without consultation. This confused us when we had to answer the DGCKs questions. Discussion of one problem was never finished, and the consultant immediately jumped into another problem. For example, the issue of land acquisition should have been thoroughly discussed, but it wasnt, and the consultant started discussing another issue which in our view was not urgent, i.e., an institutional issue. The consultant did socialise its working findings, and we then gave our input, but it is not clear whether our feedback has been accommodated because the revisions were never shared with us.

Achievements

Issues/challenges

18

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

ANNEXES

Capacity building

Nothing is new for us. The consultant only quotes and adopts the previous studies such as SSDP, RISPKS, Sanitation Strategic Planning, Sanitation White Book, City Sanitation Strategy (Strategi Sanitasi Kota or SSK), and Environmental Health Risk Assessment (EHRA) study. Actually, we were expecting a transfer of knowledge to occur during this master planning activity. For instance, when the consultant recommended areas for treatment of 11 hectares and 6 hectares, we never knew where these figures came from. We do not have the knowledge to make this calculation, the same for the waste water technologies used in the master plan document. We feel we need to enhance our capacity. No new partnership has been established. The WG was set up long before the IndII programme came. There have been no efforts to strengthen the existing partnership, as evidenced by a lack of regular meetings or coordination during the master planning activity. Land availability will be the major problem if the consultant insists on its recommendation. Although the lands being proposed are technically appropriate, the acquisition process will be very challenging and may take years to occur. We have suggested other locations that would offer an easier acquisition process and have a high level of public participation, but there has been no response from the consultant. For the city government, it is very important to consider not only land ownership status but also public participation. But the consultant only considered willingness to pay and commercial areas. We hope that the consultant can accommodate our recommendation and provide alternative technologies for use in the proposed land areas. We have been invited by the DGCK to discuss the land problem and the DGCK has sent a formal letter to our mayor asking for a decision. We do not know whether the consultant has made revisions based on the results of our meeting with the DGCK. We think that consultant has spent too much effort on institutional matters, i.e., the consultant would like to put the responsibility for waste water management under Dinas Cipta Karya while currently the responsibility falls under Dinas Kebersihan dan Pertamanan. We have sent a report to the mayor concerning all master planning activity issues, and we are still waiting for her response. More coordination and consultation need to be established between the consultant and city government, in particular to resolve land issues. If the consultant insists on its recommendation, the city government may refuse to implement it. On other alternatives, if the consultant persisted, then the consultant should be able to provide detailed steps to implement its recommendation, e.g., how to proceed with land acquisition, etc. The consultant should also approach the provincial government, since much of the available land belongs to the provincial government. We really hope that we can be heavily involved in the master planning process to enable transfer of knowledge to occur.

Partnership Policy

Conclusions

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

19

Annex 4: DGCK Letter to Mayor of Surabaya

20

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

ANNEXES

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

21

Annex 5: Bappeko Report to Mayor of Surabaya

22

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

ANNEXES

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

23

24

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY