Paper for Indowater 2005

Mainstreaming Community-Based Sanitation:

Lessons Learnt from the SANIMAS Project

March 2005

Presented by Alfred Lambertus

Consultant WSP-EAP

Page 1 of 18

Abbreviations

BAPPENAS
BORDA
CBS
DEWATS
EA
HH
ICC
IEC
KSM
organization")
LFA
LG
MPA
NGO
RPA
RT
RW
SANIMAS
WASPOLA
WSP-EAP
WWTS

Page 2 of 18

Indonesian National Agency for Planning

Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association
Community-Based Sanitation
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
Executing Agency
Household
Informed Choice Catalog
Information, Education, Communication
Kelompok Swadaya Masyarakat ("community-based
Local Facilitating Agency
Local Government
Methodologies for Participatory Assessment
Non-Governmental Organization
Rapid Participatory Appraisal
Rukun Tetangga, smallest unit of government
Rukun Warga, next level administrative unit after RTs
Santasi oleh Masyarakat ("sanitation by the community")
Water and Sanitation Policy and Learning Agenda
Water and Sanitation Program East Asia Pacific
Waste Water Treatment System

1. Introduction
This report reviews the lessons learnt from the development of seven CBS systems in
East Java and Bali and makes recommendations for a realistic and efficient
mainstreaming strategy for CBS in Indonesia.
The information presented focuses on strategies for effective cooperation between, on the
one hand, the communities that participate in co-financing, planning, implementation, and
managing the CBS systems, and on the other hand, the governmental, NGO, and private
sector organizations who will support the communities. The purpose of the report is to
provide guidance for promoting increased involvement of low income urban communities
in the procurement of neighborhood level sanitation to local and national governments,
international donor organizations, and potential executing agencies that want to
mainstream CBS as a sustainable option for providing basic sanitation facilities for the
urban poor in Indonesia and other densely populated regions.
About SANIMAS
SANIMAS is a project component under WASPOLA, a development cooperation
between the Indonesian and Australian Governments that is coordinated by the WSP.
BORDA and its Indonesian NGO partner-network formed the SANIMAS executing
agency responsible for helping communities, local governments, and local facilitators
prepare, plan, and implement CBS project activities, ultimately to be managed by
community stakeholders.
The aim of the SANIMAS demonstration project was to promote and develop models for
community-based sanitation and then to build on the lessons of implementation to finetune the program for replication in other communities. A typical project produced a lowcost simple sewerage system consisting of household sanitation facilities linked by a
network of small-bore feeder sewers to a local wastewater treatment plant. In areas where
low-income people resided in rented settlements, public community sanitation centers
were constructed, consisting of toilets and bathrooms connected to a wastewater treatment
facility. Each of the developed CBS systems serves from 50 to 100 urban households,
depending on local variation in the size of RTs and RWs (the two smallest administrative
units in the Indonesian government).
In the context of the project, community sanitation was defined as the collection,
treatment, and disposal of wastewater/human excrement. However, in some communities,
it was also necessary to include clean water systems either through public utilities or onsite tube wells to develop the sanitation centers.
The communities were regarded as key stakeholders throughout the process in order to
ensure community ownership and sustainability of the systems. A variety of IEC tools
and materials were developed to illustrate and supplement all aspects of implementation
and these were then adapted to accommodate the cultural and physical diversity of
Indonesia, with particular focus on the characteristics of the low-income neighborhoods.
Participating cities and communities were selected through a transparent and competitive
process and a standard criteria that included technical feasibility, willingness to contribute
and experience with other self-help projects.
Each participating community set up its own CBS committees that included a
"Construction Committee" responsible for managing local activities related to
Page 3 of 18

construction and an "Operation & Maintenance Committee" responsible for operation and
maintenance of the CBS infrastructure after construction was complete. Local facilitating
agencies were set up for SANIMAS in each of the participating cities, consisting of NGO
staff and local government employees. All personnel were selected by local governments
and the SANIMAS executing agency.

Figure 1. Stakeholder Participation in SANIMAS

AUSAID
WASPOLA

Funding

Mayor
Endorses project, picks LA

Working

APBD

DPRD

GroupGuidance,

WSP-EAP

Lead Agency

policy.

Coordination

Transfers funds, facilitation support.

SANIMAS EA
Implementation - training,
technical support to
construction., transfer of
funds to community, etc.

SANIMAS committee

Camat/Lurah

Made up of community members,

Leadership,

drives community participation and

support of the

manages budget, technical and

initiative.

procurement issues for project.

II. Why Community Based Sanitation?

International development agencies such as the World Bank, UNDP, and WHO estimate that
2 billion people on this planet have no access to basic sanitation facilities. It is further
estimated that the 6 million cases of diarrhea in Indonesia each year result in the deaths of
more than 20,000 children, mostly among the urban poor.
According to Indonesia's Ministry of Health, a significant number of these cases are due to
the absence of sanitation facilities, lack of know-how about basic hygiene, and habitual
unhygienic discharge of human excrement into waterways. As of this writing, only eight
Indonesian cities operate centralized sewerage and wastewater treatment systems, together
serving a mere 100,000 urban households (mostly in middle- and upper-class residential
districts), which are less than 1% of the country's urban population. In dozens of other cities,
the septic tank is the method of choice for homeowners concerned about hygiene, even in
wealthy neighborhoods.
Thus, millions of urban residents discharge human excrement and household wastewater
either directly into the aquatic environment or indirectly into the groundwater via
sedimentation tanks and percolation pits. As a result, river water in or near urban areas
contains a high proportion of organic pollutants while the groundwater in almost all cities is
contaminated by E. Coli. bacteria. The latter is of particular concern because many people
use wells as their primary source of drinking water.
The eight centralized sewerage systems in Indonesia generally do not cover poor residential
areas, many of which lack even the most basic sanitary infrastructure. Due to large
Page 4 of 18

investment costs, it must be anticipated that even if a few more centralized sewerage systems
were to be constructed, large-scale sewerage programs are unlikely to improve sanitation
significantly for the urban poor.
Therefore, the SANIMAS CBS project specifically targeted the poor, in recognition of the
clear quantifiable link between unsanitary conditions and poverty in the urban communities
of Indonesia. Across the environmental spectrum, practitioners now accept the direct and
many indirect links between poverty and environmental degradation as well as quality of life.
In the 1980s, the Indonesian government realized that urban sanitation facilities must be
improved within a decentralized implementation framework that focuses on neighborhoods.
The various sanitation programs that had been initiated as part of neighborhood development
programs, known as KIP, failed to improve sanitation in poor urban neighborhoods. These
programs lacked fundamental features that characterize sustainable interventions in the field
of community sanitation.
The main reasons that KIP sanitation programs failed were:

Initiatives in the sector were driven by overall programmatic government "supply"

strategies rather than by specific "community demand" for improvement of local
infrastructure.

Funds for implementation were usually provided as 100% grants, fostering an attitude
among the communities that they were not responsible for sub-standard construction
quality.

Because little effort was made by program implementing agencies to educate, train,
and empower community members as the true stakeholders, community participation
during planning was limited to approving the ideas of implementing and coordinating
agencies.

Not given freedom of choice to select technical options according to their own
preferences, communities were expected to adapt their wishes to CBS systems
designed by outsiders.

During implementation, community participation was limited to "contributions in

kind" (e.g. unpaid and unskilled labor).

The majority of implementations in the sector focused on constructing public toilets

and did not include other facilities (such as the means to effectively treat human
excrement).

Communities were not taught to set up effective mechanisms for operating and
maintaining the facilities. Because the need to cover such costs was generally ignored,
most facilities deteriorated a few months after construction and actually became
public health hazards by fostering unhygienic conditions.

Because communities were not regarded as true decision-makers responsible for

planning, implementation, and operation, they subsequently did not have a sense of
"beneficial ownership" of the new facilities and their apathy often accelerated the
deterioration of facilities due to vandalism and neglect.

Page 5 of 18

SANIMAS tackled all of these issues head-on, transforming the old conceptual
framework of "sanitation for communities" into the new concept of "sanitation by
communities" (Community-Based Sanitation). The demonstration projects proved that
communities that want sanitation improvements could successfully choose, plan,
implement, and manage their own CBS systems.

III. The Cases

A long list of 29 municipalities having a population density of more than 700 inhabitants/km2
was used as the basis for inviting city administrators to a multi-city seminar. These decisionmakers (i.e. Mayor /Head of Bappeda) as well as some attendants from the local parliaments
(i.e. DPRD) were given specific information about the SANIMAS concept. After the plenary
session, "bilateral" round table discussions provided an effective way to mobilize awareness
among the representatives from the potential cities and also to gauge the demand. Because
the majority of funding for the demonstration projects would come from city governments,
the seminar needed to serve a marketing function in addition to its information-providing
role.
Eight cities were then selected, and each signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU),
but one of them (Bangli) dropped out shortly after this point. The remaining seven cities each
drew up a short list of eligible communities and invited them to attend a SANIMAS
presentation, after which each municipal government chose one of its communities to
participate in the project.
Although different indicators were applied by local governments when classifying a location
as poor, slum area, low-income, etc., it is fair to say that the communities selected for
SANIMAS demonstration projects represent the diversity of poor urban neighborhoods in
Indonesia, whose cities are generally complex in structure. Six of the seven participating
communities were located in cities in the province of East Java, while the seventh was
located in the city of Denpasar, the capital of Bali province. Unfortunately, the community of
Patemon, located in the city of Pamekasan on the island of Madura, withdrew from
participating in SANIMAS after the CBS development plan was agreed upon.
IV. Lessons Learned
A. Communications

The selection process was transparent but could be further made useful by developing
ranking systems to prioritize non-selected communities and to contribute to availability
of sanitation mapping information. The main selection criteria for cities and
communities were allocation of funds for CBS implementation and institutional support
while technical feasibility was a key criteria for communities. In particular, technical
feasibility depended on land availability, minimum elevation for piping, and risk of
discharging effluent into streams and rivers. Transparency of the city as well as the
community selection process was high according to comments from local stakeholders
and decision-makers; however, those communities that were rejected felt disappointed
because their need hadnt been formally acknowledged or prioritized. This is further
complicated by the lack "sanitation maps" in cities, which would help assign priorities to
these communities. A priority ranking or "waiting list" would be useful to enlist
communities when future investments into CBS occur.

The range of prospective communities could be increased by better communication and

organization at the local level. In two of the cities, transparency was compromised due to

Page 6 of 18

poor time management resulting in only a single eligible community being invited to the
SANIMAS presentation in each city. Adequate time should be allocated to the demand
generation process to ensure that communities are given a chance to voice their needs.

The road show approach failed to reach important local decision-makers because
participants in kick-off seminars were typically lower-ranked government officials.
These lower-ranked officials did not report back to their superiors (i.e. usually the
decision-makers) unless specifically requested to do so. It is a general administrative
practice in Indonesia that lower officials do not write reports or memos to superiors
without a specific request. Personalized communications and visits with senior officials
may assist in increasing their presence and buy-in to the program.

The selection criteria past experience with self-help projects proved a useful indicator
of communities capacity to invest and participate in the project. Despite difficulties in
accounting and efficient management of laborers, the chosen communities proved the
relevance of the "past experiences in self-help projects" selection criteria. They
demonstrated a willingness to form local committees, to act as honest and motivated
practitioners, to invest in necessary upgrades at the household level, to contribute 2-4 %
of total construction costs in kind, and to pay user fees that will sustain the long-term
operation and maintenance of the CBS systems they chose.

Communications during the selection process need to be simple and informal.

Stakeholders from both cities and communities recommended that the information
presented and provided during the selection process should be informal and tailored to the
audience (i.e. government or communities). For example, development terms such as
"self-selection" and "demand-based approach" were hindrances to the comprehension of
the CBS concept. It is preferable to communicate informally and avoid terms that are
direct borrowings from foreign languages (e.g., "in-kind").

Recommendations:
1. A priority ranking or "waiting list" should be developed to register those
communities that are not initially selected for future sanitation investment and
prioritization.
2. Adequate time should be allocated to the demand generation process to ensure that
all communities are given a chance to come forward with their expressions of
interest.
3. Personalized communications and visits with senior officials increase their presence
and buy-in to CBS programs.
4. Past experience with self-help projects should be used as an indicator of
communities capacity to invest and participate in CBS projects.
5. Communications during the selection process should to be simple and informal with
language tailored to the intended audience (i.e. government vs. community).
B. Technology

Informed choice should be tailored to each location by eliminating options that are
not technically feasible for that community. An average of 70% of the options in the
ICC were not applicable to local conditions. Only technically feasible options need to
be presented during the community's informed choice process to minimize confusion
and maximize discussion of the feasible options. It is also recommended that in order
to approach environmental health issues holistically during the discussion, the scope
of the informed choice process should be broadened to include technically feasible
options for solid waste, hygiene and clean water supply.

Page 7 of 18

CBS approaches require a user-friendly communications strategy. Information,

education, and communication (IEC) processes were often perceived as confusing by
local government officials, local facilitators, and communities. Promotional materials
used complex language including too many foreign terms, and presentations were
Box 1. Personalized communications go a long way
Local government leaders prefer a personal consultation to printed information regardless of how
clearly written and visualized the brochures are. Some examples of this during the project were:
1. Invitations for provincial information seminars and information brochures about SANIMAS
that were sent to more than 25 local government officials proved to be effective only when
accompanied by personal visits from SANIMAS coordinators. Follow-up phone calls to officials
revealed that IEC materials which were not hand-delivered, never reached the recipients.
2. When lower-ranking government officials were the ones who attended a provincial information
seminar, they were unable to pass IEC materials or other information up the chain of command to
their superiors without an explicit request from above (which often did not materialize).
3. Field experience showed that even simple and highly visualized IEC materials such as the ICC
and comprehensive training manuals/guidelines related to topics such as hygiene or expense
accounting were of limited use as stand-alone explanations. Personal guidance was needed
because knowledge about CBS (and sanitation concepts in general) among stakeholders was
rather low.
perceived to be too technical. For a better understanding and participation in the
project, it is necessary to develop promotional material that is based on specific local
characteristics. The material should include visual communication that reflects local
adat ("traditions" or "mores" regarding lifestyle, clothing, and other aspects of
culture). The use of local language in presentations should be considered as well.
Additionally, it is necessary to reinforce messages through several channels such as
posting explanations at the relevant physical locations and through frequent meetings
with the CBS committees.

Even well prepared and previously tested IEC material are of limited use without
experienced facilitators. During the selection and implementation phases, it became
obvious that the IEC material needed to be supplemented with experienced facilitators
who could guide communities through the assessment and informed choice process to
reach consensus on a way forward. In one community, the failure of the consensusbuilding process and inability to resolve conflict lead to a single inhabitant vetoing the
project.

Communities should be given incentives to implement projects in a cost-effective

manner. Community representatives, municipality stakeholders, and consultants
agreed that construction quality was high in SANIMAS compared to similar projects
carried out by NGOs or government departments. However, the relative inexperience
of committees, local foremen/supervisors, and construction crews resulted in labor
costs that were comparatively high. In comparable DEWATS projects, 40% of total
construction costs are labor costs, but SANIMAS labor costs accounted for 50-55% of
total costs. This is likely because construction workers were recruited from
neighboring or the participating communities themselves, in which case there was
incentive to prolong construction and increase the labor costs! In addition, due to the
high workload of the overall process CBS committees in many cases decided to pay
themselves a monthly allowance which added to the overall labor costs.
This loose management system might be corrected if communities were given

Page 8 of 18

incentives to implement the project in the most cost-effective way such as being
allowed to keep leftover funds for other community projects. Had the communities
contracted the project to more experienced laborers it is likely the overall costs and
time
for
the
construction
would
have
been
decreased.

Truly informed consent depends on accurate cost estimates during the ICC process.
This means developing a more comprehensive assessment of expenses incurred by the
community during construction (i.e. including road hardening, the use of metered
water, etc.) and addressing "hidden costs" such as the need to expand one's roof to
accommodate a new toilet alongside the house. This may be addressed in future
projects by looking at the costing for the SANIMAS communities. For its part, the
communities could also contribute to the process by providing an accurate estimate of
the number of actual users, which may exceed the official population.

There is a pattern in the choice of systems by communities based on asset

ownership, availability of water, type of housing and experience with past sanitation
projects. Given the choice between a simple sewerage system and a community
sanitation centre that included toilets, bathrooms, faucets and hand-laundry facilities,
the simple sewerage system was favored where most of the families owned houses,
space within the houses was sufficient to install bathrooms (or at least a toilet/WC)
and a regular water supply was already available and public sanitation facilities had
been used in the past or current facilities that existed were considered dilapidated or
otherwise inadequate. Community sanitation centers (MCKs) were the preferred
choice in communities where the majority of residents lived in rented houses or
dormitory style housing that did not have the space for construction of toilets and/or
the residents did not want to invest in upgrading a rented property.

User participation during the selection and development of CBS options was
generally very high reflecting the interest and demand of the communities in
improved sanitation. Particularly, women were key decision-makers who expressed
clear demands in favor or against possible CBS demonstration projects, particularly
during the "Simplified Sewerage System vs. Community Sanitation Center" debate.
This was understandable because the women were more sensitive to the effect of
sanitation on home cleanliness and family health. Men tended to lead and dominate
technical discussions based on greater know-how and construction experience.

Land status must be clarified before RPAs are conducted. Failure to obtain accurate
information about land ownership and rights during RPA exercises caused problems
in implementation. In addition to the aforementioned "veto" of the Pamekasan project
by a single homeowner, Kediri and Pasuruan had to shift their selection of
communities to "runner-up" locales where land for CBS infrastructure was available.
In Sidoarjo and Mojokerto, CBS designs had to be changed because the anticipated
land use for construction of a wastewater treatment system did not materialize. In
addition, planned project sites sometimes had to be shifted after the community
determined that proximity to a river would pose a risk of flooding.
Asset ownership in a legal sense was never completely clarified during SANIMAS
because the piping and WWTS infrastructure were often located on public land
(pathways or river embankments). Communities were granted the right of use of
public facilities by their local governments and empowered to manage and operate the
facilities.

Page 9 of 18

Recommendations
1. Only technically feasible options, based on what is known about water availability,
asset ownership, geography and past experience with sanitation projects, should be
presented during the community's informed choice process.
2. The scope of the informed choice process should be broadened to address options for
solid waste, clean water and health and hygiene promotion to maximize
environmental health impact.
3. IEC strategies should include visual communication that reflects aspects of the local
language and culture and be reinforced through several communication channels.
4. There should be an emphasis on strong facilitation and facilitator training, as IEC
materials are only as good as the facilitator who presents them.
5. Communities should be given incentives such as access to leftover funds for other
development activities to implement projects in a cost-effective manner.
6. Future ICC material should provide comprehensive cost estimates that include
hidden costs and costs incurred by the community.
7. Land ownership should be assessed formally, including examining and copying
relevant legal information, after participatory appraisals have been conducted and
before community selection and design of CBS systems.
C. Institutions
A strategy for scaling up facilitation capacity in CBS is needed, building on existing
local capacity and horizontal sharing of learnings. The project design's goal of training
local government employees and local NGOs to act as facilitators proved to be too
ambitious because the individuals who were selected lacked relevant hands-on CBS
experience as well as the necessary technical background. Furthermore, the local
facilitating agencies were never institutionalized in a true sense. Each team of local
facilitators consisted of one or two government employees from the lead agency and one
independent facilitator (a person with experience in community work and a technical
background/inclination who was hired by the EA after the final selection of participating
cities). Trained by the EA, members of the local facilitating teams ended up supporting
(rather than facilitating) the communities on a daily basis in various management tasks.
Since all the municipalities that participated have expressed interest in assisting other
communities in 2004, their initial experience can be thought of as an "apprenticeship",
and they will eventually become true CBS facilitators as time goes on, assuming that the
same persons will be assigned facilitation tasks in future projects.

Local government and NGO staff can only facilitate in a true sense after they have
practical experience. Future facilitators should have either practical experience in CBS
implementation or else their facilitation tasks should be limited to administrative aspects
of the program (such as bookkeeping and documenting construction progress on a daily
basis in a construction book). It is hoped, however, that some facilitators will remain with
SANIMAS for several years and in the course of time develop sufficient experience as a
result of their involvement with several projects.
It is no ordinary task to engage in community institution building via highly participatory
and complex methodologies that implement a decentralized sanitation program within a
limited time frame. Accordingly, future CBS projects should focus much of their training
and capacity-building initiatives (with the appropriate funding) on achieving hands-on
experience through activities at existing demonstration sites or infrastructure that is

Page 10 of 18

compatible with CBS (e.g., a decentralized wastewater treatment plant). The propagation
of CBS programs depends on the use of smoothly functioning demonstration projects as
CBS "learning centers" for future practitioners in the field.
Implementation details such as construction designs, cost calculations, sources and
amounts of contributions, construction time frame, and regulations of community
committees were included within the SANIMAS development plan that was signed by all
stakeholders involved in the CBS sub-projects. The structure and content of the CBS
development plans will serve as valuable examples of an accountable and transparent
project planning document, and further will serve as a replicable reference for future
parties who become interested in implementing CBS projects.

Individual EA consultants should be retained until local LFAs achieve full technical
competence. CBS systems were designed by communities themselves after they were
informed about the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of systems, with
experienced EA consultants on hand to facilitate understanding of the technical
components. Such facilitation requires 3-5 years of relevant work experience, which
means that these consultants will be needed again in the near future when additional
communities participate in SANIMAS.

A clearer allocation of roles of all stakeholders and the availability of better technical
advice will enable future CBS initiatives to build on the pilot experience. SANIMAS
was successful in a large part due to local stakeholder demand and motivation to
participate, factors upon which future replications must be founded. However, supporting
this must be a clear allocation of responsibilities for financial, institutional and technical
decision-making for all stakeholders including the national government, local
government, NGOs, the private sector, communities and donors. Wider awareness of the
pilot successes and the roles played by the various actors will help change the old mindset
that the government is solely responsible for sanitation while communities are merely
passive
recipients
who
neither
choose
nor
pay.
Recommendations:
1. Future CBS projects should focus training and capacity-building initiatives on
achieving hands-on experience through activities at existing demonstration sites or
related infrastructure (e.g., a decentralized wastewater treatment plants).
2. LGs should develop a strategy for scaling up facilitation capacity in CBS, building on
existing local capacity, existing demonstration sites and horizontal sharing of
learnings between stakeholders.
3. National government should develop guidelines outlining stakeholders' roles in
investment and decision-making for CBS development on a wider scale.

D. Financing

Lead LG agency must be identified early and LG budget allocation timetable must be
accommodated in CBS planning stage in order to prevent funding delays. Financial
contributions from participating local governments were allocated from already existing
budget positions or else a new budget for SANIMAS activities was arranged from
"reserve allocations" (e.g. budgeted items that were not labeled as operational funds). The
participating cities did not all allocate funds for SANIMAS from the same department
(e.g., BAPPEDA, Environment, or Public Works and Cleaning in different cases) and the
delegation of responsibility to one department caused initial delays. Additionally,
political decision-makers (e.g., elected leaders of local legislative commissions) had to

Page 11 of 18

sanction the utilization of budget reserve allocations, a process that often further delayed
disbursement
of
funds
for
as
much
as
four
weeks.
Procedures and mechanisms have now been standardized within the SANIMAS
development plan, which will make it considerably easier to communicate effectively with
the governments of other cities who become interested in implementing CBS programs in
the future. Because designs, cost plans, and community accounts were open to all
community members and the various stakeholders involved in each project, the principle
of multiple crosschecking was followed throughout all project stages.

Local government accounting procedures for CBS should be simplified and streamlined
to accommodate CBS. After an initial hesitation, local governments had no difficulty
allocating budgetary amounts in the range of Rp 100-200 million (about 70 to 80% of
construction costs) for community managed projects. Specific financial transactions made
by committees required the signature of the local government employees who were
assigned to the sub-projects. During implementation, delays of transfer of funds from
local governments were always solved and discussed openly with all stakeholders in order
to prevent rumors of corruption. In two cases, communities issued press releases about the
delays,.

Commitment from local governments must support demand from communities. During
the selection process it quickly became evident that demand must come not only at the
community level but also equally at the local government level. When analyzing the
funding contributions made to the CBS systems during the demonstration project phase of
SANIMAS, we found that the communities were willing and able to pay about 3% via
cash and in-kind contributions while local governments were contributing more than 60%
of the total cost.
Many local government officials who participated in the kick-off workshop initially
expressed surprise about the "high" cost estimates for CBS systems, especially
wastewater treatment and piping systems. Their expectation was based on the low cost of
sedimentation pits and percolation pits, which are the systems of choice in most cities and
communities, even affluent ones. Concerns about cost should be understood in the context
of regional autonomy, a newly implemented political arrangement that increases local
government responsibility, which means that many competing projects must be balanced
within a fixed LG budget.

Out of 29 long-listed cities that were pre-selected based on a population density of at least
700 inhabitants per square kilometer, 11 issued a formal expression of interest and 8 of
these signed an MoU. Of the eight cities that signed an MoU, six allocated funds of Rp
200,000,000 each for CBS implementation, while two allocated Rp 100,000,000 each.

The overall project cost estimate that was based on an average infrastructure investment
cost of approximately 2 million Rupiah per household proved to be largely correct.
Recommendations:
1. Planning for regular budget allocations should be finalized by March of the project year,
with planning for reserve allocations finalized by September of the year prior to
implementation.
2. Local decision-makers should be contacted and informed personally by project
stakeholders well before formal budgets need to be approved. This proactive contact will

Page 12 of 18

increase goodwill and reduce possible delays when it comes time for the disbursement of
funds.
3. The selection process for future CBS projects should focus on presenting the
implementation concept to individual municipalities after an appointment has been made
to meet the actual decision-makers.
4. To accommodate local government fiscal year budget planning, the multi-city seminar
should be conducted during the first quarter of the year and the MoU should officially be
introduced before July of the year preceding physical implementation.
V. Applicability of the Model throughout Indonesia
Many of the initial delays and difficulties encountered in the project were due to the lack of
functioning projects to demonstrate how CBS works in actual practice. The pilot projects
created a process and functioning model that greatly eases the task of introducing and
replicating the SANIMAS concept in other communities. In addition, LFA and technical
expertise will improve as more and more communities participate. Future projects will also
benefit from the fact that nearly all of the pilots were completed within their LG budget
allocations. The numbers show that more than 25% of the long-listed cities that attended the
multi-city information seminar decided to allocate funds for implementation. With several
CBS demonstrations now in operation as reference projects, it is reasonable to estimate that
other densely populated cities in Indonesia will allocate CBS funds in the near future.
It must be stated, however, that a "congruent replicability" of CBS will be challenging in
Indonesia because legislation and administrative practices vary from city to city. As an
illustration of this point, note that the leading government role in the seven participating cities
was taken by three different departments: public works, environment, and planning. A
flexible approach is therefore needed in pitching the concept to municipal authorities.
Clearly, a decentralized system is most appropriate for construction and operation by a small
community itself, which means community ownership is essential. However, for more
sophisticated sanitation systems (e.g., required by topographical conditions or land use), the
separation of ownership and operator ought to be considered. Proper organizational structures
for such private-public models have not been developed yet but there might be future
demand.
Decentralized sanitation systems are one of the technical options that now contribute toward
the improvement of hygiene and environmental health in Indonesia's urban areas. Because the
local government share of CBS funding is high, additional options should be presented to the
local governments. An intersectional communication is required in order to involve
stakeholders of other approaches for sanitation. This will allow more comprehensive planning
and provide new options for possible future combination of decentralized and centralized
systems.
VI. Looking Ahead
In April 2004, a team of national stakeholders including government, communities, donors,
NGOs and international experts came together for a national seminar, Approaches to
mainstreaming CBS: Lessons Learnt from the SANIMAS Experience to discuss strategies
for mainstreaming CBS.
The key outputs from the seminar were a proposed allocation of roles for stakeholders in
decision-making, capacity building, investment and facilitation (see Table 1) and the
following recommendations.
Page 13 of 18

1. Government must provide the incentives and the political will necessary to prioritize the
sanitation
sector.
2. There is a need for improved sanitation mapping and coordination to prioritize needs and
find appropriate solutions.
3. There is potential for CBS application within city planning to:
o provide services to densely populated low-income urban communities
o increase awareness of communities of environmental health issues
o empower communities to effect change in their quality of life
o provide low cost solutions to sanitation
4. There remain knowledge gaps in mainstreaming CBS that need to be addressed,
specifically:
o Consolidated information/mapping of sanitation needs at the local level
o How to develop the necessary human resources to implement CBS
o Necessary regulations to support CBS
o Necessary institutions at the community and local government level to support
implementation and sustainability of CBS systems
o How to streamline the process in terms of cost/time/facilitation
o How to prioritize sanitation
o How to resolve land ownership issues in poor communities and build ownership of
the systems in the context of uncertain assets
5. A clear definition of roles of national stakeholders (i.e. National government, Local
government, NGOs, private sector, communities and donors) in terms of decisionmaking, investment responsibility, implementation and capacity building is required to
move forward with a national strategy for improved sanitation services that includes CBS
(see Table 1)
6. Supporting regulations for CBS development need to be developed. They should include
national laws and local level by-laws that provide structure for CBS development and
O&M including certification/standards for construction of systems, CBS committee
institutionalization, assets ownership, delegation of lead agency and fund
channeling/allocating
mechanisms
for
communitie

Page 14 of 18

Table 1. Potential national stakeholder roles for CBS adoption

Roles
Decides
what?

Pays what?

National Government
National strategy for CBS
implementation and mainstreaming,
funding mechanisms, policy for
asset ownership, feasibility criteria,
lead agency/sector, approach to be
adopted by donors, budgeting
systems and incentives to encourage
CBS development.
National advocacy campaign, funds
for capacity building, financial
incentives for LG, policy and
guideline development, construction
fund sharing.

Local
Government
Priority of sanitation
planning, financial
contribution, leading
sector, supporting
awareness campaign,
availability of mapping
data.

Back stopping post

construction O&M,
matching grants with
communities,
preparation of local
regulations.

Implements
what?

National advocacy campaign, CBS

program promotion,
networking/providing forums for
networking/partnership creation.

Program design and

adjustments,
partnership creation,
CBS promotion.

Facilitates
what?

Approving national policy,

SANIMAS funding regulation
promotion of policy to the local
government.

Issuing sanitation local

regulations and
promotion, providing
accurate sanitation data,
allocating technical and
operational funds.
Increasing awareness to
build political will,
training in developing
sanitation
database/mapping,
regional CBS
workshops, ToT on
CBS for local
government.

Capacity
building
needs?

Page 15 of 18

Increasing awareness to build

political will, comparative studies,
capacity building of the WASPOLA
working group in advocacy and
dissemination of national policy
through discussion, workshop,
apprenticeships, etc.,
communication strategy (workshop,
media training).

NGO/
Private sector
To adopt CBS guidelines, project feasibility
from social, economical, technical, etc.
factors, internal capacity development,
collaboration with LG/NGO/Private sector/
communities to improve planning design,
that the market for CBS is viable, to be
conduit for channeling funds to
communities.
Investment costs,
Matching funds for
campaign
costs not covered by
promotion,
other stakeholders.
investment in
developing O&M
services (i.e.desludging etc.)
Transfer of knowledge, experience, and
technology to local NGOs, service
provision, alternative technology
presentation, providing loans, promotion of
the program, facilitation of process.
Carrying out sanitation Services and
investment.
needs assessment,
training local
government, providing
system warranty in
some cases.
Management, technical
and facilitation skills
including participatory
analysis and proposal
writing.

Management
skills, market
analysis (CBS),
product
development
capability.

Communities

Donors

Suitability of CBS,
appropriate technology,
O&M of the
systems/facilities and the
institutional arrangements

The appropriate
form of support
(loan/grant /
technical assistance),
support for national
policy
implementation.

Replication on the micro

level, O&M,
investment supporting
funds of 5-10%.

Technical assistance,
investment costs,
capacity building,
large-scale
replication studies,
construction and
facilitation costs.
Monitoring,
evaluation and
promotion.

Monitoring, operations
and maintenance,
compiling action plan,
gathering/determining
contributions.
Contributions, choice of
technical options and
management
structure/representatives.

Funding support and

adoption of national
policy guidelines.

Understanding of
environmental health
situation and links to
CBS, fund and resources
mobilization, ability to
develop local
management systems to
achieve sustainability of
CBS.

Ability to appreciate
the relevance of
CBS, in the context
of local conditions.

Selected Communities
1. Pasuruan
Located about 50 km east of Surabaya in the province of East Java, the municipality of Pasuruan has a total
population of 168,164 living in an area of 35.3 km2 that is divided into 26 Kelurahan. The main income
sources are the informal sector, trade and crafts, small-and-medium enterprises (SMEs), industry, fishery,
agriculture, and the public sector.
Petung, a kampung ("village") in the district of Bakalan at the periphery of Pasuruan, can be described as
"peri-urban" because a majority of its residents still practice part-time farming, most houses have rather
large yards, and the pathways among the houses are unpaved.
Members of this community opted for a "simple sewerage system" because most of them own houses that
have no toilets but do have sufficient space to install toilets. Private ownership of the homes was a key
determinant in the decision process, as was the fact that sufficient public land was available for construction
of piping and WWTS components.
Details of the neighborhood in brief:
Kelurahan
: Bakalan
Kampung
: Petung RW II, RT 4 & 5
CBS-Users
: 83 households/400 people
CBS-System
: Simplified Sewerage System
KSM
: Kali Mas
Conditions
: Most residents were using the nearby river for defecating.
2. Blitar
Located about 175 km south of Surabaya in the province of East Java, the municipality of Blitar has a total
population of 119,395 living in an area of 32.4 km2 that is divided into 20 Kelurahan.
The traditional neighborhood of Sukorejo within the district of the same name is located near the main
market at the city center of Blitar. Most residents work in the informal sector, mainly in the nearby market.
The majority of the dwellings are privately owned, small-detached houses in clusters that are divided by
paved narrow lanes that are not wide enough for cars to enter. Most residents were using the nearby river for
defecation due to the absence of toilets within houses.
Members of this community opted for a "simple sewerage system" because most of them own houses that
have no toilets but do have sufficient space to install toilets. Other determinants in the decision process were
the facts that households are privately owned and sufficient public land is available for construction of
piping and WWTS components.
Details of the neighborhood in brief:
Kelurahan
: Sukorejo
Kampung
: Sukorejo RW II, RT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
CBS-Users
: 85 households/750 people
CBS-System
: Simplified Sewerage System
KSM
: KSM Sukorejo
Conditions
: 85% of HH lacked toilets within houses. River was being used for defecating.
3. Kediri
Page 16 of 18

Located about 150 km southwest of Surabaya in the province of East Java, the municipality of Kediri has a
total population of 242,211 living in an area of 63.4 km2 that is divided into 38 Kelurahan.
A traditional kampung was chosen in the district of Balowerti near the city center of Kediri. Its houses are
small and there are dormitory-style residences rented out to employees of the large Gudang Garam cigarette
factory. Most of these houses and residences were too small to allow the proper installation of toilets, and
the community members were already accustomed to using a twenty-year-old public toilet facility. As is true
in many countries, tenants were reluctant to pay for improving rented property. Therefore, the community
opted to build a new public sanitation facility consisting of toilets and bathrooms on city-owned land
immediately behind the old toilet facility (which was demolished after the new one became operational).
Details of the neighborhood in brief:
Kelurahan
: Balowerti
Kampung
: RW III, RT 8, 9, 10, 11
CBS-Users
: 450 people
CBS-System
: Community Sanitation Center
KSM
: KSM SANIMAS Balowerti
Conditions
: 3 deteriorated public toilets were being used by the majority of residents.
4. Mojokerto
Located about 35 km west of Surabaya in the province of East Java, the city of Mojokerto has a total
population of 109,164 living in an area of 16.5 km2 that is divided into 22 Kelurahan.
Balongcok is a traditional kampung in the district of Balongsari. Its poorer residents live in small rented or
dormitory-style houses and many of them were not willing to pay to improve the rented property (e.g.,
installing private toilets at their own expense). These community members were already accustomed to
using a public toilet facility. Therefore, the community opted to build a new public sanitation center
consisting of laundry, toilet, and bathroom facilities.
Kelurahan
Kampung
CBS-Users
CBS-System
KSM
Conditions

Details of the neighborhood in brief:

: Balongsari
: Balongcok RW I, RT 2
: 244 people
: Community Sanitation Center
: KSM SANIMAS Balowerti
: 50% of the residents did not have toilets in the home and so used
several deteriorated public toilets (or the river or rice fields) for defecating.

5. Sidoarjo
Located due west of Surabaya in the province of East Java, the Kabupaten ("regency") of Sidoarjo has a total
population of 1,549,883 living in an area of 592 km2 that is divided into 316 Kelurahan.
The traditional neighborhood of Kapasan within the district of Sidokare is located near a river close to the
city center of Sidoarjo. Housing for the poorer residents consists of small, semi-permanent, dormitory-style
residences that are too small to allow the proper installation of toilets. These community members were
already accustomed to using a public toilet facility. Therefore, the community opted to build a new public
sanitation facility consisting of toilets and bathrooms on city-owned land close to the river.

Page 17 of 18

Details of the neighborhood in brief:

Kelurahan
: Sidokare
Kampung
: Kapasan RW V, RT 21
CBS-Users
: 214 people
CBS-System
: Community Sanitation Center
KSM
: KSM Guna Tirta
Conditions
: Almost 80% of the inhabitants have bathrooms that lack toilets. Most of the residents use
the river for defecating and a minority use deteriorated public toilets.
6. Pamekasan
Located about 100 km northeast of Surabaya in the north of Madura island within the province of East Java,
the regency of Pamekasan has a total population of 688,872 living in an area of 733 km2 that is divided into
183 Kelurahan.
A traditional kampung was chosen in the district of Patemon in the city center of Pamekasan. Most residents
of this lower-middle class community work in commerce, crafts, or government service. Although the
majority of these privately owned houses have toilets, the wastewater is discharged into a partly covered
(but frequently blocked) rainwater drain that runs along the front of the semi-detached houses. The drain is
smelly and overflows frequently during the rainy season, so residents opted to connect their houses to a
"simple sewerage system."
Details of the neighborhood in brief:
Kelurahan
: Patemon
Kampung
: RW II, RT 3, 4
CBS-Users
: 58 HH/450 people
CBS-System
: Simplified Sewerage System
KSM
: KSM Perintis
Conditions
: 80% of the households have toilets but the feces are discharged into open
drains
7. Denpasar
The capital of Bali (a well-known island province due east of Java) has a total population of 390,230 living
in an area of 127.8 km2 that is divided into 68 Kelurahan.
The community of Banjar Batur in the district of Ubung is characterized by a large percentage of residents
from Java who work in agricultural home industries such as small soybean cake (tofu) factories and
backyard poultry farms. Houses are either rented or privately owned. Community members decided to build
a shallow sewerage system, because each household could afford the necessary investment and the
community wanted to reduce the pollution of streams and rivers. However, the majority decision had to be
confirmed by the land-owning Balinese minority.
Details of the neighborhood in brief:
Kelurahan
: Ubung
Kampung
: Banjar Batur, Southern Pucuk Sari
CBS-Users
: 100 HH/500 people
CBS-System
: Simplified Sewerage System
KSM
: KSM Pucuk Sari Selatan
Conditions
: 80% of households have toilets but the feces are discharged into the river or
absorption pits

Page 18 of 18