Urban Sanitation Development Program - · PDF fileUrban Sanitation Development Program . ......

Sanitation Needs Assessment 2015-2019

August 2014

USDP-R-PIU.T-10083

USDP Urban Sanitation Development Program

Urban Sanitation Development Program

Sanitation Needs Assessment 2015-2019

August 2014

USDP-R-PIU.T-10083

Urban Sanitation Development Program Sanitation Needs Assessment 2015-2019

i

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................ I

LIST OF ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................................. I

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ I

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................. III

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2. GENERAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 2

2.1. Wastewater collection & treatment (WWT) ..................................................................................... 2

2.2. Municipal solid waste infrastructure: ............................................................................................... 7

2.3. Drainage infrastructure: ................................................................................................................. 12

2.4. Budget divisions per activity, government and department ........................................................... 12

3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 14

3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 14

3.2. Total sanitation budget requirements ............................................................................................ 14

3.3. Development of facilities ................................................................................................................ 19

3.3.1. Development of WWT facilities ....................................................................................... 19 3.3.2. Development of MSW facilities ....................................................................................... 22

3.4. Provincial investments (2015-2019)................................................................................................ 25

4. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 35

5. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 36

6. COLOPHON ............................................................................................................................................ 37

List of Annexes

Annex 1 Wastewater treatment infrastructure .............................................................................. 40

Annex 2 Municipal solid waste ....................................................................................................... 44

Annex 3 Drainage infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 50

List of Figures

Figure 1 Developments of urban and rural households with access to wastewater facilities .......................... 2

Figure 2 Developments of poor and non-poor households with access to wastewater facilities

(2006-2014)......................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3 Waste water system type in Java and Madura islands ....................................................................... 6

Figure 4 Applied WWT investment costs .......................................................................................................... 7

Figure 5 Urban and rural households, whose waste is managed properly (2010) ........................................... 8

Figure 6 Specific price development of first and subsequent landfill cells with size of the landfill ............... 10

Figure 7 Specific investment prices per type of area (urban/rural) and management (3R or rural). ............. 11

Figure 8 Specific running costs per type of area (urban/rural) and management (3R or rural). .................... 11


ii

List of Tables

Table 1 Relative number of households with access to wastewater facilities in 2006-2010 .......................... 3

Table 2 Selection criteria for wastewater facilities per type of area features ................................................ 4

Table 3 Planned interventions for MSW .......................................................................................................... 9

Table 4 Applied drainage prices .................................................................................................................... 12

Table 5 Budget requirements per activity and origin of sources and explanation on type of activity

(an extended version is presented in the annex).............................................................................. 13

Table 6 Summary figures: Scenario 1 ............................................................................................................ 15

Table 7 Scenario 1: 100% access by the end of 2019 .................................................................................... 16

Table 8 Scenario 2: 75% access by the end of 2019 ...................................................................................... 17

Table 9 Scenario 3: 75% of budget compared to a 100% access scenario by the end of 2019 ..................... 18

Table 10 Scenario 1: Development of WWT systems cumulative ................................................................... 19

Table 11 Scenario 1: Development of WWT systems per 5 years ................................................................... 19

Table 12 Scenario 1: Development of WWT systems per 5 years per type of Kab/kot ................................... 19

Table 13 All scenarios: applied number of households served per type of Kab/Kot ...................................... 20

Table 14 Scenario 2: Development of WWT systems cumulative ................................................................... 20






Table 20 Scenario 1: Development of MSW systems cumulative ................................................................... 22

Table 21 Scenario 1: Development of MSW systems per 5 years ................................................................... 22

Table 22 Scenario 1: Development of MSW systems per 5 years per type of Kab/kot ................................... 22







Table 29 Scenario 1: Development of systems 2015-2019 per province (all values in billion Rp) .................. 26

Table 30 Scenario 1. Budget WWT development for poor households (2015-2019) ...................................... 27

Table 31 Scenario 1: Budget required for MSW 3R station (2015-2019) ........................................................ 28


Table 33 Scenario 2: Budget WWT development for poor households (2015-2019) ...................................... 30



Table 36 Scenario 3: Budget WWT development for poor households (2015-2019) ...................................... 33



iii

List of Abbreviations

ADEKSI : Asosiasi DPRD Kota Seluruh Indonesia (Association of Indonesian Municipal Councils)

AHL : Advocacy and Horizontal Learning

AKKOPSI : Aliansi Kabupaten/Kota Peduli Sanitasi

AKSANSI : Asosiasi KSM Sanimas Indonesia Seluruh Indonesia

APEKSI : Asosiasi Pemerintah Kota Seluruh Indonesia (Association Indonesian Municipalities)

APKASI : Asosiasi Pemerintah Kabupaten Seluruh Indonesia (Association of Regency Local

Government in Indonesia)

APPSI : Asosiasi Pemerintah Provinsi Seluruh Indonesia

AMPL : Air Minum dan Penyehatan Lingkungan (Water Supply and Sanitation)

BPS : Buku Putih Sanitasi (Sanitation White Book)

CF : City Facilitator

CSR : Corporate Social Responsibility

CSS : City Sanitation Strategy

EHRA : Environment and Health Risk Assessment

EKN : Embassy the Kingdom of the Netherlands

GOI : Government of Indonesia

KAK : Kerangka Acuan Kerja (Term of Reference/ToR)

KSAN : Konferensi Sanitasi dan Air Minum Nasional (National Sanitation and Water Conference)

MGDs : Millenium Development Goals

MonEv : Monitoring and Evaluation

MPS : Memorandum Program Sanitasi (Memorandum Program Sanitation)

MPW : Ministry of Public Works

NAWASIS : National Water and Sanitation Information System

NSCR : National Sanitation City Rating

PF : Provincial Facilitator

PIU : Programme Implementation Unit

PIU-AE : Programme Implementation Unit Advocacy and Empowerent

PIU-IF-CBT : Programme Implementation Unit Institutional and Funding Capacity Building and Training

PIU-T : Programme Implementation Unit Technical

PMU : Programme Management Unit

PPLP : Pengembangan Penyehatan Lingkungan Permukiman

PU : Pekerjaan Umum (Public Works)

POKJA : Kelompok Kerja (Working group)

PTT : POKJA Training Team

PPSP : Percepatan Pembangunan Sanitasi Permukiman (Accelerated Sanitation Development for

Human Settlements)

Prosda : Provincial Sanitation Development Adviser

UC-AE : USDP Cell at Programme Implementation Unit Advocacy and Empowerent

UC-IF-CBT : USDP Cell at Programme Implementation Unit Institutional and Funding Capacity Building

and Training

UC-PMU : USDP Cell at Programme Management Unit

UC-T : USDP Cell at Programme Implementation Unit Technical

QA : Quality Assessment

Rakernas : Rapat Kerja Nasional

Rp : Rupiah

SanDG : Sanitation Donor Group

sAIIG : Australia Indonesia Infrastructure Grants For Sanitation

Satker : Satuan Kerja


iv

SE : Surat Edaran (Circular Letter)

SK : Surat Keputusan (Decision Letter)

SPM : Standar Pelayanan Minimum (Minimum Services Standard)

SPSS : Statistic Package for Social Science

SSK : Strategi Sanitasi Kota (City Sanitation Strategy)

STBM : Sanitasi Total Berbasis Masyarakat (Community Led Total Sanitation/CLTS)

SWOT : Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat

ToR : Term of Reference

ToT : Training of Trainer

Tupoksi : Tugas Pokok dan Fungsi

USDP : Urban Sanitation Development Program

WATSAN : Water and Sanitation


1

1. Introduction

In this report an assessment is presented on the sanitation funding and facilities required in the

period of 2015-2019. This report is prepared in the light of the RPJMN 2015-2019 and could serve as

an input for the PPSP-2.

The Government of Indonesia (GoI) aims to provide all people with basic infrastructure (housing,

electricity, water supply and sanitation) by the end of 2019. In view of the current access to

sanitation, funding availability and institutional status, these goals are certainly ambitious. Therefore

USDP is requested to provide two alternative assessments, in addition to the scenario with 100%

access by 2019.

1. A first alternative entails a minimum scenario in which a 75% access target for wastewater and

MSW collection and treatment is reached by 2019.

2. A second alternative assumes that 75% of the budget of the 100% scenario is available for the

period until 2019.

Thus, three scenarios are compared in this report.


2

2. General approach and methodology

The general approach for wastewater and solid waste is to provide access for those people that do

not have access to these facilities at the start year of the RPJMN 2015, taking into consideration

population growth, urbanization, poverty as well as improvement of urban features (for wastewater

services). Population development and growth follows the recently published Proyeksi Penduduk

Indonesia 2010-2035 (BPS, 2013). For the three sub-sectors (wastewater, solid waste and drainage)

the assessment is based on the approach as presented in this chapter. For each of these sub sectors

additional information is provided in the three Annexes.

2.1. Wastewater collection & treatment (WWT)

Access end of 2014:

Access to improved wastewater facilities in 2010 were reported as 56% (SUSENAS 2010). With

ongoing improvements, intermediate values (presented by PU) show a steady increase of these

values. By the middle of 2013 access had increased beyond 58%. In this assessment it is assumed

that overall access will have increased to 60% by the end of 2014 (predominantly septic tanks).

Based on urban and rural data (available at Kab/Kota level) the urban access in the beginning of

2015 is expected to be 76% and the rural access 42%. In addition, the poverty level of households is

taking into consideration. The figure below shows the reported 2006, 2010 (obtained from BPS) and

assessed1 end of 2014 access data urban and rural areas and poor and non-poor households. The

major part of these people is served by on-site systems. In addition it is assessed that towards the

end of 2014 approximately 5,000 community based systems will be constructed, serving around 1%

of the total population. It is further estimated that less than 0.5% of the total population is served by

centralized systems. In 2013 there were 138 IPLT installations of which only 88 were in operation2.

Figure 1 Developments of urban and rural households with access to wastewater facilities

1 In this assessment we have assumed that the level of poverty in the end of 2014 is the same as in 2010 for the urban and

rural areas 2 Data obtained from PPLP, PU in 2013

-

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

2006-total

2010-total

2014-total

2006-Urban

2010-Urban

2014-Urban

2006-Rural

2010-Rural

2014-Rural

Developments of absolute number of households (urban and rural) with indicated type of wastewater facility

RURAL Improved

URBAN-improved

RURAL unimproved

URBAN-unimproved

RURAL-OD

URBAN-OD


3

Figure 2 Developments of poor and non-poor households with access to wastewater facilities (2006-2014)

Table 1 Relative number of households with access to wastewater facilities in 2006-2010

Relative number of household with access

poor total non-poor total urban total Rural total

2006 2010 2014 2006 2010 2014 2006 2010 2014 2006 2010 2014

Open defecation

40% 35% 32% 21% 17% 15% 10% 9% 8% 36% 31% 29%

Unimproved 43% 29% 26% 40% 23% 21% 35% 18% 16% 44% 30% 28%

Improved 18% 36% 42% 39% 61% 64% 54% 73% 76% 21% 39% 42%

Relative number of household with access

urban rural urban rural

poor poor poor poor poor poor non-poor

non-poor

non-poor

non-poor

non-poor

non-poor

2006 2010 2014 2006 2010 2014 2006 2010 2014 2006 2010 2014

Open defecation

25% 23% 20% 44% 42% 39% 9% 7% 6% 32% 27% 26%

Unimproved 40% 22% 20% 44% 32% 29% 35% 17% 16% 44% 30% 28%

Improved 35% 55% 60% 13% 26% 32% 56% 75% 78% 23% 43% 46%

Targets:

For the three scenario’s targets are defined:

1. Scenario 1_100% access: both urban and rural access will be 100% in 2019

2. Scenario 2_75% access: Urban access will be 82% and rural access 67%; resulting in an overall

access of 75%;

3. Scenario 3_75% budget: Urban access will be 91% and rural access 85%; resulting in an overall

access of 89%.

For all scenarios open defecation (BABS) has to be eradicated by 2019 in both urban and rural areas.

-

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

2006-total

2010-total

2014-total

2006-poor

2010-poor

2014-poor

2006-nonpoor

2010-nonpoor

2014-nonpoor

Developments of absolute number of households (poor and non-poor) with indicated type of wastewater facility

NON-POOR Improved

POOR-improved

NON-POOR unimproved

POOR-unimproved

NON-POOR-OD

POOR-OD


4

Facilities required:

The selection of type of WWT facilities is based on the approach explained in the Buku Referensi

(TTPS, 2009). This approach aims to reduce the risk to health and environment at the lowest costs.

Thus, in urban areas with high population densities and high exposure levels, on-site systems (septic

tanks) are no longer preferred and off-site systems with improved performance (removal

efficiencies) are selected, which is a general applied approach (UNEP, 2004). Selection criteria are

formulated based on the expected status in 2025 (mid-term3), see Table 1 below.

Table 2 Selection criteria for wastewater facilities per type of area features

BPS

criteria

Residential

pop.density (pp/ha)

General description Type of WWT system Examples of system

Rural < 100 Rural areas On-site systems Septic tank

Rural >100 Peri urban Community based IPAL communal/ MCK

Urban < 25 Very Low density

urban areas

On-site systems Septic tank

Urban 25-100 Low density urban

areas

Existing houses on-site;

New developments off-site

Existing: septic tanks;

New developments:

IPAL Kawasan

Urban 100-250 High density urban

areas

off-site systems IPAL Kawasan

Urban >250 off-site systems IPAL Terpusat

Specific considerations:

BPS 2010 data show that in urban areas nearly a quarter (23%) of poor households practice open

defecation (in the non-poor areas this was 7%). Many of the areas where urban poor live would

qualify for an off-site system. However, this is not considered the most feasible options. This is

because

o off-site systems require a certain amount of water available to transport the solids, which

is not likely to be the case, as often proper water provision is lacking as well;

o areas are often temporary or concern non legal houses, and;

o both willingness and availability to pay for operation for this group of households is very limited4.

For these households temporary facilities (either MCK or IPAL communal) are a more

appropriate solution. During a general renovation/rehabilitation of such areas, a more structural

solution (e.g. off-site system) can be considered. When putting the 2015-2019 period in

perspective of the 20 year investment these households are assumed to be connected to off-site

systems.

In this assessment an off-site (IPAL Terpusat) system is only proposed if:

o The indicated urban and population density values apply;

o The number of households connected in one Kab/Kota to this system exceed 10,000

(equivalent to 50,000 people);

3 Wastewater infrastructure will be used for a prolonged period of time and beyond the year 2019. In our assessment we

have used a 20 years horizon (2015-2035) in which the anticipated features of the Kab/Kota for 2025 are used as a

reference. 4 It is, however, a political decision to apply a ‘polluter pays’ principle.


5

o the GDP per indicated Kab/Kota reaches a value of 3,000 US$ (based on 2010 BPS value

and expectedly 3,500 US$ by 2015), following Bappenas’ findings on sustainability of large

off-site systems in other developing countries;

o In case the two latter conditions are not met, one or more IPAL Kawasans are proposed

instead of an IPAL Terpusat. Possibly these systems are further connected in the long-term

future, but this is outside the scope of the current assessment.

Existing urban conditions:

o Many of the urban on-site systems do not comply with the definition of a septic tank and

are more like pit latrines or leach pits (Cubluks) (Kearton et al., 2013). The result is that

there is still a lot of leakage of polluted water to the groundwater;

o In addition, often the septic tank overflow is connected (together with the greywater) to

the drainage system that eventually discharges to the surface water (WSP, 2013);

o In both of these situation human health as well as the quality of surface and groundwater

in urban areas are jeopardized.

The approach to convert from existing systems to future “improved” systems in urban cases is as

follows: In order to improve the urban health and environmental conditions, the described

existing conditions should eventually be minimized. This entails (1) the removal of poorly

performing septic tanks that pollute the ground- and surface water and connect to a sewerage

collection system, and (2) interception and treatment of the effluent septic tank water and

greywater before it reaches the surface water.

o The former activity is to be best performed when renovations in the households are taking

place and requires active campaigning and socialization of the individual households in line

with the development of the sewer system/interceptor system.

o The second activity, which aims to intercept and treat the water before being discharged to

surface water is best started from a location just before discharge point and then gradually

moving upstream to locations closer to the house.

o Thus, eventually, part of these households will be connected to off-site systems (even

though they are already counted as “improved”). In this assessment it is estimated that in a

20 year time period half (50%) of the existing urban population currently recorded as

having a septic tank/cubluk will be connected to an off-site system. For the first 5 years

(2015-2019) this value is only 5%.

Septic tanks and community based systems require regular desludging. In our assessment,

households in rural areas with low densities (<25 pp/ha) do not require this and IPLT’s will only serve

the households served by a septic tank and community based systems in urban areas and higher

density rural areas. The minimum size of an IPLT is 50,000 people, whereas the maximum sizes is

200,000 people. If there are more people that require an IPLT a second one will be constructed.

Figure 3 shows the selected types of system for the island of Java.


6

Figure 3 Waste water system type in Java and Madura islands


7

Applied cost figures:

An analysis was carried out to determine the investment (CAPEX) and operational costs (OPEX) for

wastewater collection and treatment facilities5. A distinction is made between investment figures for

existing and new developing areas. In new to be developed areas costs for sewer works are

expectedly lower and, if planned properly, these works can be done in conjunction with the general

new area development. In this assessment the costs for sewer systems for new areas are expected

to be reduced by 50%6 compared to the investments in an existing area. The cost for the wastewater

treatment Plant (WWTP) itself is expected to be the same. The expected increase of new urban

population in new urban areas that will be connected to an off-site system in the coming 20 years

amounts to about 60 million people. In the period 2015-2019 this number amounts to some 15

million people.

Figure 4 Applied WWT investment costs

2.2. Municipal solid waste infrastructure:

Access end of 2014:

Collection of waste: Applied collection rates are based on Riskesdas 2010 (Ministry of Health, 2010)

data, making a distinction between urban and rural data. Data of Riskesdas 2013 (Ministry of Health,

2013) show that no considerable improvement was observed between 2010 (24.4%) and 2013

(24.9%). Because for 2010 both urban and rural data are available (and not for 2013) and the total

percentages remain more or less constant the 2010 values are used.

5 A further clarification is provided in Annex 1

6 Based on data of the Dutch situation it is found that more than half of the costs of the sewer system in existing areas are

related to the opening and closing of existing roads/pavements. In new developments, the opening up of the streets is not

relevant and the construction of pavement is considered part of the general development and a 50% factor for sewer

system development is applied.


8

Figure 5 Urban and rural households, whose waste is managed properly (2010)

In line with the view of Bappenas in this assessment the priority lies on improvement of the urban

situation for the period 2015-2019. No additional infrastructure is proposed for rural areas.

However, in the period 2020-2035 the higher dense rural population will be served by MSW

infrastructure as well. In this assessment a rural area is classified as high density when the residential

population is more than 25 pp/ha (based on the expected 2025 situation). Thus, for all rural areas

with lower densities no collection or landfills will be developed in the short and long term. However,

in this assessment promotion of 3R and home composting for these areas is included after 2020

(see table 3).

Treatment and disposal of waste: Not all waste that is collected from the households is disposed of

in a sanitary way. Discussions with PU learns that most Kab/Kota now have several dumpsites (often

scattered over the area). For the already existing TPA (access) the following assumptions are made:

Only people that are served with a landfill that was developed after 2012 do not require an

additional or extension of the landfill in the period 2015-2019. This is based on a design landfill

lifetime of typically 7 years (PU, 2013).

The number of people provided with a landfill is based on the projects executed and planned

(period 2010-2014) by PU7. This data shows that during the period 2010-2014 a total of 193

landfills have been developed. Taking into consideration that one landfill may serve multiple

Kab/Kota (regional landfill) the total number of Kab/Kota that currently is already served by a

landfill is 207. The number of landfill, however, that still has sufficient capacity until 2019 is

assessed as 132. In the period after 2020 all these Kab/Kota require an extension of the TPA.

Based on 2014 data8 the population with access in each Kab/Kota is determined. More

information on this approach is provided in Annex 2.

In case a lower target is set for 2020 (scenario 2 and 3) not all Kab/Kota can be served with a

landfill. In that case priority is given to the Kab/Kota with the highest urban population

(nationwide).

7 Data is obtained from PEMBANGUNAN TPA SEJAK TA 2010-2013.

8 PEMBANGUNAN TPA SEJAK TA 2006‐2014 DIT. PENGEMBANGAN PLP

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%A

ce

h

Su

mU

t

Su

mB

ar

Ria

u

Ja

mbi

Su

msel

Be

ng

ku

lu

Lam

pu

ng

Ba

Bel

Ke

pR

i

DK

I

Ja

Ba

r

Ja

Te

ng

Yo

gya

Ja

Tim

Ba

nte

n

Ba

li

NT

B

NT

T

Ka

lba

r

Ka

lte

ng

Ka

lsel

Ka

ltim

Su

lut

Su

lte

ng

Su

lsel

Su

ltra

Go

ronta

lo

Su

lba

r

Ma

luku

Ma

luku

Uta

ra

Pa

pu

a B

ara

t

Pa

pu

a

RISKESDATA 2010 solid waste collected

urban rural


9

Targets:

For the three scenario’s targets are defined:

1. Scenario 1: Urban collection is 100%, whereas the nationwide collection rate amounts to 59%.

All Kab/Kota with urban areas (472) will have a landfill which means that all Kab/Kota that

currently do not have a landfill that can sustain until 2019 will have a new one by 20199. This

corresponds with the construction of 341 landfills. For the rural cases no additional collection,

treatment or landfill capacity is required.

2. Scenario 2: Urban collection and treatment is 75% and 281 of the Kab/Kota have a landfill to

serve the urban population; this includes the 131 Kab/Kota that already have a landfill in 2015.

For the rural cases no additional collection, treatment or landfill capacity is required. Thus, the

nationwide population that is served by a solid waste collection and treatment system is 45%.

3. Scenario 3: Urban collection and treatment are both 71% and 242 of the Kab/Kota have a landfill

to serve the urban population, including the 131 Kab/Kota that already have a landfill in 2015.

For the rural cases no additional collection, treatment or landfill capacity is required. Thus, the

nationwide population that is served by a solid waste collection and treatment system is both

42%.

Facilities required:

For MSW two activities have been distinguished. The first one deals with collection, transfer and

transport systems of solid waste and the second one deals with the final treatment or disposal of

solid waste. The table below shows the proposed developments based on (1) urban and rural

features, (2) time of developments and (3) densities for these activities.

Table 3 Planned interventions for MSW

Type Rural Urban

Implementation Only after 2020 2015-2019 2020-2034

Density

pp/ha

Activity

<25 >25 <100 >100 <100 >100

Collection no yes yes yes

Disposal no yes Kab/Kota without TPA Build new TPA in Kab/Kota with

already existing TPA

3R

(50% of people

targeted)

Home

compost

At TPS

(decentral)

level

At TPS

(decentral)

level

Central level

in Kab/Kota

without TPA

At TPS/

community

level

Central level in

Kab/Kota

without TPA

In order to identify the investment costs, it is expected that collection is done by motor sampah and

transfer takes place in a TPS-III with containers from where it is transported by Armroll truck. Waste

is finally disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Landfill development follows a stepwise approach. This

means that in the first phase the land for the complete period until 2035 is purchased.Further, a first

cell with a lifetime of 5 years and the facilities are constructed (office, weighing bridge, vehicles,

leachate treatment plant). After the five years an extension is developed, again with a lifetime of 5

9

Data provided by PU shows that the current landfills serve the whole population for a period of 5-7 years. Therefore in

this assessment now new landfills are required in the period 2015-2019 in those Kab/Kota that already have an operational

landfill. In the period after 2019, these Kab/Kota, however, need to extent their existing landfill capacity.


10

years. However, offices, leachate treatment plants only require some minor upgrading. Thus the

second phase of the landfill development has lower specific costs than the first development. Both

specific prices depend on the area, following the figure 6 below.

Figure 6 Specific price development of first and subsequent landfill cells with size of the landfill

Specific considerations for 3R:

In PPSP (2010-2014) 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) is promoted. 3R includes the recovery and

processing of organic waste into compost and recovery of plastics, paper and other reusable

products like glass, timber, metals etc. Data provided by PU shows that by the end of 2013 310 3R

community based stations were constructed10. Table 3 shows that for rural areas with residential

population densities below 25 pp/ha after 2020 composting at a household level is promoted. For

higher densely rural populated areas, communal composters at the level of a TPS station are

proposed. In all cases there is direct potential for reuse. Also for lower dense (<100 pp/ha)

populated urban areas communal composters at the TPS level and direct reuse are proposed. Based

on the current experience with communal 3R stations, which show a rather low (about 30%

mentioned only) success rate only, the management of these systems should be with the a dinas,

rather than a community. For the high dense urban areas a centralized 3R facility is proposed.

Recently larger scale 3R systems are being introduced and tested, like in Banda Aceh, Bima and

Cijantung. These systems consist of a recoverable waste separation step (plastics and papers), a

digestion step and a composting step. The refuse is finally disposed of in a landfill. In this

assessment, a differentiation is made between centralized 3R stations that (1) apply composting

10

Data is obtained from RINCIAN per SATKER 2013 provided by the Ministry of Public Works

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

millio

n R

p/h

a

ha of landfill

Applied landfill price per ha per development

First development subsequent cells


11

only, and (2) that apply digestion followed by composting11. Plastic and glass recovery is applied in

both types of centralized 3R facilities. In order to come to a 20% waste reduction that is finally

disposed in a TPA, the waste of about 30% of the population needs to be processed via 3R

Applied cost figures.

The cost figures for the described cases are presented below (more info is provided in Annex 2).

Figure 7 Specific investment prices per type of area (urban/rural) and management (3R or rural).

Figure 8 Specific running costs per type of area (urban/rural) and management (3R or rural).

11

Several pilots are currently taking place in Indonesia with this type of treatment system. Advantage of this approach is

that besides the production of compost, also biogas is produced, which, if centrally and in sufficiently large quantities

produced, can act as a source of energy. This however requires higher investment costs. In this assessment it is assumed

that half of the central 3R systems apply digestion and composting, whereas the other half applies only composting besides

the plastic and glass separation.

Lowdensity

Highdensity

Lowdensity

Highdensity

Lowdensity

Highdensity

Lowdensity

HighDens

Dig/Com

HighDensCom

Rural_conv Urban_conv Rural_3R Urban_3R

3R land - - - - - 202,000 204,000 11,000 11,000

3R treatment - - - - 26,000 435,000 441,000 354,000 226,000

disposal land - 53,000 290,000 290,000 - 18,000 106,000 106,000 106,000

TPA extensions - 201,000 221,000 221,000 - 74,000 84,000 84,000 84,000

TPA developments - 112,000 123,000 123,000 - 41,000 47,000 47,000 47,000

Collection land - 5,000 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Collection - 83,000 91,000 91,000 - 61,000 66,000 91,000 91,000

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Rp

/pe

rso

n

Investments per person for MSW management

Lowdensity

Highdensity

Lowdensity

Highdensity

Lowdensity

Highdensity

Lowdensity

High DensDig/Com

High DensCom

Rural_conv Urban_conv Rural_3R Urban_3R

Disposal - 23,000 32,000 32,000 - 8,000 12,000 12,000 12,000

Collection - 64,000 70,000 70,000 - 50,000 56,000 70,000 70,000

Net 3R OPEX - - - - (13,000) (12,000) (16,000) (28,000) (23,000)

Rp

/pe

rso

n/y

ear

Operational costs of scenarios


12

2.3. Drainage infrastructure:

Current status:

In 2009 50,000 ha in 100 Kab/Kota were identified facing drainage problems. Due to budgetary

reason a target of 22,500 ha was adopted in PPSP12 of which the improvement costs for 4,600 ha in

50 Kab/Kota would be covered by the Central Government (APBN). Data provided by the ministry of

Public Works (2012) shows that a total of 4,064 ha (1,949 ha in 2010 and 2,115 ha in 2011) of this

4,600 ha has been implemented. No data is available on progress made for the remaining 17,900 ha.

Targets:

Discussion with the sub directorate of drainage of Cipta Karya learns that for 2015-2019 and the

following three five-year periods a similar area (22,500 ha each) is expected to be improved.

The applied investment and operational costs are based on a study performed by PU. The applied

prices per ha are based on the approach explained in Annex 3 and are as follows.

Table 4 Applied drainage prices

Components total price Unit

Average price Primary infrastructure 244 million/ha

Average price Secondary infrastructure 342 million/ha

Total infrastructure 586 million/ha

For the 75% access and budget scenarios, respectively scenario 2 and 3, 75% of the area is expected to be

developed with drainage infrastructure.

2.4. Budget divisions per activity, government and department

In the assessment the total cost of sanitation are calculated. However, not all investments are

required for construction, but also for additional studies and designs. Furthermore, investments will

come from different sources (national government, local (Kab/Kota and provincial) government as

well as users, communities themselves or private parties (e.g. MSW collection). Finally, although a

large part of the investments come from public works (PU), also additional investments from other

departments (like Health for advocacy and empowerment and Bangda for institutional

developments) are expected. The table below shows the applied division of investment per type of

department used in this assessment13.

12

Typically, the central government (through the APBN) is responsible for the funding of the primary drainage and polders,

whereas, secondary and tertiary drainage as well as O&M (Operation and Maintenance) budgets are to be provided by

provincial or Kab/Kota levels. Available national budget for primary drainage adopted in the Renstra 2010-2014 (Rencana

Strategie (Strategic plan), which describes the Ministry of Public Works’ planning and required funding for a five year

period 2010-2014) at the time was 2,9 trillion Rp. This was approximately only half of the required budget of Rp 4,5 trillion.

Hence, the PPSP target was halved as well and set as 22.500 ha. The remaining 17.900 ha is to be solved by secondary and

tertiary drainage facilities by provincial and Kab/kot government budget. 13

Applied numbers are based on discussion with Public works and Bappenas and PU


13

Table 5 Budget requirements per activity and origin of sources and explanation on type of activity (an extended version is presented in the annex)

Sub-sector Wastewater Municipal Solid Waste Drainage

On-site CBS IPAL Kawasan IPAL Terpusat Collection-transfer-transport

Treatment

Activity div% source* div% source* div% source* div% source* div% source* div% source* primary secondary

div.% source div.% source

Studies

- Master plan 0.25 N_PU_S 0.25 N_PU_S 3 N_PU_S 1.5 N_PU_S 3 N_PU_S 3 Lo_PU_S

- LARAP AMDAL, FS 0.25 Lo_PU_S 0.25 Lo_PU_S 1 Lo_PU_S 1 Lo_PU_S

Design

- guidelines 1 N_PU_S 1 N_PU_S 1 N_PU_S 2 N_PU_S 2 N_PU_S

- detailing 4 U_S 3 N_PU_S 1 N_PU_S 2 Lo_PU_S 3 Lo_PU_S

Campaign Advocacy, Socialization

2 N_CA_S 2 Lo_CA_S

- General 15 N_CA_S 2 N_PU_S 1.5 Na_CA_S 3 Na_CA_S 2 N_CA_S 1.5 N_CA_S

- Kab/Kota 5 Lo_CA_S 4 Lo_CA_S 2 Lo_CA_S 1.5 Lo_CA_S 4 Lo_CA_S 2 Lo_CA_S

Land acquisition 11 U_La 3 Lo_La 3 Lo_La 9 Lo_La 19 Lo_La 95 N_PU_H 95 Lo_PU_H

Construction activities

52 Lo_PU_H 54 N_PU_H

(civil)

- House connection 9 U_H 24 U_H 13 Lo_PU_H 11 Lo_PU_H 25 U_H (collection vehicles)

- Sewer; IPLT for onsite

1.0 N_PU_H 22 N_PU_H 43 N_PU_H 57 N_PU_H

- Treatment 70 U_H 32 N_PU_H 33 N_PU_H 22 N_PU_H 16 Lo_PU_H (Elec& mech)

All 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Explanation on used source codes:

N=national, Lo=local (Provincial and/or Kab/Kota), U=user.

Department (only for National and Local sources): PU=Public works (or construction), CA=Campaign and Advocacy

S=Software; H=Hardware, La=Land


14

3. Results

3.1. Introduction

The overall budgets for sanitation requirement for the coming 20 years, with specific attention to

the first 5 years’ requirement for all three sub-sectors are presented. Thereafter the expected

required wastewater treatment facilities and solid waste facilities for the three scenarios are

presented (paragraph 3.3). Finally the assessed provincial investments are presented

(paragraph 3.4).

3.2. Total sanitation budget requirements

The table below shows the developments, required budgets and proposed division per type of

government for the first 5 years for the three defined scenarios. In the subsequent three overviews,

the total sanitation budgets and developments are presented.


15

Table 6 Summary figures: Scenario 1

Scenario 1: 100% access Scenario 2: 75% access Scenario 3: 75% budget

period Origin of funds WWT MSW Drain. Total WWT MSW Drain. Total WWT MSW Drain. Total

2015-

2019

National 106.5 30.4 5.7 142.6 55.4 26.6 4.3 86.2 80.9 24.1 4.3 109.3

Local gov't (Kabkot+Prov) 24.3 25.0 8.0 57.3 12.7 20.3 6.0 39.0 18.5 18.3 6.0 42.8

users/community 71.6 2.2 0.0 73.8 27.9 1.3 0.0 29.2 52.0 1.1 0.0 53.1

total 202.4 57.7 13.7 273.7 95.9 48.2 10.2 154.4 151.4 43.6 10.2 205.3

period Division national WWT MSW Drain. Total WWT MSW Drain. Total WWT MSW Drain. Total

2015-

2019

Infra (Public works) 87.0 27.4 5.4 119.8 46.8 24.1 4.1 74.9 66.5 21.9 4.1 92.4

Design and studies (PU) 4.4 2.2 0.2 6.7 2.4 1.8 0.1 4.3 3.4 1.6 0.1 5.1

CA /instit. (Health + Bangda) 15.1 0.9 0.1 16.1 6.2 0.7 0.1 7.1 11.1 0.7 0.1 11.8

total 106.5 30.4 5.7 142.6 55.4 26.6 4.3 86.2 80.9 24.1 4.3 109.3

period Division Local WWT MSW Drain. Total WWT MSW Drain. Total WWT MSW Drain. Total

2015-

2019

Infra (Public works) 17.4 7.3 7.6 32.3 9.6 4.9 5.7 20.2 13.4 4.4 5.7 23.4

Design and studies (PU) 0.3 16.4 0.2 16.9 0.1 14.3 0.2 14.7 0.2 13.0 0.2 13.4

CA /instit. (Health + Bangda) 6.7 1.3 0.2 8.2 2.9 1.1 0.1 4.1 4.9 1.0 0.1 6.0

total 24.3 25.0 8.0 57.3 12.7 20.3 6.0 39.0 18.5 18.3 6.0 42.8


16

Table 7 Scenario 1: 100% access by the end of 2019

Description: 100% access for WWTP and 100% urban MSW collection is reached by the end of 2019.

WWT In the year 2035 50% of the current urban on-site users will have switched to off-site systems; Only about 10% of these will switch the first 5 years

MSW It is assumed that 31% of urban waste is processed via 3R and 69% in a conventional way. For rural waste in high density areas this is respectively 31% (3R) and 69% (conventional).

341 new TPAs are developed by the end of 2019

Drainage It is assumed that in each of the next four 5-years period 100% of the area in PPSP 1 is addressed (22,500 ha)

Sub-sector

System Rp Total

On-site

systems

[1]

Community

based

systems

IPLTMedium de-

centralizedCentralized

Total

WWTP

Collection

activities

[2]

Final disposal

and 3R

facilities [3]

TotalPrimary

facilities

Secondary +

tertiary

facilities

Total

Existing investments 2015 Trillion 183.2 156.0 2.2 2.0 0.7 0.9 161.8 5.9 1.8 7.7 5.7 8.0 13.7

New Investments (2015-2034) Trillion 605.3 97.3 7.0 1.2 262.5 47.8 415.7 17.4 117.5 134.9 23 32 54.6

targets access to sanitation 59% 0% (32%) 0% 0% 60% 25% 4% 25%

0-5 years (2015-2019) 85% 2% (30%) 12% 2% 100% 59% 48% 59%

6-10 years (2020-2024) 78% 2% (27%) 18% 3% 100% 79% 85% 79%

11-15 years (2025-2029) 71% 2% (26%) 24% 3% 100% 81% 87% 81%

16-20 years (2030-2034) 66% 2% (24%) 28% 4% 100% 84% 90% 84%

Investment planning

Inv.: 0-5 y (2015-2019) Trillion 273.7 86.2 6.8 1.1 92.1 16.2 202.4 8.8 48.9 57.7 5.7 8.0 13.7

Inv.: 6-10 y (2020-2024) Trillion 127.6 4.1 0.1 0.0 58.1 10.8 73.1 5.5 35.4 40.9 5.7 8.0 13.7

Inv.: 11-25 y (2025-2029) Trillion 102.8 3.6 - 0.0 57.1 10.6 71.3 1.6 16.2 17.8 5.7 8.0 13.7

Inv.: 16-20 y (2030-2034) Trillion 101.2 3.4 - 0.0 55.3 10.3 69.0 1.5 17.0 18.6 5.7 8.0 13.7

Current OPEX[5] Billion/y 8,772 3,585 32 incl. in on-site 15 15 3,646 4,343 237 4,580

OPEX: at 5 y Billion/y 23,596 5,525 99 incl. in on-site 2,163 302 8,089 10,985 2,670 13,655


OPEX: at 15 years Billion/y 35,407 5,308 101 incl. in on-site 5,075 725 11,209 16,222 4,441 20,664


[2] Cost for existing investments (sunk cost) the same unit cost as for new collections systems is used and the average known cost for existing TPA's

period

period

period

period

22,836 All Kabkot

27%

[3] Currently an estimated 4% of population's waste is disposed of in a sanitary landfill; cost are based on prices of TPA sites constructed by 2013

[4] In PPSP (2010-2014) 22,500 ha were planed to be improved; it is assumed that every 5 years this same amount of ha is improved; prices are based on study provided by PU in 2012; in which deviation is

based on kabkot metropolitan, besar, sedang and kecil

[5] Estimated OPEX consists of "technical" and "insitutional" OPEX;

Technical OPEX for WWTP: on-site + CBS: maintenance, sludge diposal; off-site: labour, chemicals, sludge disposal, energy use and maintenance; MSW: labour, maintenance, collection costs and

replacements costs for vehicles and processing costs for 3R, and TPA; Drainage: estimated as 2% of investment costs for general maintenance

546

1,092

1,639

2,185

2,731

[1] WWTP for existing infrastructure are based on 2015 access values multiplied by on-site, community based and (medium de)centralized specific prices of respectively, 1, 1.85 and 3.52 and 4.21 million Rp/p

and corrected for regional price levels; for systems in new developments only half the cost is applied compared to new systems in existing areas

Investments

57.7

OPEX

84.9

Origin of funds WWT MSW Drainage total

OPEX

134.9 54.6 605.3 100%

Total 5 years (2015-2019)

Investments

National 106.5 30.4 5.7

Local gov't (Kabkot+Prov) 24.3 25.0 8.0

users/community 71.6

8,089

total 202.4 13.7

MSWWWTP Drainage [4]


13,655 1,092

150.5 25%

37,517

61.0 57.7 31.9

National

21%

Institutional OPEX; for WWTP these are included in the technical operational costs; MSW is based on PU bidang sampah II (chapter 5) in which the presented organization is assumed to be typical for a

Kab/Kot besar, for other types of Kab/Kot the organization is adjusted lineairly ; drainage 2% of investment; these costs are assumed to cover organizational requirements for technical and financial

managementWWTP Development

MSW Development

Origin of funds WWT MSW Drainage

trillion Rp

Total 5 years (2015-2019)0.1 16.1 6%

total 106.5 30.4 5.7 142.6 52%

CA /instit. (Health + Bangda) 15.1 0.9

Design and studies (PU) 4.4 2.2 0.2 6.7


Investments

Infra (Public works) 17.4 7.3 7.6 32.3 12%

Design and studies (PU) 0.3 16.4 0.2 16.9 6%


total

Division Local (prov./Kabkot) WWT MSW Drainage total

trillion Rp

Investments

27.4 5.4 119.8

Division national WWT MSW Drainage total

2%

Infra (Public works) 87.0

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

billion Rp/y

trillion Rp

Total access to WWT facilities development Rural access to WWT facilities developmentUrban access to WWT facilities development

Total access to MSW facilities development Urban access to MSW facilities development Rural access to MSW facilities development

total contribution

All Kabkot

274.2 72.9 22.8 369.9 61%

Local gov't (Kabkot+Prov)

14%

total 415.7

12,674 22,112 2,731

Total 20 years (2015-2034)4.4 0.0

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

billion Rp/y

trillion Rp

2.2 0.0 73.8

44%

273.7 100%

142.6 52%

57.3

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

0.2 8.2 3%

24.3 25.0 8.0 57.3 21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Indonesia Total sanitation development

on-site CBS IPAL Kawasan IPAL Pusat unimproved

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Indonesia Urban sanitation development


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Indonesia Rural sanitation development


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

op

le s

erv

ed

Indonesia Total solid waste development

Collection Treatment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

op

le s

erv

ed

Indonesia Urban solid waste development


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

op

le s

erv

ed

Indonesia Rural solid waste development



17

Table 8 Scenario 2: 75% access by the end of 2019






Sub-sector

System Rp Total

On-site

systems

[1]

Community

based

systems

IPLTMedium de-


Total

WWTP

Collection

activities

[2]

Final disposal

and 3R

facilities [3]

TotalPrimary

facilities

Secondary +

tertiary

facilities

Total




0-5 years (2015-2019) 66% 1% (26%) 7% 1% 75% 45% 45% 45%

6-10 years (2020-2024) 77% 1% (34%) 18% 3% 100% 79% 85% 79%

11-15 years (2025-2029) 71% 1% (31%) 24% 4% 100% 81% 87% 81%

16-20 years (2030-2034) 65% 1% (29%) 30% 4% 100% 84% 90% 84%

Investment planning

Inv.: 0-5 y (2015-2019) Trillion 154.4 33.5 2.8 1.2 50.8 7.6 95.9 5.3 43.0 48.2 4.3 6.0 10.2

Inv.: 6-10 y (2020-2024) Trillion 231.9 52.4 1.8 0.1 99.4 19.3 173.0 9.0 39.6 48.6 4.3 6.0 10.2

Inv.: 11-25 y (2025-2029) Trillion 99.4 3.6 - 0.0 57.1 10.6 71.3 1.6 16.2 17.8 4.3 6.0 10.2

Inv.: 16-20 y (2030-2034) Trillion 97.8 3.4 - 0.0 55.3 10.3 69.0 1.5 17.0 18.6 4.3 6.0 10.2







period

period

period

period

17,645 All Kabkot

19%


[4] In PPSP (2010-2014) 22,500 ha were planed to be improved; it is assumed that every 5 years 16,875 ha is improved; prices are based on study provided by PU in 2012; in which deviation is based on kabkot

metropolitan, besar, sedang and kecil




546

956

1,365

1,775

2,185



Investments

48.2

OPEX

80.5


OPEX

133.2 41.0 583.4 100%


Investments

National 55.4 26.6 4.3



5,833

total 95.9 10.2



10,855 956

141.6 24%

36,588

60.7 57.0 23.9

National

25%




MSW Development


trillion Rp

Total 5 years (2015-2019)0.1 7.1 5%

total 55.4 26.6 4.3 86.2 56%




Investments




total


trillion Rp

Investments

24.1 4.1 74.9


3%


trillion Rp

trillion Rp

billion Rp/y

trillion Rp



total contribution

All Kabkot

272.4 71.8 17.1 361.3 62%


14%

total 409.3

12,292 22,112 2,185

Total 20 years (2015-2034)4.4 0.0

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

billion Rp/y

trillion Rp

1.3 0.0 29.2

48%

154.4 100%

86.2 56%

39.0

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

0.1 4.1 3%

12.7 20.3 6.0 39.0 25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

op

le s

erv

ed



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

op

le s

erv

ed



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

op

le s

erv

ed




18

Table 9 Scenario 3: 75% of budget compared to a 100% access scenario by the end of 2019






Sub-sector

System Rp Total

On-site

systems

[1]

Community

based

systems

IPLTMedium de-


Total

WWTP

Collection

activities

[2]

Final disposal

and 3R

facilities [3]

TotalPrimary

facilities

Secondary +

tertiary

facilities

Total




0-5 years (2015-2019) 77% 1% (28%) 9% 1% 89% 42% 42% 42%

6-10 years (2020-2024) 78% 1% (30%) 18% 3% 100% 79% 85% 79%

11-15 years (2025-2029) 71% 1% (27%) 24% 4% 100% 81% 87% 81%

16-20 years (2030-2034) 65% 1% (25%) 29% 4% 100% 84% 90% 84%

Investment planning

Inv.: 0-5 y (2015-2019) Trillion 205.3 62.5 5.0 1.1 71.6 11.1 151.4 4.6 39.0 43.6 4.3 6.0 10.2

Inv.: 6-10 y (2020-2024) Trillion 180.2 23.5 0.4 0.0 78.6 15.8 118.3 9.7 41.9 51.6 4.3 6.0 10.2

Inv.: 11-25 y (2025-2029) Trillion 99.4 3.6 - 0.0 57.1 10.6 71.3 1.6 16.2 17.8 4.3 6.0 10.2

Inv.: 16-20 y (2030-2034) Trillion 97.8 3.4 - 0.0 55.3 10.3 69.0 1.5 17.0 18.6 4.3 6.0 10.2







period

period

period

period

18,199 All Kabkot

26%


[4] In PPSP (2010-2014) 22,500 ha were planed to be improved; it is assumed that every 5 years 16,875 ha is improved; prices are based on study provided by PU in 2012; in which deviation is based on kabkot

metropolitan, besar, sedang and kecil




546

956

1,365

1,775

2,185



Investments

43.6

OPEX

80.9


OPEX

131.6 41.0 582.6 100%


Investments

National 80.9 24.1 4.3



7,017

total 151.4 10.2



10,227 956

141.0 24%

36,707

60.7 56.4 23.9

National

21%




MSW Development


trillion Rp

Total 5 years (2015-2019)0.1 11.8 6%

total 80.9 24.1 4.3 109.3 53%




Investments




total


trillion Rp

Investments

21.9 4.1 92.4


2%


trillion Rp

trillion Rp

billion Rp/y

trillion Rp



total contribution

All Kabkot

272.8 70.9 17.1 360.7 62%


14%

total 410.0

12,410 22,112 2,185

Total 20 years (2015-2034)4.4 0.0

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

billion Rp/y

trillion Rp

1.1 0.0 53.1

45%

205.3 100%

109.3 53%

42.8

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

trillion Rp

0.1 6.0 3%

18.5 18.3 6.0 42.8 21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

op

le s

erv

ed



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

op

le s

erv

ed



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

op

le s

erv

ed




19

3.3. Development of facilities

For the three described scenarios the typical cumulative number of systems per 5-year interval is

described. The numbers are the sum of systems required at Kab/Kota level. In paragraph 3.3.1 all

WWT facilities are presented. In paragraph 3.3.2 all MSW facilities and developments are presented

3.3.1. Development of WWT facilities

Table 10 Scenario 1: Development of WWT systems cumulative

Approximate development of WWT infrastructure cumulative

2015-2019 2015-2024 2015-2029 2015-2034 Unit

On-site 46,954,695 47,656,126 48,983,013 50,861,490 systems

Community based 13,339 13,517 13,517 13,517 systems

IPLT 753 763 773 779 units

IPAL kawasan 2,364 3,838 5,295 6,722 systems

IPAL pusat 53 63 76 91 systems

Table 11 Scenario 1: Development of WWT systems per 5 years

Approximate new development of WWT infrastructure per 5 years

2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 Unit

On-site 16,272,607 701,431 1,326,888 1,878,477 systems

Community based 9,362 178 0 0 systems

IPLT 665 10 10 6 units



Table 12 Scenario 1: Development of WWT systems per 5 years per type of Kab/kot


2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 Unit

On-site 378,202 75 0 54 systems

Community based 6,382,729 1,121 201 896 systems

IPLT 3,951,973 3,472 157 415 units

IPAL kawasan 5,559,703 4,694 307 978 systems

IPAL pusat 16,272,607 9,362 665 2,343 systems


20

Table 13 All scenarios: applied number of households served per type of Kab/Kot

Applied systems per type of kabkot

type of kabkota Max size on-site HH CBS HH kawasan HH pusat HH

kecil 100,000 1 80 500 10,000

sedang 500,000 1 80 1,000 10,000

besar 1,000,000 1 80 2,000 25,000

metropolitan >1,000,000 1 80 5,000 50,000

Table 14 Scenario 2: Development of WWT systems cumulative


2015-2019 2015-2024 2015-2029 2015-2034 Unit

On-site 36,813,187 46,754,242 56,249,751 65,233,832 systems


IPLT 632 725 728 731 units





2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 Unit

On-site 6,131,099 9,941,056 9,495,509 8,984,081 systems

Community based 3,934 2,489 0 0 systems





Approximate new development of WWT infrastructure per type of Kab/Kot untill 2019

on-site CBS IPLT kawasan pusat Unit

kecil 202,763 33 0 38 0 systems

sedang 2,809,081 493 161 643 7 systems

besar 1,523,862 1,566 127 288 9 systems

metropolitan 1,595,393 1,842 256 601 26 systems

total 6,131,099 3,934 544 1,570 42 systems


21



2015-2019 2015-2024 2015-2029 2015-2034 Unit

On-site 42,388,853 46,774,073 50,981,077 55,313,712 systems


IPLT 700 753 755 760 units





2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 Unit

On-site 11,706,765 4,385,220 4,207,004 4,332,635 systems

Community based 6,958 502 0 0 systems





Approximate new development of WWT infrastructure per type of Kab/Kot untill 2019

on-site CBS IPLT kawasan pusat Unit

kecil 300,232 55 0 47 0 systems

sedang 4,780,553 843 184 772 7 systems

besar 2,871,061 2,632 147 350 9 systems

metropolitan 3,754,919 3,428 281 797 27 systems

total 11,706,765 6,958 612 1,966 43 systems


22

3.3.2. Development of MSW facilities

Table 20 Scenario 1: Development of MSW systems cumulative

Approximate development of Solid waste infrastructure cumulative

2015-

2019

2015-

2024

2015-

2029

2015-

2034 Unit

Motor sampah 58,245 95,679 106,104 115,919 systems

TPS stations 16,100 26,458 29,339 32,052 systems

Armroll trucks 9,902 15,773 17,541 19,202 systems

3R stations communal level 2,763 6,769 7,236 7,688 systems

central 3R stations (digestion + composting) 309 336 485 634 systems

TPA 472 490 490 490 systems

Table 21 Scenario 1: Development of MSW systems per 5 years

Approximate new development of Solid waste infrastructure per 5 years

2015-

2019

2020-

2024

2025-

2029

2030-

2034 Unit




3R stations communal level 2,763 3,871 440 423 systems


TPA 341 149 0 0 systems

Table 22 Scenario 1: Development of MSW systems per 5 years per type of Kab/kot

Approximate new development of Solid waste infrastructure per type of Kab/Kot untill 2019

Motor

sampah

TPS

stations

Armroll

trucks

3R stations

communal

level

central 3R

stations (dig.

+compst.) TPA Unit

kecil 208 57 34 22 0 26 systems

sedang 9,807 2,711 1,603 632 37 190 systems

besar 8,890 2,457 1,473 519 28 56 systems

metropolitan 39,340 10,874 6,793 1,724 110 69 systems

total 58,245 16,100 9,902 2,898 175 341 systems


23



2015-

2019

2015-

2024

2015-

2029

2015-

2034 Unit






TPA 281 490 490 490 systems



2015-

2019

2020-

2024

2025-

2029

2030-

2034 Unit









Motor

sampah

TPS

stations

Armroll

trucks

3R stations

communal

level

central 3R

stations (dig.

+compst.) TPA Unit

kecil 128 35 21 21 0 0 systems

sedang 6,086 1,682 995 582 37 36 systems

besar 5,517 1,525 914 478 27 46 systems


total 34,854 9,634 5,908 2,666 170 150 systems


24



2015-

2019

2015-

2024

2015-

2029

2015-

2034 Unit






TPA 242 490 490 490 systems



2015-

2019

2020-

2024

2025-

2029

2030-

2034 Unit









Motor

sampah

TPS

stations

Armroll

trucks

3R stations

communal

level

central 3R

stations (dig.

+compst.) TPA Unit

kecil 113 31 18 19 0 0 systems

sedang 5,341 1,476 873 544 37 14 systems

besar 4,842 1,338 802 447 27 32 systems


total 30,454 8,418 5,162 2,492 166 111 systems


25

3.4. Provincial investments (2015-2019)

For the three scenarios the required investment per province are assessed and presented below14.

14

The assessment is based on the 2010 administrative situation, which includes 497 kabkots in 33 provinces.


26

Table 29 Scenario 1: Development of systems 2015-2019 per province (all values in billion Rp)

WWT 2015-2019 MSW 2015-2019 Drainage 2015-2019 Grand Total

prov

code Abbrev on-site CBS

IPAL

Kawasan

IPAL

Pusat Total Collection Treatment Total2 Primary Secondary Total3 Rounded

11 Aceh 1,436 93 901 - 2,430 75 105 180 655 918 1,573 7,500

12 SumUt 1,939 70 2,452 995 5,455 408 3,360 3,768 133 186 319 17,000

13 SumBar 1,228 2 751 136 2,118 135 269 403 59 82 141 5,200

14 Riau 1,436 23 655 108 2,221 102 777 878 27 38 66 5,400

15 Jambi 776 24 364 - 1,165 44 317 361 61 86 147 3,400

16 Sumsel 2,381 76 624 286 3,367 136 752 888 158 222 380 8,900

17 Bengkulu 456 17 265 - 737 13 134 146 15 21 36 1,800

18 Lampung 1,480 77 807 186 2,550 118 780 899 41 58 99 6,900

19 BaBel 155 - 202 31 388 46 186 232 14 20 35 1,100

21 KepRi 235 13 417 52 718 47 590 637 36 50 86 2,100

31 DKI - - 2,068 743 2,812 - 3,461 3,461 712 996 1,708 13,000

32 JaBar 2,108 262 18,487 2,489 23,345 1,240 11,343 12,583 102 143 245 62,800

33 JaTeng 1,978 544 4,205 - 6,726 606 4,910 5,516 791 1,107 1,898 25,100

34 Yogya 7 - 679 - 686 69 553 622 13 18 31 1,800

35 JaTim 3,920 820 6,060 533 11,334 799 8,183 8,982 423 593 1,016 38,200

36 Banten 1,312 438 3,743 193 5,686 346 3,393 3,739 39 54 93 15,300

51 Bali 96 - 929 138 1,163 100 534 635 203 284 486 3,200

52 NTB 534 174 1,237 163 2,108 133 890 1,023 222 311 533 6,600

53 NTT 1,981 38 720 96 2,835 71 232 303 28 40 68 6,000

61 Kalbar 1,494 - 627 114 2,235 121 127 248 38 53 92 4,600

62 Kalteng 1,148 3 259 - 1,409 50 96 146 22 30 52 3,000

63 Kalsel 1,049 12 428 46 1,535 93 691 784 25 34 59 4,300

64 Kaltim 490 6 786 483 1,765 78 404 481 42 58 100 4,200

71 Sulut 173 1 368 118 660 53 93 147 25 34 59 2,100

72 Sulteng 558 10 300 36 904 49 - 49 24 34 59 2,300

73 Sulsel 513 21 984 618 2,136 128 202 330 90 125 215 6,200

74 Sultra 468 18 425 - 911 26 - 26 39 55 94 2,100

75 Gorontalo 230 3 231 - 464 36 137 173 6 8 14 1,300

76 Sulbar 316 38 70 - 424 10 - 10 27 38 65 1,100

81 Maluku 449 4 122 74 648 23 - 23 27 38 66 1,500

82 Maluku Utara 278 16 152 - 446 16 - 16 25 35 60 1,100

91 Papua Barat 318 33 210 - 561 31 155 186 108 151 258 1,800

94 Papua 2,556 7 251 - 2,814 58 283 341 37 51 88 5,800

33,496 2,842 50,779 7,637 94,755 5,256 42,956 48,212 4,266 5,974 10,241 272,700


27

In the table below, it is further indicated which part of the wastewater treatment investments is

required to serve the poor communities. More than half of the budget is required for development

of septic tanks for these poor households. Typically construction of developments is (see also

table 5) expected to be funded by the users themselves. In order to stimulate the development, it

could be considered that this budget (around 17 trillion Rp) is subsidised by the national

government. In the presented investment figures (table 6-9), this is not yet included.

Table 30 Scenario 1. Budget WWT development for poor households (2015-2019)

WWT 2015-2019 related to poor people

prov code Abbrev on-site CBS IPAL Kawasan IPAL Pusat Total

11 Aceh 800 59 63 - 922

12 SumUt 795 29 338 186 1,347

13 SumBar 376 1 116 39 532

14 Riau 393 6 47 14 460

15 Jambi 276 14 77 - 367

16 Sumsel 851 29 188 149 1,217

17 Bengkulu 230 8 47 - 284

18 Lampung 929 51 179 92 1,251

19 BaBel 59 - 27 8 93

21 KepRi 61 4 78 15 158

31 DKI 6 - 845 313 1,164

32 JaBar 1,050 104 4,431 601 6,186

33 JaTeng 2,024 430 981 - 3,434

34 Yogya 101 2 218 - 321

35 JaTim 3,519 658 1,924 222 6,323

36 Banten 472 186 556 53 1,266

51 Bali 83 0 130 15 228

52 NTB 488 135 499 112 1,234

53 NTT 656 12 63 22 753

61 Kalbar 406 - 85 24 515

62 Kalteng 171 0 7 - 179

63 Kalsel 347 4 42 1 394

64 Kaltim 158 4 74 46 282

71 Sulut 80 1 48 26 155

72 Sulteng 292 6 13 4 315

73 Sulsel 433 18 103 106 660

74 Sultra 236 10 29 - 274

75 Gorontalo 106 1 48 - 155

76 Sulbar 122 18 6 - 146

81 Maluku 142 2 12 21 176

82 Maluku Utara 46 3 4 - 54

91 Papua Barat 193 20 3 - 216

94 Papua 1,336 3 20 - 1,359

17,234 1,816 11,304 2,067 32,421


28

In the table below a further split up is provided for the costs related to the development of MSW 3R

facilities per province in the period 2015-2019

Table 31 Scenario 1: Budget required for MSW 3R station (2015-2019)

MSW 3R treatment costs

prov code Abbrev urban low; communal urban high; central total

11 Aceh 110 18 127

12 SumUt 591 463 1,055

13 SumBar 185 12 197

14 Riau 226 53 280

15 Jambi 150 34 184

16 Sumsel 133 141 274

17 Bengkulu 52 18 70

18 Lampung 113 107 220

19 BaBel 46 16 62

21 KepRi 133 50 183

31 DKI 33 936 968

32 JaBar 926 2,038 2,964

33 JaTeng 1,230 316 1,546

34 Yogya 145 38 183

35 JaTim 1,649 839 2,488

36 Banten 385 446 831

51 Bali 142 56 197

52 NTB 139 117 256

53 NTT 80 52 133

61 Kalbar 92 - 92

62 Kalteng 105 - 105

63 Kalsel 197 28 225

64 Kaltim 135 25 160

71 Sulut 78 - 78

72 Sulteng 59 - 59

73 Sulsel 135 44 179

74 Sultra 27 5 32

75 Gorontalo 43 21 63

76 Sulbar 15 - 15

81 Maluku 34 - 34

82 Maluku Utara 14 - 14

91 Papua Barat 54 - 54

94 Papua 187 - 187

7,643 5,871 13,514


29



prov code

Abbrev on-site CBS IPAL

Kawasan IPAL


11 Aceh 1,346 85 952 - 2,383 75 105 180 655 918 1,573 4,200

12 SumUt 1,813 61 2,579 995 5,448 408 3,360 3,768 133 186 319 9,500

13 SumBar 1,181 2 755 136 2,074 135 269 403 59 82 141 2,700

14 Riau 1,335 20 672 108 2,134 102 777 878 27 38 66 3,200

15 Jambi 717 22 373 - 1,111 44 317 361 61 86 147 1,700

16 Sumsel 2,224 70 649 286 3,229 136 752 888 158 222 380 4,600

17 Bengkulu 422 15 290 - 727 13 134 146 15 21 36 900

18 Lampung 1,336 66 840 186 2,429 118 780 899 41 58 99 3,500

19 BaBel 152 - 209 31 392 46 186 232 14 20 35 700

21 KepRi 229 12 418 52 712 47 590 637 36 50 86 1,400

31 DKI - - 2,073 743 2,816 - 3,461 3,461 712 996 1,708 8,000

32 JaBar 2,190 239 20,801 2,899 26,129 1,240 11,343 12,583 102 143 245 36,200

33 JaTeng 1,947 469 4,491 - 6,908 606 4,910 5,516 791 1,107 1,898 14,100

34 Yogya 7 - 679 - 686 69 553 622 13 18 31 1,300

35 JaTim 3,758 734 6,398 533 11,423 799 8,183 8,982 423 593 1,016 21,300

36 Banten 1,232 399 3,781 193 5,605 346 3,393 3,739 39 54 93 9,500

51 Bali 77 - 929 138 1,144 100 534 635 203 284 486 2,300

52 NTB 511 152 1,368 174 2,204 133 890 1,023 222 311 533 3,700

53 NTT 1,878 35 803 116 2,833 71 232 303 28 40 68 3,200

61 Kalbar 1,378 - 637 114 2,129 121 127 248 38 53 92 2,600

62 Kalteng 1,113 2 265 - 1,380 50 96 146 22 30 52 1,600

63 Kalsel 982 11 442 46 1,481 93 691 784 25 34 59 2,400

64 Kaltim 473 5 788 483 1,749 78 404 481 42 58 100 2,300

71 Sulut 170 1 408 166 745 53 93 147 25 34 59 900

72 Sulteng 505 9 303 36 853 49 - 49 24 34 59 1,000

73 Sulsel 421 16 1,000 618 2,054 128 202 330 90 125 215 2,700

74 Sultra 416 16 427 - 860 26 - 26 39 55 94 1,000

75 Gorontalo 214 2 240 - 456 36 137 173 6 8 14 700

76 Sulbar 289 34 76 - 399 10 - 10 27 38 65 500

81 Maluku 422 4 129 74 627 23 - 23 27 38 66 700

82 Maluku Utara 252 14 156 - 422 16 - 16 25 35 60 500

91 Papua Barat 318 30 229 - 576 31 155 186 108 151 258 1,000

94 Papua 2,463 6 258 - 2,728 58 283 341 37 51 88 3,200

31,772 2,531 54,417 8,128 96,848 5,256 42,956 48,212 4,266 5,974 10,241 153,100


30


required to serve the poor communities.

Table 33 Scenario 2: Budget WWT development for poor households (2015-2019)



11 Aceh 354 25 37 - 417

12 SumUt 306 11 181 80 578

13 SumBar 171 0 77 17 265

14 Riau 184 2 41 12 240

15 Jambi 116 6 55 - 177

16 Sumsel 427 14 80 46 567

17 Bengkulu 109 4 26 - 139

18 Lampung 399 20 94 37 550

19 BaBel 18 - 23 8 49

21 KepRi 25 2 55 7 89

31 DKI - - 259 87 346

32 JaBar 335 47 2,137 298 2,817

33 JaTeng 463 162 570 - 1,195

34 Yogya 1 - 188 - 189

35 JaTim 1,285 282 918 88 2,574

36 Banten 216 91 306 30 645

51 Bali 17 - 111 14 142

52 NTB 163 51 261 45 520

53 NTT 371 7 29 9 416

61 Kalbar 195 - 76 21 293

62 Kalteng 93 0 7 - 100

63 Kalsel 149 2 26 1 178

64 Kaltim 54 1 54 28 137

71 Sulut 22 0 28 8 57

72 Sulteng 120 2 9 2 134

73 Sulsel 93 4 64 58 220

74 Sultra 96 4 21 - 121

75 Gorontalo 44 1 25 - 69

76 Sulbar 58 8 3 - 69

81 Maluku 70 1 8 10 89


91 Papua Barat 70 7 2 - 80

94 Papua 805 2 11 - 818

6,849 759 5,788 907 14,303


31


facilities per province in the period 2015-2019.




11 Aceh 101 16 117

12 SumUt 544 426 970

13 SumBar 170 11 181

14 Riau 208 49 257

15 Jambi 138 31 169

16 Sumsel 122 130 252


18 Lampung 104 99 203

19 BaBel 42 15 57

21 KepRi 123 46 169

31 DKI 30 861 891

32 JaBar 852 1,875 2,727

33 JaTeng 1,131 291 1,422

34 Yogya 133 35 168

35 JaTim 1,517 772 2,289

36 Banten 354 410 765

51 Bali 130 51 181

52 NTB 128 107 235

53 NTT 74 48 122

61 Kalbar 85 - 85

62 Kalteng 96 - 96

63 Kalsel 181 25 207

64 Kaltim 125 23 148

71 Sulut 72 - 72

72 Sulteng 54 - 54

73 Sulsel 124 40 165

74 Sultra 25 4 30


76 Sulbar 14 - 14

81 Maluku 31 - 31



94 Papua 172 - 172

7,032 5,401 12,433


32



prov code

Abbrev on-site CBS IPAL

Kawasan IPAL


11 Aceh 2,411 156 1,175 - 3,742 65 - 65 655 918 1,573 5,400

12 SumUt 3,784 145 3,293 1,323 8,544 361 2,867 3,229 133 186 319 12,100

13 SumBar 2,082 6 860 177 3,125 121 - 121 59 82 141 3,400

14 Riau 2,415 43 757 108 3,323 88 605 693 27 38 66 4,100

15 Jambi 1,392 46 405 - 1,843 37 313 350 61 86 147 2,300

16 Sumsel 3,846 121 906 493 5,366 118 741 859 158 222 380 6,600

17 Bengkulu 736 28 389 - 1,152 10 132 142 15 21 36 1,300

18 Lampung 2,648 146 1,130 276 4,200 107 454 560 41 58 99 4,900

19 BaBel 324 - 231 31 586 42 100 142 14 20 35 800

21 KepRi 362 21 439 52 875 38 506 544 36 50 86 1,500

31 DKI 9 - 2,831 1,115 3,956 - 3,409 3,409 712 996 1,708 9,100

32 JaBar 4,663 426 29,461 4,234 38,785 1,074 11,142 12,216 102 143 245 51,200

33 JaTeng 5,545 1,067 5,427 - 12,039 538 4,517 5,055 791 1,107 1,898 19,000

34 Yogya 63 1 679 - 743 58 545 603 13 18 31 1,400

35 JaTim 8,633 1,442 8,597 671 19,343 697 7,460 8,156 423 593 1,016 28,500

36 Banten 2,357 701 4,672 193 7,922 298 3,217 3,515 39 54 93 11,500

51 Bali 293 - 968 138 1,399 86 372 458 203 284 486 2,300

52 NTB 1,160 328 1,887 273 3,648 121 880 1,001 222 311 533 5,200

53 NTT 2,895 55 1,102 178 4,230 65 229 294 28 40 68 4,600

61 Kalbar 2,367 - 681 114 3,163 110 126 236 38 53 92 3,500

62 Kalteng 1,698 4 282 - 1,984 44 - 44 22 30 52 2,100

63 Kalsel 1,830 20 610 56 2,516 81 562 642 25 34 59 3,200

64 Kaltim 973 13 844 564 2,393 59 292 351 42 58 100 2,800

71 Sulut 363 4 548 311 1,225 46 - 46 25 34 59 1,300

72 Sulteng 996 18 347 38 1,399 45 - 45 24 34 59 1,500

73 Sulsel 1,397 57 1,182 720 3,357 110 136 246 90 125 215 3,800

74 Sultra 830 33 449 - 1,312 22 - 22 39 55 94 1,400

75 Gorontalo 431 5 339 - 775 33 135 168 6 8 14 1,000

76 Sulbar 537 63 123 - 722 9 - 9 27 38 65 800

81 Maluku 735 7 153 74 969 19 - 19 27 38 66 1,100

82 Maluku Utara 478 27 169 - 674 14 - 14 25 35 60 700

91 Papua Barat 608 59 287 - 954 28 - 28 108 151 258 1,200

94 Papua 3,622 10 386 - 4,018 49 280 329 37 51 88 4,400

62,482 5,050 71,610 11,140 150,281 4,591 39,019 43,610 4,266 5,974 10,241 204,000


33


required to serve the poor communities.

Table 36 Scenario 3: Budget WWT development for poor households (2015-2019)



11 Aceh 604 44 52 - 700

12 SumUt 575 21 237 102 935

13 SumBar 283 1 88 23 396

14 Riau 302 4 44 12 362

15 Jambi 202 10 57 - 269

16 Sumsel 665 22 121 85 894

17 Bengkulu 176 6 33 - 214

18 Lampung 698 38 127 57 920

19 BaBel 40 - 25 8 73

21 KepRi 38 3 55 7 103

31 DKI 2 - 423 162 587

32 JaBar 709 78 3,543 492 4,822

33 JaTeng 1,325 314 728 - 2,368

34 Yogya 30 0 188 - 218

35 JaTim 2,521 489 1,355 115 4,481

36 Banten 356 145 364 30 896

51 Bali 49 - 114 14 178

52 NTB 351 99 406 79 935

53 NTT 533 10 52 17 612

61 Kalbar 314 - 77 21 412

62 Kalteng 136 0 7 - 144

63 Kalsel 261 3 35 1 300

64 Kaltim 110 2 58 32 201

71 Sulut 45 0 39 20 104

72 Sulteng 214 4 10 2 231

73 Sulsel 273 12 70 59 414

74 Sultra 174 7 22 - 203

75 Gorontalo 79 1 37 - 117

76 Sulbar 95 14 5 - 113

81 Maluku 109 1 9 10 129


91 Papua Barat 140 14 3 - 157

94 Papua 1,109 2 17 - 1,128

12,554 1,349 8,404 1,349 23,656


34


facilities per province in the period 2015-2019.




11 Aceh 94 15 109

12 SumUt 509 398 907

13 SumBar 159 10 169

14 Riau 195 46 240

15 Jambi 129 29 158

16 Sumsel 114 121 236


18 Lampung 97 92 189

19 BaBel 39 14 53

21 KepRi 115 43 158

31 DKI 28 805 833

32 JaBar 796 1,753 2,549

33 JaTeng 1,058 272 1,329

34 Yogya 125 33 157

35 JaTim 1,418 721 2,140

36 Banten 331 383 715

51 Bali 122 48 169

52 NTB 119 100 220

53 NTT 69 45 114

61 Kalbar 79 - 79

62 Kalteng 90 - 90

63 Kalsel 170 24 193

64 Kaltim 116 22 138

71 Sulut 67 - 67

72 Sulteng 50 - 50

73 Sulsel 116 38 154

74 Sultra 24 4 28


76 Sulbar 13 - 13

81 Maluku 29 - 29



94 Papua 161 - 161

6,573 5,049 11,622


35

4. Conclusions

Presented results show the typical investment and operational requirement for the three

sub-sectors applying different targets. In all cases the majority of investments are required for

development of the wastewater treatment sector, followed by solid waste and finally drainage.

Described development paths should be seen in relation with the findings of the impact PPSP-1

document, as presented in December 2013 by USDP.


36

5. References

Aprilia, A., Tezuka, T., & Spaargaren, G. (2012). Household Solid Waste Management in Jakarta ,

Indonesia : A Socio-Economic Evaluation. In L. F. M. Rebellon (Ed.), Waste management - An

integrated vision (first., p. 30). Croatia: InTech.

BPS. (2013). Proyeksi Penduduk Indonesia Indonesia Population Projection (p. 458). Jakarta,

Indonesia.

DKI. Wastewater management in Province DKI (originally in Indonesian: PENGELOLAAN AIR LIMBAH

DOMESTIK DI PROVINSI DAERAH KHUSUS IBUKOTA JAKARTA DENGAN) (2005). DKI, Jakarta,

Indonesia.

Kearton, R., Alvarez, V.V.Setiono, I. M., Soraya, G., Fook, C. E., Pollard, R., Ignacio, D. M., … Blackett,

I. (2013). East Asia Pacific Region Urban Sanitation Review; Indonesia Country Study (p. 52).

Jakarta, Indonesia.

KNLH. (2008). Statistik Persampahan Indonesia, tahun 2008 (Waste management statistics

Indonesia, year 2008) (p. 29). Jakarta, Indonesia.

Ministry of Health. (2010). RISET KESEHATAN DASAR (Basic health research) (p. 431). Jakarta,

Indonesia.

Ministry of Health. (2013). RISET KESEHATAN DASAR (Basic health research) (p. 265). Jakarta,

Indonesia.

MoE. Law No. 112, 2003; Domestic wastewater discharge standard. Ministry of Environment,

Indonesia (2003). Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministty of Environment.

PU. (2013). Material: Sector solid waste: dissemination and socialization of technologies sector PLP;

(original Indonesian title: Materia Bidang sampah I&II: Disseminasi dan socialisasi keteknikan

bidang PLP (first., p. 882). Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Public Works of Indonesia.

SKM. (2011a). Wastewater Investment Master plan Package II: Palembang, Final Feasibility Study

(activity W004) (Vol. 4, p. 98 (annexes 209)). Jakarta, Indonesia.

SKM. (2011b). Wastewater Investment Master plan Package II: Pekanbaru, Final Feasibility Study

(activity W005) (p. 226). Jakarta, Indonesia.

TTPS. (2009). Reference book: Sanitation system and technolog options (originally in Indonesian Opsi

Sistem dan Teknologi Sanitasi) (first., p. 172). Jakarta, Indonesia: Government of Indonesia,

with Bappenas as lead agency of the Technical Team for Sanitation Development (“TTPS”),

together with the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program - East Asia and the Pacific (WSP-

EAP).

UNEP. (2004). Guidelines on Municipal Wastewater Management (p. 92). The Hague: UNEP/GPA

Coordination office, The Hague.

Van Buuren, J. C. L. (2010). Sanitation Choice Involving Stakeholders, a participatory multi-criteria

method for drainage and sanitation system selection in developing cities applied in Ho Chi Minh

City, Vietnam. Wageningen University and Research Centre.

WSP. (2013). Assessment of Sludge Accumulation and Pit Filling Rates in Indonesia (p. 45). Jakarta,

Indonesia.


37

6. Colophon

This document was produced by the Urban Sanitation Development Program (USDP). USDP provides

Technical Assistance to the “Accelerated Sanitation Development for Human Settlements” Program

(PPSP), a Government of Indonesia Program implemented by the TTPS, a sanitation-oriented

collaborative program between eight Ministries, with Bappenas as lead agency. PPSP is implemented

through a PMU at Bappenas and three PIUs at the Ministries of Health, Home Affairs and Public

Works.

USDP’s services focus on facilitation and capacity building and training targeting the principle

stakeholders and actors in the PPSP Program. USDP is funded by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the

Netherlands.

DHV BV in association with PT Mitra Lingkungan Dutaconsult, Royal Haskoning Indonesia, Witteveen

+ Bos Indonesia, MottMacDonald Indonesia, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and PEM

have been contracted to provided a range of technical services in support of the implementation of

PPSP.

Your letters, e-mails, enquiries can be forwarded to:

Urban Sanitation Development Program (USDP)

Jl. Lembang No. 11 A

Kecamatan Menteng

Jakarta 10310, Indonesia

Phone: (62-21) 319 248 92, 237 287 48

Fax: (62-21) 319 248 95

Email:[email protected]

For information, please also check our website: www.sanitasi.or.id

Client : Embassy of Kingdom of the Netherlands, POKJA AMPL - Bappenas

Project : Urban Sanitation Development Program

Report Title : Sanitation Needs Assessment 2015-2019

Length of Report : 60 Pages Including Annexes

Author : Sjoerd Kerstens

Contributions : Koen Broersma

Project Manager : Bram van der Boon

Project Director : Dadang Fadilah

Date : August 2014

Status : Final


38


40

Annex 1 Wastewater treatment infrastructure

The following starting points were used.

Costs for sewer connections were determined using the method of Loetscher as described by

Van Buuren (Van Buuren, 2010) and compared with reported costs in Indonesia (SKM, 2011a)

and (SKM, 2011b) and the costs of the sewerage systems constructed in Banjarmasin (personal

communication with PDPAL Banjarmasin). Results are shown below. The consideration here is

that the collection system for the IPAL Kawasan is assumed to be simpler than for the IPAL

Terpusat. Since the IPAL Kawasan serves a smaller area, costly measures such as working in busy

roads, crossing rivers/streams and other infrastructure, pumping stations etc. can be avoided;

also smaller diameter pipes are used at less steep gradients.

It is assumed that an IPAL Kawasan serves typically between 500 and 5,000 households,

depending on the type of Kab/Kota as shown in the table below:

Type of kab/kota Max size of

Kab/Kota on-site HH CBS HH Kawasan HH Pusat HH

kecil 100,000 1 80 500 10,000

sedang 500,000 1 80 1,000 10,000

besar 1,000,000 1 80 2,000 25,000

metropolitan >1,000,000 1 80 5,000 50,000

For typical prices it is assumed that an IPAL Kawasan has to comply with at least the national

Gov’t regulation (MoE, 2003) and preferably the DKI standard (No 122; 2005) (DKI, 2005). This

requires a maximum BOD of 50 mg/l and an ammonium concentration of maximum 10 mg/l.

This means that nitrification has to take place and oxidation (using aeration) is required; the

assessment assumes that 3 typical systems can be applied. An anaerobic filter is assumed to be

the most popular type for (40% of the cases), whereas 30% of the time an activated sludge

system or an activated sludge with additional N, P removal (also 30%) is applied).

An IPAL Terpusat serves from 5,000 – 50,000 households. For IPAL Terpusat pricing it is assumed

that apart of the aforementioned standards (MoE, 2003) and (DKI, 2005) part of the systems

simplified_min

simplified_max

pumpedsanitarypumpedsanitary

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Mil

lio

n R

p/H

ou

seh

old

co

nn

ecte

d

Number of households connected

designed IndII Calculated constructed greenfield

2.2millionRp/p

3.2millionRp/p

1.1million Rp/p

1.6millionRp/p


41

apply the more stringent requirement are assumed with a maximum total N-concentration of

10 mg/l and a total P-concentration of 5 mg/l. In view of the large flow and the impact on the

receiving water body it is assumed that an anaerobic filter is applied only in 10% of the cases,

whereas a conventional activated sludge (CAS), a CAS system with N, P removal or an aerobic

granular Sludge system are applied each 30% of the cases.

Community based systems typically serve 40-100 households. Here it is assumed that they serve

an average of 80 households. Community based systems have to comply with standard No 12,

2003 (BOD = 100 mg/l); A typical IPAL communal (Settler, anaerobic baffled reactor and

anaerobic filter) is assumed and is used as the basis for investment and operational costs.

In this assessment an on-site systems serves one household only. Typical costs of 1 million

Rp/person (including IPLT construction costs) is assumed.

Thus the total costs used in this assessment are as follows:

The corresponding OPEX costs for these systems are based on maintenance (2% of investment),

energy (1000 Rp/kWh), sludge disposal (150,000 Rp/ton), and labour costs. For the labour costs

it is assumed that:

o On-site: 0.5 day per year an FTE is required at UMP (Upah Minimum perorgangan) of 2.2

million Rp/month;

o Community based systems assume a of 0.2 FTE, corresponding with the PU guideline (PU,

2013), which states typical 400,000 Rp/month;

o For IPAL kawasan/terpusat the organizational structure of PDPAL Banjarmasin is used as an

example, which consist of 7 management level personnel and 46 support staff for 5 WWTP.

The support staff get the UMP standards, whereas the management level receives 10

million Rp/month, which is based on the guidelines of PU (PU, 2013) multiplied with a

factor 2 to come to a take home salary, based on a additional allowances (transport,

allocation, food etc). For terpusat systems it is assumed that on average 3 FTE at UMP is

added.

Thus the applied OPEX for the WWT systems are:

o On-site: 23,000 Rp/person served/year

o CBS: 27,000 Rp/person served/year

o IPAl kawasan: 71,000 Rp/person served/year

o Ipal terpusat: 68,000 Rp/person served/year

septic tank Sanimas existing new existing new

on-site community based kawasan pusat

WWTP 1.0 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0

sewer 0.0 1.1 2.2 1.1 3.2 1.6

Inv

estm

en

t (m

illi

on

Rp

/pe

rso

n) Applied unit rates for indicated WWT facilities


42


44

Annex 2 Municipal solid waste

A. Waste generation data

Following the SNI standards 19-2983-1995 specific waste production of 2.5 l/p/d for rural cases and

2.75 l/p/d for urban cases were applied. A density of 0.25 ton/m3 of solid waste was applied, based

on data provided by PU. The density at the TPS level was set as 0.34 ton/m3 based on statistics of the

Ministry of Environment (KNLH, 2008).

Table Annex 2.1 Applied waste generation data

The organic fraction in urban solid waste was estimated as 59% based on figures provided by that

KNLH (KNLH, 2008) and corroborating with several reports (Aprilia, Tezuka, & Spaargaren, 2012). For

rural cases the absolute amount of organic waste is kept the same, and the described reduction of

waste is assumed to only affect the other waste flows, thus resulting in an organic fraction of 65%.

Table Annex 2.2 Applied waste composition data

Constituents Urban Rural

15

% kg/p/d % kg/p/d

Organics

Kitchen Biodegradables

52.1% 59% 0.406 65% 0.406

Garden & park 6.9%

Disposable diapers 4.0% 0.028 3.4% 0.021

Paper/cardboard 11.8% 0.081 10.1% 0.063

Textiles 1.0% 0.007 0.9% 0.005

Wood 1.4% 0.010 1.2% 0.007

Rubber & leather 0.6% 0.004 0.5% 0.003

Total 77.8% 0.535 81.0% 0.506

Inorganics

Plastic 13.9% 0.096 11.9% 0.074

Metal 4.0% 0.028 3.4% 0.021

Glass (pottery/ceramics) 2.3% 0.016 2.0% 0.012

Other (ash, dirt, dust, soil, e-waste) 1.9% 0.013 1.6% 0.010

Total 22.1% 0.152 18.9% 0.118

Total 100% 0.687 100% 0.624

15

The same generation of biodegradables in both urban and rural settings is used, the generation of

all other constituents in the rural situation was calculated assuming the same proportion from the total

generation as in the urban situation

Waste generation Unit Urban Rural

Waste by volume l/p/d 2.75 2.5

Density kg/l 0.25

Waste by weight kg/p/d 0.69 0.63


45

B. Collection, transfer and transport activities:

RISKESDAS 2010 data were used as the starting point to determine current service level of Municipal

Solid Waste. For the costs associated with these activities, the “SSK tools” were used (developed

under the USDP program in close cooperation with PU). Applied unit cost and people served per unit

are as follows:

Table Annex 2.3 Unit cost used for the assessment

Category

Facility

Number of people in service area per unit

Rural Urban

conventional 3R1 Conventional 3R_LD 3R_HD

Unit cost

(million Rp)2

Motor sampah 1,790 1,790 1,630 1,630 1,630 32

TPS stations (including 3 containers) 6,450 6,450 5,880 5,880 5,880 131

Armroll trucks 9,520 25,000 8,700 22,220 8,700 350

3R stations communal level - 6,450 - 5,880 - 2,400

Central 3R stations for composting - - - - 200,000 43,673

Central 3R stations digestion

+composting

200,000 68,589

The number of trips that a fully loaded vehicle can carry out per day was set as 3 following the PU

guideline (PU, 2013) and (Aprilia et al., 2012). The required municipal solid waste collection, transfer

and transport facilities are also depending on the application of 3R (described below). In case solid

waste is recycled already on a community level, less waste needs to be transported out of the city.

C. Landfill activities

To determine current access, landfill prices and requirements, the following components were

determined:

1. Number of landfills constructed between 2010 and 2014 and need for new landfills

2. Sunk costs of landfill projects in 2013 are determined per person

3. Relation between investment prices and landfill sizes are obtained

4. Final Price determination for the assessment

These are now further explained

1. Number of landfills constructed between 2010 and 2014 and need for new landfills

The following start assumptions are used:

The number of people provided with a landfill is based on the projects executed and planned

(period 2010-2014) by PU. Data is obtained from PEMBANGUNAN TPA SEJAK TA 2006‐2014

DIT. PENGEMBANGAN PLP

This data shows that during the period 2010-2014 a total of 203 projects were executed (or

planned); However, a considerable part of these TPA were constructed before 2013.

Assuming a lifetime of maximum 7 years, these Kab/Kota require a new TPA before 2019.

131 Kab/Kota are identified that can bridge this first 2015-2019 period.

Based on the 2013 data the population with access in each Kab/Kota is determined (see PK

2013 (RINCIAN PER SATKER). Thus for Aceh province typically 1 TPA project serves

approximately 90,000 people. Thus if 3 TPA projects were executed in NAD a total of


46

270,000 people are assumed to be served. This number is then divided by the total number

of citizens in Aceh, showing the population already served. Thus Indonesian wide values of

population served with final disposal is only 6%. The remaining population requires final

disposal of solid waste into a TPA. In the current assessment, extension or construction of

new landfills in those Kab/Kota that already have a landfill that can sustain until 2019

(constructed in 2013 or later) will only begin after 2020;

In the 100% access scenario (scenario 1) all Kab/Kota with an urban population will receive a

landfill. If a lower target is set (scenario 2 and 3) priority is given to the Kab/Kota with the

highest urban population in the nation. Alternatively this priority can be provided on a

provincial level.

2. Sunk costs for landfill prices and price per person;

Per province the number of planned TPA projects and the served population are determined.

Prices are converted to DKI prices using the Buku Referensi (2010)16.

As ABPN typically only provides 80% of the investments, values are corrected for this to

come to a total construction value;

Typical land acquisition costs are considered as 10% of the total investment costs.

Average value of presented data shows 180,000 Rp/person provided of which 80% origins

from ABPN. Note that this number is in line with the values calculated (see also figure 6, in

which the first development a quarter of the land costs amount to this similar value).

Indicated figure shows already an economy of scale effect; a TPA’s serving less people will

have a higher unit price.

3. Relation between landfill sizes and specific prices

Presented projects typically serve around 50,000-100,000 people. In order to determine

landfill prices serving bigger cities an extrapolation is required.

In this assessment, following discussion with PU, the development of TPA’s follow a stepwise

approach. This means that in the first phase the land for the complete period until 2035 is

purchased, a first cell with a lifetime of 5 years and the facilities are constructed (office,

16

50% of the provided additional or reduced costs compared to DKI are applied. For example, if the

Buku Referensi shows a factor 1.5 compared to DKI, a factor of 1.25 is used (reduce regional impacts)

y = 8E+06x-0.343

R² = 0.1624

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000

Inve

stm

en

t (A

BP

N a

nd

lo

cal)

pe

r p

ers

on

people served

Typical investment costs per person for TPA development, corrected for local funding (20%) and

land costs (10%)


47

weighing bridge, vehicles, leachate treatment plant). After the five years an extension is

developed, again with a lifetime of 5 years. However, offices, leachate treatment plants only

require some minor upgrading. Thus the second phase of the landfill development has lower

specific costs than the first development (see figure 7).

TPA prices of the first development are based on data received from PU (Buku Panduan

Konstruksi TPA, 2011). These were than adjusted for inflation, and additional heavy vehicles

(Buku Referensi (TTPS, 2009)).

To correct for the economy of scale effect, the trend as presented in the Buku Referensi

(2009) is followed. The typical price for a first development and subsequent cells are

presented in the figure 4 in the report (see figure 7).

For the different scenarios a standard price was formulated (assuming a landfill lifetime of

each cell of 5 years, to a maximum of 20 years (end of 2034), following the guideline in

(PU, 2013)). Note that in the assessment the value of land is calculated separately, as this

may vary per region (assumed current price for landfill is now set as 0.1 million Rp/m2.

Calculated prices for the different population served are shown in table annex 2.3. This table

shows that, besides the economy of scale effect (previous point), a landfill in a rural area

(comparing conventional situation) has lower costs than a landfill in an urban area, which is

the result of a lower solid waste production. In addition, it shows that the specific price drop

in case 3R is applied, as this results in less waste brought to a landfill and, thus per person

served a smaller landfill is required.

Table Annex 2.4 Assessed landfill prices per

RURAL URBAN

Variable in specific price

landfill first development

value people

used Value conv (HD)

Value 3R

(HD)

Value

Urban conv

Value

Urban 3R for landfill

<100,000 people 50,000 105,000 37,000 116,000 42,000 Rp/cap

100,000-250,000 people 200,000 105,000 37,000 116,000 42,000 Rp/cap

250,000-750,000 people 500,000 97,000 37,000 105,000 42,000 Rp/cap

>750,000 people 1,000,000 86,000 36,000 93,000 40,000 Rp/cap

Additional activities 6% 6% 6% 6%

based on

SSK tool

RURAL URBAN

Variable in specific price

landfill subsequent

value people

used Value conv (HD)

Value 3R

(HD)

Value

Urban conv

Value

Urban 3R for landfill

<100,000 people 50,000 63,000 22,000 69,000 25,000 Rp/cap

100,000-250,000 people 200,000 63,000 22,000 69,000 25,000 Rp/cap

250,000-750,000 people 500,000 61,000 22,000 67,000 25,000 Rp/cap

>750,000 people 1,000,000 59,000 22,000 65,000 25,000 Rp/cap

Additional activities 6% 6% 6% 6%

based on

SSK tool

4. Final Price determination for the assessment

In the assessment costs for collection, transfer and transport as well as operational costs are

assumed to be fixed (see Unity cost table and the landfill price table annex 2.1 and 2.2).


48

When applying 3R, benefits can be obtained, which are not yet known or may vary. In our

assessment compost, glass and plastics and electricity recovery and production were

considered. Used prices are shown in the table annex 2.5 below.

Table annex 2.5 variable cost figures applied in the assessment

1. Variables price

Value

Rural

Value

Urban Unit 1B. NPV values* value unit

Compost 400 400 Rp/kg

Inflation/appreciation

5 % per year

Paper + Plastics 500 500 Rp/kg

Discount/interest

6 % per year

Energy 1,000 1,000 Rp/kWh

Start year 2015

Area need

Period

20 year

Area inside_collection 1.00 1.00 million Rp/m2

Area inside_3R treatment 1.00 1.00

Area outside_disposal 0.10 0.50 million Rp/m2

Area outside_3R treatment 0.10 0.50 million Rp/m3

Based on these prices the final prices as presented in chapter 2 (and repeated below in

table annex 2.5); including indicative NPV prices are found.

Figure Annex 2.1 NPB for formulated scenarios

Lowdensity

Highdensity

Lowdensity

Highdensity

Lowdensity

Highdensity

Lowdensity

HighDens

Dig/Com

HighDensCom

Rural_conv Urban_conv Rural Urban

Operational expenditure - 1,595,65 1,866,71 1,866,71 -230,313 847,182 937,546 994,869 1,072,815

Subsequent Capital expenditures - 183,183 200,830 200,830 0 67,389 76,869 76,869 76,869

Capital expenditure in first year - 252,824 508,714 508,714 25,750 761,564 868,847 613,998 485,276

RP

/PE

RS

ON

NET PRESENT VALUES



50

Annex 3 Drainage infrastructure

Prices for drainage infrastructure:

In 2012 a consultant prepared a study for PU on drainage prices per type of Kab/Kota These

prices were used as the starting points;

Average prices were used based on the number of Kab/Kota in Indonesia based on the assessed

2025 population.

The following average prices were used:

kecil sedang besar metro Average

add studies

+ design

total

price Unit

Average price

primary

185 209 238 249 232 5% 244 million/ha

Average price

Secondary

258 292 334 348 326 5% 342 million/ha

total 443 501 572 598 558 586 million/ha

Activities per province:

There is no estimation available on the budget required per province. Therefore an assessment

is made based on three components:

o PK 2013 (RINCIAN PER SATKER).xlsx the activities as provided by PU in 2013

o Priority areas as defined in the preparation of PPSP in 2009

o Areas that are addressed by ABPN during the PPSP 1 phase

The distribution of funding an intervention is assumed to follow the average distribution over these

three categories.


51

Area addressed by

PUSAT in 2013 2013 area/province % area/province % Average 90000

NAD 11 9.7 1% 5274 10% 1250 27% 13% 11477

SumUt 12 5.2 0% 2491 5% 126 3% 3% 2403

SumBar 13 18.5 1% 785 2% 48 1% 1% 1168

Riau 14 5.9 0% 470 1% 26 1% 1% 574

Jambi 15 35.8 3% 369 1% 18 0% 1% 1090

Sumsel 16 18.9 1% 3236 6% 79 2% 3% 2827

Bengkulu 17 4.2 0% 257 1% 15 0% 0% 339

Lampung 18 11.5 1% 1000 2% 20 0% 1% 964

BaBel 19 11.2 1% 35 0% 8 0% 0% 309

KepRi 21 17.6 1% 426 1% 20 0% 1% 753

DKI 31 435.5 31% 4204 8% 594 13% 17% 15546

JaBar 32 8.8 1% 2756 5% 103 2% 3% 2484

JaTeng 33 254.4 18% 8997 18% 1534 33% 23% 20690

Yogya 34 11.0 1% 72 0% 10 0% 0% 340

JaTim 35 187.9 13% 5980 12% 240 5% 10% 9064

Banten 36 16.9 1% 377 1% 27 1% 1% 756

Bali 51 172.0 12% 483 1% 64 1% 5% 4330

NTB 52 7.6 1% 7395 15% 33 1% 5% 4746

NTT 53 16.9 1% 254 1% 15 0% 1% 604

Kalbar 61 20.7 1% 182 0% 18 0% 1% 663

Kalteng 62 10.8 1% 90 0% 15 0% 0% 378

Kalsel 63 8.0 1% 238 0% 18 0% 0% 426

Kaltim 64 7.5 1% 509 1% 39 1% 1% 713

Sulut 71 10.7 1% 240 0% 17 0% 1% 479

Sulteng 72 12.0 1% 261 1% 20 0% 1% 537

Sulsel 73 22.6 2% 1626 3% 90 2% 2% 2027

Sultra 74 8.1 1% 239 0% 80 2% 1% 837

Gorontalo 75 3.1 0% 18 0% 6 0% 0% 116

Sulbar 76 10.3 1% 452 1% 20 0% 1% 615

Maluku 81 11.1 1% 302 1% 20 0% 1% 543

Maluku Utara 82 16.1 1% 79 0% 10 0% 1% 452

Papua Barat 91 22.8 2% 1343 3% 5 0% 1% 1308

Papua 94 9.4 1% 285 1% 12 0% 0% 446

1422.7 50725 4600 100%

Applied distribution (used

average of these 3 data)

PK 2013 (RINCIAN PER

SATKER).xlsx PPSP (2009) identified areas

PPSP1 national addressed

(Source PU, 2012)


52

Date post:	03-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhkhanh
View:	217 times
Download:	2 times

Urban Sanitation Development Program - · PDF fileUrban Sanitation Development Program . ......

Documents