Planning for City Sewerage and Sanitation

IndII Wrap-up Conference14 June 2011

Andrew McLernon

2

Presentation Content

1. Background2. Key problems/issues addressed3. Lessons learned4. Looking forward

3

Background and the Activity1. Request for assistance from DGHS to prepare Wastewater Master

Plans in late 20082. Prepared Activity in 2009/2010, including screening3. Objectives:

1. Trigger action from large cities governments to manage (domestic) waste water

2. Prepare Capacity Building Plans4. “Commitment Letter” from 10 Walikota Feb’105. 3 nr Planning Consultants (PCs) began Sept’106. Oversight Consultant began Oct’107. Stage 1 of Activity finishes 30 June 2011

4

PCs’ Outputs and Targets  Main Product B. Ingris B. Indo.1 Inception 1 Oct’10 1 Oct’102 Interim 31 Jan’11 30 Jan’113 Draft Master Plan 28 Feb’11 28 Feb’114 Draft Feasibility Study 30 Apr’11 30 Apr’115 Draft LIDAP & FOPIP 30 Apr’11 30 Apr’116 Final Feasibility Study 31 Mei’11 31 Mei’11

7 Final LIDAP & FOPIP 31 Mei’11 31 Mei’11

8 Final Master Plan 15 Jun’11 15 Jun’119 Final Report 30 Jun’11 30 Jun’1110 Monthly MONEV to IndII/WSI < tgl 10th

5

Key Sectoral Problems/Issues

1. Many government actors, no “lead sector”; and causal links between human waste, health and environment not obvious to all

2. Traditionally: a private responsibility3. Legally: a local function4. Economically: high negative externalities5. Lack of awareness by and inability of

community to take collective action6. Low priority for and accountability of

PEMDA

6

A (Strategic) Master Plan and Feasibility Study covering technical, financial, institutional and capacity building aspects; 20 years

1. A sewerage (system) in stages2. Communal ww systems (MCK++ etc.) 3. Improved construction/operation of “individual systems” (septic tanks)4. Marketing campaigns to educate, change sanitation behavior and

strengthen advocacy --- demand creation5. Institutional Development

– Autonomous, flexible and accountable Operator (UPTD-> BLUD-> PD)– Performance Contract: Mayor -> Head of BLUD– Strengthened Regulators (an “environment policeman”, Health …)– Plan Integrated into PEMDA planning and budgeting system

6. Development of regulatory environment:– A new PERDA providing mandate for a integrated ww operator and other

players– Cost recovery/ ”sewerage districts”/ PBB+– Permitting process for Land development and & IMB– Septic Tank de-sludging and micro-credit schemes

7. Information Systems

Substance of WW Investment MP

7

Lessons to Date (1)1. Technical:

a) Good justification needs improved data on health, environment, population projections…

b) Or need for technical standards, procedures and criteria /guidelines specific to ww (currently none, using water supply)

c) Need a more “life cycle costing” mentality (e.g. related to identifying the “land-take” and options)

d) Avoiding “proyeksim” related to the sewerage component – e.g. will marketing happen?

e) Identifying city-specific “change strategies” (see “3”)

8

Lessons to Date (2)2. Institutional/Financial: Allow much longer for

the “non-technical” components:a) Agreement on land acquisition locationsb) Agreement on what single integrated organisation should

and will:• Plan and develop sewerage• Facilitate communal systems• Issue/regulate building/estate development• Undertake community development/marketing

c) Agreement on sustainable O&M funding (PBB++ ear-mark)d) Agreement that institutional aspects will be seriously

addressed, including by long-term TAe) Plans documented, ready for further detailing

3. Insist on a stronger “institutional environment analysis”, including by survey and participative means, to help establish a “theory of change”.

9

Looking Forward - Short Term

1. All eight PEMDA have almost committed to doing sewerage – but financing??

2. Most will need to “ internalise” the Planning Products (i.e. after 30 June 2011) ..longer than current PC contracts allow)

3. Need new work on AMDAL and LARAP4. Need new work on “project packaging”5. There is still a large role for development

partners going forward

10

Challenges Looking Forward – Longer Term• National sector level (support)

– e.g. FORKALIM support; benchmarking/SPM; piloting new technologies, a wastewater law; model PERDA

– Making sewerage ”programmatic”– Incentivising participation/connection (hibah)

• Provincial Level (support)– regulatory (environmental policeman) functions

• City level (support)– ensuring physical investments function sustainably –

…….design, construction and BLUD emergence– design and implementation of ID/change programs in

which change is driven by more local and endogenous factors

11

Thank you for your attention; remember…

GIGO …Technical Planning…

institutions and incentives ...

…. and …a theory of change.