Report of WWIMP Case Study-FINAL

7/29/2019 Report of WWIMP Case Study-FINAL

1/34

M&E CASE STUDYWASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTER PLAN

PACKAGE I: SURABAYA


2/34

M&E CASE STUDY

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT MASTER PLAN

PACKAGE I: SURABAYA

June 2011

INDONESIA

INFRASTRUCTURE

INITIATIVE


3/34

INDONESIA INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE

This document has been published by the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII), anAustralian Government funded project designed to promote economic growth in

Indonesia by enhancing the relevance, quality and quantum of infrastructure

investment.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australia

Indonesia Partnership or the Australian Government. Please direct any comments or

questions to the IndII Director, tel. +62 (21) 230-6063, fax +62 (21) 3190-2994.

Website: www.indii.co.id.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report has been prepared by the M&E Team, engaged under the Indonesia

Infrastructure Initiative (IndII) funded by AusAID.

The support provided by IndIIs Technical Director of Water and Sanitation, IndIIs

management, and the Consultant Team in Surabaya is gratefully acknowledged. The

report draws on available documents and results of key interviews. Any errors of fact

or interpretation are solely those of the author.

IndII M&E Team

Jakarta, June 2011

IndII 2011

All original intellectual property contained within this document is the property of the Indonesia

Infrastructure Initiative (IndII). It can be used freely without attribution by consultant and IndII partners in

preparing IndII documents, reports designs and plans; it can also be used freely by other agencies or

organisations, provided attribution is given.

Every attempt has been made to ensure that referenced documents within this publication have been

correctly attributed. However, IndII would value being advised of any corrections required, or advice

concerning source documents and/ or updated data.


4/34


5/34

i

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................ii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. iv

Chapter 1: Background and Context ....................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Case Study Methodology ....................................................................... 3

Chapter 3: Analysis ................................................................................................ 5

3.1. Achievements and Challenges .............................................................................. 5

3.2. Capacity Building ................................................................................................... 6

3.3. Partnership ............................................................................................................ 7

3.4. Policy Setting and Implementation ....................................................................... 8

Chapter 4: Key Conclusions .................................................................................... 9

Annexes ............................................................................................................... 10

Annex 1: Semi-Structured Interview Questions for WWIMP Package 1: Surabaya .. 10

Annex 2: List of People Consulted ............................................................................. 12

Annex 3: Transcripts of Interviews with Stakeholders .............................................. 13

Annex 4: DGCK Letter to Mayor of Surabaya ............................................................. 20

Annex 5: Bappeko Report to Mayor of Surabaya ...................................................... 22


6/34

ii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AusAID Australian Agency for International DevelopmentAPBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (Local Expenditures and

Revenues Budget)

Bappeko Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Kota (Local Development Planning

Board at City Level)

Bappenas Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional(National Development

Planning Agency)

CSS City Sanitation Strategy

DED Detailed Engineering Design

DGCK Directorate General Cipta Karya

DGHS Directorate General of Human Settlements

EHRA Environmental Health Risk Assessment

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FS Feasibility Study

GoA Government of Australia

GoI Government of Indonesia

IndII Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative

ISSDP Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Programme

IUDP Integrated Urban Development Project

LG Local Government

MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MPW Ministry of Public Works

PDAM Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (Local Water Company)

PLP Direktorat Penyehatan Lingkungan Permukiman (Directorate of

Environmental Sanitation)

Pokja Kelompok Kerja Sanitasi(Sanitation Working Group or WG)

PPSP Program Percepatan Pembangunan Sanitasi Perkotaan (Programme to

Accelerate Urban Sanitation Development)

RISP Rencana Induk Sanitasi Perkotaan (Urban Sanitation Master Plan)RISPKS Rencana Induk Sanitasi Perkotaan Kota Surabaya (Surabaya Urban

Sanitation Master Plan)

RPJM Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah (Five-year Development Plan)

RTRW Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (Regional Spatial Planning)

SANIMAS Sanitasi Masyarakat(Urban Community Sanitation Programme)

SSDP Surabaya Sewerage Development Project

ToR Terms of Reference

TTPS Tim Teknis Pembangunan Sanitasi(Technical Team for Sanitation

Development)


7/34

iii

Tupoksi Tugas Pokok dan Fungsi(Working Unit Tasks and Responsibilities)

WG Working Group

WSI Water and Sanitation Initiative

WWIMP Waste Water Investment Master Plan


8/34

iv

Executive Summary

Urban sanitation conditions have always been very poor in Indonesian cities. This isattributable to a range of causes, including rapid urbanisation, poor governance, low

institutional and organisational capacity in this sector, and inappropriate technical

solutions. The national government has devised three approaches to respond to this

situation: (1) development of an overarching Acceleration of Urban Sanitation

Development Programme (PPSP); (2) development of a specific sanitation policy with

respect to wastewater management under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Works

(MPW), including major input from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA); and (3) a

planned ten-fold increase in funding during the period 2010-2014.

In regard to PPSP, the Government of Indonesia (GoI) has asked the Indonesia

Infrastructure Initiative (IndII) to assist it in accelerating the development of urban

sanitation through support for wastewater planning in several cities. IndII selected a

total of eight participating cities in consultation with GoI agencies, one of these cities

being Surabaya.

IndII commenced Waste Water Investment Master Plan (WWIMP, or the Plan) activity

(the Activity) in Surabaya in September 2010. In line with the goal of supporting the GoI

initiative to accelerate the development of urban sanitation under the PPSP through

support for wastewater planning in a number of cities, IndII defined the objective of

this activity as being to prepare a wastewater investment master plan for the city of

Surabaya that is acceptable to the local government (LG) and capable of being

implemented with external funding support from the GoI1. The WWIMP outputs are

primarily reports, including a feasibility study, a capacity building plan, and the master

plan itself.

The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) case study for the WWIMP Activity followed a

semi-structured interview process and engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to

obtain a series of views and observations. Evidence was sourced and sighted in order

to strengthen the case for contributing to the agreed objectives as outlined in the

Activity Terms of Reference (ToR), and towards broader IndII key result areas.

The case study found that the Activity was able to produce the draft WWIMP and draft

feasibility study on schedule. While these documents are considered technically

feasible, there are doubts as to the Plans usefulness, since its recommendations forwastewater treatment locations suggest using land that it may be a challenge to

acquire. In other words, the Plan is unlikely to be implemented by the LG due to land

acquisition issues.

The Directorate General of Cipta Karya (DGCK) took the initiative to discuss the issues

at a meeting in Jakarta during May 2011. However, it was clear from the interviews

that there is still no consensus, and no decision has been made on how to address the

1See the ToR for WWIMP activity


9/34

v

land issue. This has impeded the consultants efforts to finalise the master plan and

feasibility study.

The case study also found a problem with the partnership between the IndIIconsultants and the key LG counterpart agency, represented by the Sanitation Working

Group (Kelompok Kerja Sanitasi, or Pokja Sanitasi), in the wastewater master planning

process. Insufficient coordination and consultation occurred in the planning stage for

the master plan. Yet it is clear from the Activity ToR that the WWIMP document should

be prepared in consultation with the city government. The degree of intensity of the

consultation process is important, since it will affect the level of LG buy-in to the Plan.

This study recognised that these two major issues need to be overcome urgently in

order to avoid repeating the long history of sanitation master plans that have not been

implemented. The consultant needs to (a) provide a more detailed analysis and

solutions for land, alternative systems and technology, and (b) enhance its approach inorder to effectively communicate its concepts to the Working Group (WG) and LG. For

its part, the Surabaya WG/LG needs to improve its level of commitment by devoting

more resources to the Activity (i.e., in terms of both time and labour).


10/34


11/34

WASTEWATER INVESTMENT

MASTERPLAN CASE STUDY1

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Chapter 1: Background and Context

Urban sanitation conditions have always been very poor in Indonesian cities. This is

attributable to a range of causes, including rapid urbanisation, poor governance, low

institutional and organisational capacity in this sector, and inappropriate technical

solutions. When sanitation services are not up to the desired standard, this causes

citywide problems relating to the overall health of the community especially in terms

of childrens health, environmental degradation and economic losses.

The national government has devised three responses to this situation: (1)

development of an overarching Acceleration of Urban Sanitation Development

Programme (PPSP); (2) development of a specific sanitation policy with respect to

wastewater management, under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Works (MPW)

but also with major input from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA); and (3) a planned

ten-fold increase in funding during the period 2010-2014.

Concerning PPSP, Bappenas has collaborated with MPW, MoHA and the Ministry of

Health through the interdepartmental TTPS2

to adopt a range of targets elaborated

upon in the Roadmap to Accelerate Urban Sanitation Development (PPSP) 2010-

2014. The roadmap targets 330 cities that have sanitation problems and focuses on

three wastewater management goals to be achieved by 2014:

i) Providing new sewerage for five cities;ii) Expanding existing sewerage networks in 11 cities to serve an additional five

million people; and

iii) Constructing decentralised community wastewater management systems (knownas SANIMAS) in each city.

The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has asked the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative

(IndII) to assist it in accelerating the development of urban sanitation under the PPSP

by supporting wastewater planning in a number of cities. The initial request for support

from the GoI covered preparation of wastewater Master Plans, Feasibility Studies (FS)

and Detailed Engineering Designs (DED).

IndII selected the participating cities in consultation with GoI agencies, resulting ineight cities being chosen: Surabaya, Bogor, Makassar, Batam, Palembang, Bandar

Lampung, Pekanbaru, and Cimahi. Each city was selected through a process designed

to ensure it is committed to improving wastewater management services within its

jurisdiction. The cities also had to satisfy other applicable prioritisation criteria in order

to (a) begin providing a future pipeline of committed regional governments and (b)

improve harmonisation of donor and GoI programmes.

2Tim Teknis Pembangunan Sanitasi(TTPS) is the official interdepartmental committee

responsible for oversight of all GoI sanitation programmes.


12/34

2 WASTEWATER INVESTMENTMASTERPLAN CASE STUDY

The Waste Water Investment Master Plan (WWIMP) activity (the Activity) defined its

goal as supporting the GoI initiative to accelerate the development of urban sanitation

under the PPSP through support to wastewater planning in a number of cities3.

The Activity is divided into three packages of work. Package I covers preparation of

WWIMPs for the cities of Surabaya, Bogor, and Makassar. The specific objective of the

assignment under Package I is to prepare waste water investment master plans for the

cities of Surabaya, Bogor, and Makassar4. The investment plans should include a

properly prepared investment program that is acceptable to the local government (LG)

and can be implemented with external funding support from the GoI.

The preparation of the WWIMP is a component of the Water and Sanitation Initiative

(WSI) for Indonesia. The Government of Australia (GoA) announced the WSI in

December 2008, with an approved allocation for Indonesia of A$ 60.5 million. The

bilateral funds were to be expended during the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June2011. The WSI program for Indonesia is being delivered through IndII, which is a

bilateral cooperation project between Australia and Indonesia funded by the Australian

Agency for International Development (AusAID).

3See the TOR for WWIMP Activity

4See the RFT for Package I of WWIMP Activity


13/34



CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2: Case Study Methodology

The case study approach is a powerful qualitative tool used by IndII/WSI to assess a

sample of activities funded across the broad spectrum of the program. The

methodology used to select activities for inclusion includes:

Activities of strategic importance to the GoI, AusAID and IndII/WSI Activities of a certain financial size Activities with specific management and advisory functions and services Activities of specific geographical focus Activities in technical areas that are representative of the program (i.e.,

selecting activities that are representative of the resources used by IndII, suchas water and sanitation activities).

The WWIMP activity has been selected as a case study for this round based on the

duration of the assignment, the progress made, and the strategic importance to

IndII/WSI, AusAID and the GoI of supporting the accelerated development of urban

sanitation. Likewise, this activity is strategically important to the future direction of

advisory support within the AusAID program.

The selection of the city of Surabaya was based on initial discussions with the Technical

Director and Senior Project Officer of WSI/IndII, where progress already made was one

factor to consider. The limited time and resources available to the monitoring andevaluation (M&E) team meant that conducting case studies in all cities was not a

practical option. It is important to note that the case study findings presented in this

report are not meant to apply to similar situations found in other cities. Nevertheless,

the lessons learned from this case study could be used in other cities to replicate

similar successful approaches and avoid similar failures.

The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the WWIMP activity acknowledge that, in view of (i)

the GoIs desire to maximise the use of LG human resources, and (ii) the changes in

institutional arrangements likely to be proposed as part of the master plan, the critical

success factors under the consultants control relate to:

effective engagement with the key LG counterpart agencies in this process in-depth analysis of the existing situation, including identification of key issues

and constraints (physical, environmental, institutional, financial, socio-

economic/cultural)

a comprehensive, innovative, and rigorous approach to developing alternativesolutions

the quality of the key outputs (master plan and feasibility study)


14/34


the quality of the consultants communications (written, oral and presentationmaterials) with the city government and other stakeholders (government,

private, sector and civil society).

The ToR mentions that the consultants performance will mainly be judged against the

above criteria, which are therefore the key aspects for the consultant to address in

approaching the assignment. It should be noted, however, that in this M&E case study

the consultant did not review all such criteria, particular those that would require

technical knowledge (such as assessing the quality of the master plan document).

Instead, the consultant looked at the processes occurring during the master planning

activity, i.e., transfer of knowledge, communication and consultation amongst

stakeholders, LG buy-in, and other issues and challenges in activity implementation.

The M&E case study for the WWIMP activity followed a semi-structured interview

process and engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to obtain a series of views andobservations. Evidence was sourced and sighted as a means of strengthening the case

for contributing to the agreed objectives as outlined in the Activity ToR, and to the

broader IndII key result areas of increased capacity, strengthened partnerships, and

improved policy/systems formulation and implementation.

The case study was conducted from 16 May to 3 June 2011. The case study used a

semi-structured interview (see Annex 1). Various stakeholders involved in the activity

were consulted, and their feedback was sought on key questions (see Annex 2). Annex

3 presents the feedback garnered from key stakeholders.

The document analysis included a review of the Activity ToR, the M&E monthly reports

prepared by the consultant, and other relevant reporting documentation.


15/34



CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS

Chapter 3: Analysis

3.1. Achievements and Challenges

The Directorate General of Human Settlement (DGHS) at the MPW first approached

IndII in 2008 with a view to assisting it in preparing wastewater planning activities for

larger urban centres. In response, AusAID approved an initial scoping study in July

2009. This activity resulted in a list of potential locations for further assistance in

WWIMP preparation. For the activity to proceed, each LG had to provide a written

confirmation outlining their commitment and proposed involvement. The city of

Surabaya was one of the largest cities involved in the WWIMP activity.

IndIIs consultant commenced the WWIMP activity in Surabaya in September 2010. The

main counterpart at the LG was the Sanitation Working Group (Kelompok Kerja

Sanitasi, or Pokja Sanitasi)5

headed by the City Development Planning Board (Badan

Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Kota, or Bappeko). The Working Group (WG) was

established in Surabaya in 2009.

The activity ToR mandates that the WWIMP document should be prepared in

consultation with the LG based on a long-term master plan for sanitation development

that includes physical infrastructure and capacity building in order to ensure

sustainable long-term wastewater management. The investment plan is also required

to include a properly prepared investment program that is acceptable to the LG and

capable of being implemented with external funding support from the GoI.

The outputs to be produced are detailed in the activity design. These are primarily

reports, a Feasibility Study, a Capacity Building Plan, and the Master Plan itself. To

ensure the quality of outputs delivered, the DGHS set up a special team for the city to

provide technical oversight and peer review, in close coordination with IndIIs oversight

management consultant.

The case study found that the activity had produced the draft Waste Water Investment

Master Plan and draft Feasibility Study on schedule. Although these documents are

considered technically feasible, there are some doubts as to the usefulness of the Plan,

since it recommends land to be used for the wastewater treatment facilities that will

be challenging to acquire. In other words, the Plan is unlikely to be implemented by theLG due to the associated land acquisition issues. Some comments on this issue from

the interviews are reported below.

Land availability will be the major problem if the consultant insists on its

recommendation. Although the land being proposed is technically appropriate,

the acquisition process will be very challenging and may take years to complete.

5Pokja Sanitasiis the official inter-agency committee responsible for coordination and oversight

of all LG sanitation programmes.


16/34


In Surabaya, land acquisition is always a problem.

We have suggested other locations that would be easier to acquire, but there

has been no response from the consultant. If the consultant insists on itsrecommendation, the municipal government may refuse to implement its

recommendation.

The Directorate General of Cipta Karya (DGCK) invited all stakeholders to discuss the

issues at a meeting in Jakarta during May 2011. To follow up the meeting, the DGCK

sent a formal request to the Mayor of Surabaya (reproduced in Annex 4) asking the city

to provide land for the wastewater treatment location. It was clear from the interviews

that there was no consensus and no decision had been made to resolve the land issue.

The consultant reported that this had impeded its efforts to finalise the master plan

and feasibility study. In the consultants view, the new locations being proposed by the

LG were not technically feasible.

The case study also found a problem with the effectiveness of engagement with the

key LG counterpart agency (i.e., the Working Group) in the wastewater master

planning process. The counterpart was extremely disappointed at the lack of

coordination and communication between the key players, namely, the consultant and

the Working Group.

The Working Group noted the absence of regular meetings, and also that a few reports

had been produced by the consultant without consulting the working group.

The consultant often acts on its own initiativethis was confusing for us when

we had to answer the DGCKs questions.

For its part, the consultant argued that it was difficult to follow the LGs schedule when

the consultant was restricted by the limited time frame for the project.

This communication problem needs to be immediately overcome in the master

planning process. The counterpart recognises that this is a prerequisite to the

completion of the master plan, as conveyed in the Bappeko report to the Mayor of

Surabaya on 13 May 2011 (Annex 5). Furthermore, the ToR for the activity also

mandates that the WWIMP document should be prepared in consultation with the city

government. There is therefore no justification for disregarding the consultation

process, since this will affect the degree of LG buy-in to the Plan. As the activity ToRrecognises, urban sanitation interventions tend to require more institutional than

community-based solutions, thus the master planning approach should emphasise LG

ownership of plans and strengthening the role of LG.

3.2. Capacity Building

The ToR explains that the capacity building component under the WWIMP activity will

be implemented by assisting (through the WG) the city government and its operational


17/34



CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS

agencies to prepare plans to build the capacity of the relevant agencies. This includes

improving the operational and financial performance of the sector, which is critical for

the sustainability of the sanitation investments being proposed. The capacity building

proposal should be developed as part of the Master Plan.

The discussion of capacity building in this report is not intended to assess the capacity

building proposal (which is part of the Master Plan), but to identify whether there has

been any transfer of knowledge in the master planning process.

It was clear from the interviews that the WG expected to be exposed to new concepts

and technologies during the master planning process. But it appears that the

coordination problem impeded this transfer of knowledge. As one respondent stated:

We really hope we can have substantial involvement in the master planning

process to enable transfer of knowledge to occur.

The consultant recognised this limitation as being a consequence of the limited time

frame for the project. In the consultants view, the limited time frame was what

prevented in-depth consultations and capacity building from occurring. The challenge

is that each WG member has a different level of background knowledge, making it

difficult to develop a common understanding among the members on wastewater

issues. A sufficient time frame would need to be provided for the activity to lead to

increased capacity among WG members. In the existing circumstances, the consultant

was restricted in doing this because of the need to complete the target outputs and

deliver the reports before the end of June 2011.

3.3. Partnership

The M&E teams interviews found no issues regarding internal coordination among WG

members. Nevertheless, there is a need to redefine or clarify the tasks and

responsibilities of each WG member. A successful partnership is often based on mutual

understanding and obligations. One WG member did not understand why their agency

was even involved in the sanitation program.

A partnership issue was found in the relationship between the IndII consultant and the

WG. As noted in Section 3.1, insufficient coordination and consultation occurred duringthe master planning process. To some extent, this state of affairs prevented the

consultant performing its work efficiently. While each side has its own reasons as to

why this disconnect occurred, it is important that both parties improve the situation.

Both sides must be willing to learn and adapt, to exchange technical knowledge, and to

relate as equals in a shared future.

The consultant could improve its approach by engaging in intensive consultations with

the WG. Regular meetings should be held with a clear agenda so that the expected

output of each meeting is clear. The consultant also needs to engage in two-way


18/34


consultation on the feedback given by the WG. These were the two issues most

commonly raised by the WG on the master planning process.

Often we do not know what output/outcome is expected from the meeting.

It is not clear whether our feedback is accommodated because the revisions are

never shared with us.

As for the WG, and the Surabaya LG as a whole, they need to consider their level of

commitment to the current engagement. The difficulties in arranging meetings, the

limited time devoted to reviewing activity outputs (We havent looked at it because

we are busy with our own work), and the land problem are issues that could be

addressed through LG high commitment to the activity.

3.4. Policy Setting and Implementation

In regard to sanitation development, Surabaya LG began sanitation planning in 1988-

1994 through its involvement in the Integrated Urban Development Project (IUDP). In

1996-2000, a Surabaya Sewerage Development Project (SSDP) resulted in an urban

sanitation master plan. How and when this would be implemented was unclear until

the Urban Environment Board took the initiative to review this document in 2008 with

funding from the municipal budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah, or

APBD). This indicated that the city government was concerned about sanitation

development. The review led to an academic paper and a detailed design, but there

was no implementation due to institutional and land availability issues.

TheLG also has a City Sanitation Strategy (CSS) document and a Sanitation White Book

(Buku Putih Sanitasi). The IndII consultant used these and other documents as

reference materials in developing the current WWIMP. Further, based on the 2005-

2025 Surabaya Vision Plan, wastewater and drainage development became an LG

priority. So clearly the WWIMP activity is relevant to the needs of the city government.

In previous planning work, the city government recognised that land availability was a

major issue impeding implementation of the master plan. This led to some comments

that it was difficult to understand why the consultant had come up with similar

recommendations and had not learned from previous failures. The LG is expecting theconsultant to undertake an in-depth analysis of the existing situation and constraints in

order to come up with an alternative solution that would allow implementation of the

Plan.

We would like to see good wastewater management implemented in our city.


19/34


20/34


Annexes

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

1. Background and Context Please provide us with some background to the Waste Water Investment

Master Plan activity in Surabaya what was the initial problem that the activity

was meant to resolve?

What have been two major achievements to date for this Activity? What have been major challenges to date for this Activity? In your opinion, have the stated objectives of this Activity been met? Overall how satisfied are you with the input and support of IndII?

2. Capacity Building Was there any evidence of capacity building? If so, what have been positive

contributions (i.e., new skills, knowledge application, etc.)?

3. Partnership Has IndII support assisted you to establish partnerships with other working

units within local government and other agencies/institutions?

Have there been any barriers to forming a strengthened partnership? How is the partnership to be maintained and strengthened?

4. Policy Setting and Implementation In terms of urban sanitation development, what is your priority in this city? Does IndII activity help you to achieve this priority? How? Do you think analysis of key issues and constraints to develop options and

policy have been carefully undertaken and consulted with all relevant

stakeholders?

5. Concluding Questions Based on your views, understanding and experience, could any improvements

be made to the Activity?

Is there anything else you would like to add to the discussions?


21/34



ANNEXES

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


22/34


Annex 2: List of People Consulted

Name Position Organisation

Jim Coucouvinis Technical Director, Water and Sanitation IndII

Dedi Budianto Senior Programme Officer, Water andSanitation

IndII

Sambas Suparman City Team Leader Mott MacDonald

T. Iman Krestian M., ST Head of Sub-Unit of Environmental andRegional Spatial Planning

Bappeko

Wienda Novita Sari, ST Staff of Sub-Unit of Environmental andRegional Spatial Planning

Bappeko

Dwi Ratna MD, SSi, MM Staff of Sub-Unit of Environmental andRegional Spatial Planning

Bappeko

Andriana S, SSi. Staff of Research and Development PDAM

Surtauli Sinurat Head of Environmental Impact Mitigation Unit City Environmental Board

Ulfiani Ekasari, ST Staff of Environmental Impact Mitigation Unit City Environmental Board

Rudi Musbiantoro, S.Sos. Staff of Community Empowerment Unit Community DevelopmentBoard and FamilyPlanning

Sony Murdo S., ST Staff of Human Settlement Unit Human Settlement andSpatial Planning Office(Dinas Cipta Karya danTata Ruang)

Eko Juli Prasetyo Staff of Drainage Unit Road and Drainage Office(Dinas PU Bina Margadan Pematusan)


23/34



ANNEXES

Annex 3: Transcripts of Interviews with Stakeholders

Questionnaire Section Response Transcript

Background and

Context

City of Surabaya already had an Urban Sanitation Masterplan or RIPS (Rencana Induk Sanitasi Perkotaan) in 1997. In 2008, the City

Environmental Board took the initiative to review the masterplan. It was not clear who had main responsibility for sanitation. However, therevised masterplan document was given to the Human Settlement and Spatial Planning Office. Then, in late 2010, IndII came to Surabaya withthe WWIMP (Waste Water Investment Master Plan). In our view, we think IndII consultant just adopted data from our previous studies and didnot conduct any more analysis on our biggest constraint, which is land availability.

Achievements Not sure. We have not received any revision of the draft masterplan.

Issues/challenges Land availability is the major issue in implementing the masterplan. IndII consultant proposed land for waste water treatment facility withoutconsidering the challenge, i.e., land acquisition. In Surabaya, land acquisition is always a problem (e.g., for road development). It could takeyears to realise. We conveyed this to the consultant, but got no response. Consultant needs to undertake a more in-depth study on landavailability; otherwise the masterplan cannot be implemented.

Capacity Building No evidence of capacity building or transfer of knowledge

Partnership The sanitation working group (Pokja or WG) was established in 2009. Nothing has changed in terms of internal WG coordination after IndIIproject came. Internally, we do not face any coordination problems. As for our coordination with the IndII consultant, there were no regularmeetings.

Policy Once the WWIMP document is completed, it should be incorporated in the Regional Spatial Plan (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah, or RTRW). So,the process will still take time.

Conclusions We expect to see continuity between the current activities and what we achieved in 2008. But the most important thing is that we would like tosee good wastewater management implemented in our city because there is a high level of environmental pollution from domestic waste.


24/34



Background andContext

The city of Surabaya could be considered as having a strong desire and initiative to develop wastewater planning. The city started to developsanitation planning in 1988-1994 through Integrated Urban Development Project (IUDP). Then in 1996-2000, there was the Surabaya SewerageDevelopment Project (SSDP), which produced the urban sanitation masterplan document. Implementation was unclear until the CityEnvironmental Board took the initiative to review this document in 2008. The review was funded by the local budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan

Belanja Daerah, or APBD), showing that the city government is concerned about sanitation development. The review resulted in an academicpaper and detailed design, but implementation did not occur due to institutional issues (e.g., the office with the role and responsibility forsanitation affairs is always changing) and land availability issues.

The city of Surabaya also has a City Sanitation Strategy (CSS) document and a Sanitation White Book ( Buku Putih Sanitasi). These and otherdocuments became a reference for the IndII consultant in developing the current WWIMP. Further, based on the 2005-2025 Surabaya VisionPlan, waste water and drainage development became a priority.

Achievements Draft waste water investment masterplan and Draft Feasibility Study (FS) were completed on schedule. IndII and DGCK are satisfied with theconsultants outputs.

Issues/challenges Limited transfer of knowledge due to limited project time frame. Different background of WG members makes it difficult to develop a commonperception on waste water issues.

Land availability for waste water treatment: IndII consultant proposed treatment locations based on design criteria, technical considerations,environmental conditions, and financial calculations (investment). But city government did not seem to want to bother with land acquisitionwork. Instead, they proposed other locations that are not technically feasible. The problem is that we can move the wastewater treatment sitebut not the service area. The city government would prefer to focus on an on-site system first, and then move it off-site system in later years.

Difficult to finish the masterplan and FS if there is no clarity around land availability.Capacity building Limited transfer of knowledge due to limited project time frame and nature of the project, which is product-oriented. No specific capacity building

activities. Transfer of knowledge mainly occurred in meetings and/or during discussion sessions.

Partnership Sanitation working group (WG) was established long before the IndII project came.


25/34



ANNEXES

Policy Land availability: Based on information from citizens (initial identification), the proposed land for wastewater treatment sites belongs to thecity government. It is also in accordance with the draft city spatial plan (RTRW). Based on their spatial planning draft, there are five locationsdesignated as wastewater treatment locations. The IndII consultant is using two of these five locations. Our proposal is also based on theresults of the SSDP and City Sanitation Master Plan (Rencana Induk Sanitasi Perkotaan Kota Surabaya, or RISPKS) studies.

On May 20, 2011 the DGCK sent a letter to the mayor of Surabaya asking her to provide and acquire land for treatment locations identifiedby the IndII consultant we are still awaiting the mayors response to this letter. Actually, we doubt this letter will be effective because in thisdecentralisation era, the letter indicates a top-down approach.

Conclusions IndII needs to more clearly define its intended output or outcome. If IndII would like to see more engagement and increased capacity of thecounterpart, that should be stated in the consultants ToR, and an adequate activity time frame should be provided to enable in-depthconsultation and capacity building process. So far, the consultants ToR is product-oriented, with reports being the main deliverables. If theToR is process-oriented, then increased capacity, increased awareness, community engagement, and so on, should be included in thedeliverables. For instance, in the current ToR the expected product in the area of community development is unclear, thus the depth of theCommunity Focus Group Discussion (FGD) went unnoticed.

Land problem: City government has proposed land for project location but these plots are located away from the service area. Actually thiswill not be a problem if the city government has sufficient funds to finance the pumping facility. But we still do not know.



Sanitation working group (WG) in Surabaya city was established long before the IndII project arrived in the city. There were four meetings heldby the consultant that were attended by WG members. The meeting topics were orientation/socialisation of the programme, socio-economicsurvey plan, presentation of survey results, and a discussion on wastewater treatment plant issues. We believe that without assistance fromIndII it would be difficult and time-consuming for us to develop a wastewater investment masterplan, mainly because each WG member has

been busy with their own Tupoksi(work unit tasks and responsibility).

Achievements We have just received a draft masterplan but we havent looked at it because we have been busy with our own work. So, currently we are notable to provide further comment.


26/34


Issues/challenges City government is facing land problem. Land availability is the key. If there is no land available, the masterplan document will be useless. There is no defined schedule for masterplan meetings. Meetings are tentative. We just wait for an invitation. We often do not know what

output/outcome is expected from the meeting because the meeting agenda is unclear.

We do not know what our institutional role is in the new wastewater management. Bappeko is the lead in this sector. We are just waiting forthe final masterplan and instructions from the mayor.

There should be better coordination between sanitation programmes, particularly if the programme comes from central government.Capacity building No evidence of capacity building

Partnership No problem with internal coordination in WG. But IndII needs to improve its communication with the city government. No new partnership was established because the role of each working unit with regard to sanitation task is still unclear.

Policy To be able to implement the masterplan, there should be decision from the mayor on land availability. We have heard that Surabaya city will bedropped from this national programme if we cannot provide land for a wastewater treatment plant. But we hope the IndII consultant couldprovide a solution to this issue, e.g., the wastewater technical specifications should be adapted to land availability.

Conclusions To ensure the effectiveness of each meeting, prior to the meeting the consultant should provide the meeting agenda together with relevantmaterials and clear expectations on the meeting output/outcome. Meetings must be well planned and not sudden.

IndII consultant should establish intensive communication with city government, unlike the present situation.


27/34



ANNEXES



We do not exactly know the progress in the masterplan development. We are not sure how our institution will play a role in the sanitationdevelopment or what our responsibility will be. We were only asked to provide data to the consultant. Since wastewater connections will beinstalled for PDAM customers, we provided data on high/middle- and low-income customers.

Achievements Could not answer this question

Issues/challenges There is a land problem with this wastewater project, with some of the land being proposed having unclear ownership status

Capacity building Could not answer this question (Note: the interviewee had just been assigned as a WG member to replace a former member who wastransferred to another department)

Partnership There is no problem with coordination and communication among WG members. No new partnerships established.

Policy Masterplan development is still underway. So far, no policy has been issued to address the land problem.

Conclusions Land availability/status needs to be clarified prior to finalising the masterplan document.


28/34




City of Surabaya started developing sanitation planning in 1988-1994 through the Integrated Urban Development Project (IUDP). Then, in 1996-2000, there was the Surabaya Sewerage Development Project (SSDP), which produced an urban sanitation masterplan document. The CityEnvironmental Board took the initiative to review this document in 2008, however this document couldn't be implemented due to the unresolved

issue of land acquisition. In the current wastewater investment master planning activity, we note that the consultant has come up with the samerecommendations on treatment locations that were recommended in the SSDP document. Nothing is new, but we hope we can gain newknowledge on best practices from other cities that have successfully implemented wastewater management. Thus we doubt that the currentwastewater master plan can be implemented successfully. We really think the consultant should have learned from previous failures, otherwisethey will produce a useless document.

Achievements To date, the activity has produced a draft feasibility study but with old recommendations, in particular related to treatment locations. There is noimprovement yet, although we have provided them with the city governments recommendation on land availability. It is the mayor as thedecision maker who will decide on what steps to take to resolve this land problem.

Issues/challenges From our perspective, land availability and public participation are two key issues that should be considered in waste water planning. Wetherefore proposed to the consultant other locations for the treatment plan. The acquisition process for our proposed locations would bemuch easier, and we have noted a high level of public participation there. That is why we are optimistic about our proposal. But there hasbeen a lack of coordination and consultation between the consultant team and the city government. The team often takes its own initiative.

We have received information from the Directorate of Environmental Health at DGCK (Direktorat Penyehatan Lingkungan Pemukiman, orPLP) that there is different quality of output between the consultant teams in Surabaya and Bogor. They say that the consultant team inBogor City has produced a more detailed and comprehensive analysis.

There has been a lack of coordination and communication with the city government. No regular meetings. The draft intermediate report wasproduced without consultation. This confused us when we had to answer the DGCKs questions. Discussion of one problem was neverfinished, and the consultant immediately jumped into another problem. For example, the issue of land acquisition should have beenthoroughly discussed, but it wasnt, and the consultant started discussing another issue which in our view was not urgent, i.e., an institutionalissue.

The consultant did socialise its working findings, and we then gave our input, but it is not clear whether our feedback has beenaccommodated because the revisions were never shared with us.


29/34



ANNEXES

Capacity building Nothing is new for us. The consultant only quotes and adopts the previous studies such as SSDP, RISPKS, Sanitation Strategic Planning,Sanitation White Book, City Sanitation Strategy (Strategi Sanitasi Kota or SSK), and Environmental Health Risk Assessment (EHRA) study.Actually, we were expecting a transfer of knowledge to occur during this master planning activity. For instance, when the consultantrecommended areas for treatment of 11 hectares and 6 hectares, we never knew where these figures came from. We do not have theknowledge to make this calculation, the same for the waste water technologies used in the master plan document. We feel we need to enhanceour capacity.

Partnership No new partnership has been established. The WG was set up long before the IndII programme came. There have been no efforts to

strengthen the existing partnership, as evidenced by a lack of regular meetings or coordination during the master planning activity.

Policy Land availability will be the major problem if the consultant insists on its recommendation. Although the lands being proposed are technicallyappropriate, the acquisition process will be very challenging and may take years to occur. We have suggested other locations that wouldoffer an easier acquisition process and have a high level of public participation, but there has been no response from the consultant. For thecity government, it is very important to consider not only land ownership status but also public participation. But the consultant onlyconsidered willingness to pay and commercial areas. We hope that the consultant can accommodate our recommendation and providealternative technologies for use in the proposed land areas.

We have been invited by the DGCK to discuss the land problem and the DGCK has sent a formal letter to our mayor asking for a decision.We do not know whether the consultant has made revisions based on the results of our meeting with the DGCK. We think that consultant hasspent too much effort on institutional matters, i.e., the consultant would like to put the responsibility for waste water management underDinasCipta Karya while currently the responsibility falls underDinas Kebersihan dan Pertamanan.

We have sent a report to the mayor concerning all master planning activity issues, and we are still waiting for her response.Conclusions More coordination and consultation need to be established between the consultant and city government, in particular to resolve land issues.

If the consultant insists on its recommendation, the city government may refuse to implement it.

On other alternatives, if the consultant persisted, then the consultant should be able to provide detailed steps to implement itsrecommendation, e.g., how to proceed with land acquisition, etc. The consultant should also approach the provincial government, since much

of the available land belongs to the provincial government. We really hope that we can be heavily involved in the master planning process to enable transfer of knowledge to occur.


30/34


Annex 4: DGCK Letter to Mayor of Surabaya


31/34



ANNEXES


32/34


Annex 5: Bappeko Report to Mayor of Surabaya


33/34



ANNEXES


34/34

Report of WWIMP Case Study-FINAL

Documents