,) '

;i

'k <\1

!""OVERNMENT OF INDONESIA . MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS MINI IS TRY OF HEALTH

Project INS/88/005

REVIEW a~F

. . UNDP/Wor!d Bank Water and Sanitation Program

~·

UIRBAN SANITATION EXPERIENCE

_______ _, ____ _,_ __ .....,.,.""""""'-- ----Od£..-:aoa;w•-. .-,u ~---· -----::..-

Lauren E. Silver

'C '~/64-5 \L. • ..2,

N':)\fEMBER 1990

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Contents

Executive Summary

1 Guidelines and Criteria for On-site and Off-site Sanitation

3 So.nitation ofHousi:1g Est<:.tes

4 Comparison of Septic Tank and Leaching Pit Technologies

5 Intermediate Sewerage Pilot Proposals

6 Financial Assistance Prorrrams for On-site Sanitation - ,•

Summary ofRecommendations

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

Terms of Reference

Repelita V Human Waste and Wastervater Strategy

Bibliography

Terms and Abbreviations

Materials List and Cost Estimates

Comments Received at Presentation of November 1990

EXECUTIVE SUM·MARY

ln 1989, the "National Sanitation Strategy and Guidelines" (NSG) were formulated to guide human waste and wastewater disposal in urban areas during the fifth Indonesian national development plan (Repclita V, 1989 - 1994). The strategy sought to "propose means oy wh!ch sale and acceptable tn:man waste and wastewater disposal may be established", with the prima!)' goal to "improv.e en\'ironmental health in the medium term by the most cost-ciTective means of sanitation". It recognized that "programs and resources" dedicated to the sub-sector at that time were not sufficient to "adequately meet this challenge"; tl1erefore, it emphasized "lower cost and generally affordable technologies, pri\'~!e sector promotion, and the development of human and financial resources in preparation for much larger programs in Repclita VI and beyond."

The strategy consists of four components: " A technical strategy, to make best usc of appropriate

and cost-effective technologies to suit local circumstances in Indonesian towns and cities;.

.. An institutional strategy, to establish the sub-sector on a stronger foundation and improve capability to conduct projects and programs;

., A financial strategy, to ma.ximise cost recovery within affordable limits, and assist the construction of pri­\'ate facilities;

·• A promotion strategy, to increase public understanding and demand for good sanitation and raise the priority of the sub-sector.

A detailed summary of these strategy components is contained in Appendix 2. A complementary strategy for rural areas was prepared in January 1990, also consisting of four components: • Community processes - local planning through the

Kabupaten-Jcvcl government; • Technical support - advice and training through local

public works offices; • Credit- provision of low-cost funds; • Support grants -partial subsidies to needy communi-

tics.

This study reviews project level experience in six specific issues related to the aforementioned strategies: • Guidelines and criteria for on-site and off-site sanita-

tion;

• Applicability of communal toilet facilities;

• Sanitation of housing estates; • Comparison of septic tank and leaching pit solutions; • Intermediate (low-cost) sewerage pilot proposals; • Financial assistance programs in on-site sanitation.

Although inter-related to some extent, these issues will be treated individually in this report

CHAPTER 1 GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SANITATION

The NSG provided a planning process for level 2 governments (330 .in. nlll:nber) covering· inform;Jtion and data needs; !assessment of needs anc pnoriue;; suitable technologies; preparation of propos;iis in priority order; coordination of related sector activities; supporting local regulations; funding sources and fmancial arrangements.

The NSG approach comprised a mix of solutions suiting local conditions: priority given to areas of most unsanitary COJl.ditions; ex1stmg facilities to be rehabilitated where necessary; current major city sewerage projects to be completed; new sewerage projects to be commenced only where on-site systems could not function; pilot low cost sewerage treatment projects to evaluate the suitability of that technology; community based financial and technical assistance for on-site sanitation; community toilet projects to be ex1cnded; on-site disposal and operation to be improved by evaluating the causes of septic and leaching system failures; improved facili~es for septage disposal; Central Government assistance to areas with special needs.

A review of past projects indicated that the application of the NSG to date has been limited, revealing a need for training of local government staff in the preparation of human waste disposal action plans. The projects studied tended to be at variance with the technical requirements of the NSG. A need was also identified for resolution of difficulties in application of the population density parameter used in technology selection.

The NSG were reviewed with regard to on-site aspects (disposal design criteria, sullage disposal and population density) and a physical study was made of on-site systems in Scmarang, part of the Solo Semarang project.

(i)

The review and site study showed the NSG on-site design criteria and population density parameters to be realistic and that sullage disposal to surface drains should be continued. It also suggested that national figures for sanitation coverage may be inaccurate.

The study suggested a greater need for off-site sanit;k tion. The continued usc of on-site sanitation will require: greater attention to the other sanitation components (drainage, solid waste and water): good design and construction; regulations and their enforcement by local government authorities.

The increasing focus on low cost ofT-site disposal requires more attention to the resolution o(such related issues as legal and muni~!jjal regulations and their

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

enforcement. The success of such off-site systeiT}S was also seen as highly dependent on the accountability of local governments and their capacity building by Central Government.

The main conclusions arc: the NSG needs wider implementation rather than "fine tuning" along with the promotion of local government involvement; Central Government should provide more technical support to improve the legaland regulatory framework and research.

Rcc:ommcndations arc: implement more low cost sewerage pilot projects; train local government staff; promulgate on-site disposal design standards to local governments and involved agencies; strengthen the policy and regulatory framework; make future govern­ment sanitation assistance to local governments condi­tional upon their preparing human waste disposal action plans; revise the NSG technology selection algorithm; investigate technology to improve on-site sys1:cm performance as an interim solution; provide design standards and give greater attention to the dis­posal of sullage.

CHAPTER 2: COMMUNAL TOILET FACILITIES

Communal facilities are used for applications ranging from toilets serving groups of families to larger public washing, bathing and toilet facilities.

Communal facilities, estimated to range in number from 20,000 to 100,000, have been constructed by a \vide range of agencies: KIP, Dept. of Health, City Governments, Bangdcs, local government water enter­prises, Cipta Karya, local self help and private indi­viduals.

The NSG recommended the usc of communal facilities: where private or shared facilities are unaffordable; in high density areas (more than 500 cfha); in areas of poor water supply; markets and bus stations.

The IUIDP Repclita Planning Guide recommended communal facilities: for markets; for KIP; as a tcmpo­raiy solution for low-income residential areas and for commercial (market) and public are:1s (bus stations).

The MCK program does not have a good reputation and there is little evidence of health improvements resulting from their provision.

F~tilurc of MCKs appears to result from such factors as: lack of cleaning and maintenance; inappropriate siting. The "top-dom1;' program appears to su1Icr from d;;; uf L; ..... ,.')~ urv~;~ut~.

Technical factors for MCK failure appear to be: poor quality construction and selection of materials for the severe service conditions of MCKs; failure of leaching facilities through 1ack of maintenance.

Conditions for MCK success appear to involve: adequate water supply; proper cleaning, operation and maintenance; small groups of families; community

.... ···---·--------..,.--

demand for the facility and their full involvement in all stages of its delivery and su~~o::'.:.~ent operation.

The factors important to achieve good on-site eJTiuent disposal are: adequate dcsludging services; adequate land area; correct seepage facility design; appropriate local regulations and their enforcement.

Communal facilities in future programs. Communal facilities will be appropriate in public places and in;.. schools where they are considered to be a vital medium leading to th_e general acceptance by the population of tl1e need for sanitation.

Communal facilities in residential areas have a rela­tively short life in that all the residents eventually acquire private facilities. The future usc of the site should t11en be provided for in planning the facility. Special consideration is needed for facilities located in very high density areas. Transient people should be served by communal facilities.

A planning process for communal facilities should involve: full involvement of the community to be served; adequate water supply; integration of the dis­posal system into the city-wide system as far as appro­priate.

Conclusion and Recommendations: The "top-do\vn" delivery process should be abandoned; a proper community-based planning process should be used; schools should be provided with proper facilities and

· operate and maintain them properly; attention should be given to design; regulations should be provided and enforced; large communal facilities serving transient populations should be tested; the effectiveness· of rehabilitating abandoned communal facilities should be demonstrated.

CHAPTER 3 SANITATION OF HOUSING ESTATES

Housing estates in Indonesia are increasing in popularity in medium to large cities. PERUMNAS (240,000 units) is the largest single provider. It is estimated that some half million units may serve some 5 percent of Indonesia's urban population.

Single family dwellings range in siz.c from 12 m2 to 70 m2 constructed on land ranging in area from 60 to 200 m2. The majority of units have. piped water for at least part of their water needs and all generally have some form of sanitary facilities.

Interviews \>ere conducted wit11 offic1a!s from' --......... - """'.,.. • • ... "' • • ,. - 0 •• ..... • • r ..L...o.L'-vi'-tu .. ;-..:.:J aiau L.l.·lc iviuu~u'lt::~ l.h rULhh.: y"y Ufr\.S anu Public Housing. Field visits were made to est.:1tcs in Bandung, Jakarta, Surabaya and Tangerang.

Single family dwellings are provided with on-site sanitation such as twin leaching pits whilst larger ones are provided with septic tanks and leaching facilities on a single or communal basis. Sullage is generally disposed of directly to surface drains.

\ i .~ ·.J

·{ i

i i I \ I ;

-1 .j 1nvolvcd agencies utilise a variety of standards

(national standards and design standards etc.). Some do not conform to good design practice and it is not sure that they arc always followed.

Multi storey apartments generally employ septic tanks with leaching fields but a significant number of the Iauer have become overloaded and replaced by anaerobic upflow filters allowing the uncontrolled direct C1Jsch2.rge of eflluent to open drams. Certain es1ates have been scwcrcd, some v.'i.th treatment (ponds).

E:-qx:riencc v.:ith failed facilities has clearly shom1 the nc:cd for on and off-site disposal systems to be designed for the maximum likely load (e.g. capacity based on area).

Adequate design standards artd regulations must be promulgated to responsible agencies who should be trained in their usc and enforcement.

Sewerage. The criti'ca! requirements for successful sewerage arc proper design, construction and operation and maintenance - the last probably being the most important. At one estate, residents were v.'i.lling to pay the city authority to maintain the sewers. In another, sewers were maintained by self help. In yet another, PERUMNAS was unwilling to provide sewerage because of the high capital cost and the Jack of assurance of proper operation on handover to the local government.

Conclusions and Recommendations: · appropriate standards should be promulgated to all involved agencies; local governments should strongly enforce standards (e.g. refusal of building permission for projects not complying with standards); designs should provide for potential loads; demonstrate the eJiectiveness of self help in off-site disposal; investigate technology to improve on-site disposal.

CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON OF SEPTIC TANKS AND LEACHING PIT TECHNOLOGIES

The most common on-site disposal facilities arc the septic tank with leaching facility and the leaching pit (c:ubluk). These similar technologies infiltrate the liquid portion of wastewater into the soil for ultimate disposal.

Leaching facilities for these arc designed on the basis of 10 Llc.d from pour flush toilets and 25 L/c.d from cistern flush toilets. Application rates for leaching facilities arc: 25, 15 and 10 L!m2.d for sand, silt and clay respectively. Both systems have similar potential for !JCOund water contamination.

Despite the availability of adequate design material, only limited attention seems to have been paid to proper design of on-site systems.

Operation and maintenance. Many cities do not have scptage removal services and manual scptage is often used. The cubluk is designed for alternate operation of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

its two pits. Manual removal of the contents after a two year resting period is considered safe provided caution is used to guard against possible infection by ascaris eggs.

Filling of a cubluk leach pit is evident by sludge back up in the pour flush toilet. Pi.ts can then be alternated with no resulting long term damage to the leach field.

Filling of a septic tank results in considerable damage to the lc:!chir.g i2c:lit1. Desludg!ng cf ~he t.'!nk anct reconstruction of the leaching facility arc required. The latter is almost impossible where leach f1elds arc located under houses or other permanent structures (common in high density areas). Consequently, the cubluk is gcneraJly a better form of on-site sanitation provided· operators (usually owners) arc willing to handle the decomposed contents after the resting period. The septic tank, however, is commonly considered a more substantial and longer lasting option in Indonesia.

For low volume applications, the cubluk is cheaper than the septic tank but costs tend to equalise for higher flows or low pem1cability soils.

Both systems require: local regulations, design codes and standards; regulations controlling maintenance of systems to prevent overflows; a local body empowered to enforce regulations; licencjng of dcsludging services; control of ultimate disposal of sludge.

Conclusions and recommendations: Septic t.:1nks have the advantages of greater flexibility, arc considered a better home improvement and more appropriate in shaJlow groundwater; twin pit systems have the advantages of lower cost, requiring no desludging, providing a potentially useable product; poor design (both systems) is prevalent; neither system will work well in the present institutional setting. More study is recommended for infiltration rates for cmuents.

CHAPTER 5 INTERMEDIATE SEWERAGE PILOT PROPOSALS

Shallow sewers and small bore sewerage arc possible alternatives to conventional sewerage.

Shallow sewers, carrying sullage, can be laid at much flatter grades than conventional sewerage. Located in areas of low loading (paths etc.) they pcm1it lower cover and thus lower excavation costs.

(iii)

Small bore sewers (solids free sewers) collect septic tank effiuent and sullage. Cost savings result from using small diameter pipes laid at flatter slopes, where,, alignments can be more flexible with lower treatment requirements. Two disadvantages arc the need for: continued septic tank desludging and illegal connections.

Shallow sewers have had limited application (in Bandung only) in Indonesia and more· testing is required to overcome natural designer caution. The

' l I

I i I

l 1

I l i .I

I

jl I· . I

\

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Bandung experience showed the appropriate minimum diameter .for shallow sewers to be 150 mm.

The JUDP2 Prop~sa'f:·;JUDP2 had planned a shallow sewer (1 in 167 grade with a cover of 0.85 m) to collect and convey household wastewater to an interceptor sewer or a treatment facility. Some 50 ha of residential development, unserviceable by conventional sewerage with street frontage connections, were to be covered to demonstrate, cost .. SaVings .and applicability for use in Indonesia. The project was not. implemented. .

Other planned small · bore sewerage projects have revealed insufficient attention to institutional aspects such as prevention of illegal connections.

. '

Conclusions and recommendations: Carry out a shalllow sewerage pilot project to develop a design and construction approach. Dete~ine the : necessary institutional framework .. Determine costs ·and other aspects. Review institutional aspects of small bore sewerage projects.

CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN ON-SITE SANITATION:

Sanitation financial assistance programs facilitate and encourage the installation, or upgrading, of sanitation facilities by those who would otherwise be unable (or unwilling) to pay the entire construction cost in advance. A key objective is repayment of the initial "seed" capital for extending the assistance to others ..

The NSG recommends e:\.iension of financial assistance to cover private · and· shared ' toilets with local governments gradually assuming the existing role of consultants.

The Study examined some nine different projects involving financial mechanisms. Allowing for minor di.flerences the credit schemes generaily were of three t'}'p~S.

The first set up a ··local government level sanitation steering group (KPS) · to control the project, with members from agencies such as Bangdes, Dinases PU, Health, PKK, BPD etc. Before funds were revolved the provincial level PLP office participated in the KPS. A sanitation working group (KKS) had direct involvement with the community, was closely related to quasi NGOs (LKMD, PKK), identified recipients, arranged credit, controlled technical aspects and sometimes collected repayments. Money was usually kept in a bank e.g .. Area Development Ba.nk (BPD) \vith the Kecamatan Bank· (BKK) sometimes acting as an intermediary. Funds were initially injected through an arrangement between the. State Treasury, PLP-1, the supplier or contractor. and local government. Repaid funds revolved ~ough the KPS generally to the same kclurahan from \~hich they ?riginated.

' • ' • ' I ~

In the second type, Department of Health projects involved a village level NGO working group (similar to KK.S) handling and administering credit. In two of the four villages involved, the NGO was the LKJ.'viD whilst

-------·---------------r--: t{\:·

the others involved a church-related NGO. Limited monitoring was executed, in .all case:;, by the_ Puskesmas sanitation officers.

The third type of organisation invoived private NGOs administering funds directly to the recipients or to a local residents group. ·

Repayment performance ranged from high to low -80-100% and below 50% respectively. Acceptable repayment-levels are hard to define but the injection of'~ funds into the revolving fund to keep it functioning may be appropriate in certain situations.

Form of credit. Cash credit schemes were generally,. considered to have a greater chance of success than those involving materials or complete units. Problems with material credit were: dissatisfaction with the value of materials rece1~ed compared with local costs, uncoordirated material delivery (e.g. rainy season delivery); repayment of material credit as cash.

Other problems were: dissatisfaction with the quality of contractors' work; low community involvement causing greatly diminished sense of ownership expressed by unwillingness to repay credit.

Cash credit generally gave recipients better control of materials and workmanship and sense of ownership· of the facilities. They ..yere also more likely to contribut~ their own resources (e.g. larger septic tanks:~;. superstructures).

Source of Funds. Provision of cash credit through APBN is presently illegal. The legal channel is in the form of materials or completed facilities. Private. ·

. ' .·>~ (NGO) and foretgn funded projects are not thus:~. restricted. ·. ,;·~+

;·~·~j;~: . Three ways to overcome this restnctwn arc: to use locally generated funds (requires a resolution from the DPRD and therefore not yet tried); improve the recovery performance from materials schemes; change the APBN regulations.

Interest rate. Charging of interest (l% - 2.75% per month) does not appear to adversely affect repayment performance. Redpients appear to readily accept that the interest provides administration costs despite the fact that Islamic law forbids the charging of interest.

Repayment period. Short repayment periods appear to result in unaffordable repayments. Periods of 10 years appear to result in loss of commitment and a significant failing-off in repay-I!lent level. Periods cf 2-l yczrs appear optimal~ ~-

Self-help does not appear .. necessary for successful scheme operation but appears to result from good community participation. Organisational arrangements should be simple and strongly community based.

The role of PLP-l also appears to require reconsideration. Study Indications are that its role would be better as a provider of technical guidance and

·t

,. '.'~' .

.; ..

<-,

•,')".

fiv\ . ~.

assistance to local governments · and ·. not in administering credit.

Other significant requirements are: the ·need for community ·education, to develop demand for the facilities; the existence of a functioning LKlviD or PKK; community trust in the village head; responsible behaviour of key individuals in the scheme.

Projcc:t location. Projects are affected by areal variability· of wnununi~· spirit. '.Vl • .:!r" ,;. recipient departs a house before a loan is repaid, certain communities may take steps to ensure its repayment (more_ l*ely in smaller to·wns).

Willingness to repay. The essential requirements for a high level of repayment appear to be: recipient perception that the debt is reasonable; an efficient collecl.ion system; peer pressure on defaulters.

' Repayment patterns. Six patterns V.•cre identified: (i) zero repayment; (ii) consistently high repayments indicating a well executed project with good community participation; (iii) fluctuating repayment probably caused by local factors such as holidays or crop harvesting patterns; (iv) low repayments with a downward trend indicating negative community influc:nce; (v) high repayments with a downward trend possibly caused by loss of commitment where the repayment period- is long; (vi) high repayments followed by a rapid decline which could result from a default of a prominent person or institutional conflict

Credit with partial grant. This mechanism, intended to increase credit coverage: has been found to increase the complexity of the scheme in some cases and therefore to have the opposite effect.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that: (1) Government regulations be drafted that provide for

the usc of Central Government funds as cash credit; (2) Cash credit incorporate:

(a) Moderate interest rates (1-2% per month) to provide for overheads;

(b) Loan repayment periods of2- 3 years; (c) A minimum borrower contribution of 20% of the

value of the facilitY; (d) Internal performance monitoring.

··(3) In operation of credit schemes: (a) Preference should be given to locations having a

strong sense of community and functioning community institutions (LKMD, PKK);

(b) The role of public works agencies should be limited to providing technical guidance;

(c) Swift action should be taken to correct bad example by key community figures.

(4) Further study should be made of the applicability of partial grant assistance.

(v)

.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

: !,' ~ .. ":.~ :j ·, ........ ·.; . : .•

j • ,... • ·~ •• : • • , ,': ••

': ••Oi

I ; : ~ ·~i, ,'··.:·,:' • ' '.; •

~ . '. '. . . . ' ; '• . ..

':'.'. •'.·':''· ·.·

·· ... · ..

1', ·' ·.• .. ·,,'

·:·.:· '

.·,; ·:··.

~.:. . ' '

. . . ~ .. :_·· ...

. ·~ .. '-~ .• -~ .. :,· .... \.;.;:.:~ :,_ . .• :· . '; ' .• . . • • . ' ! , r ', •

. .. ~. ····· ... -.~~ ... -... ~-~-~ .. _ ... ·::~;··~~:,~~~.:-. , .... ,,., .. , ........ ,

i'Ji: ·-:· !)', :..·:.:·.· ., .:''',:,

. • .. · . '

.'. •••.•. ·.,; 1.',.

j ' i I \,

'c,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This page intentionally blank.

,. '.

:':

. , ... •j'\.·~

.........

:i \:."'' Jti', ~-.i;' •' . :~ t< .... ~~~ '

{T.~ *·\' ,.)' ·i'

"i YL .;..·: ':'' .f

,r;~. h :,'1

... ,,.

~~·.'. ·.·· ..... r~ '/'}"

.'.r. :'1·

}'i.

~~~:· ::j· ;,,·

;~~·,· ,,. ~:~:

;( .::~:-·

,~.~; 'if .'1; ,.., :·•·· I~/ .'!J. J' ,.

:~:· 'h•

,·.

·'· •.:· ,•

>

.•'.

,•

......

--,-\.';

CHAPTER 1

~GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA f=OR~ON­~SITE AND OFF-SITE SANITATION

INTRODUCTION

A central feature of the national strategy for human waste and wastewater disposal in Repclita V is the prep;uation by eve•)' Tingkal II government (Kabupaten and Kotamadya, the level of government directly below provincial, roughly equivalent to county ;and incorporated city in the D':S.) of a "Human Waste Disposal Action Plan" following National Guidelines. The Guidelines describe a planning process which includes the following steps: (I) Collection of ncccssal)' base data and background

(2) (J)

(4)

(5)

(G)

(7)

(8)

information. Assessment of needs and priorities. Selection of technologies and identification of zones in which specific technical solutions arc applicable. Preparation of proposals for _priority implementation, including cost estimates. Coordination with related sector activities, such as KJP, water supply, drainage, health, and solid waste. Determine~tion of institutional arre~ngcmcnts for human waste disposal mi1ttcrs in general as well as for specific activities, such as: financial ilssistilncc programs, community toilet facilities, scptagc collection and disposal, sewerage, promotional activities, record keeping, and monitoring. Dctermin11tion and ennctment of needed local regula lions. Assessment of sources of funds and determination Of financial ilrrangcments for progra'in ilCtivilics.

To aid in technology selection, the Guidelines include two "indicative selection now charts" (foig. 2.1 11nd 2.2), which arc intended to give a preliminary indication or which technical svlution is likely to be most 11ppropriate, based on the following filctors:

gross population density water supply (piped water or shallow well) soil permeability depth to groundwater ground slope aiTordability.

The Guidelines caulion, however, that "no prescriptive design aid can substitute for detailed undcrs~anding of the technology options nnd local circumstances, and

( ; .

these Dow charts sho'uld be tlscd only as indicative guides and applied''. ,qnly' aflcr proper local investigation". Theyfurth .. er~·notc several qualifications regarding usc of the nci\\;charts:

Population density is used as an indicator of space available for on-site disposal facilities and a~ccssibility for septic· tank emptying, but this will also dcpencfon lhc'typ'c':orhousing, extent or non­residential areas and plot arrangements. Piped water supplies arc essential for conventional sewerage except small bore sewerage. Sufficiently permeable soils arc essential for Oil­

site disposal s)rstcms. Shallow groundwater is susccpl\blc to increased pollution from leaching pits and may require elevated toilet/leaching systems. Flat areas arc much mcirecostly to sewer than areas sloping at mor2\!'lan 1%. Flatter areas require sewage pumping stations which arc costly to constmct and opcr11tc, and require skilled opcr11tors. (The UNDP charts suggest a 2'!1., slope is nccessal)' but the Strategy Study considers l '}';, is adequate to avoid significanliy greater costs). Afforclability is cssc;1tial either privately or by local government except in areas specifically identified for poverty alleviation.

In selecting appropriate technical solutions, the planner will be influenced as well by several points in the National Strategy itself: · (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

A mix of human waste and wastewater technologies should be determined in each urb;1n area most technicnlly appropriate and cos! effective to suit local nccdsand conditions. These should follow National Guidelines. Priorily is to be given to pr~vicling human waste disposal facilities for popul~tions suffering the most unsanitary conditi011s. Priority is given to rch;ibilitation and proper operation and mailltcnancc of existing facilil ics. Rehabilitation of cxis.ting Dutch built sewerage u.ndcrt11ken wherever feasible. ' Current major city sc\vcragc, projects should all be completed dt;ring Rcpclita V to the extent where they arc fully cJTcctivc. > · New sewerage projects should be underiaken during Repel ita V only in areas where on-site

'·.- •', ·:··· ,'.•,

1-1

·------~-~-

···~ .

. ~-

··-·-··

·· ·--

~ ·---

----.

~~~~t~

~~-'f4

:~~~P'

~,?~~~

-;.~~?

;;.:~

c:·~::~-

~,-~,-~~

~ :. __

___

-·· .. ·

--~-~ .

'.:·_·_.

Exi

stin

g

Wat

er

Su

pp

ly

Atlord>b~ity

Suit

.;~b

illt

y

Te<

:hno

logy

S

ele<

tion

.... . ...

( S

TA

RT

-.

..)

\.

-,

_..,

""""

.•. ""'-

No

))

-<:

> W

l c/l

n /

•· ·-·

•·

I Y

es

· Pub

licWat

e:-~

Su

pp

ly

Ess

enti

al·

No

Yes

Pu

blic

Wa

ter

Su

pp

ly

Ne

ce

ss

ary

---

<

----·----------------

---·-·------------------.

'f

~~-·

----

-:--

---~

~~N>.

nt1

on

ai/

-K

.

~

...,

Yeo

Cci

nvcn

tlon

al

Se

we

r3g

e

...._

___ _

_/

Inte

rcep

tor

Se

w.r

Sha

llow

S

..m

r

Fig

ure

2.1:

Ind

icat

ive

Scl

c:ti

on F

low

Cha

rt fo

r U

rban

Hum

an W

aste

Dis

posa

l T

echn

olog

y .

-·\~.

··~.

. -.-

~

~

Wel

ls,

Bor

es

Han

dpum

ps ~. ~

Pip

ed W

ate

r S

uppl

y R

ecom

men

ded

t

No

NO

Wel

ls,

Bor

es

or H

an

dp

um

ps

No

Pip

ed

Wa

ter

Su

pp

ly

Su

gg

est

ed

Groundwat~r)--------------­

> 1

.5m

Yes

NO

....

Tan

k o

r P

it

• v.

ith im

pro

ved

le

ach

ing

----

. \

I() ~ \) ft1 :0

(;) ~ ~ ~ ):

,. 6 (

)

:o· ~ :;; 11

0 :0

0 ~

S:2 nl ):

,. ~

a 0 7l S:2 nl ~ ;; ;; :j 0 ~

I i ~ t ' ~ t l " [: ' ~ I ;. f ~ ~ ~ r r

•'

.

i..'-.

I

} . .

.CHAPTER 1 GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA 'FOR ON-S/T.l; AND OFF-SITE SANITATION

( :START ' .J

~ WATER

AVAilABLE FOI\POUR

FLUSH TOilET 7

~y~

SEPARATION FROM DRINKING WATER

WELL ADEQUATE 7 {2}

~y~

SOIL PERMEABIUTY > Ulllm2/d

~Yes

GROUNDWATER ) 1.5

(2&3)

~y~

SPACE AVAilABLE FOR TWIN

PIT

~Yes TWIN PIT

AfFORDABLE AND

.&ICCEPTAPl£ {S)

~y~

TWIN PJT. TOilET

No ..

~-

Yes

CAN WATER SUPPLY BE

UPGRADED?

No

Notes; 1: Fl<>« chart ><led> lea>l co>1 lodOOO<]Y (exdoo119 p11a~in«).

2: Verticols.pa~atico belw&Mioadlfl9 facility ond wet"""""' 11o..n<}Naler level.

O.S·2m >2m

>Sol. >1CXn

.·: .. ·.::.;:

Haizcobl ~atico f · ·.' •· · · belwe<Xl '!<'"e>li~ well , , :

ond loadlf19laohty ·•·" , : in:· . . .. . ..... . Sand ........ SiiVdoy .... .

Special cxrniduatico fa desludgi119 must be <jvM in ·' 11avds ond fissue<l rod<. ' 3: 8cvaled le>lel/1oadlf19 sy>lems moy be used wh«o11o..n<}Nater riseslo will'in 0,5 m'oii101Xl<llevel rx<Mded loco/ domestic wells .... nol used let drinki119water. · •.• '". 4: Access Ia deslud~f191eq.ires vellide ac<eS> ~~~~ .. 5: ~cos fa >ho<e<lfaci.lities shcud be cxrnidue<l. ·

~~-·------------~~--~!~~--------~

No

~

-

ACESS AVAILABLE FOR

. DESLUDGIHG ? . (4)

Yes

SINGLE PIT AFFORDABLE

AND ' ACCEPTABLE ?

(S)

SINGLE . LEACHING PIT

TOILET·

No

~

SPACE ·: AVAilABLE ' · :. ; · FOR SEPTIC :. . TANK7 ·'- .

(3) .

Yes· . . . ,. ;;~· . ''

ACCESS AVAILABLE FOR DESLUDGING? .

{4) · .. i ····' ii):

Yes· . ,..:: .• 1,::.., .• :.: ......

SEPTIC TANK.: . ; ' WITH LEACH BED.; : . · ':. 1::,.

1-------1'------..., AFFORDABLE AND:, . , :·<II(->' ACCEPTABLE? .......

. COMMUNITY TOilET WITH

SEPTIC TANK/\.EACHING

(e.9. MCK)

(S)

SEPTIC TANK WITH LEACH BED

OR TO DRAIN+; · FUTURE SMALL BORE SEWER ..

Figure 2.2: Indicative Selection Chart for On-site Human Waste Technology.

disposal systems arc not feasible; or in areas where they can be locally afforded.

(6) Pilot low cost sewerage and sewage treatment pro­jects should be undertaken to determine their suitability for wider application in Indonesia and .for demonstration purposes. Proven low cost sewqr~g~ should bdi,lStalled especially in kam-

. pung areas where. on:site disposal is not feasible. (7) Wide scale community based financial assistance

and technical guidance programs should be estab­lished for the cons.truction and renovation of pri­vate and shared toilets with on-site disposai'facili­ties.

{8) Community toilet projects should be greatly extended with much greater-community participa­tion, and·coordinated with financial assistance

(9)

(10)

programs fo~ priv~tc and shared facilities. Com­munity toilets should generally be installed for defined small groups offamilies. Larger facilities should be constructed at n1arkcts and bus stations for unrestricted usc.: ··:·; :.:·.);.: •· On-si\C disposal op~ration ~nd n:aintenance should be improved by : .. ; .. :: .. :: ... :"

. investigation of the C?uses 9f septic . tank/leaching system:fai~_ur~~. ·:·:> .•

' .1 ... , " .•.

provision of better·scptagc services, and establishing proper facilities for septagc dis~ posal. ·: ·' · ·.• .. :·: · '·

Central government should give special assistance to regions which h~vc the greatest needs and w_herc there is high. development -potential; ·espe­cfa!ly in tourism ...• ; .. . ... :. · .... ·· .. .

1-3

~~~~~-----·

"' F

igur

e 2.

3 Su

mm

ary

of W

aste

wat

er T

echn

olog

y Se

lect

ion

for

Var

ious

Pro

ject

s

Pro

ject

P

ilot

S

ix C

itie

s E

Jav

a n

..

t s~muang

l\,U

r<;U

proj

ect

San

itat

ion

IUID

P JS

SP

Ace

h w

s H

uman

in o

n-si

te

Pro

ject

S

TS

an

d W

aste

San

itat

ion

San

t'n

&W

W

Sol

o an

d Pr

ojec

t P

tm

' ·~

..

:, ..

. S

emar

ang

..

' I.

. T

echn

olog

y S

T,

·::'

ST

, C

ublu

k C

yblu

k S

T,

ST

, Pi

t C

ublu

k,S

T,

,. ..

..

us

ed

,cu

blu

k;

;MC

K .

. Pi

t Lat

rine

C

ub!u

k,

cubl

uk,··

, la

trin

e,

sew

erag

e _-

--·

-MC

K

ST

,MC

K,

·McK

, M

CK

, S

T

-cu

bluk

, (S

BS,

·-

to d

rain

s M

CK

, sh

allo

w,

. Se

wer

age

Sew

er

(SB

S,

or

on-s

ite

conv

ent'!

)

Shal

low

of

f-si

te

pond

s S

Tw

ith

sew

er)

as

trea

tm't

up fl

ow

long

·ten

n fi

lter,

MC

K

solu

tion

2.

set~

ctio

n Y

es!?

Y

es/7

P

artl

y Y

es/7

P

artl

y Y

es

Par

tly

crit

eria

!

appr

oach

sati

sfie

s

Gui

deli

nes

3.

Us~r c

hoic

e Y

es·

Y

es

Yes

In

par

t Y

es

Yes

(N

o da

ta)

crit

~rio

n

4.

Wil

ling

to

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

In p

art

Yes

Y

es

pay

.. -.

5.

Cos

t cr

iter

ion

Yes

-Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

;

I •

6.

On-

site

dis

p Y

es

Yes

(N

o da

ta)

Yes

M

ostl

y M

ostl

y M

ostly

desi

gns

cons

iste

n-t

.,;t

h G

uidd

ines

'

' .

7.

Sul

lage

D

rain

D

rain

D

rain

D

rain

, S

oaka

way

, (N

o da

ta)

Dra

in,

disp

osal

Se

wer

dr

ain

sew

er

L--'-

--

-----

---~

--

._1:.'

Sur

nbay

a D~npasar

Pale

mba

ng

Cir

ebon

W.J

ava

Hum

an

Hum

an

Hum

an

UD

P

IKK

W

aste

W

aste

W

aste

&W

W

&W

W

&W

WP

!an

Pla

n ·P

lan

MC

Kw

ith

MC

K,

Indi

vidu

al,

SB

S,S

T,

Sew

er

ST

md

ss

s,·

com

mun

al

·· ·:

eubl

uk,

ST

,

disc

h~ge

,·

ST

, .

ST,

SBS,

M

CK

M

CK

.

cubl

uk,

cubl

uk ·

cu

bluk

ST

M

CK

'

to d

rain

Par

tly

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

P

artl

y N

o N

o Y

es

,

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

. '

Yei

'

Yes

Y

es

Yes

•

Yes

No

Par

tly

No

No

. (N

o

' da

ta)

Dra

in

Dra

in,

Soa

kaw

ay,

On-

site

, Se

wer

,

sew

er

drai

n,

sew

er

drai

n

sew

er

Ban

dung

A

rga-

UD

P

mak

mur

Wat

er&

San

it'n

.. ;

Sew

er,

Cub

luk,

shal

low

(M

CK

),

sew

ers,

(S

BS

)

. S

T,

MC

K

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o

Yes

Y

es

, Yes

Y

es

i .

' (N

o da

ta)

Yes

·' S

ewer

, D

rain

,

drai

n so

akaw

ay

..., .

Lub

uk

Ser

pong

Pak

am

(Bot

ab.:k

Wat

er

UD

P)

and

San

it'n

I S

T,

ST

,MC

K I

Cub

luk,

I

MC

K

'

. -

..

' Y

es

· (ln

suff

i-

cien

t

. dat

a)

No

No

Yes

N

o

. Yes

.

Yes

• .

No

(No

data

)

I

Dra

in

Dra

in

.-.-

:---

----

,

C'l ?; 1l

-; g; G

) !;; ~ ~ ~ ):

,. ~ C'l 2;! ill :::0

);: el :::0

0 ~

~ ill ):

,. ~ 0 ..., -;n

~ ii1 ~ ~ ~

:j 0 :2:

f;t?ti

~.!~~'

--"f(_

.~:::~

~ft£ __ -:

_!j~:_

t}:~ i

:i!l15

~!~t2-

!_i_:?

?o/t:~

.~:~.-

...;~

_____ -~

--. --~~

-~---?.!

???.~.-~

--~~-

._:_--~

---·

n -~

-....

~---·

-~:~

--::~v

.~ ... :?

.... ~??.}?~

._-~-:~-

~~--~ ~?

TP.S.-

-:·~-~~-

---_-~,-

~~-~-~;-

~ .. -.-~~

-:·:~

~--~~~~-

::~·~~-~

-._.:

-.:_:_

:::~~~

~

/ -

-r.o

. ....

...c

_.]

r..;HAt-' 1 t:K 1 c.; UIUt:LJNt:::i ANU CKI f /::KIA FOK ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SAN IT AT/ON

These points, in turn, support the primary goal of the · Repclita · V Strategy, which . is to "improve

· ·.environmental health in the medium term by the most · ~ : .~. cost-cfTcctivc means of sanitation." Thus,

'·environmental heallh is seen as the first priority, and · environmental protection, aesthetics, or other gmi.Is :·would b<: considered secondarily. · ....

:.The present study seeks. to review the adequacy of the :.,R~pclita V Strategy; particularly in regar~ to guidelines

and criteria for selection of on-site and ofT-site . 'technology, in the light of experience in recent projects. . The approach taken was to· read available reports from

: a . variety of Sanitation projects in Indonesia, ' supplemented by discussions with consultants and '.officials' regarding areas of difficulty in usc of . the · Guidelines or application of the Strategy. Specific field

investigations were then undertaken in rclatio;l to : identified arc~s of concern. ·

. REVIEW OF PROJECT EXPERIENCE

·Reports of human waste sanitation projects, covering diverse areas ranging from major metropolitan to small

·.town and rural, were .rt:ad to get an idea of po.ssiblc · problem areas in the Strategy and Guidelines. A · summary of technologies used, consistency of each ' project with the Guidelines in its technology selection criteria and on-site disposal designs, as well as a few other features, is shown in Figure 2.3.

All of the projects tended lo follow a "Guidelines-like" · approach, that is, a standard planning methodology ··similar to that of the Gui{lelines. However, as the

principal intent of the Guidelines was to help Tingkat II governments take stock of the human waste disposal needs in their area of jurisdiction ana themselves work ..

·· out how to deal with those needs, some qualifications .. ,need to be noted. Several of the projects (e.g., JSSP, Six :· ,Cilies, Pilot Project in On-site Sanitation) were pilot . projects, in which case selection of technology was not ··necessarily based on comprehensive planning but was

subordinate to other project objectives such as testing of new technology or development/demonstration of institutional or financial mechanisms. Likewise, most

:·of the other projects were conducted . by "central ·,:·government or provincial consultants with varying :. 4egrecs of involvement of the Tingkat II level ; government. As there arc 296 Tingkat II governments :·in IndClncsia, this aspect of the Strategy can be Said to :have bt:cn implemented to only a very limited degree so far. This points to the need for training of local government starr in the preparation of local Human Waste Disposal Action Plans, as noted in the Strategy: ~he early establishment of local government training programs ... [is}-.. essential to the implementation of the Strategy".

Many of the projects used on-site disposal design criteria widely at variance with the Guidelines, particularly with regard to long-term application rates of leaching facilities. The Guidelines consider rates. of 10 1/ml.d for clayey soils, 15 lfml;d for silt, and 25

1Jm2.d for san,d, subject to field investigations. Several of the reports sized cublUk{(ccsspits~ receiving pour­flush toilet . wastes) based.'.~~!{, .9n .sludge storage requirements; which could:·_.lcact,'''to' .. facilities much smaller than rccon1mcnd,cd '.in.':'th~ ·Guidelines. Others used 'very optimistic appiication'.ra'tc~+Jor seepage of

··-.;,II'',., .. :·:.•'·:'

septic tank_ effiucnt, and two. o,f_ the projects proposed leaching. facilities larger tha.n' iri ·the Guidelines by a factor of 9 (possibly based on total wastewater disposal, including sullage}! Considcring . .c!thc :! prevalence of widely varying seepage' area! ~c;;igns,)n. practice (sec also Chapter 4, Sanitation o(Hq~sirig.Estatcs), it was decided to investigate further ·othc · adequacy of the Guidelines' indicative long-t(!rm, appli<;~tion rates.

. ! :,.,; __ ,t,;• ··.; ·• •. \ .• ,.;;.

The Guidelines propose that sullage ~'should generally be discharged to the drainage 'channels in areas with on-site human waste disposal.: systems ... Kitchen wastes should pass thr6ugh aO:small'·in~crccptor trap before discharge to remove' larger; solids and grease. II; Most of the projects also recommended disposal of sullage 'to the drains, largely' because it is an almost universal practice arid there isf no: practical alternative in most ~rban areas witho~t •:sewerage. However, guidelines issued by Tim Koordinasi. Pcmbangunan Pcrumahan for usc in all IUIDP. planning ("Buku Pcdoman P3KT Dalam Rcpclita V", Dec. 1989), call for disposal of sullage in soakaways or in septic .tank­leaching pit systems. Because .. 'of.the conflict on this matter, it will be examined furthcr,i~ 'this chapter.

.:1,.·· ,,, .

Another area of variation revealed. in. the reports was the usc of population density for· 'selection of on-site versus off-site disposal. All agrccd·.'that only on-site systems were applicable in arcas,·'of low population density (<150 c/ha). But~~·the'.: .. upper· limit was controversial: some used 500:c!ha;iothcrs 300, 250, or 200 c/ha. This question will :be <explored in greater depth in this chapter. : i :~., .

Thus, on the basis of th~· rc~ie~~ect''~~~~rts, areas of the Guidelines which require cl~scr ~~a~in~tion include: (1) Ori-sitc disposal design'~~iteria~ (especially long-

term application rates). ,' '• ·: ' . .' ·· · '' ·· (2) Sullage disposal rcquiren1eri.ts: . · . (3) Population density criteria . .for. O.rl~sitc disposal.

In addition to the above, .th;~~·ih: d'iscussions with consultants and officials, other:'areas': of concern were identified: , ' :·' · (4) Practica~ity of the recommendation in the Strategy

that "communal toilet project~ should be greatly extended." · ':'··,..,·. · ·

(5)' The problem of high-de.~sity p~~k'ct~ in larger areas ofgenerally moderate pop~l~tion density, as well as the more gener~!'q~es~io~,·9:r gre)• areas in the selection of on~sitc .OF?ff~si~ftechnology, related to the Strategy reco!Umcndation that "new

.sewerage projects should be undertaken during ~ Repdita Vonly in areas ~~ere ~?~site disposal systems arc not feasible, or in areas where they can be locally, afforded."'·.' ·•··· .... · .

1-5

i i

,·.··

·.

.. ::· ··.'.·

CHAPTER 1 GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SANJTA T/ON

(6) Implementation of the Strategy recommendation that "wide scale community based financial . a,ssistance and technical guidance programs should be established for the construction and renovation of private and shared toilets with on~ site disposal facilities."

Areas (4) .and (6) ·Will be dealt with in depth in subsequent chapters ... :The other matters will be examined in this chapter .. ·

EXAMINATION OF PROBLEM AREAS

On-Site Sanitation in Central Java

From the study's · investigation · of housing estate sanitation (sec Chapter 4) it was found that most on­sillc disposal systems . (i.e., seepage pits, seepage tn~nchcs, cubluks) are designed. for higher long-term application . rates than those recommended in the Guidelines. There is also evidence of widespread failure of these systems (every housing estate visited had by­passed to the drain). At the same time, success had been claimed for. the designs used in the pilot projects in on-site sanitation .in Central Java, (on which the Guidelines criteria had been based), while no studies existed on the physical functioning of these systems in the years since they were installed.

Therefore,. ir was decided to conduct a physical inspection of · the: on~sitc .. systems in Kelurahan Mlatiharjo, Semara.tig,' :built under the first Solo­Scmarang pilot . project. . This location was chosen because: (1) facilities had been operated there longer than in any other pilot project (2-112 years); and (2) Mlatiharjo is a fairly high density area, in which some of the facilities were reported to be located partly or entirely underneath · the·· house. A summary of the facilities inspected is presented in'Figure 2.4. Mlatiharjo is a generally flat area with a high water table (1 - 3 m deep). It is typically subject to flooding for several days cach.:ycar, and tidal influence causes backing up of grossly, polluted water from the Banger river into the street drains m.ueh of the time. All of the people visited purchased drinking water from a public ta·p (PDAM), and all use4 well water (their own or a neighbor's) for \vashing and bathing. Soils varied in their characteristics but no percolation test data were available.All of the facilities inspected which had on­site disposal long term application rates in accordance with the Guidelines were functioning welL

On the basis of infoni1ation received initially, several facilities appeared to have high~r application rates; but upon further investigation it turned out that either the number of users was. smaller or the seepage area was larger than first ·reported. (The only anon1aly was location No.3 which shows an application rate of 21.4 l!m2.d in clayc)i.soil; however, there was some doubt as to whether all of the reported users actually usc this facility. Also, tl1is facility consists partly of an old well, 4 m deep, used .as .a 'cubluk, located ricxt to a street drain).

At location No.ll, the new facility was used only during floods (it was built up on higher ground); the old facility (cubluk), built in 1975, was reported to have no overflows, although it had an application rate of 16.7 lfm2.d in clayey soil. Upon inspection, however, it was found that rats had burrowed holes in the cubluk wall, through which effiuent escapes. The facility at location No.l5, which has a somewhat high application rate (18.5 l/m2.d), also was found to have an ovcrflm>;. pipe from the leach'pit to the drain. In the one public toilet ·which had functioning on-site disposal,· the initially constructed seepage trench received an application rate of 43 lfm2.d and failed in two months time ("sandy" soil); the construction of an additional trench for a combined application rate of 17.5 11m2 .d works without overflows.

~· The few facilities built under houses (bedroom, kitchen) were functioning well. They were well vented to the outside and sized conservatively; no overflows were reported. However, it was observed in all houses that septic tanks could not be easily inspected to determine sludge accumulation (inspection holes were paved over or mortared shut). In any event, people typically never had inspected for sludge accumulation, which had not become a concern yet because the facilities have not been in operation long enough.

' They stated that .they would know it was time for desludging when the toilet clogs and backs up! Such practice eould lead to blinding of the leaching trench in the future, the consequences of which would be particularly hazardous for people with disposal facilities under their house.

From the investigation of facilities in Mlatiharjo, as well as those investigated in housing estates, it was concluded that the on-site disposal design criteria in the Guidelines arc realistic as a general guide, and there is no evidence that claimed higher long tem1 application rates will reliably work in practice.

Population Density

The population density criteria in the Guidelines were intended -- as stated in the Guidelines -- to serve as an indicator of the likelihood of space for on-site disposal and accessibility for septic tank emptying. They were not intended to be used indiscriminately without regard for actual .local conditions. The· Guidelines' usc of population density could be stated succinctly as follows:

Areas with densities below 150 c/ha arc most likely to be suitable for on-site disposal. Areas with densities above 500 c/ha arc most likely to require some form of off-site disposal. Selection of disposal technology for areas with densities between 150 c/ha and 500 c/ha will depend on more careful consideration of soil permeability, depth to groundwater, type of housing, extent of non-residential areas, and plot arrangements, as well as affordability and economic feasibility.

. , . .... ., ..

1;.'

Figure 2.4: On-site Facilities in Mlatiharjo

,. Locn T)1'.: of Facility Inside I louse No. of Users

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

ST,L ST,L

c ST,L c

ST,L 5 2

15 4

10 6 7. 8 9. 10. 11.-

12. 13.-

14. 15. 16 17

'.18. . 19. 20 21. 22. 23.JU 24.JU 25.JU Noles:

c c 8 ST,U ST 9

c• 8 ST,L 6 ST,L 8 ST,L 10 c• 10 c 10

ST.L not used ST,L• 5 ST,L 4 ST,L 5 ST,L 4

ST, no L 8 ST,L 6

Notc2 '\

no dat.a no data no dat.a no dat.a Nolc3 ST,L 50 ST,L ? ST,F 320?

2: Abandoned or dismantled by new tenants. 3: Abandoned or dismantled by new tenants (Kantor Lurah). 4: Seeps to drain. ST: septic tank •: Substructure facilities buill previous to pilot .project

This could hardly be considered restrictive; nevertheless, some confusion has arisen as to their application, as will be described.

Population is not distributed uniformly within any demographic unit. For example, th~. six Kccamatans of Palembang show the following dcn~ity characteristics:

Figure 2.5: Palembang Population Densities

Kecamatan

I II l1l IV v VI

Average Density

(elba) 151 129 125 186 134 100

Highest Density

Kclurahan (elba)

:- 690 233 386 474 474 317

Lowest Density

:<Kclurahan (elba)

75 16 19 2 4

33 Source: PT Elmes Epsilon, Final Report l'cngembangan Sislcm

; Pcrenc:anaan Pembuangan Air Limbah dan Kotoran Manusio. di KoLa Palcmbang.

Similarly, the 15 kelurahans included in JSSP show the :. following range of densities at the RW level:

Satisfa~1ory Disposal'!

yes y.:s

'2·1.4 ''·. ycs-sc~ text . . 40 10.0 .. ,:; yes

100 13.7. y.:s 80 8.2 yes 90 no dat.a no dat.a . no data 80 7.5 10.6': yes 60 no data no dat.a no data 40 5.7 7.0 yes

Note I .. , .. yes

100 6.0 '16.7; owrnows 100 9.4 •• _1)0.6.;:.: .: • yes

50 6.0 . 8.3 .....

yes 40 2.5 .}6.0 yes 50 2.7 ... ,'18.5.:-:. <· . yes . ·,·,· 40 .. 6.5. 'i.~;},;r):·: ,, .... yes

Note 1 yes 60 7.0 .··:,,;,8.6 ,r. •;< .. yes

i .,_.J ,,,.·;1

no data· no d:.ta

.:· ... l

500 28.5 . "::/ ,17.5 :. ;,; :.::; yes ? Nolc4 .· N?l~.4 / .'

seeps to drain 3200? Nole4 ··Nole4 ·

... seeps \o drain

L:lcaching pit or trench·.'·;.·: .. · ·• .·. · C: cubluk (cesspit)! :.•i, ~' • · ·· JU:jamban umum(r,~oM.ieto*l). : ..

F: rock filter : c.)i•>·:·::./:·: .. ,· ., ;

Figure 2.6: JSSP Popu!ationDr::nsities., : Kelurahan Average < .•: r: Highest .. Lowes\

Density. , .... ,Density, D.:nsity (clba)

...... , .... Rw· RW

· ·· :: {~lha2 · { cl11a 2 BD 378 .·. 600 264 GN 458 ,' ·': .~,::::. •(;:896- .. 129 KB 262 626 83 KK 199 386 91 KR 380 :981 136 KS 129 : :176 78 KT 54 209 23 MA 559 791 )<19 MD 228 559 &3 MG 447 1668 140 MS 494 :!:.:·.:

682 381 PM 349' 774 157 SB 123 .. ; "423. 62 TB 198 405- Ill TT 198

.,. /:·.''219 163 Source; JSSP survey files ;··::.:·:.;.:.·) :; ...

It obviously makes a great dcal.of difference whether the density criteria are appllcc(to Rws:· Kclurahans, or Kecamatans. Unfortunately,-~()· clarifi~ation is given on this point in the Guidelincd. It'' is 'clear, however, that applying the criteria to Kccamatai(densities would be inappropriate, as it would treat even major metropolitan areas as if they were small towns and would provide no discriminating insight (which is·; .:after all, the purpose of using criteria}. . .. _,;i,t! ::.:: ,: ... ,

In practice, the Kclurahan .i':is 1!· the smallest

administrative unit for which ·data' is'. readily. available to the planner. The qucstion~:'is;·;'docs ·.applying the criteria to the Kclurahan '·levi:!· :lead: to reasonable results_? Specifically, arc any, 'Kclurahans. having less than 1 SO c/ha suitabtc for off-site S):stcms ancJ. arc any

1-7

r i

! '

CHAPTER 1 GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SANITA T/ON

having greater than 500 clha suitable for on-site systems?·

From C~'-:amining survey data from JSSP and from discussions with IUIDP consultants, it would appear that partial exceptions at both extremes can occur. Kelurahans with densities below 150 c/ha are generally suitable for on-site disposal, but they can contain high­density pockets -- sometimes as large as an RW -- for which, as a result of insufficient space on lots, poor soil permeability, and high groundwater, on-site disposal may be impractical and for which low cost sewerage with local treatment should be considered. The Kelurahan identified as SB in Figure 2.6 is such an example from JSSP. IUIDP consultants also reported encountering high-density pockets in areas.1 of low or moderate overall density in whic:h on-site solutions were not felt to be practical. Their, stated response to these pockets was to ignore them becaus~ of the institutional difficulties involved and uncertainty regarding largely untried technical solutions. The other extreme involves Kelurahans with average densities above 500 c/ha. Although some form of 'off-site disposal may be generally suitable for the Kelurahan, it · is possible that some lower density RWs within the Kelurahan already hilVe extensive on-site coverage and arc economically separable from the off-site system.

Thus, from available experience, it is concluded that the population density criteria in the Guidelines, when applied to the Kelurahan level, can offer useful insights to the planner but cannot substitute for knowledge of the local circumstances. In particular, although a Kclurahan has Jess than· 150 clha, the planner should still check for and 'consider high-density pockets. Likewise, although a kelurahan may have a density above 500 c/ha, the planner should check for and consider any separable low-density sub-areas, as well as the: extent, adequacy, and upgradeability of existing on-

· site coverage. Between these two extremes, the population density . criteria relate to . the need for upgrading water supply, . and disposal technology selection depends on other factors and considerations.

The Directorate of Environmental Sanitation; however, indicated in discussions that their experience had shown that a better approach was to provide off-site sanitation in areas where the net density exceeded 300 c/ha. This net density was .based on areas comprising the area occupied· by the houses themselves but excluding the area occupied by roads, parks, institutions etc.

Sullage Disposal

As noted above, the Guidelines generally recommend diischargc of sullage to the street drains after passing through a small irttcrccptor. to remove grease m)d larger solids. This rccominendation is based on the fact that sullage, although not bacteriologically safe, poses a much lower threat to health than docs blackwater. As it is unrealistic to expect on-site disposal facilities to

handle sullage flows in most cases in Indonesia, it was a Strategy decision that disposal of blackwater be given priority during Repclita V. A comparison of sullage and blackwater characteristics is shqwn in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: Typical Characteristics of Sullage and Blackwater in Indonesia

Blackwater Average Flow (1/c.d) .5-30 BOD5(mgll) SOO-ISOO SS(mgll) 500-1500 Faecal Coliform (MPN/!OOml) lOg

Sullage S0-100

150-400 ).· 75-1.50

to1

Source: Adapted from JICA Interim Report on Urban Drainage and Wastewater Disposal in Jakarta (Aug. 1990) and IHHE Sanitation on 'Anaerobic Treatment of Domestic Wastewater in Indonesia (Mar 1989).

It would clearly be inadvisable to recommend disposing of sullage together with toilet wastes in most circumstances in Indonesia, as the increased chance of hydraulically overloading the seepage facilities would likely increase the health risk.

Three arguments have been put forward in favor of prohibiting sullage disposal to the surface drains: (1) Sullage represents a significant organic pollution

load; on receiving waters. (2) Sullage in the drains increases nuisance and

health risk from mosquitoes. (3) Sullage solids contribute t~ clogging of drains,

whia:h threatens .. health due to the typical presence of toilet wastes or septic tank effluents in the drains.

The firs~ cannot properly be addressed here. It is a policy and strategy decision that direct community health impacts should receive priority during Rcpelita V over receiving water protection (although the Guidelines do allow for exceptions in "environmentally sensitive" areas).

As to the second argument, disease-carrying mosquitoes which breed in polluted drains arc likely to ~e of the genus Culex, which can . be a vector of filariasis· and encephalitis. Aedes (vector of dengue fever) weuld be more likely to·breed in temporary pools or artificial containers with cleaner water, while Anopheles (vector-, of malaria) would tend toward permanent bodies of cleaner water. In areas having high incidcnc~ of filariasis or encephalitis (unusual in most of urban Indonesia), special attention to sullage disposal might be needed (along with other methods of mosquito control). But as a general case, there docs not appear to be evidence that increased mosquito production due to ,sullage in drains is of equal .,. significance with the problem of enteric disease transmission. It would appear to principally constitute a nuisance. "However, if the community perceives the nuisance caused by sullage in the drains as important (as has · been reported in Tangerang), it may appropriately inhuence choice of technologies through _the community's preference and willingness to pay.

The problem of sullage solids clogging drains has been observed at high-density Perumnas housing estates, and it is certainly true that street drains typically also

. :.'

!, .....

CHAPTER 1 GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE ANO.OFF·SITE SANITATION

:contain toilet and septic tank effiucnts. However, other measures would usually suggest themselves before the need for sullage disposal by sewerage or soakaways: (1} Drainage improvements. Sullage solids would

rarely clog corrcclly graded drains. Local sags or obstructions in the drain should be corrected, and the Guidelines recommendation assumes this.

(2) R~~moval of trash and rocks from drains. These arc far more likely than sullage solids to cause clogging.

. (3) Trapping of sullage solids (especially kitchen wastes) prior to discharge. This is especially appropriate in high density housing estates.

Questions raised about sullage disposal bring out the • important point that human waste sanitation should not ·be deall with in isolation, but must be c'onsidered in relation to drainage, solid waste, '~~ler supply, and other sectors .. However, if health impact remains the

·primary focus and priority of the Rcpclita V Strategy, there appears to be no basis for changing the general recommendation of the Guidelines regarding sullage

· disposal to the drains in areas with on-site disposal of toilet wastes. However a review of the more recent

., e>.:peri<~nce in this aspect would be appropriate.

·Extent of Coverage by Private Toilets

·An additional question which has arisen and deserves some <~xamination is the actual extent of coverage by private: toilets in urban Indonesia. The national Strategy for Rc:pelita V was based on findings of the· 1980

·Census Survey, supplemented by the 1985 Intercensal ·Survey. These surveys showed low .~overage in 1980 with significant increase but sti\1 only <111oderate coverage by 1985. Recent project surveys (IUIDP Real Demand Assessment and individual city sanitation plans) for Bogor, Jakarta, and various E. Java cities

· have presented data showing much higher coverage by -privat<~ facilities and give the impression that a major :·change~ in sanitary habits has taken place ~n urban · Indom:sia (leaving aside the question of how well the 'on-site: disposal facilities function).

·However, the recently-published 1989 National ''Socio­'economic Survey seems to contradict that impression.

, ~ts dal~a show very little increase in urban household .. toilet coverage (and in some cases a decrease) .from the : 1985 national surve/. Comparative results arc ·.presented in Figure 2.8"".

*It is not known to what extent these results reflect shifts in population from rural to urban areas during

·the period. , ~·The national Strategy had formulated improved . household sanitation questions. to be included in a .-subsequent national survey or census. However, these were not used in the 1989- Survey.

'· . .. .',;·,·::'.' .

Figure 2.8: Extent of Urban Private Toilet Coverage l'crccntasc of households with l'rivatc Toilet

Area 1980· 19&.5 .. 1989 Rccenl Census National" '~alional Project

Survey :Survey Surveys 1 DI Acch 56 53 .· 64 2 N.Sumatra 68 ··':.:82. .. 90 3 W.Sumatra 37

... ,.':!·:· 46 ··;;.:·· 47 4 Riau 63

;~;::.ll: ii : . 78

5 Jambi 49 75 6 S.Sumatera .59 . 67 7 Dcngkulu 35 62 8 Lampung 55 62 .... (:,'. . 73 9 Jakarta DKI 54 ·,.:·6r:'·:·: ... .:- .. i: .... 65 85 10 W.Java 38 ,· :•·.:·,"•.49 ·' 53

• Bo~;or 43 · ·4t~r?!'·- 83 11 C.Java 37 54 12 YoQ~akart.l 47 •"\; :5& '· .. :I''·'" 44 13 E.Java 42 . :52.:,' 52

-Surabaya 47 . l::-,.,1 :.:. 94 . :.:; .. ·' ' -Kcdiri -. . 83

-Sidoarjo . 85 -Banyuwangi

. \;· .. ., ·· .. 76 -Probo1inggo ... 49

14 Bali 45 57 55 15 NTB 25 .26 38 16 NTT 55 n.·' .r 79 17 E. Timor ... . 18 W.Kalimanta 71 :84. ,. ,: 86

11

19 C. Kalimantan 42 . 1•:: :·:46',' . 63 20 S.Kalimantan 40 .58 ;:,:_,· 57 21 E. Kalimantan 61 _,_75 ~~.r::·<. 67 22 N.Sulaw.:si 57

.. 58. 68

23 C.Sulawcsi 48 ·:,;;· '.56,:.:l:';::< .. 63 24 S.Sulawcsi .53. . .57 . 64

S.E.Sulaw.:si 49 :•,, 53. ·, 63 2.5

26 Maluku 48 47 53 27 Irian Jaya 52 58 68

On closer examination, it was found that some of the project surveys may not hav?· b.~enr?presentativc. For example; in one Surabaya survey; ll'Kelurahans were surveyed, but in 6 of the Kclurahans the survey was conducted only at Perumnas,: BTN .. and real estate housing developments which, o'f course, all have 100% coverage by private toilets. ·o~'th~ o~.1er hand, it also seems unlikely that all of the y~oj~ct. surveys were invalid. ·. ·' ,. · · ·'.' i'· ·

·,·.'/::·;

Despite these conflicts in survey. data, dt seems certain that at least some . major-·:.arcas,.·;:of:: cities have experienced large increases in pri:v,~te}?ilet installation, sometimes approaching full · coy~ra~e. To shed some light on the mechanism of.. this.' ph~nomcnon, the present study approached and 'asked·:·questions of 50. households in two Kclurahans in Surabaya; which had put in toilets during the past ~Oye~rs~(and which were not in a housing estate such as Perumnas or BTN). The rcsul ts arc summarized in Fii{Jre>?,! ;

1.• '.'

1 • : .

• :1. ·. .. •. '

' ...... : ' ~ . . . "'' -: .. i .(

) ;·:·:.• .

1-9

J

;) iJ i

I'· !' I :

i 'I

I ",!

'!

:; '!

i

'i

'i i I

'

; i

CHAPTER 1 GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SANITATION

Figure 2.9: 50 Households which Installed Sanitary Facilities During 1980-89 in Surabaya

1. \ No

Facilities constructed (a) When house buill 2.5 (b) Added later 2.5

2. Reasons for installing sanitary faciliti.:s (multiple response possible) (a) Health/living environment 20

%

.50

.50

40 (b) Privacy/convenience .50 100 (c) No available MCK 4 8 (d) Ordered by Lurahlgovcrnrncnl 8 16 (e) To rent out rooms/house 6 12

3. Installation by (a) Self with own money 9 18 (b) Hired worker with own money 31 74 (c) Contractor with own money 3 6 (d) Other . 1 2

4. Type of system (a) Cubluk (b) Septic tank with seepage 41 82 (c) Septic tank to drain 9 18

Most of the respondents had installed septic tanks ·with some form of seepage pit or trench. Most had built the facility using a hired worker ("tukang"); a few had ,built it thems:clvcs or used a contractor. All respondents mentioned privacy or convenience as a prime motivation, but health concerns and influence of the local community were also significant factors. Half installed the sanitary facilities at the time they constructed their house.

It would be valuable to have a clear picture of the real extent of coverage and the mechanisms by which change has taken place. As a first step, it would be useful to undertake a careful review of the raw data of the 1989 Nati~nal Survey and project surveys, coupled with field checks and resurveys which are unambiguous and reliably representative. ·

DISCUSSION

The National Strategy stated that "new sewerage projects: should be undertaken during Rcpelita V only in areas where on-site disposal 'sistcms are not feasible, or in areas where they can be locally a1Torded." Some confusion and controversy seem to have arisen over the intent of the terms "new sewerage projects", "feasible", and "locally afforded", which should be clarified.

When the above statement was formulated, it was intended to discourage initiation in Repclita V of new large-scale conventional sewerage projects. It did not mean to discourage low-cost (intermediate) sewerage projects which, in fact, form· an important part of the Strategy. Likewise, although on-site sanitation CQ!lstitules the primary tool of the Strategy and has very wide applicability in Indonesia, there arc limitations to the l<:chnology. Feasibility of any solution in a particular location was intended to be determined by a process of local planning with careful consideration or local circumstances. A~ concluded in the Final Report of th<: Solo/Scmarang On-Site Sanitation Pilot Project, ·1n. c:cruin circum.stanccs on-site sanitation dc.x:s nol ~l "l~ ~ l.~ p..-cl'crab\c \c::hnk::.ll R"iutioo. to tk -prob1cm of sewage disposal." 'That report mentions spa~:c requirements in high-density areas, high water

table in areas using groundwater for drinking, and impermeable soils as important constraints. .:;

The requirement of "local a.ffordability" docs· not. preclude subsidizing a needy area of a.city, through overall local revenues or cross subsidies, in order to implement sanitation through the most cost-effective means as determined in the local plan. As noted in the Strategy, " ... urban communities suffering the most unsanitary conditions reside in the very high density karripungs and these generally have the least resources available to finance improvements. Providing services for these communities will, therefore, require a high degree of funding with less opportunity for cost recovery."

The Strategy intended to emphasize on-site s)'stems arid low cost off-site systems wherever appropriate becauSe it was felt these would cdnstitute the most effective usc of limited resources for achieving the greatest impact during Repelita V. The present study revealed a number of practical matters which need to · be c~nsidcrcd in the implementation of this aspect of the Strategy. ·

' •• 1

If on-site sanitation is promoted as an effective usc of resources, strong emphasis must be placed on the need for good designs and local government enforcement of both · mandatory installation and subsequent maintenance. Special atte11tion also needs to be given to the problem of failing disposal systems. If an area already has 85% existing covcrag·e by on-site systems but half of them discharge partially treated overflows to the street drains (by all indications a common situation), then a project to build additional on-site· facilities may have limited impact in terms of the primary objective of environmental health, unless it forms part of an integrated program of improvements. Action needed to address this would involve (i) improving the quality of construction to reduce failures; (ii) developing approaches to rehabilitate or improve failed systems; (iii) increasing awareness of users to make them more responsible for upkeep and maintenance of systems; (iv) the provision and enforcement of rcgulation.s controlling the. construction and operation of facilities. For example, the on-site sanitation pilot project in Mlatiharjo (described above) was successful in terms of demonstrating effective designs for on-site disposal, developing and testing financial assistance mechanisms, and improving community awareness of human waste disposal needs. However, the sanitary environment in Mlatiharjo was not signi!ic~ntly improved by the on-site facilities, since the street drains arc mostly filled by highly contaminated water backed up from the master drain as wc11 as by wastes from MCKs and individual failed on­site systems. Under such circumstances, there will be little incentive for new people to join the program, or for people to maintain the disposal portions of .their S:'Stcrn.s wh<::n t.h....--y h3xe tedmic:ll -prcblems.. New Q11.­

sitc tcili.tlcs ooili ~ c:::cilt. ~-r:tt:lS 3..'":: ~~ ~

oc a snkl.H part of the total i.n most urban an:::JS;

then en co systc

Low appl stan1 Indo in I llSCfi

Ban1 topo hou! p011

neCI rcq1 arr~

COil

pos: unl ciTe sue sue ., .. urg rcli of:

Sn1 Su im of att co rei en ce th ell

su

Tl g< lo si n f(

llj

Ol

st lc 0

b r

.. • .. .,

•· '

' CHAPTER 1 GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SANITATION

therefore, the· programs should also be used !o encourage improvement and rehabilitation of existing systems, in order to effect the greatest overall benefit

: Low cost o!T-site systems would seem to have applicability in many· urban areas, but obstacles still stand in the way of their widespread usc. Experience in. Indonesia with shallow sewerage is limited to one area in Bandung; although the Bandung experience is useful, there is a general feeling in Indonesia that Bandung's condition is unique (because of its hilly topography, layout with a "brandgang" between rows of

r·houses, and its long history of sewerage, albeit in only a portion of the city) and that its experience is not necessarily replicable. Also, shallow sewerage usually requires legal mechanisms and institutional

, arrangements which arc untested in Indonesia. A · cqmmunity-bascd maintenance organization is legally possible -- such as through the LKMD -- but it is unlikely that local governments will want to expend effort and resources unless they can look to the successful experience of others. Thus, well executed successful small-scale projects in shallow sewerage arc urgently needed. These projects would also be used to refine design principles (e.g. the usc of the flatter grade of I%).

Small bore sewerage has been planned in parts of Surabaya and Palembang. As in shallow sewerage, the institutional arrangements and community control arc of paramount importance and will require careful attention by the local government and the design consullant. (In the case of small bore sewerage, this _relates to the need to prevent illcgaJ. connections, ensure sc:ptic tank desludging, and otherwise make certain that solids arc kept out of the sewer). This raises the need for supporting legal regulations (and their enforccmc!nt) to ensure proper functioning and sustainabi.lity of the systems.

The need for effort and responsibility by the local government is a serious obstacle to the- application of lo\~ cost off-site systems, as one of the attractions of on­site systems to local governments has been that they required little or no government budget ··or responsibility. The same obstacle, of course, would also apply to maintaining really effective on-site disposal. In other words, an ineffective on-site solution (i.e., the status quo) is regarded as cheaper and easier than a low-cost o,fT-site solution (or an effective comprehensive on-site solution), from the point of view of local budgets. Only with an increase in awareness and responsibility on the part of the local governments with regal1i to sanitation, is this likely to change. The strengthening of national regulations and policy should help· in this regard. Local governments already have legal responsibility for sanitation in their jurisdictions, but this responsibility needs to be given form as specific

. accountability.

In areas. where an off-site solution is appropriate but its implcmenllation is not likely to occur for many years, · the promotion of on-site solutions in the interim carries

unknown hcal!h implications. It seems logical that usc of toilets which discharge septic": tank wastes to the drain would be somewhat safer than direct defecation in the drain, as there will be lc:ss. chance for direct contact with excreta. Likcwis·c: it ·seems k>gical that if it were possible to upgrade an area: i~ .":hlch GO% of the existing on-site systems ovcrDowcd.to.thc drain, so !hal only 20% overflow, this would al~p".!?ring ~cncfit, since the probability of the community's · contact with pathogens from sick people having eiTcctivc on-site disposal is smaller. Ho\vevcr,thcsc inferences arc unproven.

,,.,,::;,

The best approach to such areas will depend on the actual conditions of the environment" and of the existing on-site systems. If only a small :percentage of houses cannot dispose of wastes on-sit~.:' it ·would seem · worthwhile for the comjnunity ·to. :subsidize special measures in those houses, in . order· to ·protect the community's existing investment, in on~sitc facilities and defer the investment in. sewerage. A possible solution in such cases might be. a septi<; tank with upf1ow anaerobic filler. De Kruijff ("Design of Septic Tank Systems with Effiucnt. Disposal Options") mentions that if the filter has a four day hydraulic detention time, it can produce aneffiucnt "almost free of bacteria." These seem: toi "be·::;acquiring some popularity in Indonesia (not with "4-day. detention time, however) as they require .very: ilittie::-:-maintcnance. Further studies should be carriCd out on their . .

characteristics, areas of applicability,''· and. design requirements. ·: <:;:•':'1

' 0 ••• :.;,:d\~;·~::~~: ... ,_;( The areas most likely to need low .cost. off-site solutions arc high density poor areas. witl~ a:"highfail~rc rate of existing on-site systems and large numbers"of dwellings in which on-site disposal .· \VO~ld,. be: .·difficult to implement in practice. Overflows.. 'o(\mtrcated or partially treated blackwater to drains' in such areas is o.f "" greater health significance than_iq_.~i&~l.~in~Oinc areas, because the rcsidc;nts -- particula~lyJhc c_hildren -- have greater likelihood of contact witht!ie.drains. Also, the

' r ' , ' " ~ 1 • r . • · ,

stratagem of cross-subsidizing ·a .P9or' ~rea by sewering a high-income area along with ),f,.i~, ?o}lblful, as the residents in the high-income ar~a (lfifg,c; _lot sizes) arc more likely to be content with. th~ir present on-site systems and reticent to connect. In such· 'cases, a city­wide "environmental tax" (for example." a· s~rcharge on water bills, as in Bandung). would be appropriate to pay for the solution to a communitY., health problem. .. '' , .... '

CONCLUSIONS ,, ·'·'

The preceding sections point to the. ~,O~.ci~.si.on that the Repclita V Strategy needs less. to.bc:iii1c~tu~cd than to be implemented. Promoting active i.~.Y.ol.v~nlcnt of local governments in developing and cxccu"ti,n'g'_their own Human Waste Disposal A~tio'I):·''p"]~I~s.· ·will beuer

.' .• 1\ 1 1•.'•' •. ·.' •

accomplish the goals of the Strategy_than wil"l resolving grey areas of technology. selection .. , ·:. : ~ ·. :" .. ','." .. : · \

I • · · ; .o -• r ~ l I 1 . • • • •

The key. rc~ponsible party -- ·.· Tingkat' U local government -- is not yet suflicicn{!y motivated- so as" to .

--~:~

. . :: •

., .. '··

CHAPTER 1 GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SANITATION

enable the successful application of either appropriate on-site sanitation or appropriate off-site sanitation. By the same .token Central Government should provide technical support where ·needed, help establish an enabling legal framework, · provide policy and · promotional support, and conduct needed research; beyond that, Central Government should avoid over­involvement in what should be local programs and projects.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Specific recommendations are as follows: (1) Pilot projects in shallow sewerage should be

implemented as soon as possible, but their · technical and institutional aspects should be checked carefully to ensure success.

(2) The training of local government- staff in preparation of Human Waste Disposal Action Plans should be implemented as soon as possible. In this regard, "re-packaging" the Guidelines in the most effective form for usc by local governments is recommended as a useful activity of the Community Water and Sanitation Project (CWSP).

(3) Correct on-site disposal design standards should be promulgated to all local governments, the Department ofHousing,Perumnas, and all concerned with building codes and housing estates.

(4) The policy and regulatory framework at all levels should be strengthened to support the Strategy. This includes improved building code human waste disposal requi~ements, mandatory local government preparation of Human Waste Disposal Action Plans, and consolidation of all on-site disposal design standards used by various agencies (e.g., Perumnas, Health, Public Works, etc.). '

(5) Future projects in any city should be conditional upon formulation of its Human Waste Disposal Action Plan, including enactment of necessary regulations, adoption of appropriate standards and ~odes, designation or establishme,nt of institutions, and initiation or establishment of institutions, and initiation of a program' of implementation.

(6) A review of the 1989 National Survey and recent project survey ·raw data, together with field checks, rcsurve);S, and other cross-checks (such as comparison with the number of toilets and squat plates sold), should be undertaken to help clarify the real extent of present coverage and the mechanism by which change has taken place during the past decade.

(7) The technology selection flow chart in the Guidelines should be revised to reflect modifications irrthc text of the Guidelines that shallow sewerage may be used with average ground slopes around 1% (not 2% as indicated). The technology selection flow chart seems 'to be widely distributed, but without inclusion of the cautions and qualifications found in the text; a

.::·· corrected and complete version should be · · , disseminated by the CWSP --perhaps most · · · ·· appropriately as part of the Guidelines-- to all . . agencies and individuals involved in wastewater · planning. ... . .· '' !

(8) The technology of on-site treatment of septic tank cffiuent (such as with anaerobic upflow filter or other method) should be investigated for its applicability as an interim solution in some circumstances, and design standards should be formulated. . _

(9) All future projects and investigations involving on or off-site human waste disposal, including supporting regulations etc., should specifically·,· provide for the disposal of sullage. ,

Additional recommcgdations related to specific areas of the present study arc found in the subsequent chapters ..

,•, I•.; ·') .~··, ',

;.' ... :

., ..

. ' ~

.CHAPTER 2

:COMMU.NAL TOt:LET FACILITIE$ . ....

INTRODUCTION

Several variations of communal toilet facilities have 'been built in Indonesia, the most common of which arc:

MCK-Umum ("mandi-cuci-kakus") --public bathing, washing, and toilet facility. MCK-Keluarga -- MCK for a limited group of households (usually 5-7) Kakus Umum (or jamban jamak) -.-public toilet facility ' ' Jamban Keluarga -- toilet facilities used by a limited group of households MK-Umum -- public bathing and toilet facility MK-Keluarga --bathing and toilet facility for a limited group of families•

Typical examples of the jamban keluarga, MCK­. keluarga, and jamban jamak arc shown in Figures 3.1, · 3.2, 3.3. Usually toilet wastes arc discharged to septic '~s and leaching pits and the sullage disposed of directly to surface drains.

Communal facilities have been constructed through a wide valicty of agencies, such as:

KIP (Kampung Improvement Prosrammc), both local and national· Department of Health (Dcpkcs), both local and national City government public works MliP (Market Infrastructure Improvement Programme) Bangdcs Local government water enterprise (PDAM) . Cipta Karya, both provincial and national Local self-help Private individuals.

No national records exist on the total numbers of communal facilities in Indonesia, but they arc estimated at between 20-100 thousand installations.

The national Rcpelita V strategy Guidelines recommended the application of communal facilities.

Community facilities for small groups of families (ja,1ban kcluarga and MCK-Kcluarga)· arc appropriate:

where private or shared facilities arc unaffordable even with financial assistance in high population density areas (gross densities

• Not.:: 1\J:any pcopl.: refer infonnally to all of the above variations as .. "MCKs", :llthough this is not strictly accurate. "11lis report will usually refer collc,:tiwly to "conmlUnal facilities", but reported references to "MCKs" should not be interpreted too strictly.

generally > 50(). pcrsons/ha}. where there is insufficient space for individual facilities in areas with poor water supplies

Jamban Kcluarga . . .. arc appropriate where householders have ready access to water and space in the ~1?i11c for washing and~undcring · ·

arc cheaper than MCKs may possibly be dc\,elopcd into MCKs by the user group

MCK-Keluarga arc appropriate where householders have poor access to water and little space in. the home to usc it. .... ; :; ..-r .: : .. ,~i,!

Public toilets for unrestricted use .(Jamban Jamak and MCK-Umum) with full time attc~dai1ts arc appropriate at markets and bus stations. MCK;u~uin \vith multiple toilets and facilities for veg~tabl~ ''va~hing etc. arc appropriate at markets .. Jamba~.·., J~111aks are more suitable at bus stations.

The IUIDP guide for Repelita .V planning ("Buku Pedoman P3KT Dalam Rcpelita V", December 1989) permits planners to recommend MC:Ks (tl!al is, include MCKs as a component for which fu:1ds are requested), in the following circumstances:

for market (pasar) improvemcr\l5, (¥CK-Umum) as part of KIP ... , ! "in residential areas, as. well as in commercial, market place, terminal enviro.ns and in other dense areas." "as a temporary solution for low-income residential. areas". . ...

IUIDP planners have, consequently, generally included MCKs in their medium-term· plans, usually only in small numbers but occasionally"' as" . an extensive program (e.g., in Surabaya), : · .

·:·· .· The MCK program in Indonesia does not enjoy a good reputation. As one report expressed it, "With few exceptions, attitudes to public facilities were found to

. ~ .. ,· ·.~.: .

·,;.

2-1

........

\ ~~ ·.•

! ;.

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNAL TOILET FACILITIES

I

Figure 1: Jamban Keluarga.

be somewhat negative." Documented evidence of hcallh benefits from MCK programs in Indonesia is lacking. In fact, a KIP evaluation study (Concurplan/Sangkuriang in Bogor, Tangerang, Bckasi, and Cirebon, which interviewed some 600 kampung residents prior to KIP projects in 1979 and after implementation in 1982) reported no improvement in environmental health as a result of MCKuse.

Given this background, the present study undertook to examine available repoJ;ts,· talk to consultants and officials, and visit communal facilities, in order to answer the following three questions : (1) Why do communal facili.tics fail? (2) What conditions will ensure or contribute to a

successful facility? (3) What is the applicability of communal facilities in

future programs? · · • · · '· ·

WHY COMMUNAL FACILITIES FAIL

The following factors an< frequently cited as causes or failure of communal facilities' .. (1) Inadequate wat~r'supply·.: .' ... (2) Lack of cleaning· and maintenance;

responsibilities for' operating and maintaining the fhci!itics not clearly defined, resulting in problems with cleaning, repairs, maintenance/servicing, payment of water tariiTs;·cte.

"(3) Inappropriate location of facilities. (4) Lack of community understanding of the

relationship between health and human waste sanitation, combined with availability of a convenient alternative (i.e., the river); persistence

' Sc•mc of these problems (unsatisfactory cffiucnt disposal, lack of septic tank dcsludging. inadequate separation from water resources, and poor comnmnily health awareness) arc, of course, not unique to communal facilities.

of ingrained habits. (5) Technical problems, such as

-Quality of construction not rugged enough for' public usc.

-Unsatisfactory eillucnt disposal!acilities. - Septic tanks undersized or inaccessible for

desludging. · · - Effiuent leaching too close to water resources. -Designs not culturally suited.

(6) Some facilities, intended for shared/public use,·~·· • "commandeered" by individual households.

It should be noted that the term "failure" of communal facili,tics may mean that the community docs not usc the facility or that the facility docs not provid.e safe disposal of wastes. A distinction between these two types of failures is important, as they are not necessarily interrelatea. Examples exist of technically, well-designed MCKs which have been abandoned; alternatively; some well-used facilities discharge untreated wastes to the neighborhood environment creating nuisances and health hazards.

The overwhelming majority of cases of abandoned or under-utilized facilities can be traced to inadequate water supply, lack of cleaning and maintenance,. or inappropriate location. Of these, inadequate water supply and lack of cleaning and maintenance . arc absolute factors. That is; it can be safely predicted that any facility suffering from either of these factors will fail.

A basic p~oblem reported with "top-down" programs is that the oommunity may have little or no involvement in the process of planning, designing, and constructing the facilities. The community then has little interest in maintaining something \Vhich it feels docs not belong to it. Especially where people had easy access to a river, they have not always been enthusiastic about patronizing an MCK which they did not ask for.

Top-down programs and projects which achieve their goals simply through numbers of facilities constructed have had high rates of abandonment of facilities because no provision for subsequent operation was made. Also, such programs, when faced with the need to find sites for the facilities to be constructed, have sometimes chosen sites for their convenience to the program rather than to the intended users. This problem is particularly acute in high-density or slum areas where construction of an· MCK might require demolition of existing dwellings.

Of the technical factors, poor quality •. construction which affects the ability to clean • or. maintain the facility is especially important. Similarly, if cffiucnt pipes clog as a result of septic tanks being inaccessible for dcsludging or because disposal f.1cilitics arc inadequate, people may abandon the facility. rather than repair it; more probably, however,· the

"·

I.

. ~· I'

:::'

':·.

.i.•,!·

Washing Facility

I

V/M??ii?foi@!iW/?&A'MWM!ih?MA ,.. · m I

Figure 3.2: MCK Keluarga.

Figure 3.3: Jamban Jamak

troublesome septic tank and/or seepage pit will simply b~~ by-passed and wastes will find their way to the street, -ditch, drain; or river ..

SUCCESS OF COMMUNAL FACILITIES

,.!.. The above causes of failure can be easily observed. Finding examples of wholly successful facilities is ·considerably more difficult. The 26 ·facilities visited in this study were chosen by gelling recommendations of various knowledgeable people (e.g., ·from "Dinas Keschatan, provincial PLP, ·Bangdes, international

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNAL TOILET FACILITIES

Looching Bods

Soptic Tonk

: ;! i. 1:: .••• ·, ~: '. i.

I.·

. ' :' .'·\~· '- ('. r; · .. , .· ~:

Leaching Bods

., ··I,·'

' ·. ·') ; I ; ··~ ·_'·, ~ ; i .

. : ; : r·: !"- ~ : 1; }. ~; · . t

agencies) about successful f.~ci).ipcs they knew of. Of tac 26 facilities, only ~~v,q ;.)YeE~'ifo.und to be entirely adequate in that they were wCil utilized and maintained ., and cillucnt was safcly:~'ctisp~~Cd·:·of.' Nevertheless, <:onsideration of e~cn, p~~i~I)i:~~·~·ql}ats facilities can help identify a number. of.factors of success so long as the aspects of public . a82cpt~~·~~.· .. ·a~·d safe effluent disposal are·considcrcd s~p~rat~ly; ·; .... • ' ' ' 'L '··'>.~ ·: ~ ~' ': ,'' '!

Two prerequisites ofsucccs·s~of'anicommunill facility arc: ."_;.: ...... ;: .. :. '·,'''

(l) ·Adequate water supply 1>;, i.;J.:i· ::

2-3

CHAPTER 2' COMMUNAL TOILET FACILITIES

(2) Proper cleaning, operation, and maintenance.

~ All of the well-patronized facilities visited or described in reports fulfilled these prerequisites. It is essential that someone be responsible for day-to-day operations as cleanliness and convenience arc the attractiv~ powers of a successful MCK. Various types of opcr~ting arran~cmcnts arc feasible. An operator may be lured and patd a salary, a portion of user charges, or both. For a successful MCK-Kcluarga, one of the hou~cholds is in charge of operations, usually the famtly on whose land the facility is built and all contribute towards the expenses. But the ke; point is that someone must be responsible.

It has been reported that facilities for identified small groups of families arc much more likely to be successful than larger public facilities. On closer investigation, however, it seems that size (and number of users) is not the determinant in itself, but rather it relates to cleaning and maintenance. Designated groups of families arc more likely to organize operations; a facility for a large, vaguely defined target group is more likely to always be considered somebody cls<:'~ _rcs~~onsibi_lity and fall into neglect. But larger f~c1httcs for ~vlu~h the owner or responsible authority htred a co:nsc1cnttous operator were well patronized.

An adequate supply of water and good operation and maintenance of a communal facility are prerequisites of success, but they are not guarantees. Given these prerequisites (plus, of course, an adequate physical facility), · the principal determinant of success is ~cmand, that is, a perceived need for the facility by the mtcndcd users. Train stations and market-places have an automati_c_ large demand; consequently, a well­operated :faclltty at such locations will always be well patronized.

In residential areas it is essential to assess the demand (or develop demand) before installing facilities. The most effective way to do this has been to involve the community in planning, design, and construction. In t~tis way, the facilities were not built in inappropriate Sttcs and they were accepted by the community. Clearly, the most successful residential applications have been where people have asked for the facilities. As an illustrative example, an MCK built by KIP in Kclurahan Kartasura (Central Java) was reported to have failed because "the community was not sufficicnl.ly involved at the planning stage and did not take an interest in its care and maintenance." In the same neighborhood (RW), however, "two other MCKs constmct.cd by self-help by small groups of families ~lave b~c;n a succes~ and arc well used ... " Similarly, mspccttons of ccrtam MCKs built under the Inpres program in Bogor revealed that the facilities were Ul~uscd. bccat~sc people in the vicinity all had private lOJicts m the1r homes. This "top-down" program had ~net its . constmction ·targets without consulling the mtcnded "consumers".

A faciliity visited in Jakarta (Pasar Ikan area) is

illustrative of several important points. This privately operated MCK-Umum serves about 60 people per day. Ma_n~. surrounding households do not have private facthttes, and laborers without easy access to ·other facilities frequently pass through the area; also private water taps are scarce. Recognizing the commercial potential, an individual constructed the MCK in 1985. Peopl~ arc willing to pay Rp 150 for bathing, Rp 100 for tmlct, and Rp 100 for a 20 liter bucket of water for v~hiclc was!1ing, which charges arc considerably htghcr than m most MCKs and arc indications of the high demand for the facility at that location. A full­time salaried operator is provided, and the MCK has continuous water supply and electricity.

From the point of view of usc, the MCK is a success. Income exceeds Rp 250,000/month and expenses (operator, water, electriCity) arc less than Rp 100,000/month; so, it is also a successful business enterprise. On the negative side, the MCK was built on public land intended for use (and previously used) as a solid waste collection location. The septic tank is never desludgcd; rather, the wastes arc directly discharged to the drains, creating a nuisance and health hazard and provoking complaints from affected households when wastes have overflowed onto their property.

Thus, water supply, cleaning/operation, and "demand" have been demonstrated to be the requirements for successful• application of communal facilities in the sense of high rate of usc of the facility. Howc~cr, they do not appear to have much relationship to whether the facility will achieve safe cffiucnt disposal. Examples of poor waste disposal practices (the almost universal case in facilities that were patronized) were typically due to one or more of the following: (1) Unavailability or inaccessibility of dcsludging

trucks. For example, households using several MCK-kcluarga in Cianjur expressed the desire to dcsludgc their septic tanks, but there was no desludging truck available anywhere in the Kabupatcn.•

(2) Underdesigned seepage facilities. (3). Insufficient land for on-site disposal. This is

typic::al ofMCKs in slums and dense urban areas. (4) Not wanting to go to the expense of dcsludging.

Typically there arc no legal consequences of simply by-passing either the septic tank or the seepage facility.

. Thus, the factors important to achieving good on-site emuent disposal would be: (1) provision of desludging services, (2) provision of adequate land area, (3) correct seepage facility design, and (4) appropriate local regulations and their enforcement. In areas with public sewerage, these factors would not apply; it would, however, be necessary to ensure that the MCK was connected to the sewer.

• CommunalloikL~ would nom1ally use septic lank-leach lido syst~m~ rath~r than twin leaching piL,, bee:. us.: of the large inlillrntion surfnce required. "\1u1s, a dcs\udsing s~rvicc is necessary.

,.

cor PRC

The marl local adcq pub! clca1

A no scho mod note A Cl

prO\ faci! sani vita: plac thro and rei a

In a resi. disc rccc The be am visi anc all MC wh: tha cor

In: ser dis cor pre Jill the ad< mt dis pre

A cit d\\

fac Su $C1

•• pr< bu ret· the est

I ... '1 4

' .,

•..

!! " ,, \·:

·;

'I .:;

:_1 ,I \~

~~

·~ ~,.~ ,, i) ~ ). ;t .,, "I 11 ;'l

·~ :~ l. ·• i' ~ H . ~

"fi

~ ~

i

4

COMMUNAL FACILITIES IN FUTURE PROGRAMS

The appropriateness of communal toilet facilities in market places, train stations, bus stations, and similar locations is non-co'ntrovcrsial. If the prerequisites of adequate water, O&M, and control of disposal arc met, public toilet facilities answer a recognized need in a clearly practical way at such locations. ••

Another appropriate application of public facilities is in schools (e.g., SD, SMP, SMA). Schools should be models of good sanitation practice; however, it has been noted that schools often have very poor toilet facilities. A concerted eJTort to upgrade facilities in schools and provide for good operation and maintenance of the facilities would help increase appreciation for good sanitation in the community at large. It is, therefore, vital 'lo include schools in programs ,as: an appropriate place to demonstrate proper human waste sanitation through upgrading of _toilet and washroom facilities; and to provide a medium for education of parents and relatives in those aspects.

In assessing the applicability of communal facilities in residential areas, several considerations arise. As discussed in Chapter 2, urban ·areas show a strong recent trend towards individual private toilet facilities. The implication of this is that there will progressively be less and less "demand" for communal facilities among urban households. For example, MCKs were visited in one area which had previously been well used and maintained by residents for several years but now all of those households have private facilities, and the MCKs have fallen into disuse. This is a natural process which must be anticipated. It dvcs not necessarily mean that MCKs arc inappropriate, but it must be taken into consideration during planning.

In high density areas, obtaining land for the facility is a serious problem, particularly if adequate on-site disposal is to be provided. It must be recognized that communal facilities built in high-density areas will probably not have adequate on-site disposal, as there is little incentive to either provide it or maintain it. (Of the f.1cilitics visited in high density areas, none hac! adequate on-site disposal.) Therefore, careful thought must be given to whether communal toilets ultimately discharging to drains will meet the objectives of the program under which they arc constructed.

A fUJ1her consideration is that in some areas of some cities, large numbers of transient or homeless people

dwell who have no possibility of obtaining private 'ffacilitics in the ncar future. For example, in parts of

Surabaya, large numbers of people come to work for several days at a time from Madura, many of whom

0 • However, it is not a foregone conclusion that these facilities must be

provid.~d directly by government. It may prove practical for private businc:;scs to build and operate such facilities, whether for profit or in return for advertising benefits. But whatever the delivery options used, the applicability of conununal facilities in those circumstances is well cstabli:shcd.

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNAL TOILET FACILITIES

live in makeshift dwellings. These people would need communal facilities even if 100% of the residences in Surabaya had private · toilets. Unfortunately, the transients and homeless may well live in the high­density areas where it is especially difficult to find a suitable site for communal facifitics. For such locations, it has been suggested that large facilities along the lines of those succcssf~lly operated in India through NGOs, may be applicable. However, this is yet undcmonstratcd in Indonesia. Similarly, mobile public toilets have been operated -- on a very small scale -- in Surabaya; it is not yet known to what extent these can be applied to serve the sanitary needs of the transient population. More study of this aspect is needed.

The above observations point to the conclusion th:ll the applicability of communal facilities in residential areas must be determined through a planning process, the key features of whiclnire: (1) The population to be served needs to be identified

and the "demand" for communal facilities assessed. This implies .the need to talk with the community and involve them in the planning process. If there is no "demand" then communal facilities arc not applicable. ·

(2) Adequate water supply must be provided and clear provision made for operation and maintenance. If these cannot be assured, then communal facilities arc not applicable.

(3) The disposal problem needs to be considered in the context of the city's overall human waste disposal planning. For example, MCKs in Bandung generally discharge wastes to the drain, but this is considered a tolerable interim solution prior to hooking up to a sewer. Likc_wise, the need (and cost) to demolish existing d1vcllings and relocate people in order to build a communal facility must be faced and the consequences weighed.

It is clear that the recommendation in the Guidelines that MCKs arc the appropriate solution in high-density water-short areas without sewerage, should not be applied indiscriminately. Any target goals for MCK constnJction are meaningless unless they derive from a local planning process which takes into account "demand", real conditions> and provision for sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following specific conclusions and recommendations arc made regarding communal toilet

facilities: (1) The top-down, physical· target oriented aspect of

MCK construction programs in residential areas should be abandoned.

(2) The applicability of communal facilities in

residential areas must be determined through a planning process, the key features of which arc: a) The population to be served needs to be ·

identified and the "demand" for communal facilities assessed. This implies the need to

2-5

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNAL TOILET FACILITIES

Figure I: Jamban Keluarga.

be somewhat negative." Documented evidence of health benefits from MCK programs in Indonesia is lacking. In fact, a KIP evaluation study (Concurplan/Sangkuriang in Bogor, Tangerang, Bekasi, and Cirebon, · which interviewed some 600 kampung residents prior to KIP projects in 1979 and after implementation in 1982) reported no improvement in environmental health as a result of . MCKuse.

Given this background, thepres~ntstudy undertook to examine available repor,ts,- ·talk to consultants and officials, and visit communal facilities, in order to answer the following threequestions : (1) Why do communal facili.ties fail? (2) What conditions will ensure or contribute to a

successful facility? (3) What is the applicability of communal facilities in

future programs? \ · ' :: ·

WHY COMMUNAL FACILITIES FAIL

The tollowing factors art< frequently cited as causes of failun:: of communal facilities*. (1) Inadequate wat~rsupply.: :.: (2) Lack of cleaning' and maintenance;

responsibilities for· operating and maintaining the facilities not clearly defined, resulting in problems with cleaning, repairs, inaintcnancc/servicing, payment of water tariiTs;· etc.

(3) Inappropriate location of facilities. ( 4) Lack of community understanding of the

relationship between health and human waste sanitation, combined with availability of a convenient alternative (i.e., the river); persistence

0 Som.: of these problems (unsatisfactory cffiucnt disposal, lack of

septic tank dcsludging. inadequate separation from water resources, and poor community health awareness) arc, of course, not unique to communal facilities.

of ingrained habits. (5) Technical problems, such as

- Quality of construction not rugged enough for' public use.

- Unsatisfactory effiuent disposal facilities. - Septic tanks undersized or inaccessible for: . ··-...

desludging. · ' - Effiuent leaching too close to water resources. -Designs not culturally suited.

(6) Some facilities, intended for shared/public use, '': "commandeered" by individual households.

' J ' ..... . 1,! • _} j • ' ~

It should be noted that the term "failure" of communal facilities may mean that the community does not use the facility or that the facility does not provi4e safe disposal of wastes. A distinction between these two types of failures is important, as they are not necessarily interrelated: Examples exist of technically well-designed MCKs which have been abandoned; alternatively: some well-used facilities discharge untreated wastes to the neighborhood environment creating nuisances and health hazards.

The overwhelming majority of cases of abandoned or under-utilized facilities can be traced to inadequate water supply, lack of cleaning and maintenance,. or inappropriate location. Of these, inadequate water supply and lack of cleaning and maintenance . are absolute factors. That is; it can be safely predicted that any facility suffering from either of these factors will fail.

A basic problem reported with "top-down" programs is that the community may have little or no involvement in the process of planning, designing, and constructing the facilities. The community then has little interest in maintaining something which it feels does not belong to it. Especially where people had easy access to a river, they have not always been enthusiastic about patronizing an MCK which they did not ask for.

Top-down programs and projects which achieve their goals simply through numbers of facilities constructed have had high rates of abandonment of facilities because no provision for subsequent operation was made. Also, such programs, when faced with the need to find sites for the facilities to be constructed, have sometimes chosen sites for their convenience to the program rather than to the intended users. This problem is particularly acute in high-density or slum areas where construction of ail MCK might require demolition of existing dwellings.

Of the technical factors, poor quality,, construction which aiTects the ability to clean • or. maintain the facility is especially important. Similarly, if effiuent pipes clog as a result of septic tanks being inaccessible for desludging or because disposal ·facilities arc inadequate, people may abandon the facility. rather than repair it; more probably, however, the

'·

,.

. t;; 1·

Washing Facility

I

Figure 3.2: MCK Keluarga.

Soptic Tonk

r------------1 I :o- D d I t::l I I !_ __________ _!

Figure 3.3: Jamban Jamak

troublesome septic tank and/or seepage pit will simply be: by-passed and wastes will find their way to the strreet, -ditch, drain; or river ..

SIUCCESS OF COMMUNAL FACILITIES

The above causes of failure can be easily observed. Finding examples of wholly successful facilities is -considerably more difficult. The 26 ·facilities visited in this study were chosen by getting recommendations of various knowledgeable people (e.g., ·from 'Dinas K·csehatan, provincial PLP, ·Bangdcs, international

• ,, '·","''f·.r .. lo [' f

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNAL TOILET FACILITIES

·' :~: .. , :·:;Leaching Beds

Leaching Beds

l ·, . • • • ; ~

lj·,'·l•

: .~.; ! I,. ,

agencies) about succcss~ul ~~ci!Hi~s they knew of. Of t~ 26 facilities, only, ~)V,<? ;.~eF~)found to be entirely adequate in that they were well utilized and maintained and cffiuent was safdy (:dispo~Cd 'or. ' Nevertheless, consideration of e~en partl~lly,· ad~quat~ facilities <:an

•, .•·j •·J.< ,l,.(o,' ' , '

help identify a number. of.fa9tors .o.fsucccss so long as the aspects of public. a~2~pi~~·~c::.'an'd safe cmucnt disposal are·considered s~parat~lJ. '',) .. . . . . . ' • . ·i;":;. \: ~?: '. ~· '~ '·, : '

Two prerequisites ofsuccess1of'anfcommunal facility arc: (1) ·Adequate water. supply 1;; '~i;;.): i+

2-3

'i

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNAL TOILET FACILITIES

(2) Proper cleaning, operation, and maintenance.

All of the well-patronized facilities visited or described ' in reports fulfilled these prerequisites. It is esse.ntial

that someone be responsible for day-to-day operat10~s, as cleanliness and convenience arc the attractive powers of a successful MCK. Various types of operating arrangements are feasible. An operator may be hired and paid a salary, a portion of user charges, or both. For a successful MCK-Keluarga, one of the households is in charge of operations, usually the family on whose land the facility is built, and all contribute towards the e::-.:penses. But the key point is that someone must be responsible.

It has been reported that facilities for identified small groups of families are much more likely to be successful than larger public facilities. On closer investigation, however, it seems that size (and numb~r of users) is not the determinant in itself, but rather It relates to cleaning and maintenance. Designated groups of families are more likely to organize operations; a facility for a large, vaguely defined target group is more likely to always be considered somebody else's responsibility and fall into neglect. But larger facilities for which the owner or responsible authority hired a conscientious operator were well patronized.

An adequate supply of water and good operation and maintenance of a communal facility are prerequisites of success but they arc not guarantees. Given these prereq~isites (plus, of course, an adequate physic~! facility), . the principal determinant of success IS demand, that is, a perceived need for the facility by the intended users. Train stations and market-places have an automatic large demand; consequently, a well­operated facility at such locations will always be well patronized.

In residential areas it is essential to assess the demand (or develop demand) before installing facilities. The most effective way to do this has been to involve the communily in planning, design, and construction. In this way, the facilities were not built in inappropri~te sites and they were accepted by the commumty. Clearly, lhe most successful residential applications have been where people have asked for the facilities. As an illustrative example, an MCK built by KIP in Kelurahan Kartasura (Central Java) was reported to have failed because "the community was not sufficiently involved at the planning stage and did not take an interest in its care and maintenance." In the same neighborhood (R W), however, "two other MCKs constmcted by self-help by small groups of families have been a success and are well used ... " Similarly, inspections of certain MCKs built under the Inprcs program in Bogar revealed that the facilities ~verc unused because people in the vicinity all had pnvatc toilets in their homes. This "top-down" program had met its construction ·targets without consulting the inte1ided "consumers".

A facility visited in Jakarta (Pasar Ikan area) is

..... A

illustrative of several important points. This privately operated MCK-Umum serves about 60 people per .day. Many surrounding households do not have P.nvate facilities and laborers without easy access to other facilities' frequently pass through the area; also priv~tc water taps are scarce. Recognizing the commerc1al potential, an individual constructed the M~K in 1985. People are willing to pay Rp 150 for bathmg, Rp 100 for toilet, and Rp 100 for a 20 liter bucket of \~ater for vehicle washing, which charges arc considerably higher than in most MCKs and arc indica.tions of the high demand for the facility at that locatiOn. A full­time salaried operator is provided, and the MCK has continuous water supply and electricity.

From the point of view of usc, the MCK is a success. Income exceeds Rp 250,000/month and expenses (operator, water, electricity) are less than. Rp 100,000/month; so, it is also a successful busmess enterprise. On the negative side, the MCK was built on public land intended for use (and previ~usly us~d) as a solid waste collection location. The septic tank IS never dcsludged; rather, the wastes are directly discharged to the drains, creating a nuisance and health hazard and provoking complaints from affected households when wastes have overflowed onto their property.

Thus, water supply, cleaning/operation, and "demand" have been demonstrated to be the requirements for successful• application of communal facilities, in the sense of high rate of use of the facility. However, they do not appear to have much relationship to whether the facility will achieve safe effiuent disposal. Examples of poor waste disposal practices (the almost universal case in facilities that were patronized) were typically due to one or more of the following: (1) Unavailability or inaccessibility of desludging

tmcks. For example, households using several MCK-keluarga in Cianjur expressed the desire to desludge their septic tanks, but there was no desludging truck available anywhere in the Kabupatcn.•

(2) Underdesigned seepage facilities. (3)· Insuflicient land for on-site disposal. This is

typi<O:al ofMCKs in slums and dense urban ~reas. ( 4) Not wanting to go to the expense of desludgmg.

Typically there arc no legal consequences of simply by-passing either the septic tank or the seepage facility.

Thus the factors important to achieving good on-site effiu~nt disposal would be: (1) provision of desludging services, (2) provision of adequate land area, (3) correct seepage facility design, and (4) appropri~te loc~l regulations and their enforcement. In areas w~th public sewerage, these factors would not apply; 1t would, however, be necessary to ensure that the MCK was connected to the sewer.

• Communaltoikts would nom1ally us.: septic lank-leach fidd systems rather than twin leaching piL<, because of the large infiltration surface required. Thus, a desludging service is necessary.

' •

"!

•

•

cor PRC

The marl local adeq pub! clca1

A no scho mod note A Cl

prO\ faci! sani vita plac thro and rcla

In~

rcsi' disc recc Th< be am vis. an< all M< wh th<l COl

In ser dis COl

pn litl the ad Ill!

di! pn

A cit d\' fat St se

•• pn bu ret th esl

1 • . ~

COMMUNAL FACILITIES IN FUTURE PROGRAMS

The appropriateness of communal toilet facilities in market places, train stations, bus stations, and similar locations is non-controversial. If the prerequisites of adequate water, O&M, and control of disposal arc met, public: toilet facilities anS\'rW a recognized need in a clearly practical way at such locations. ••

Another appropriate application of public facilities is in schools (e.g., SD, SMP, SMA). Schools should be models of good sanitation practice; however,it has been noted that schools often have very poor toilet facilities. A concerted effort to upgrade facilities in schools and provide for good operation and maintenance of the facilities would help increase appreciation for good sanitation in the community at large. It is, therefore, vital to include schools in programsas: an appropriate place to demonstrate proper human waste sanitation through upgrading of ~oilet and washroom facilities; and to provide a medium for education of parents and relatives in those aspects.

In assessing the applicability of communal facilities in residc~ntial areas, several considerations arise. As discussed in Chapter 2, urban areas show a strong recent trend towards individual private toilet facilities. The implication of this is that there will progressively be Je:ss and less "demand" for communal facilities among urban households. For example, MCKs were visited in one area which had previously been welJ used and maintained by residents for several years but now all of those households have private facilities, and the MCKs have fallen into disuse. This is a natural process which must be anticipated. It dces not necessarily mean that MCKs are inappropriate, but it must be taken into consideration during planning.

In high density areas, obtaining land for the facility is a serious problem, particularly if adequate on-site disposal is to be provided. It must be recognized that communal facilities built in high-density areas will probably not have adequate on-site disposal, as there is little incentive to either provide it or maintain it. (Of the £acilities visited in high density areas, ~ had adequate on-site disposal.) Therefore, careful thought must be given to whether communal toilets ultimately discharging to drains will meet the objectives of the program under which they are constructed.

A further consideration is that in some areas of some cities, large numbers of transient or homeless people dwell! who have no possibility of obtaining private

·tfacilities in the near future. For example, in parts of Surabaya, large numbers of people come to work for several days at a time from Madura, many of whom

•• However, it is not a foregone conclusion that 'these facilities must be provid~d directly by government. It may prove practical for private businesses to build and operate such fadlitics, whether for profit or in return for advertising benefits. But whatever the delivery options used, the applicability of communal facilities in those circumstances is well established.

Jive in makeshift dwellings. These people would need communal facilities even if 100% of the residences in Surabaya had private · toilets. Unfortunately, the transients and homeless may well live in the high­density areas where it is especially difficult to find a suitable site for communal facilities. For such locations, it has been suggested that large facilities along the lines of those successfully operated in India through NGOs, may be applicable. However, this is yet undemonstrated in Indonesia. Similarly, mobile public toilets have been opcratrd -- on a very small scale -- in Surabaya; it is not yet known to what extent these can be applied to serve the sanitary needs of the transient population. More study of this aspect is needed.

The above observations point to the conclusion that the applicability of communal facilities in residential areas must be determined through a planning process, the key features of whicl\_are: (1) The population to be served needs to be identified

and the "demand" for communal facilities assessed. This implies .the need to talk with the community and involve them in the planning process. If there is no "demand" then communal facilities are not applicable.

(2) Adequate water supply must be provided and clear provision made for operation and maintenance. If these cannot be assured, then communal facilities arc not applicable.

(3) The disposal problem needs to be considered in the context of the city's overall human waste disposal planning. For example, MCKs in Bandung generally discharge wastes to the drain, but this is considered a tolerable interim solution prior to hooking up to a sewer. Likc_wisc, the need (and cost) to demolish existing dwellings and relocate people in order to build a communal facility must be faced and the consequences weighed.

It is clear that the recommendation in the Guidelines that MCKs arc the appropriate solution in high-density water-short areas without sewerage, should not be applied indiscriminately. Any target goals for MCK construction are meaningless unless they derive from a local planning process which takes into account "demand", real conditions, and provision for sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following specific conclusions and recommend<ltions arc made regarding communal toilet facilities: (1) The top-down, physical· target oriented aspect of

MCK construction programs in residential areas should be abandoned.

(2) The applicability of communal facilities in residential areas must be determined through a planning process, the key features of which arc: a) The population to be served needs to be ·

identified and the "demand" for communal facilities assessed. This implies the need to

2-5

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNAL TOILET FACILITIES

facilities assessed. If there is no "demand" then communal facilities arc not applicable.

(b) Adequate water supply must be provided and dear provision .. made for operation and maintenance. If these cannot be assured, then communal facilities are not applicable.

(c) The disposal problem needs to be considered in the context of the city's overall human waste disposal planning.

(3) Every effort should be made so that schools will have proper sanitary facilities and become models of good sanitation practice. Upgrading of toilet and washroom facilities in schools should be included - and given priority - in programs for construction of public sanitation facilities.

(4) The factors important to achieving safe on-site disposal of communal toilet wastes are: (a) Correct seepage facility design; (b) Provision of adequate land area; (c) Provision of desludging services; and (d) Appropriate local regulations and their

'enforcement. (5) It is proposed to test the applicability in Indonesia

of large MCKs to serve high-density, low income, or transient population areas by constructing and operating a demonstration facility in conjunction with an NGO.

(6) It is proposed that a demonstration project be initiated to identify existing abandoned communal facilities which are suitable for rehabilitation and, through a process of community education and organization, help establish their successful operation.

}·

),;~

..

(

IN

H< im an eS' PI of ot' ar h< so to

P< h< fn fo sl 31 a: p p Cl

0

a u [I

F

F

1 I 2 3 4 j

I I

s l

.,, ' '~ ~ ·~ ,,

1· -~~ 'Jj ';~

>~ ,j

!; ~!

. :: ~·t~ 11

! n i

I I

·· __ t·.

. .

~ !.

';",,

Cl-IAPTER 3

SANITATION OF HOUSING ESTATES

INTRODUCTION

Housing estates arc becoming of increasingly greater importance in Indonesia, particularly in the medium and large cities. The largest single provider of public estate housing is the State-owned company PERUMNAS, which has built more than 240,000 units of various types nationwide. Housing estates built by other government programs or by private developers arc estimated to be of the same otder; thus, perhaps half a million estate houses and apartments may serve some 5 percent of the urban population of Indonesia today.

Pcrumnas estates include single family dwellings having floor space ranging from 12-70 m2 on lots of from 60-200 m2, as shown in Figure 4.1. Data obtained for West Java Pcrumnas (cxcltiding Jabotabek area) show that about 90% of their single family units are of 36 m2 or less floor space. Large multistory estates, such as the Kebon Kacang and Klcnder low-cost housing projects in Jakarta, provide housing in urban renewal programs. For example, the Kebon Kacang estate consists of eight 4-story blocks and provides 268 flats of21 m2, 166 flats of 42m2, and 66 flats of 51m2 in addition to 32 small shops and 32 vendor stalls. L~nd usc within the area is allocated 55% to housing, 21% to roads, 13% lots for facilities, and 11% to open spaces.

Figure 4.1: Floor Space Vs Lot Size For Perumnas Housing

Floor Space (m2) Lot Size m2

12 18 21 36 45 54 70 70 Sourco: : Pcrunmas

60 72 72 96

120 153 180 200

Housing estates of local governments (as part of slum clearance programs or emergency relocation, for example) arc similar to those of Pcrumnas. Housing ~stat·cs by private developers may provide units several times more spacious than the largest of those in Pcrumnas.

A majority of housing estates arc reported to have piped water providing for at least a part of the water needs, but the extent of service varies. In the Klcndcr Pcrumnas flats, for example, people usc piped water for

their drinking and cooking needs, but supplement the supply for washing and bathing with well water from hand-pumps located in common yards. The Karawaci I Pcrumnas estate in Tangerang had individual wells at the time it was built (1979) but now has piped water serving most of the houses. Pour-flush toilets arc the norm in most Perumnas-typc housing, while private developments may have everything from a single pour­flush toilet to multj,ple bathrooms with cistern-flush toilets. All housing estates provide some kind of sanitary facilities.

In the present study, interviews were conducted with knowledgeable people from the national Pcrumnas design section, West Java (provincial) Pcrumnas office, Jabotabek (local) Pcrumnas office, Directorate of Housing (Department of Public Works), and Ministry of Public Housing. These interviews were supplemented by field visits to the Sukaluyu estate in Bandung, Kebon Kacang and Klendcr estates in central and cast Jakarta, Karawaci I estate in Tangerang, flats built by Kotamadya Surabaya, and a private housing development in Surabaya. The intent of the study was to identify the methods of wastewater treatment and disposal used in housing estates of various types in Indonesia and to summarize actual experience with them, in order to suggest improvements for future applications.

;

WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL IN HOUSING ESTATES

Sullage

With the exception of a few estates which have sewer systems, suilage (i.e. greywater, ail household wastewater other than toilet wadtes) is gcncraily discharged directly to the storm drains. Thus, wastewater treatment and disposal systems arc usually concerned solely with toilet wastes. (For a discussion of the suilage disposal question, see Chapter 2).

Single-Family Dwellings

Pemmnas defines houses with 36 m2 or less floor space as "small". Such. smali units arc provided with an individual "beerput" ("cubluk", cesspit) located in the yard and receiving wastes from the pour-flush toilet only.

Two types of bccrput in usc by Pcrumnas arc shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3. The first type can provide seepage through the bottom only, as· the wails consist of

3-1

CHAPTER 3 SANITATION OF HOUSING ESTATES

concrete rings without holes. The second type can provide seepage through the walls as well as the

> bottom. AccoFding to Perumnas officials, the first type is much more common.

The first type of beerput shown has a leaching surface of apprmdmately 1.1 m2, which for a family of six producing 10 1/c.d blackwater, would require a long­term infiltration capacity of 55 l!m2.d . (Actually, since the only leaching surface is at the bottom of the beerput, this design is unsuitable for disposal of unsettled toilet wastes irrespective of soil type.) The sec~nd type shown has a leaching surface of 5.2 m2, which for the same case would require a long- term infiltration capacity of ll.5l!m2.d.

Many Pc:rumnas houses larger than 36 m2 also are provided with bccrputs of the types shown. Others use septic tank-leach field systems such as shown in Figure 4.4. The "septic tank" shown is simply the becrput with a scaled bottom, and the design has several deficiencies. Both the circular shape (as opposed to rectangular) and the i?let-outlct arrangement (adjacent, rather than at opposite ends) make it susceptible to short-circuiting; also, the inlet and outlet pipes being at the same: level make it susceptible to back surges; (See de KruijiT, "Design of Septic Tank Systems with Effiucnt. Disposal Qptions"). The effective leaching surface m the trench (because of the position of the septic tank effiuent pipe) is only about 2.7 m2. Long­term Icad1ing capacity for the family of six would need to be at least 22 l/m2.d. m2

It is not certain that the above mentioned "standard" Pcrumnas designs will always be applied as shown. In fact, the: Department of Public Works Directorate of Hous_ing publishes a guideline for simple single-story housmg estates ("Pedoman Teknik Pcmbangunan Pcrumahan Scderhana Tidak Bersusun") which includes design standards for septic tank-leach field systems differing in various qctails from the Perumnas standards (somewhat larger septic tank, design of leachficlds based on percolation test, minimum two lines a!ld minimum 12 m2 leaching surface), The Research Institute for Human Settlements (Puslitbang Pcmukiman) also publishes a national standard for s~pt.ic tanks (SK SNI T-07-1989-F) which is quite distmct from the others mentioned; it also provides for the alternative of "seepage pit" following the septic tank, which has a leaching surface of about 3-1/2 m2 ("lc<~ching pit is only to be used for small capacity septic tanks; for example, serving fewer than 25 people"). It is not inconceivable that housing estates would sometimes usc the Directorate Pcrumahan or the Puslitbang Pcmukiman standards. Furthermore it is likely that local building practices would som~timcs also prevail over published standards. For example, one Pc~mnas official notdl that in some ~states bccrputs havmg walls of woven bamboo were typically used.

When wells arc used, Pcrumnas "tries to maintain separation of 8m from the seepage facility". Other standa1rds call for 10 m minimum separation. Based on

established lot sizes, it is not possible that this is ahvays followed in practice.

Apartment.:.type Estates (Flats, "Rumah Susun")·

Apartment-type multi-story Pcrumnas estates originally all used communal septic tanks and leach fields. Various septic tank designs are in use (e.g., single compartment, double compartment, different baflling arrangements, different shapes and floor designs, etc.) Also, ~arious seepage designs have been used, ranging from pits to trenches. Applied hydraulic loadings to the seepage facility are typically above 35 l!m2.d and often much higher.

In a few locations, leach fields have been replaced by upflow anaerobic filters, an example design of which (not necessarily typicalfis shown in Figure 4.5. The filter medium. is coral or rock of about 2-3 em in diameter. Stated design criteria for one proposed unit were: detention time 6-24 hours, hydraulic loading 1-3 m3Jm2-d, and organic loading of 0.2 - 0.4 kg BOD/m2.d. The treated emuent is discharged to surface drains; no specific effiucnt standard is required.

Sewerage

A few Pcrumnas estates have been built with sewer systems. These include: Antapani I which connects to the. Ban~~ng city sewers; Kara~aci I (Tangerang) w~1ch utilizes local stabilization ponds; an estate in Cir~bon, which uses stabilization ponds; and MoJ~songo (Solo), which discharges sewage directly to the nver.

EXPERIENCE WITH WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS USED

Leaching Pit ("Cubluk, "Beerput")

The small beerput with sealed walls (Figure 4.2) is clearly an inadequate design, inasmuch as the bottom surface of a pit receiving untreated toilet wastes is generally recommended to . be excluded from its ciTcctive leaching surface. In any event typical hydraulic l~adings on this system will exceed the long­term lcachmg capacity of most soils in Indonesia. The second type of bccrput might be adequate in, cases of moderately permeable soils. Unfortunately, if applied indiscriminately (as seems to be the case), any such system can be expected to have a high rate of failure. By "indiscriminately" is meant without regard for the long-term soil leaching capacity or the anticipated flow. At one estate visited (and reportedly common elsewhere), some years after purchasing their lots, house owners added extensively to their houses building over the "septic tank" (probably cubluk) originally provided. Relatives and new families of children moved in, making the load on the leaching pit doubl~ that of the first occupants. The soil leaching capacity was exceeded, and people put in overl1ow pipes discharging to the drain. Such systems were typically described by both officials and residents as

·•.

F

' i-

E E

§ -

A

SECTION ELEVATION

Figure 4.2 Perumnas Beerput

PLAN

~

(I r-

~

= I Jl I I I '

-~ ~~gL t-t-j)

I I I ;}

""" _I _I j ~ --==--

TOP REINFORCEMENT CONTROL BOX

DETAIL B DETAIL C

= I I I I -~

-~g

""" ~

-== = PLAN OF COVER 200 mm 1000 mm 200 mm TOP REINFORCEMENT

SECTION ELEVATION

Figure 4.3 Alternative Perumnas Beerput

3-3

CHAPTEH 3 SANITATION OF HOUSING ESTATES

E E

g

E E 0 0 0 ~

IB n f \

~ Q=~uc=1~EE~~~~EE~~ l::.J 0 QQ

oo v ~+~-----~------------------------~v ~OOmm / L B 3000mm /

LEACH: FIELD

I 4

:·.;.:;~:·:.:·:..~.,:,·:~: ... ;.~ ;\· \~·~.:.<:.:·('~·;·~:,,~~. ~::.;:>'·-·:·

100 1000 mm 100

SECTION A-A

TOP REINFORCEMENT

II

SEPTIC TANK & LEACH FIELD

.P• IJO' 0

500 mn17 '

SECTION B-B

Figure 4.4 Perumnas Septic Tank

r-r-----------------------------------------~ r······-··········-··-··················-···········-······-····-·······-··-···-·rr····-··········--·-----a·-~··f..-. I a···j -!··1-'

' n I E ! ! ! 1 i c::{o =I!= I ! ! l I i I I ! ai:: 1 '

L ............................................................................................. L.L ................................. _ ..... ~:j:: p ..---

PLAN

~~ ro T -~ ,-.,

l0 n t:r :: "

~{ :';'.•(:!:

!:~~ L-----------------------~ ~------~~

n LI

To drain

-~~----------------------------------------~ r---------------------------~}

6450 mm

ELEVATION

Figure 4.5 Septic Tank with Anaerobic Up flow Filter (Perumnas draft design)

;..

'\ vi T di bl tl

s s h n a E S1

s

F

s

c s s l l s s (

I

''

'"working well", although clearly, from the point of • view of safe disposal of human wastes, they were not.

The implication of such occurrences is that on-site ,disposal facilities (or at least the space for them) should be designed not only for ~he initial occupants, but for the maximum anticipated future occupancy loading.

Septic Tanks for Single Houses

Septic tank-leaching field or seepage pit applications have had the same problems as becrput systems, namely, disposal areas arc often not adequate for the applied loadings because "one size (small) fits all". Established typical long-term infiltration rates for septic tank cffiuents as presented in the National Strategy Guidelines arc shown in Figure 4.6, and typical leaching pit/bed areas required arc shown in Fi!,rure 4.7.

Figure 4.6 Typical Long-termlnjiltration Rates of Various Soil Types for Septic Tank Effluents

Soil Type Infiltration Rate (1/m 2·d)

Clay Loam or Clay Sandy Loam or Clay Silty Loam Loamy Sand Loam Sand Source: HumaJ~ Wast~ and Wastewater Disposal Strategy Guidelines.

0-10 0- 15

10-15 15-25 15-25

25 +

Figure 4.7: Typical Leaching Pit Areas Required for Septic Tank EjJluents

Users Residential Flush Pour I Cistern Flow in 1/c.d 10 I 25 Soilt~c Clay Silt Sand Clay Silt Poeulation Leaching Pit Surface Areas in m"' s s.o 3.3 2.0 12.5 8;3 10 10.0 6.7 4.0 25.0 16.7 lS 15.0 10.0 6.0 37.5 25.0 20 20.0 13.3 8.0 50.0 33.3 30 30.0 20.0 12.0 75.0 50.0 40 40.0 26.7 16.0 100.0 66.7 so 50.0 33.3 20.0 83.3 75 75.0 50.0 30.0 100 100.0 66.7 40.0 ISO 100.0 60.0 200 80.0 Source: Hum~.n Wast~ and Wastewater Disposal Strategy Guidelines.

Sand

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 75.0

100.0

From these data it is clear that most of the "standard" Perumnas applications would not work in 'the long term. The individual septic tank design is such that short-circuiting and solids carry-over can occur, causing bliinding of the leach field, while the sizing of the ·tlcach field itself is unrelated to soil capacity, ground water conditions, or possible increases in wastewater volume. For example, at one new Perumnas estate with relatively larger houses it was known that groundwater is shallow (less than 1 m) and soil leaching capacity is poor; nevertheless, the "standard" septic tank-leach field system was installed. This was justified by the observation that "sewerage would be too e>.']>ensive; if the city wants to put in sewerage later, that is up to them. Our job is to sell the houses." The

CHAI"lt:H 3 SANilAI/UN Ur HOUSING ESTATES

likely scenario, as in other sites, is that the system will be used until it fails, then an overflow or by-pass to the open drain will be. installed by the residents. At one privately developed housing estate visited ("elite" housing, 600 m2 lots), the developer installed overflows from the seepage pit to the d'rain. ·When questioned about this, he stated· that leaching capacity was low and groundwater was high, so the overflow pipe was needed to prevent overflows onto the ground.

From the above observations, it is apparent that adequate on-site design standards (such as developed under UNDP Project INS/84/005) have not yet been promulgated and enforced to the extent that developers of housing estates feel bound by them. There is a need to eliminate conflicting design "standards", establish a single authoritative design basis, making due allowances for local conditions which should be properly documented used and enforced. Existing building codes and environmental impact assessment (ANDAL) requirements need to be strengthened in this regard.

Communal Septic Tanks for Flats

The experience with communal septic tanks and on-site disposal of toilet wastes from flats seems to be no better than for single-story estates. The Klcnder Perumnas flats in cast Jakarta were built in 1984 with one septic tank and seepage trench for every 16 families. The seepage trench has an area of 28 m2 (it was not clear whether all of that is effective area). Assuming 5 people per family, and 'toilet wastes of 10 1/c.d, the loading would be 28 llm2.d. The wastewater system at this facility was described by Perumnas officials and design staff as "no problems, porous soil." Upon investigation, however, it turned out that from 1985-1989 there were frequent overflows from many (although, significantly, not all) of the seepage trenches, creating a nuisance and health hazard. Various modifications of the septic tanks were made in an attempt to solve the problem, but finally in 1989 the seepage trenches were by-passed so that now all septic tank effiuents are discharged directly to a city drain off-site. It was also noticed that sullage disposal to the on-site drains was a problem, as the drains often clogged and filled with grit despite efforts by residents to keep them clean (by scooping the grit onto lawn areas).

The same condition was observed at a city government­built apartment complex in Surabaya. Residents had made holes in the communal septic tanks to discharge effiuent to the drains, in order to prevent uncontrolled overflows onto the ground. In that facility, also, grit and solids from sullage created nuisance conditions.

At the Perumnas Ilir Barat I flats in Palembang (built in 1984), high groundwater and clay soils, aggravated by design and construction errors, caused the failure of a septic tank-leach field sy.stem. Among the problems reported were: septic tank inlet and outlet pipes were installed o~ly 45 em from the septic tank floor, reducing the effective volume of the tanks by 80%;

3-5

CHAPTEr:? 3 SA NITA T/ON OF HOUSING ESTATES

groundwater was at 30-50 em below ground level, so water actually flowed backwards from the leach field into the septic tank; the clay soils were only slightly permeable; ·and leach fields and seepage pits were undersized even for ordinary conditions. In response to the problems, Pcrumnas installed improved septic tanks and instituted on-site treatment using upflow anaerobic filters. The effiuent is discharged to drains off-site; no data were available as to effluent quality.

A similar case was observed at the Kebon Kacang urban renewal project in Jakarta. Built in 1984, the seepage pits frequently overflowed, creating nuisance conditions and health hazards. Since 1987, the system has bec:n changed to on-site treatment by upflow anaerobic filtration following communal septic tanks. The filtered effiuent is discharged to a shallow on-site surface drain by which it enters the Kali Cideng river. The septic tank volume is over 20 m3• and one septic tank serves approximately 80 people. The filter's volumetric hydraulic loading is about 180 l/m3.d. After 3 years without desludging, the septic tank has built up a sludge blanket of about 1/2 meter, and the upflow filter has had no blockage. When inspected, the effiuent from the filter was clear and did not contribute noticeably to the smells of the housing complex, but no data were available on effiuent quality (reportedly, it is not monitored). The surface drain receiving sullage, however, was blocked and creating a nuisance.

Sewerage

Experience with sewerage of housing estates has also been less than satisfactory. The case of the Karawaci I estate in Tangerang illustrates a number of important aspects .. Built in 1979 by Perumnas, the estate contains about 8,200 houses, of which some 7,000 were served by sewers; the remainder are larger lots in areas too low to connect to the trunk lines and are served by on-site disposal systems. Sewerage was selected in order to avoid pollution of groundwater on the 90 m2 lots, which arc located on sandy soil and originally did not have piped water. The sewers carried the wastewater (all domestic wastes) to eight treatment and disposal locations, each of which has two or three unaerated ponds of varying sizes connected in series. Apprm•imatcly every four houses connect to the sewer line at a "control box" which allows for inspection and simple maintenance.

The system was operated by Perumnas for two years, during which time a small charge was levied for maintenance. In 1981 the system came under the jurisdiction of city government (at that time, the Kabupaten; now, Kota Administratip). Since then, the system has largely fallen into disuse as a result of operatiional problems and lack of maintenance. The major problems citedjnclude: (l) Blockage of lines at the "control boxes" from

trash, stones, sand, etc. (2) Blockage of street laterals and larger lines,

possibly because of sags or collapse of sections. (3) Build-up of sediment in the ponds.

(4) Odor problems at the ponds. (5) Collapse of dikes separating ponds. (6) Growth of plants in ponds and accumulation of

plastic and trash.

When small neighborhood lines have become blocked, they were repaired through self-help efforts of the people ("swadaya masyarakat"). But in the case of major blockage, if repairs were not made by the city, then the lines were either abandoned or people built by­passes to the storm drains. Of the original eight zones, three are still functioning, at least in part. When Pond Area No.5 was visited (this series of three ponds is occasionally "maintained" by the city), it was found to be largely anaerobic (especially the first and second ponds in the series) and accumulating trash; people were using the "polishing" pond for direct defecation. The receiving stream itself was highly polluted, having received by-passed sewage flows from other points in the system as well as other wastes.

Not enough data were available to properly analyze the pond designs, but using ·even partial and approximate data it is evident that without aeration the first pond in each zone will be anaerobic (BOD loadil)g around 1400 kg/ha.d), and that sludge would accumulate rapidly in the first pond (typically 1 m liquid depth), possibly at a rate of abeut 20 em per year. Thus, rehabilitation of the system would not be entirely a matter of routine maintenance, but would also involve some re-design and construction.

People living in the estate stated that they would be willing to pay a fcc if the city would maintain the sewers. Also, the continuing self-help efforts at localized minor maintenance demonstrate the desire of the residents to have the system function. However, they have not yet been able to organize themselves in such a way as to coordinate action with the city.

Mixed reports have been received about other sewcrcd estates. The Antapani I estate in Bandung connects to the BUDP trunk sewer and is reported to be functioning well. The scwered Pcrumnas estate in Cirebon has pond treatment which apparently is organically overloaded, as it has experienced problems of odors and accumulation of sludge as in Karawaci. No data were obtained for the Mojosongo estate sewer in Solo, which is reported to discharge directly to the river without treatment. Pcrumnas officials have said that they would not want to build any more sewer systems unless they were part of a financially assisted project. Their reasons were: (1) the capital cost is regarded as too high, whereas their main interest is to sell houses at low prices; (2) there is no assurance that the system would be operated and maintained properly after it becomes the responsibility of local government.

DISCUSSION

The problem of wastewater sanitation ·of housing estates typifies the general urban wastewater sanitation problem in Indonesia in many respects. The developer's interest is to build cheaply and sell the development, at

" f(

n \'

~

p tl (I

tl u r r

(

l: s

I j

l

whiich point it ceases to be his responsibility. The residents want to get rid of wastewater in the easiest manner possible: this means to the surface drains, when on-site disposal systems fail. Local government, which has legal authority over sanitation, generally in pra•:ticc docs not" stop these wastewater discharges to the drains. This is a very serious situation which leads to future problems whose solutions become more costly the longer they arc delayed. There is therefore an urgent need for training and motivation of the responsible local government officials to accept this responsibility and discharge it

On-site disposal systems in housing estates fail because: poor designs arc often used; designs of a single size arc applied without regard for soil and groundwater conditions; changes in applied waste flows as people's families develop cause overloading; and then~ is little incentive not to by-pa.ss eilluent to drains when operational problems occur. Available technical guidance is confusing and contradictory, and the better guidance is not often followed. It is clear that on-site disposal could be much more successful if design standards were prepared providing appropriate solutions to overcome design problems and, much more imp,:>rtant, prevent future problems (such as the overloading of facilities that were originally under desi,gned etc.) from occurring. Maintenance regulations should also be enforced.

On-site treatment systems, such as the upflow anac:robic filters which have been applied in Kebon Kacang and Ilir Barat, would seem to show promise as a simple, convenient technique for achieving BOD and suspended solids removal from communal septic tank eilluents. However, the design basis and expected eilluent quality of such systems have not yet been adequately investigated or developed into standards in Indonesia. This is not a complete solution, as the emucnt then discharged to on-site open drains is still not bacterialogically safe. The feasibility of disinfection of the treated effiuent would depend on the eilluent quality achieved and the size of the estate served. Covering the on-site drain or conveying the effluent by means of an undcrgound pipe to an off-site river would be an improvement in the short term.

In high density flats, sullage removal can be a problem because of deposition and clogging by grit and other solids. Grit removal tanks for sullage are needed at such estates, as well as improvement of the drain.

Clearly, the key problem of wastewater sanitation of housing estates generally is that of responsibility. The

· < estate should fit into the human waste and wastewater management plan of the local government, and solutions should be as approved and enforced by local government. At present, technical plans for new estate dcvc:lopmcnts must receive formal approval by local govc:rnment, and extensions to existing houses must go through a pcrn1it process ("Izin Mendirikan Bangunan"), but these have not generally been used to enforce wastewater planning. Upgrading of on-site

'-nAt" 1 CK .s :>ANI/III/UN OF HOUSING ESTATES

disposal facilities in some estates is technically feasible; in other estates, shallow sewerage or other off-site systems would be appropriate. But in the absence of wastewater management and enforcement by local government, no incentive exists for either the developer or the homeowner to make such efforts, and it is more convenient to allow wastewater overflows to surface drains.

Sewerage (possibly shallow sewerage in some high­density estates having limited vehicle access) with local off-site treatment shows promise technically, but the problem remains of responsibility for operation and maintenance. In this regard, there would seem to be an opportunity for a useful demonstration project in Karawaci I. Such a project would: (1) Investigate the technical requirements for making

the existing sewers and ponds properly operational. r.

(2) ldentify those wastewater drainage zones for which rehabilitation is feasible and in which the residents strongly favor use of the system and would be willing to maintain it if provided with the technical means.

(3) For the identified feasible areas, help organize within the community a kind of local "sewer maintenance body and technical service organization" which would take responsibility for operating and maintaining. their sewer system.

· Project efforts would include facilitating resolution of legal and institutional issues, encouraging and focussing community participation, and helping establish the relationship of the local body to responsible government institutions.

(4) Implement rehabilitation and upgrading of the identified zones.

The wastewater drainage zones in Karawaci I arc independent of one another; so, a relatively small-scale project can be implemented without technically impacting the city as a whole. Furthermore, the institutional and organizational aspects could have important implications for other urban areas where shallow sewerage may be an appropriate solution. Recent government regulations (Pcraturan Pcmerintah No.4, 1988} provide for organization of residents of flats to manage facilities owned in common. These regulations (the implementing details of which arc still in draft form), implement the "condominium" concept for "verti~al" settlements. For shallow sewerage to function, a "horizontal condominium" organization is needed. Management of the Karawaci I sewers by the residents could help establish and demonstrate the concept of localized wastewater management, where appropriate, within the context of a Tingkat II authority, and would test in a practical way the concept of local people taking constructive action to upgrade the value of their property and improve environmental sanitation.

3-7

CHAPTER 3 SANITA noN OF HOUSING ESTATES

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following specific recommendations are made regarding sanitation of housing estates: (1) Correct nationafon-site disposal design standards

should be promulgated to all local governments, the Department of Housing, Perumnas, and all concerned with building codes and housing estates.

(2) All housing estates should be required to comply with the human waste and wastewater management plan of the local government in which they arc situated, and technical solutions should be as approved and enforced by local government. Local governments should enforce th,~sc standards by refusing building permission, or residential permits, in cases where facilities do not comply with the standards.

(3) On-site disposal designs for residential areas should be constrained by national design standards to consider future possible (and much more likely) waste volumes, and not those of the initial occupants. In many cases, design would then be based on area and not on the number of occupants.

(4) Low-cost sewerage with local treatment should only be approved for housing estates when subsequent operation and maintenance can be properly managed. Local governments should be encouraged to consider this in formulating their human waste and wastewater disposal action plans.

(5) A demonstration project should be undertaken for rehabilitation and operation of the Karawaci I sewer system, as described above, in order to demonstrate localized wastewater management and test the concept of local people taking constructive action to upgrade the value of their property and improve environmental sanitation.

(6) The technology of on-site treatment (e.g., by septic tank with anaerobic upflow filter) should be investigated for its applicability as an interim solution in some circumstances, and design standards should be formulated.

CHAP-TER 4

COMPARISON OF SEPTIC TANK AND LEACHING PIT TECHNOLOGIES

INTRODUCTION

The two most common systems of on-site disposal of human wastes in urban Indonesia arc the septic tank with seepage facility and the leaching pit. The seepage facility ("rcsapan") following a septic tank may be in the form of a pit ("lubang resapan"), a leach field ("bidang resapan"), or a trench ("parit resapan"). A leaching pit which receives untreated wastes is termed a "cublUtk" and may be a single pit (most commonly) or a twin pit ("cubluk kcmbar"), as introduced in recent pilot projects. Examples of each are shown in Figure

· 5.1*. In this chapter, the two technologies are examined and compared with regard to their technical, financial, and institutional features.

TECHNICAL ASPECTS Design

The two technologies are similar in many respects. Both se1~k to infiltrate the liquid portion of wastewater into the soil for ultimate disposal, and solids are retained in a structure where they undergo anaerobic digestion and from which they ' are periodically removed. In Indonesia, it would be very unusual for either a household septic tank with resapan or a cubluk to be designed for other than toilet wastes only. However, typical per capita waste volumes may vary considerably depending on the type of toilet. In this regard, either disposal system might be used with a pour flush toilet, but people would not usually consider building a cubluk for a cistern-flush toilet. (However, a household might "upgrade" to a cistern-flush toilet without changing an existing cubluk.) For design purposes, residential wastes from pour flush toilets arc usually assumed to be 10 1/c.d; from cistern-flush toilets, 25 1/c.d.

Phenomena which contribute to the process of clogging include:

blockage of pores by solids filtered directly from the effiuent; accumulation of biomass from the growth of micro-organisms; • excretion of slimes by some bacteria; deterioration and puddling of soil structure caused by saturation and swelling of clay minerals through cation exchange; precipitation of insoluble metal sulphides under anaerobic conditions.

At.:s~m.e.point·(l00~200·days'foi?septic~tank effiuent; presumably sci.one(forra.w:wa~tewatcr))LfulJ.··cJoggin~ mat is established aild the;infiltratfori rate settles Clown to a long;tel111 ste(l9Y statey(l\\le;I~s this value which is sought i.n. d~sign, since a long term application rate greater than it will eventually result in failure of the disposal system.

Saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil has been found to correlate positively with long term application rates of septic tank effiuent according to the formula:

LT AR =0.00045 K- {0.049/[(log K) - 2.64]}

where L TAR = long tenn application rate, m/d K =saturated hydraulic conductivity, mid

This is a statistical empirical correlation, and the physical basis is not well understood since, presumably, flow through the mat should be largely independent of the much higher permeability of the surrounding soil. Nevertheless, it is an observed fact that long term infiltration ofeffiuent in more permeable soils tends to be predictably higher than in less. permeable soils.

The in-situ saturated hydraulic conductivity, in turn, is estimated through a field percolation test. Various

For both disposal systems, the infiltration process is percolation tests are in use, all of which give somewhat considered to be the same. ~~@1Q'ggin~~maf:~f;2:f5~?:cxll" different results and each of which is subject to thick,c\1i:irnis:·aFtheiinfiltratiomsur[ace, 'restricting the- considerable variability in practice. From these "f,~~"pf~_:in[lltr~tion-''!and';prevc~ti~g"~attiratiOrr'~'of,;t!fe _,. considerations, it is clear that the p:rf~rmance ?~ on­,,l!!lderlymg soil even though hqmd xs ponded above.:~" site disposal systems, even under similar conditions, .. . may vary from one installation to another. *Note: In c:onunon usage in Indonesia, the tcm1 "septic tank" may sometimes be applied to a pit with concrete walls (possibly ~·ith holes or openings) :and open bottom, which is, in e!Tect, a kind of cubluk. However, in this study, the tcnn septic tank will be used in its standard sense, namely, a tank designed primarily for settling of solids prior to subsequen'l disposal or treatmcnL

4-1

CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON OF SEPTIC TANK AND LEACHING PIT TECHNOLOGIES

POUR FLUSH TOILET FLOW DIVIDING CHAMBER

LEACHING PIT

POUR F'LUSH TOILET LEACHING BED

SEPTIC TANK'

POUR FLUSH TOILET

SEPTIC TANK LEACHING PIT

Figure 5.1 Leaching Pit and Septic Tank Systems

The National Human Waste Strategy Guidelines prescribe a percolation test as the basis for on-site disposal design; but as a general guide, .. they give indicativcc longtetiri~'applicatioi{ val iies' ofi5 i/m:i !((for ·~auci:':;:l~?l/m7:d: for; ~·~ilr,\ ·and· :m.::I/m2:dfor}.!'clay!~ InvestigatiOns during this study of various on-site facilities (described in Chapters 2 and 4), although limited,, indicate that the Guidelines' values arc

i.~.~Jist!c;::',:-:hi \~;da~~~'~ .• ~}g£g:.~lo~g .' .t~.rw;~.applic~tism ftl~~s.,, were· .. not,found • to ibe;;:reliable~; :gurt~.er; stu1¥• however, would be useful regarding actual long tepn !nfiltration rates in various soils for different disposal · ciesigns.· For one thing, the above-mentioned empirical design basis is only meant to be valid for soils having in-situ saturated hydraulic conductivities above 0.12 mid; it is likely that many existing and proposed installations in Indonesia arc in less permeable soils. Sccond1ly, the diJTcrcncc in long term application rates (if any) for septic tank cffiucnt in a lubang rcsapan as compared to untreated toilet wastes in a cubluk is not well established. In the Guidelines they arc trca,tcd the same except that the bottom area of a cubluk is not included in the cJTcctive surface. The fact that twin pits (cubluk kcmbar) have a resting period in which inliltration capacity is recovered docs not enter into the design calculation of required surface area, since the period of operation of one pit is longer than the time

4-2

required tQ establish a full clogging mat (and, therefore reach the equilibrium infiltration rate). '

From the point of view of groundwater contamination the septic tank-lubang resapan and the cubluk ar~ identical. However, septic tank with bidang resapan (leach field) has the advantage that it could be constructed in an elevated mound to maintain separation from even fairly shallow groundwater. Of the four types of pathog~ns found in human excreta -helminth eggs, protozoa, bacteria and viruses -helminth eggs and protozoa arc unlikely to pollute groundwater, as they are easily removed by physical filtration in most soils. Bacterial movement is restricted largely thr_ough filtration at the surface of the clogging mat and 111 the unsaturated zone, while viruses arc removed by adsorption in both the saturated and unsaturated zones. Both bacterial and viral survival arc strongly affected by moisture content. Once bacteria enter the groundwater, they may travel considerable distances in a viable state. For example, field tests conducted by Puslitbang Pcmukiman found 103 MPN/100 ml faecal coliform concentrations at 8 meters horizontal distance in the direction of groundwater flow from a cubluk. If groundwater must be protected from contamination, the maintenance of required vertical separation from the leaching surface is essential. Thus,

......

...

vmu--, t:K 4 c.;CJMPARISON OF SEPTIC TANK AND LEACHING PIT TECHNOLOGIES

septic tanks arc preferable to cubluks in areas with shallow groundwater.

Another technical advantage of septic tank systems is flexibility in shape and location to fit the circumstances of the house lot. :This is not so imp011ant in more rural areas, but can become significant in already built-up smaller urban Jots where sometimes the septic tank is conslmctcd under the floor of the house.

On the subject of design, it was found in the study that VCJ)' little attention seems to be paid to proper design of existing on-site systems in Indonesia, whether septic lank- resapan or cubluk types, except in a few pilot projects. A quite adequate treatment of design mailers is contained in the manual prepared under INS/84/005, "ncsign of Septic Tank Systems with Effiuent Disposal Options", published by Puslitbang Pemukiman (1987). But its guidance docs not appear to be followed often in practice (sec Chapter 4). More ciTort is called for to disseminate good design information and encourage enactment and enforcement of appropriate regulations.

Operation and Maintenance

Septic tanks require periodic desludging. Despite the prevalence of septic tanks, many cities and small towns do not have septage pumping services, and septic tanks must be desludgcd manually using buckets. The septic tanlk sludge may contain high concentrations of pathogens, and manual desludging is not a safe practice. (The lack of desludging services may account in part for the apparent Indonesian preference for oversized septic tanks which, in this climate, may not need dcsludging for 5 or more years.)

Single cubluks require dcsludging just as septic tanks. The twin pit system, however, is intended to be operated alternately so that one of the pits undergoes digestion and dewatering for a period of 1 - 3 years without addition of new wastes. After this "resting" period, the contents, which arc in a humus-like condition, may be removed manually and used as a soil conditioner. Investigations by Puslitbang Pemukiman l1ave found that some Ascaris eggs may survive in a cubluk even after 3 years, so some caution is recommended with regard to removal and use of the sludge. However, it is certainly much less ·hazardous than septic tank sludge. The possibility of manual desludging and usc of the digested dcwatcrcd sludge oiTcr advantages for the twin pit over the septic tank in mon! mral scltings (and possibly in urban areas without desludging services). '

Septic tanks need to be periodically inspected for sludge < accumulation, in order to know when to desludgc and,

thus,, to prevent overflow of solids onto the leach field. If solids overflow, the leach field's infiltration capacity can be greatly reduced, as it 1s dependent to a large extent on infiltration through the bottom surface. Presumably, overflow of solids to a leaching ill! would be kss serious, as sidewalls play a relatively more important role. In pr<lctice, people practically never check sludge levels in septic tanks; they desludge the

tank if the toilet backs up or, possibly, if the resapan overflows. At this stage, serious damage will have been caused to the rcsapan- partial or complete blocking of the soil. The failed septic tank is not easily put back into service, requiring desludging _fnd reconstmction of the resapan. The former is often not available, or too expensive, and the Iauer is often impracticable as the resapan is usually built over. A common outcome of this condition is manual dcsludging of the septic tank and the diversion of the cilluent to an open drain. Septic tank sludge is highly pathogenic and manual dcsludging is contrary to government objectives and most unhealthy. For technical and public health reasons then, lubang rcsapan (seepage pit) is a much beuer solution than the bidang rcsapan (leach field) where groundwater levels and other considerations permit.

A perceived advantage of septic tank systems is the fact that overflows froii1 a failed resapan following a septic tank may be less oiTensivc to neighbours (and, therefore, Jess noticeable by the authorities) than would overflows from a failed cubluk. By the same token, a septic tank system could be more conveniently hooked up to a small bore sewer or modified to include on-site treatment by anaerobic upflow filtration, although neither of these options has been a serious consideration up to now in most areas of Indonesia.

Septic tank systems arc commonly regarded as more substantial and longer-lasting than cubluks. In practice this has been tme, mainly because cubluks may be built with very inexpensive materials, such as bamboo walls. In the course of this study, one cubluk was inspected in which rats had burrowed holes through the wall, allowing wastes to escape withm.It the owner's knowledge. It is not known how commonly this occurs; it would be wo11hwhile to find out whether -the more substantially constmctcd cubluks promoted by recent pilot projects (honey-combed brick stmcture) arc also susceptible to invasion by rats in this way.

FINANCIAL ASPECTS

Cost estimates were prepared for typical leaching pit and septic tank systems as used in the recent Six Cities pilot project. Summary constmction cost estimates for diiTerent soil conditions and toilet flush volumes arc presented in Figures 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6. Life cycle costs for the two systems are presented in Figure 5.7. Materials lists and unit prices on which the estimates arc based are shown in the Appendix.

4-3

CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON OF SEPTIC TANK AND LEACHING PIT TECHNOLOGIES

Figure 5.2: Costs of Septic Tank and Twin Leaching Pit· Toilets in Silty Soil

Costs {Re 1 000) Facilities Material Labour Other Total Cost per

(10%2 Septic Tank plus lcach field I Household 193 73 27 293 2 Household 271 104 38 413 3 llousehold 344 130 47 522 Twin Leaching Pit I Household 161 70 23 2J4 2 Household 225 84 309 340 3 Household 299 121 412 462 Source: Community Water Supply and Sanitation Project

INS/88/005

Carita

49 34

290

42 28 26

Figure 5.3: Costs of Single House Septic Tank and Twin Leaching Pit Toilets for Different Soils

Cost Flushing Pour

10 1/c.d Soil Type Clay Silt Sand Clay Silt Sand Septic tank 230 230 230 230 230 230 Leach Field 94 63 33 173 114 92 Total 323 292 263 403 344 322 Twin Leach Pits 290 246 198 444 348 290 Source: Community Water and Sanitalionl'roject, !NS/88/005

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 Clay Silt Sand

Figure 5.4: Costs for Pour Flush One House Facilities

0 Septic Tank [] Twin Leach Pit 0 SEptic Tank • Twin Leach Pit Pour Flush Pour Flush Cistern Flush Cistern Flu•h

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Clay Silt Sand

Figure 5.5: Costs for Cistern Flush Single House Facilities

1 User 12 Users 18 Users

Figure 5.6: Costs for A1ultiple House Faci/iliese.

As would be expected, septic tank systems arc somewhat more expensive than leaching pit systems in most applications. The difference is most pronounced in low-volume installations with highly permeable soils, in which case the present worth of the twin pit is around 30% less than that of the septic tank system. However, where soils are less permeable and unit flow volumes are higher, the two systems become closer in cost. The reason for this is that the septic tank itself is designed conservatively on the basis of sludge accumulation and is invariant in cost over a wide rnnge of conditions, whereas the twin pit is highly sensitive to both flow volumes and infiltration capacity.

INSTITUTIONAL ASP_ECTS

The institutional requirements of both septic tank and leaching pit systems nrc mostly the same: . (!) Local regulations mandating an appropriate

human waste disposal system in all buildings, coupled with an adopted design code or standard.

(2) Local regulations requiring maintennnce of on-site systems to prevent ovcrf1ows.

(3) An empowered local body charged with enforcing the regulations.

).

I

I

F I' L s 1· A I' [

p

1 F l s II I F [

F 1

~

I

f (

c

'

Figure 5 .. 7 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs- Septic Tank vs Twin Pit Systems (Rp 000}.

Flow (1/c.d) LTAR (Vm".d) 25

S~st~m STI TPI DTI' Initial Capital 262 19& 99 AnnuaiO&M 3 0 0 Present Worth O&M 21 0 0 ~fcrred Capital 0 0 99 Present Worth D~ferred Capital 0 0 &I Total Present Worth 283 198 ISO Flow{Vc.d) LTAR {1/m'.d) 25 System ST TP DTI' Initial Capital 322 290 145 AnnuaiO&M 3 0 0 Prcs~nt Wc>rth O&M 21 0 0 D~fcm:d Capital 0 0 145 Present Worth Deferred Capital 0 0 Total Presc·nt Worth 343 290

Notes: ST: TP: DTP:

Septic tank with leaching field Twin leaching pit Deferred twin leaching pit, wl~crc second pit is constructed after 3 years ·

LTAR: Lon.Jt tenn application rate (25 Vm2.d for sand, 15 VmZ:d for silt, 10 Vrn2.d for clay).

Flow 10 1/cap.d for pour flush toilets 25 1/cap.d for cistern flush toilets.

118 263

In some rural areas, it is conceivable that twin pits might be: used to the exclusion of septic tanks, in which case no desludging service is needed. However, in most places (:and any urban area) there arc bound to be a significant number of septic tank systems. Thus, the following institutional support is also needed: (4) Licencing of desludging services, or maintenance

of a desludging service through local government. (5) Regulations concerning ultimate disposal of

sludge and, possibly, a sludge treatment and disposal facility.

(6) In some cases, a neighbourhood septic tank owners' maintenance organization to deal with desludging, inspection, and other problems as a group.

At present, some legal basis for the above exists in national regulations. The national building guideline ("Pedoman Mendirikan Bangunan_ Gedung", DPU, 1987) states that if sewerage is not available, wastewater must be disposed of "by a treatment process and/or seepage (for example, using septic tank, etc.), such that the general health of surrounding residents is not disturbed as a result of it." Law No.4/1982 concerning environmental management implies that an inadequate disposal system which caused pollution could be: considered a violation. However, in practice, very little weight is given to human waste disposal requirements by local governments. Building permits (1MB) may, indeed, require a disposal system, but any dasign is usually acceptable. Likewise, failure of an existing system is rarely subject to sanction. As noted above, many towns have no desludging service, either government or private. This should imply that a large potential demand exists, which should, in turn, give rise to private desludging enterprises. However, in the absence of local governmental concern, expressed as legal sanctions, and with limited public awareness of

10 15 10

STI TPI DTI' STI Tl' DTI' 292 246 123 323 290 145

3 0 0 - 3 0 0 21 0 0 21 ~ 0 0

0 0 123 . 0 0 145 0 0 100 0 0 118

313 246 223 344 290 263 25 15 10

ST Tl' DTI' ST Tl' DTI' 344 34& 174' 403 444 222

3 0 (} 3 0 0 21 0 0 21 0 0

0 0 174 0 0 222 0 0 142 0 0 181

365 348 316 424 444 403

Assumed 10 year life, no salvage Cost in constant rupiah, discount rate 7%. P/F(3yr,7%)=0.&1630. ~· PIA (10 yr,7%) = 7.02358. All facilities for single household of 6 persons.

the health hazards of sludge, the potential demand for desludging is not realized.

CONCLUSIONS

Both septic tank systems and leaching pit systems arc well established in Indonesia. The ~oney-combed brick structure and the alternating use of two pits are new ideas introduced in recent pilot projects, and it is hoped that they will gain in acceptance as improved forms of . leaching pit design and operation. However, the question of septic tanks versus leaching pits is not particularly controversial in Indonesian practice. Specific conclusions are: · (l) Advantages of septic tank systems include:

(a) flexibility in shape and location; (b) flexibility for upgrading; (c) septic tanks are regarded as a more substantial

home improvement; (d) appropriate with fairly shallow groundwater; (c) overflows regarded as less offensive.

(2) Advantages of twin pit systems include: (a) generally lower, or partially deferred, cost; (b) desludging service not required; (c) potentially usable product.

(3) Bad designs arc prevalent; design standards indicated in the Guidelines. appear to be realistic.

(4) Neither teclmology is likely to work according to design assumptions in the present institutional setting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following arc recommended: ( 1) Further study should be made of actual long term

infiltration rates of toilet wastes and septic tank eilluents in various soils and for various disposal designs.

(2) Standards and regulations controlling the design, construction, operation and maintenance of both

4-5

. ' '

CHAPTEH 4 COMPARISON OF SEPTIC TANK AND LEACHING PIT TECHNOLOGIES

technologies should be prepared for usc by local governments.

(3) Model"procedures should be prepared to support the model standar.ds and regulations recommended in (2). These procedures should also include job descriptions of related personnel (inspectors etc.) .

__ -- -·¥·-----.~- -- .. ~-•,,_,_, ,. _ _., 01"\VJV...)ML.\:>

c;HAPTER 5

IINTERMEDIATE SEWERAGE PILOT PROPOSALS

INTRODUCTION

Many cities in Indonesia contain high-population­density pockets of limited extent, in which on-site disposal technologies do not work well for such reasons as:: ..

inadequate space for leaching facilities; insufficient access for dcsludging vehicles; low permeability soils.

However, costs of conventional sewerage may be prohibitive in such areas, while at the same time the high density clustering of dwellings, combined with irregular layouts, make conventional sewer designs infeasible.

Two modifications of the sewerage concept which have be,en developed in other parts of the world show promise for hclping solve the problem of sanitation in sm;h high-density urban areas of Indonesia, namely, "shallow sewers" and "small-bore (solids free) sewers". Shallow sewers are likely to be appropriate in high­density urban kampung areas, where they achieve cost savings because: (1) They utilize the mechanism of successive flushing

action, rather than the conventional concept of self-cleansing velocities at half depth, tQ carry solids. Thus, pipes can be laid at flatter gradients and have smaller diameter.s than corresponding conventional sewer lines.

(2) Pipes arc largely laid in pathways or on private property, in which vehicle loads are minimal; hence, required cover and costly excavation arc greatly reduced.

Shallow sewerage can receive all household liquid wastes (i.e., sullage as well as toilet wastes); although thc:y have been successfully used in areas with very low water use, they are most appropriate where many people have piped water of some kind.

t· Small-bore sewers receive effiuents from septic tanks/solids interceptors only. Consequently, savings arc: realized because: (1) Pipe diameters can be smaller and gradients more

relaxed, since solids are not transported. (2) Pipe alignments can be more flexible. (3) Treatment requirements may be reduced, as

settling of solids has already been effected on-site.

Small-bore sewers arc most appropriate in areas where

most people already have septic tanks but where leaching capacity has proven inadequate. Also, small­bore sewers can function well with very low wastewater flows. However, they have two drawbacks which must be considered:

~· (1) Home owners must continue to provide

desludging. (2) Illegal connections must be absolutely prevented,

as such connections (if lacking solids interception) could disrupt the entire system.

Unfortunately, shallow sewerage has only been implemented in one small part of one city in Indonesia (Bandung), while small-bore sewers have not yet been tried. Planners are understandably cautious about launching into widespread programs for construction of such system, even where they would appear to be highly appropriate, without the benefit of actual

_experience in the Indonesian context. Consequently, the national strategy for urban sanitation in Repelita V called for "pilot projects to test and demonstrate these systems in Indonesia". The strategic plan recommended pilot projects covering at least· 5,000 people each, followed by larger-scale applications during the Repclita which might, it was hoped, serve up to 300,000 people.

Shallow and small bore sewers are not restricted to high population density areas as indicated above. Small bore sewers would, for example, also be appropriate in a low density housing area with a high incidence of septic tanks (leaching pits can also be adapted to solids interception traps), relatively poor soil permeability and relatively flat topography. Of great importance is the willingness of residents to pay for the higher level of service.

JUDP 11 Low-Cost Sewerage Proposal

A proposal was made for a shallow sewer demonstration project within the Jakarta Sewerage and Sanitation Project (JSSP), for inclusion in JUDP II, as follows:

the application . of shallow sewers is intended to be for .. the collection of neighborhood wastewater rand for conveying this wastewater out of the neighborhood to either an interceptor sewer or to some sort of treatment, such as a community septic tank or similar. Such treatment units can provide a

5-1

CHAPTER 5/NTERMEDIATE SEWERAGE PILOT PROPOSALS

rcduc:tion in the organic pollution discharged, but care must be exercised in their application as they can provide virtually no reduction in the bacteriological pollution discharged.

'Appropriate site selection would seem to be a critical element of successful application; only sites with adequate backyard and/or back alleyways space to allow construction and maintenance access should be chosen. Sites selected should also have a convenient outlet for lthe sewage, such as to an interceptor sewer or adequate space for some sort of treatment facilites.

'The mtmmum sewer gradient is recommended *to be 1 in 167, or 6 per mil, and the mtmmum depth of cover is recommended to be 0.3 meter. At this slope, sewers will get deep in fairly short distances, independent of their starting elevation, unless of course the natural slope of the land is close to the same. Natural site slope would then be another ·important selection criteria.

'For comparison, the JSSP pilot project has a minimum slope of 5 per mil and a minimum cove.r of 0.85 meter for its smallest sewers. The JSSP minimum cover is necessary to allow for the length and slope of the sewer service connections to and on the properties served. For alignments in streets, minimum cove:r is also a function of traffic load considerations and the need to have the sewers pass under other utilities such as water mains and drainage pipes. It' is anticipated that the JSSP sewers will serve as the off-site collectors of whatever shallow sewer systems may be implemented.'

' ... Detailed evaluation of the coverage achieved by the JSSP pilot sewerage scheme has revealed that up to 50 percent of the land area within the sewer service area cannot be readily served by direct connections to sewers in· the streets. Clearly, it is important to provide sewer connections to properties Jacking direct street frontage in order to achieve the optimum public health benefit of the sewers. Low cost sewerage appears to be the approach most likely to accomplish this goa'l, and should be demonstrated by a pilot effort. This pilot effort· should cover an area of approximately 50 hectares at the recommended level of funding of USD 1.0 million.

'It would be hoped that once the suitability and success of a low cost sewerage approach has been demonstrated, similar schemes could be implemented by individual communities where the necessary prerequisites of an

5-2

interceptor sewer, access for construction and maintenance, and favorable slopes exists.'

An appropriate site was selected for the above pilot project in an area known as Guntur, surveys were conducted, and detailed drawings for construction of the demonstration system were prepared.

Unfortunately for the pilot project, before implementation could begin the chosen site was bought up. by a developer for high-rise construction after demolition of the low-income neighborhood. No new proposal exists.

CONCLUSIONS

The Guntur site seemed ideal for trying out shallow sewerage in that it was a high-density area with flat topography (but not too flat to meet minimum gradients generally), surrounded-· on three sides by JSSP conventional sewers. Other sites may not be so convenient, but the basic purposes of the pilot project could still be met, namely: (l) Demonstration that shallow sewerage can be

constructed successfully in high density urban areas in Indonesia, and determination of its likely cost when replicated.

(2) Development of a suitable implementation mechanism.

(3) Identification of problems and their solution for the phases of design,' construction, and maintenance, concerning both technical and institutional aspects.

Design would benefit from the experience in Bandung, where a shallow sewer serves one area. It was found that the flat gradients called for in design could not be constructed with precision; when the sewer was put in usc, blockages frequently occurred. It was concluded from this experience that a minimum pipe diameter of 150 mm was required, rather than 100 mm as suggested in the literature.

JUDP II did not propose any pilot small bore sewerage; however other cities (notably, Surabaya and Palembang) have. In reviewing the plans for these systems, it was noticed that the institutional problem of assuring that solids are intercepted from all connections and that illegal connections arc absolutely prevented, was not thoroughly addressed. It is essential that attention be given to this all-important issue before the small bore sewers are fully designed and constructed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are recommended: (1) A new shallow sewer pilot project should be

proposed and implemented in JUDP as soon as possible. The proposal should include the following: (a) A description of surveys to be conducted, both

physical and socio-economic; (b) A discussion of the intended approach to

developing community awareness and participation (which have been found to be

it e ,f

e t r. v

v t s )

)

t

l

I·

essential to the success of shallow sewer projects elsewhere); It is hoped that the project will achieve 100% connection of buildings in the area; however, it may be necessary to first perform a demonstration in a small sub-area to convince others of its feasibility;

(c) A discussion of the approach to institutional aspects. How will the "condominium" concept be implemented? Arc there legal obstacles to be resolved? How docs management of the local shallow sewer fit into the context of the city-wide program?

(d) A discussion of the approach to methods of construction and quality control (including testing for leaks). Also, the issue of self-help versus contractor services should be addressed. If two smaller areas arc to be served, rather than one large pilot area, perhaps both self­help and contractor coilstruction can be tried;

(e) Treatment requirements. To avoid unnecessary complication of the pilot project by treatment, waste carried in the pilot sewer could be discharged to a conventional sewer;

(f) Projected costs; also, if appropriate, a comparison with the cost of on-site technology in the same area;

(g) A plan for monitoring operations. (h) Identification of an appropriate point for

reviewing design decisions. (2} Small bore sewerage pilot projects should be

carefully reviewed to ensure that the institutional means of preventing entry of solids into the small · bore sewer (such as from illegal connections, un­maintained septic tanks, or untrapped sullage) are adequately provided for.

5-3

Cl-IAPTER 5/NTERMEDiA TE SEWERAGE PILOT PROPOSALS

This page deliberately left blank.

!'>-4

CI-IAPTER 6

FlrJANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN ON-SITE SANITATION

INTRODUCTION

Financial assistance programs in sanitation facilitate and encourage the installation or upgrading of sanitary facilitic:s by people who could not -- or would not -­pay the: entire construction cost in advance. Projects to­date have involved credit to individual families and groups of families. Although in some cases projects, in effect, gave partial subsidies, in general credit programs are geared to people who can ultimately repay the loan. Indeed, a key objective of such programs is that the initial "seed capital" be recovered so that it can be re-used to extend credit to more people. Thus, credit programs in sanitation are directed to a particular segment of the population and are not

- intended to serve all strata of society.

This study examined the following financial assistance projects:

Pilot Project in On-site Sanitation (Solo, Sc:marang) Six Cities Sanitation Project (Surabaya, Malang, Solo, Semarang, Yogyakana, Bogor) Jakarta Sewerage and Sanitation Project Yogyakarta Sanitation (Post-Six Cities) W. Java Small Towns Sanitation 38 Small Towns Improvement of Sanitation (Central Java) NGO projects in Solo area Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project (West Java} Sanitation Pilot Project in Kupang District, East Nusa Tenggara (NIT)

For each of these, available reports and· financial records were reviewed, and meetings were held with consultants, NGOs, and officials involved with the projects. In addition, site visits were made in Malang, Surabaya, Solo, Semarang, and Yogyakarta.

The National Strategy for Human Waste and Wastewater Disposal for Repclita V recommended· that: 'financial assistance programs for private and shared toilets with on-site disposal facilities should be greatly extended and a wider range of financial options should be developed .... The current on-site disposal projects should be developed into on-going programs. Local government agencies should gradually assume the functions currently performed by consultants."

The projects examined in the present study included examples of urban, urban fringe, small town, and rural areas; the different credit schemes varied in a number of features, and they showed a range of performance in repayment levels. Thus, they offer considerable opportunity to draw conclusions and suggest possible improvements that would apply to future programs as the Repelita V Strategy is implemented.

Credit Scheme Variables

The independent v.ariables. of the different credit schemes are the features designed into .the project when it was set up. The dependent variable is the project's "success". In this study, "success" is largely measured through the repayment performance, although qualitative accounts of beneficial impacts on the community, beneficiaries' satisfaction, and extent of utilization of funds arc also considered.

The main independent variables include: (1) Project location -urban, urban fringe, small town,

rural. (2) Form of credit - cash, materials, complete units.

The materials and complete units forms can be further classified as participative or non-participative, depending on whether the recipient has some say regarding the choice of supplier or contractor. (3) Source of initial funds- APBN (federal

government budget), foreign loan or grant, private contributions, !?cal government-generated funds (including repayment fund).

(4) Interest rate- 0%, Ylo/olmonth flat, \tS.o/olmonth flat, 1 o/olmonth flat, 1 o/olmonth compound, 2 -2.75o/olmonth flat.

(5} Repayment period- ranged from 10 months to 10 years, with most between 2-3 years.

(6} Required self-help - ranged from none to around 75%, with most around 20% of facilities cost.

(7) Organizational arrangement.

The different credit schemes had numerous minor variations in organizational· arrangement, but they can be reasonably considered as falling into three main types. Figures 7.1 and 7".2 show the principal institutions involved in the credit projects initiated through the Department of Public Works (such as the

6-1

-

CHAPTER~ 6 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN ON-SITE SANITATION

Six Cities Project, W.Java STS, and Central Java 38 Towns).

y I BANGDES

cp ~-----------~----~ L_ Community

Figure 6.1: Simplified Institutional Structure for Dept. of Public Works Credit Projects.

r---1 lniti.ell projection. not. L-- .J invoilved in re·use

I

of Rovolvino Fund ~--5~;.--1 ----- I I I I I Troosury 1

1 PLP·l '---~ Ollicor I l _____ j l [DIP) l

I I 1------J

I , ___ x ___ l l Supplier/ J

I Cont(actor 1 I I I '----,----

' I

~ r------{1 :

~----1-~~-J !

~ I I I I I I I I

I I I I

~--~~.~----------1 I ...

COMMUNITY

Figure 6 .. 2: Flow of Funds, lvfaterials and Constructed Units in Dept. of Public Works Credit Projects.

The KPS (Kclompok Pcngarah Sanitasi - sanitation direction group) is the key institution set up at the Tingkat II level to control the project and has members from the: concerned Tk. II governmental agencies and other organization (e.g~. Bangdcs, Bappeda, Dinas PU, Dinas Kcschatan, Dinas Tata Kola, PDAM, PKK, Bank Pcmbanglman Dacrah). During the period of the initial project (i.e., before funds revolve), the provincial level Proyek PLP office (PLP I) also participates in the KPS.

The KKS (Kelompok Kcrja Sanitasi - sanitation working group) is the group having direct involvement with the community and is closely related to quasi­governmental social institutions (LKMD, PKK). It identifies appropriate recipients, docs the leg-work of the credit arrangements, is involved in technical control, and may perform collections of credit repayments. In some variants, another institution is placed between the KPS and KKS (called KBS), to assist the KPS to oversee the work of many KKSs. Money is kept at a bank (Bank Pembangunan Daerah or Bank Rakyat Indonesia); in some cases, the Badan Kredit Kecamatan (BKK) serves as an intermediary in administering the funds. Initially, funds are injected through an arrangement between the State Treasury, PLP, the supplier or contractor, and local government. Upon repayment, howey~r, funds revolve through the KPS (preferably, but not necessarily, to the same Kelurahan from which they originated).

In the Sanitation Pilot Project in East Nusatenggara Province (NTT, covering four villages in Kupang District), conducted through the Department of Health, all handling and administration of credit funds is by a village-level NGO working group (similar to KKS) during the project period (sec Figure 6.3).

~---~ UNO,. Gunt

I

I c.:·~· "···~I Ulti,...,,.,,.,...,n ollun4•

1 ...._ ttO.C.t.otH .. III\Ior\"0

~ 1 W.otl\et'fiii•O"·

~~

I V··!·"···l ! I

COMMUNITY

lntOO'i"'A.I"ol..n.gol f.,nd wiltWf'l .,.n,go

Figure 6.3: Flow of Funds in NIT Credit Project.

In two of the four villages, the NGO is the LKMD* ; in the others it is a church-related organization. Some monitoring and technical assistance are given through the Puskesmas sanitation officers.

The third type of organization (Figure 6.4) occurs in private NGO credit programs, in which the NGO administers funds directly to the recipients or to a local residents group.

• LKMD is officia[(y tem1cd a non-governmental organization because it is not p•lrt of the fommllndoncsian government stmcturc. However, it is closely linked to the government inasmuch as ils head is the Lurah; thus, it could be considered a quasi-governmental organization.

:t . f 1

s )

1

1

I

I I,

Private contribution

I ' COMMUNITY

Figure 6.4: Flow of Funds in Private (NGO) Credit Projects.

IFIND~NGS OF THE STUDY

A summary of the main features and performance of the various sanitation credit projects studied is presented in Figure 6.5. The findings of the study in relation to various aspects of the schemes will be discussed individually.

Qualitative assessments of repayment performance arc given as high, medium-high, medium, and low, corresponding to 80-100%, 65-79%, 50-64%, and below 50%, respectively. These are intended as relative assessments in order to shed light on what might improve future programs. However, what constitutes an acceptable repayment level will depend on the nature and purpose of a particular program. For example, in order for a credit fund to revolve indefinitely, the repayment must be 100%. Alternatively, if a local government decides to periodically supplement the revolving fund, justified on the basis that real benefits · arc felt from the program, then some lower level of repayment may be acceptable.

Form of Credit

There was universal agreement on the part of NGOs, consultants, and local government officials involved in sanitation credit programs that cash credit schemes had a much greater likelihood ·of success than either materials or complete units. This view was supported by the study's investigations of project experience. When material provision schemes were used (Surabaya, Malang), the following problems. were reported: ( 1) Some people felt dissatisfied, either because the

quality, quantity, or condition of materials delivered were not what they expected, or because they did not feel the value of materials delivered was equal to the amount of the credit. In other words, the recipients felt that they could have done better purchasing the materials themselves.

(2) Sometimes the delivery of the materials was not coordinated in a convenient way with the needs or schedule of the recipient (e.g., delivery in the rainy season, delivery without prior notification, and partial deliveries).

(3) Not everyone understood clearly that a credit in the form of materials (particularly materials which they did. not select and which did not always meet their expectations)" really had to be repaid with

.. ···-- •• ·--·-H••.o"-' ,, .. _,,-VIIL: Vr'\IVIII'\rlV/\1

money. The similarity to _government grant projects led to a reduced sense of ownership by the recipients.

Similar problems were reported for complete unit schemes (e.g., W.Java STS). J?issatisfaction with the work of the contractor and a low degree of active involvement or control by the recipients led to a greatly diminished sense of ownership, expressed as unwillingness to repay the credit. An apparent exception to this was the provision of some facilities under the first 'Solo-Semarang pilot project (for example, in Kclurahan Mlatiharjo) using the "iuran" scheme (facilities built by the project, repaid by low monthly user charges over a 10-year period -- in effect, a partial subsidy). In this case, very active involvement of the KKS and the consultant in controlling the quality of construction, much individual control by the recipients over JRe facilities built, and the fact that the contractor lived in the neighborhood, 'helped counterbalance the potential for dissatisfaction.

Cash credit schemes showed the best potential for cost recovery. The recipient has a clear understanding of the value of the credit received and a clear sense of his obligation to repay. One NGO repeats with great effect a Javanese saying to recipients in its projects to emphasize this point: "Utang arta nggih disaur arta, sampun disaur suara," which means "If you owe money you sh.ould repay with money, not with arguments."

In cash credit, the high degree of control by the recipient over purchase of materials and construction leads to the greatest satisfaction and sense of ownership of the facilities. It was also found that recipients of cash credit were more likely to contribute a greater amount of their own resources for additional improvements (e.g., larger septic tank, improved bathroom superstructure, other home improvements).

Source of Funds

A legal obstacle exists to the use of cash credit schemes in projects funded through APBN (federal budget, typically DIP or Inpres funds), in which credit is required to be in the form of materials or finished products. Private (NGO) and foreign grant funded projects (e.g., NTT) do not have this restriction. Public Works-initiated projects, for the most part, do. In some cases, the projects, recognizing that strict compliance with the restriction would lead to failure, have, through consultation and coordination with local government, found creative ways of realizing- in effect - cash credit. However, these informalities which arc allowable on." the basis of the pilot nature of the projects arc not sustainable for general· programs.

Three ways have been suggested for dealing with the APBN restriction on cash credit: (1) Usc only locally-generated funds for credit

projects. These could include APED; PAP, and, presumably, loans from RDA. A resolution of the

, , F

igur

e 7.

5: S

wn

ma

ty o

f Pro

ject

Fea

ture

s an

d E

xper

ienc

e fo

r V

ario

us S

anit

atio

n C

redi

t Pro

ject

s

I P

roje

ct

I JS

SP

I

Six

Citi

es

I S

ix C

ities

I

Pilo

t P

roje

ct S

olo-

Sem

aran

g (U

rban

Fri

ng

e)

(Urb

an)

Sur

abay

a S

olo

Sol

o S

emar

ang

Fea

ture

(U

rban

) (U

rban

) Je

bres

N

usuk

an

Mla

tihar

jo

Bul

u Lo

r

Sch

em

e

Par

ticip

ativ

e N

on

cash

ca

sh

cash

M

ixed

cas

h,

Mix

ed c

ash

, co

mpl

ete

part

icip

ativ

e cr

edit,

lur

an

cred

it, l

ura

n

units

m

ater

ials

B

asi

c fu

nd

1

2b

n

36m

5.

25m

?

? 15

m

14m

sou

rce

A

PB

N

AP

BN

A

PB

N

IBR

D

IBR

D

IBR

D

IBR

D

Inte

rest

/mon

th

1% n

at

Yz%

fia

t 1%

fia

t 1%

fia

t 1%

fia

t 1%

fia

t

Per

iod

(yr)

3

3 3

3 3

3

Sel

f-he

lp

0%

20%

20

%

20%

2

0%

20

%

20

%

lnst

itn/o

rg

SW

G

KP

S,

KP

S,T

T,B

K

KP

S,B

KK

,TT

K

PS

,BK

K,T

K

PS

,KB

S,B

K

PS

,KB

S,B

K

elom

pok

KB

S,K

KS

K

, K

KS

, ,K

KS

,PK

K

T,K

KS

,PK

K

KK

,KK

S

KK

,KK

S

BP

AL

(n

on f

unct

) -

Initi

al A

dm

in

? 10

-15

10-1

5 15

15

15

15

C

ost%

of

Pro

ject

O

pera

tiona

l ?

(No

oper

atio

n) 1

,560

1,

560

1,56

0 1,

000

1,00

0 C

ost

(RpO

OO

) (7

kel

) (7

kel

) (7

kel

) (7

kel

) (7

kel

) C

ost

So

urc

e

AP

BD

II

AP

BO

II

AP

BD

II

AP

I;IO

II

~PBQ I

I

Mat

eria

ls

App

oint

ed

App

oint

ed

Priv

ate

Priv

ate

Priv

ate

Priv

ate

Priv

ate

Pro

visi

on

loca

l sho

p su

pplie

r

Priv

atel

y

Fac

ilitie

s ch

osen

P

rivat

e P

rivat

e P

rivat

e P

rivat

e P

rivat

e/

(No

data

)

Inst

alla

tion

cont

ract

or

Con

trac

tor

Re

pa

yme

nt

7 A

bsen

t M

ed-h

igh

Var

ied

Hig

h-V

arie

d H

igh

Me

d-

hig

h

Exp

erie

nce

(%)

(74)

ta

-Med

H

igh

-to

-lo

w

(86,

62,

62,

(8

8, 5

3, 4

3,

(90)

(7

4)

58)

26)

Ben

efic

iary

?

low

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Sat

isfa

ctio

n B

enef

icia

ry

Low

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h se

nse

of

ow

ne

rsh

ip

Co

mm

un

ity

Med

ium

Lo

w

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h nv

olve

men

t ,_

.,-.

....

..,.

"T

.....

......,.,,

..,.,..,..

...n

<'<.

.,."$

: i"

'"&

==

-= mw

:,!:C,

.,.,.,..

......._

......._

I S

ix C

ities

(U

rban

Frin

ge A

reas

)

Mal

ang

Yog

yaka

rta

Sol

o S

emar

ang

Bog

or

Non

ca

sh

cash

ca

sh

cash

pa

rlici

pativ

e m

ater

ials

23

.8m

30

.15m

36

.25m

SO

m

AP

BN

Lo

an (

IBR

D)

AP

BN

A

PB

N

Loan

(IB

RD

)

1% f

iat

1% fi

at

Yz%

fia

t 0%

1%

fiat

3 2-

3 3

3 3

20%

20

%

20

%

20%

20

%

KP

S,

KP

S,K

BS

,KK

S K

PS

, K

PS

,KB

S,K

BB

TP

,TT

, T

T,K

KS

B

KK

,TT

,KK

S,P

KK

,K

KS

P

okja

(n

on r

une)

10

-15

10-1

5 10

-15

10-1

5 10

-15

(no

2,50

0/yr

15

/mon

/kel

+

(7 K

el)

(No

data

) op

erat

ion)

(2

kel

) 25

/mon

(7

kel)

AP

BD

II

A,.P

I?D

Tk

II A

PB

D T

k II

App

oint

ed

Priv

ate

Priv

ate

Priv

ate

Priv

ate

supp

lier

Priv

ate

Priv

ate

. P

rivat

e '.

P

rivat

e P

rivat

e I

.,

Ver

y lo

w

Med

ium

-hig

h H

igh

Var

ied

Hig

h-t

o-

Hig

h (6

7)

low

(<

10)

low

(33

) (1

00,

89,9

5,90

) (1

01' 9

0,

84,4

1,22

,6)

low

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h

low

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h

low

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h

--

...

;'

j Yog

yaka

rta

(Pos

t-S

ix

Citi

es)

cash

'

57m

AP

BN

1% f

iat

3 20%

KP

S,K

BS

,KK

s N

o da

ta

(2 k

el)

AP

BD

II

Priv

ate

Priv

ate

Hig

h (8

1 an

d 80

)

Hig

h

Hig

h

Hig

h

I I I I

(') ~ \) ~ 0

> ::n ~ <:

(')

.

5:::

r­ ):,. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 G

) ~ s: (/) ~

0 ~

!:2 ni ~ ~ :;; :::!

0 <:

__

_ .. _

_..

....

._ .....

. ......_

.... __

__

__

__

__

~-~.._.,."'"" _

_ ,___~,.-----

....... =

............

....... ~ .

....... ...

., ... _

__

,

"'

Fig

ure

6.5:

Sum

mar

y o

f Pro

ject

Fea

ture

s an

d E

xper

ienc

e fo

r V

ario

us S

anit

atio

n C

redi

t Pro

ject

s (c

ont'd

) P

roje

ct

ST

S W

)av

a (

Smal

l 38

Sm

all T

owns

(C

.Jav

a)

Sol

o (N

GO

's P

roje

cts

in U

rban

Fri

nge

& R

ural

Are

as)

Rur

al

toy,

ns)

Fea

ture

C

ibad

ak-S

ukab

umi

Kar

tasu

ra

Nga

dire

io

19

86

-19

87

1

98

8.

1989

19

90

NT

T

Kar

awan

g (R

WSS

) '

.. ,

.. C

ash

Sch

eme

Non

-par

tici

pati

ve

(Gra

nt&

C

ash

Cas

h C

ash

Cas

h C

ash

Cas

h co

mpl

ete

unit

s C

ash

Cre

di!l_

:

Bas

ic f

und

26,0

00

'14,

50'0

9,

000

NG

O

NG

O

NG

O

10,0

00

4,30

5 so

urce

L

oan(

AD

B)

Al'

BN

(IB

RD

) G

rant

(U

ND

P &

WH

O)

Gra

nt(G

ON

) In

tere

st r

ate

1% fl

at

1% fl

at(?

) !%

slid

ing

0

%

V.%

fla

t . 1

% fl

at

0%

2%

, 2.3

%, 2

.75%

fp

crm

on

f!

at/m

on

Per

iod

3v

r 3y

r_

5)T

20

mon

2

0m

on

2

4m

on

to

·mo

n-2

vr

3v

r S

elf h

elp

O%

20

o/o

Sup

erst

ruct

ure

20

%-2

5%

2o'%~25%

20%

' H

igh

· up

to 7

5%

M

in.

25%

K

PS

,KB

S,

KK

S,

(Max

cre

dit

170,

000

) (M

ax.c

redi

t 50,

000)

(M

ax.

Cre

dit 2

50,0

00)

· (D

irec

t (D

irec

t K

UD

, L

KM

D, o

ther

In

stit

utio

naV

K

KS

,PIS

K

PS

,KK

S

..

PK

K,B

KD

In

divi

dual

In

divi

dual

K

elom

pok/

Gro

u p

NG

Os

wor

king

gro

up

Pok

ja, L

PK!B

KPD

O

rgan

izat

iona

l (P

okja

) P

KK

,BK

D

Kel

ompo

k A

ppro

ach)

A

ppro

ach)

(i

.e. K

UB

) (P

ojka

) In

itia

l ...

4,19

9;53

0 . .

. 22

,810

,000

A

dmin

is-

!rat

ion

Cos

t P

roje

ct

(Pro

ject

) (P

roje

ct)

(No

data

) (N

o da

ta)

(No

data

) (A

dmin

& O

pera

tion

) (P

roje

ct)

7 5%

of t

he i

nter

est

1,20

0,00

0/ye

ar

Ope

rati

onal

A

PB

DT

kll

(N

o da

ta)

(No

data

) N

GO

N

GO

N

GO

Pi

lot P

roje

ct

40

% o

f Int

eres

t pl

us

Cos

t &

Sou

rce

Proj

ect

.t

.•

Pri

vate

M

ater

ial

App

oint

ed

Pri

vate

O

rgan

ized

by

Pri

vate

P

riva

te

Priv

ate

Pri

vate

or

Priv

ate

Pro

visi

on

cont

ract

or

Ket

ua K

elom

pok

thro

ughN

GO

F

acil

itie

s A

ppoi

nted

In

stal

lati

on

cont

ract

or

Pri

vate

P

riva

te

Pri

vate

P

riva

te

Priv

ate

Pri

vate

Pr

ivat

e R

epay

men

t ·

Abs

im't

LoW

M

ediu

m-h

igh

med

hig

hto

H

igh

Ver

)'hig

h .H

igh.

ExJ

>erie

nce

%

{74}

hi

gh (

7 5

• 85

) {9

5}

(10

0-1

02

) '<

Hig

h {1

00}

1 S

eri.{

ficia

iies'

..

S

atis

fact

ion

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h (N

o da

ta)

Hig

h !;

knel

icia

nes'

..

. ,,

....

-se

nse

of

Lo

w

Med

ium

H

igh

Med

ium

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h O

wne

rshi

p C

onun

unit

y's

I .,

-H

igh

Invo

lvem

ent

Lo

w

Hig

l;_

Hig

h H

igh

~i.~

H

igh

Hi?

,!\

I'

:.•

">

.._

..

9J

(J1

>i'

CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN ON-SITE SANITATION

required, and no municipality has yet attempted it. (2) Try to improve the cost recovery from

materials/units schemes, then use the repayment fund as cash credit.

(3) Try to change the APBN regulations to allow exceptions for seeding sanitation credit programs.

A combination approach would be to use APBN funding for the "software" of the project (i.e., training, promotions, organizing), and use local funds 'for the actual credit. All of these possible measures need to be pursued further.

lntere:st Rate

The study found no evidence that charging interest on the loans (even charging quite high interest) adversely affected either repayment performance or demand for credit. Most schemes charged 1 o/~month flat interest on the initial loan amount (equivalent to an annual compoUtnd interest rate of about 23%), but even at 2-2.75o/~month, the credit is attractive compared to conditions attached to other available sources, namely: (1) informal lenders (i.e., loan sharks) charge up to

· 20o/~month interest; (2) banks require collateral; and (3) both banks and informal lenders charge a high "loan fee" (up to 20%).

People seem to understand that some money is needed for operating/administrative expenses. For example, in the Six Cities Project in Semarang, due to an error in communications, the recipiertts were at first led to believe that there would be no interest charged. When the error was recognized, the project felt it would be inappropriate to then charge interest, as the community might feel tricked. Instead, a consultation was held with the recipients, who agreed to pay a small monthly fee to help cover operating expenses. Also, one NGO reported the experience that charging some interest (1 o/~month) actually improved repayment performance. The NGO felt that an absence of interest charge was followed by a lessened sense of responsibility.

Concerning interest, a cultural matter needs to be brieny noted, namely, that charging of interest is forbidden under Islamic law and may be a concern in some project locations. However, the interest charged in sanil:ation credit programs is not for profit, but rather to pay for operational expenses and to make up for the effects of inflation. The purpose of the "interest" should be clearly explained to the community and, if necessary, termed the "inflation factor and operational charge".

Repayment Period

The length of the repayment period has not been found to be an important Qeterminant of success in credit schemes. Most projects used periods of bet\veen one and three years, and these were felt to be reasonable. It is commonly believed - and with some justification -that the recipients' enthusiasm for repaying their credit will wane after 2-3 years. At the same time, very short

repayment periods would make the monthly payment unaffordable to some recipients. Thus, 2-3 years is regarded as the optimum, and a repayment period in excess of 5 years is considered doubtful as to its sustainability.

Very long repayment periods coupled with low interest rates could be used as a clever way of providing partial subsidies to some recipients. However, such variations could excessively complicate credit schemes and, unless applied to all recipients in a given area, act as disincentives .to participation in the regular credit option. Alternatively, when there exists a strong sense of community, subsidies or special terms can be made for identified needy families by means of voluntary contributions outside of the formal credit program, such as through the traditional "arisan" (neighborhood or family fund pooling). '·

Required Self-help

A requirement of some contribution from the recipient -whether money, materials, or labor - was regarded as positive by most projects. However, its cfTect seems to be related to its being an element of community involvement and participation. Thus, it is not necessarily, in itself, a strong factor of success.

Organizational Ar·rangement

The principal findings of the. study with regard to organizational arrangements were: (1) Simple is better; and (2) The types of sanitation credit projects tried so far arc dependent on a community-based approach for success, with all that this implies.

The institutional/organizational arrangements in a credit scheme should be kept simple in order to avoid confusion in tasks and responsibilities. Complexities and redundancies are "excess weight" which do not contribute to the success of the projects, and simplification does not affect the project adversely. For example, in government credit programs, the core institutions are the KPS and KKS, which have been shown to be able to fuoction efTectively. However, the inclusion of BKK (Badan Kredit Kccamatan) as an intermediary i1\ pooling credit repayments was not found to contribute significantly; money pooled at the Kelurahan level could just as easily be forwarded to the bank directly.

Similarly, the role of provincial PLP in the management and administration of credit programs should be reconsidered. Beyond its role of offering technical support, PLP has been involved in sanitation credit projects to channel the initial seed money and project funds, because these projects were initiated through the Central Government. However, in its managerial activities in the credit projects, PLP was redundant with the KPS, and some confusion of responsibilities in this regard was reported in the Six Cities Project. In any event, as local sanitation credit programs proliferate - as intended in Repclita V - the

t !

role of provincial PLP will be to provide technical guidance and assistance, and its time should not be taken up with credit program management and administration.

Along with the need for simplicity in organization, sanitation credit programs seem to require a community-based approach. This may be a consequence of the credit schemes' not requiring collateral from the recipients, as well as that it is necessary in most places to first educate the community and develop "demand" for the kind of facilities offered. In any event, community factors have been a strong determinant of success or failure. As expressed in the W.Java Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme, "Village institutional factors play a crucial role. If there is no functioning LKMD or PKK, the possibilities for setting up a credit scheme arc rather limited. Also if a Kcpala D~sa (village head) is not trusted by the population, possibilities are limited, even though the potential demand is high."

In one private NGO credit program, it was found that dealing with individual recipients directly was not so successful as first helping residents to organize as a common interest group ("Kelompok Usaha Bersama"). The NGO noted, however,. that this may be related to culture (Java) and that other approaches might be more appropriate in other islands. Also, where a strong local community organization through the Lurah and LKMD already exists, additional groups may not be necessary.

As a consequence of the "community factor", the .smooth functioning of the credit schemes seems to be· :sensitive to the behavior of key individuals. For 'example, the poor repayment performance in Kclurahan Sorosutan (Yogyakarta) has been attributed to the bad example given by one prominent individual who reportedly obtained a credit outside of the 'established procedure and then was negligent in repaying his debt. In Kclurahan Joyosuran (Solo), on lthe other hand, where one LKMD officer took a credit Ito upgrade his existing facilities, this officer's diligence iin repaying the loan, plus his active involvement in the program, have encouraged others in the community.

As one provincial PLP official expressed: "These arc not principally construction projects, but rather community projects." As such, they are not well suited llo execution by Public Works. In fact, any top-down dements in project organization must be kept to a minimum, as they can adversely affect the essential "community" aspect of these programs.

!Project Location

Project location seems to be important in sanitation credit programs mostly because of its relation to the sense of community, as discussed above. Major metropolitan areas arc simply less likely to have a strong sense of neighborhood community such as would be expected in a rural village or even a smaller city. Sanitation credit programs arc - so far - dependent on

-··- _ ...... -, ... -....... ...

the community to ensure repayment. If a credit recipient moves or sells his house in a village or small city, the community will know about it and take steps to sec that the sanitation credit is repaid; the same is not true in Jakarta or Surabaya.

Similarly, villages and smaller ~Hies tend to have lower coverage by existing sanitation facilities while, at the same time, their house lots arc better suited to construction of on-site disposal. Thus, it may be appropriate from a strategy viewpoint to emphasize programs in other than major metropolitan areas. By the same token, as there is wide variation in the present institutional capability of different Kelurahans or Dcsas, it would be tactically wise to concentrate on the more suitable areas first.

Willingness to Repay

The three essc;tial requirements for a high level of repayment would appear to be:

a willingness to pay Customers must feel the debt is reasonable (i.e. no compulsion to take a loan, reasonable interest, value for money (cash instead of materials); an efficient collection system Community groups (e.g. PKK) are often well intentioned but lack the financial rigor that is provided by e.g. the BKK; peer pressure on defa,ulters If a payment is missed, or someone else is seen not to pay, and there arc no immediate consequences, future payments can be expected to drop off rapidly. There is evidence of this and it seems logical that the community would be most effective in combating it.

Patterns of Repayment

The repayment records of a number of locations were studied. When the monthly repayment as a percentage of th~ theoretical repayment was plotted over time (Figur~ 7.6), a number of characteristic patterns were found which may assist in future program monitoring. These patterns were as follows: 1. Zero repayment (not graphed). This indicates a

major problem in the execution of the project (e.g., very poor contractor performance, no credit agreements with recipients, misinformation to the recipients, etc.)

2. Consistently high repayment (Fig.7.6 a, b, c). This indicates a well-executed project in an area with a strong, well-functioning community organization.

3. Fluctuating repayment around a 70- 80% average,. (Fig. 7.6 d, c, f, g, h, i). The variations arc probably related to local factors such as major holidays (Lcbaran). or cropping cycles or date of collection and arc not a cause for concern.

4. Low repayment showing a downward average trend (Fig. 7.6j, k}. This might indicate some negative community influence, such as ·the previously- described case in Sorosutan.

6-7

CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN ON-SITE SANITATION

5. High repayment with a downward trend to mcdiumllow (Fig. 7.61, m, n, o, p). This may indicate waning enthusiasm, especially if the downward trend occurs after a long time (say, 20 months). An eariier downward trend may indicate problems or irregularities.

6. High repayment followed by a rapid decline (Fig. 7.6 q). This might indicate a new problem, such as default by a prominent person or institutional conflict.

Credit Schemes Involving Partial Grants .

Of the locations studied, partial grants were significant only in Kclurahan Kartasura (Kabupaten Sukohaljo, Central Java - 38 Small Towns Project), where recipients had the option of partial grant assistance for shared facilities. In this location, repayment level was low, and problems reported in the field included confusion and miscommunication as to repayment responsibility.

The option of partial grants is intended to extend the scope of sanitation credit assistant to people who would not otherwise be included. At the same time, it increases the complexity of a credit program. Further study would be necessary to determine whether, or under what conditions, the increased complexity of mixed/grant schemes is justified by the possible extension of scope.

Unimplemented Credit Scheme Proposals

Sanitation credit schemes. were proposed in Surabaya IUIDP, W.Java IKK, and Aceh STS projects but (up to now) were not implemented. These schemes are summarized as follows: (1) Surabaya IUIDP This scheme would use Bank

Pc:mbangunan Daerah (BPD) for administration of the credit. Eighty percent of the credit would come from an IBRD loan (at 9%) on-lent from the Kotamadya (KMS); the remaining 20% would come from BPD but be guaranteed by KMS. Control of defaulters would be through the Kdurahan. The combined interest rate would be approximately 14%, but the Mayor of Surabaya has expressed the wish that KMS subsidize it so that it will not exceed 12%. Maximum loan term would be 60 months. Reportedly, the implementation of the credit program has stalled over two unresolved issues: (a) a request by BPD that collectors receive salary from KMS; and (b) details of the control/reporting procedures.

(2) W.Java IKK The proposed scheme would use the KUD or LPK for handling the program at the village level. The project fund would be deposited at BUKOPIN (tM central cooperatives bank that assists the local KUD), or deposited with BPD. It was reported from preliminary discussions that both BUKOPIN and BPD arc legally permitted (and willing) to channel project fund through the

c:. a

local KUD to private persons in order to finance improvements in sanitary facilities. The credit scheme was not implemented, however, because "the project has not been able to achieve the required level of consensus with the authorities to implement their proposals via a comprehensive action plan."

(3) Acch STS The proposed scheme would have used Kupedes credit facilities of Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI) to finance the credit portion. This type of credit was considered most accessible to the public, cheap (officially lo/olmonth), and free of complicated credit procedures. It does, however, require collateral. Loan term is up to 36 months. However, it was determined in the end that "the Kupedes credit facilities ... could only be used for commercial purp.oses and not for building purposes without commercial value." Other alternatives were investigated, but reportedly "failed due to the lack of a legal structure at local level that could poi~t out households who would be eligible for a loan."

The above cases are mentioned, not with the intent of singling them out for criticism, but rather to indicate the kinds of difficulties which are likely to be encountered in attempts to initiate "widespread sanitation credit programs" at this time.

a

150 140 130

- 120 ;168 ~ 90

~ ~g 0: 60 (; so ;f. ~

20 10 0

1SO 140 130 120

~ 110

[ 1~ ~ ~g 0: 60 (; so ;f. 40

30 20 10 0

1SO 140 130 120

~ 110 t 1gg :1 80

~ ~g (; so ;f. 40

30 20 10

0

150 140 130 120

~ 110

[ 1~ g. ~g 0: 80 (; 50 ;f. 40

30 20 10

0

CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN ON-SITE SANITATION

Figure 6.6a. Kelurahan Joyosuran (Six Cities Project, Solo}

ll 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12

Month

Figure 6.6c. Kelurahan Kadipiro (Six Cities Project, Solo)

lll 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Figure 6.6e. Kelurahan Nusukan IV (Pilot Project Solo-Semarang, Solo}

2 3 4 5 6 7

Month

8

Figure 6.6g. Kelurahan Pucangsawit (Six Cities Project, Solo)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

150 140 130

- 120 c 110 " 100 ~ 00 :1 80 .. 70 0: 60 0 50 ;f. 40

30 20 10 0

150 140 130 c 120

<1> 110 E 100 >- 90 "' n. 80

"' 0: 0 <?-

70 80 50 40 30 20 10

150 140 130 120

0

-.: 110

~ 1~ a. 80

a: ~g 0 50 ;J: 40

30 20 10 0

Figure 6.6b. Kelurahan Sondakan (Six Cities Project, Solo)

2 3 IUIJll

5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12

Month

Figure 6.6d. Kelurahan Jebres I (Pilot Project Solo-Semarang, Solo}

,,.

,JIIJIII1lll.iiiJ lllhlllh •ill J J~~JI~IUUIJ ~ ~~ 0 ~.!:1,l:1,~ .~.l:l '

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Month

Figure 6.6f. Kelurahan Tegalrejo (Six Cities Project, Yogyakarta)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15

Month

Figure 6.6h. Kelurahan Purbayan (Post Six Cities Project, Yogyakarta}

2 3

Month

4 5

CHAPTER f; FINANCJAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN ON·SITE SANITATION

150 140 130 120

c 110

i 1gg ~ 80 " 70

C>: 60 0 50 '$ 40

30 20 10 0

150 140 130 120

c 110 " 100 ~ 90 lt 80

Figure 6.6i. Kelurahan Gedongkiwo (Post Six Cities Project., Yogyakarta)

2 3

Month

4 5

Figura 6.6k. Kalurahan Sorosutan (Six Cities Project, Yogyakarta)

~ ~

050 II • ij l_91.1.1.1.1.l.i,l,oo.~.l.l,l,

150 140 130

- 120 ~ 110 E100 >- 90 g_ 80 ... 70

a:: 60 0 50

~ ~g 20 10 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Month

Figure 6.6m. Kelurahan Jebres Ill (Pilot Project Solo-Semarang, Solo)

Month

Figure 6.6o. Kelurahan Nusukan I (Pilot Project Solo-Semarang, Solo)

150 ·~ 140. 130.

~ 120 c 110. " 100 ~ 90 " 80 ~

~ ~ diiiiiJ~~~ J t II I ~ ~~ muU.IJ duJ dd~tlll.[bUIIJJ.

R-1 0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Month

150 140 130 120

c 110

i 1gg [ 80

Figure 6.6j. Kelurahan Nusukan Ill (Pilot Project Solo-Semarang, Solo)

c:! l8

; ~ ab _h_naJ .•• L.l .. M

150 140 130 120

11~~ E 90 >- 80 g_ 70

~ ~ ~ 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9101112131415161718192021222324

Month

Figure 6.61. Kelurahan Jebres II (Pilot Project Solo-Semarang, Solo)

30

~g ~.d.U ~ ~~l~ ~ ~l~~.

150 140 130 120

~ 110 :J100 ~ 90 .. 80 a. 70 .;! 60 ~ 50

40 30 20 10 0

150 140 130

~ 120

1 2 3 4 56 7 8 91011121314151617161920212223242526272829

Month

Figure 6.6n. Kelurahan Jebres IV (Pilot Project Solo-Semarang, Solo)

2 3 4

Month

5 6

Figure 6.6p. Kelurahan Nusukan II (Pilot Project Solo-Semarang, Solo)

7

H68 I >- 90 ~

I I 11111111 1~1~~~ .~ 1 ~ ~ ~g .. h.~J]~~j~ ~ .~~~J§j~~~~~~~~~~]~

1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9101112131415161718192021222324252627262\llO

Month

> :

I ! '

I I I

'

-· .... , ~·· v , .,,,,....,,,~... ""'"''"' 1111'1'-'C ri\UuKAM~i IN ON-SITE SANITATION

~ ~

·E ~ l} 0: -$.

100

80

60

40

20

0

Figure 6.7q Kelurahan Jayengan (Six Cities Project, Solo)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

CONCLUSIONS

From the findings of the study, the following arc concluded: (I) Cash credit is preferable to either materials or

complete unit schemes, wl1ich should be avoided unless there is very strong'}ustification due to special circumstances.

(2) Efforts should be made to permit an exception to regulations regarding APBN funds so that they can be used to seed cash credit funds. At the same time, projects using locally generated funds for the seed credit (with, possibly, APBN for the "software" components) should be encouraged.

(3) A moderate interest rate, large enough to cover regular program expenses and inflation (e.g. 1%-2o/.Jmonth) is advisable and will not discourage participants.

(4) Loan repayment periods such as used in recent projects (typically 2-3 years) arc reasonable. Terms longer than 5 years arc regarded with doubt because of the difficulty sustaining repayment over a long period.

(5) Some contribution by the borrower toward the construction of the facility (at least 20%, in cash or in kind) is considered helpful to increase the borrower's sense of ownership.

(6) Credit program organizations should be kept simple. Although there is need for control, a complex institutional structure can lead to more loss. The function of the Badan Kredit Kecamatan in some credit programs can be assumed directly by the KKS without any detrimental effects.

(7) The sorts of sanitation credit programs implemented up to now arc necessarily dependent on a community-based approach and on a location having a·strong sense of community.

(8) A source of money for project overheads is essential. Interest, monthly charge, local government budget allocation, or a combination can be used successfully, but the matter must not be overlooked in planning.

HECOMMENDATIONS

lt is recommended that: (1) Government regulations should be drafted· that

provide for the usc of Central Government funds as cash credit.

(2} Credit schemes should incorporate:

(a) Moderate interest rates (l-2o/.Jmonth) to provide for overheads;

(b) Loan rcpaymcmnt periods of2- 3 years; (c) A minimum borrower contribution of 20% of

the value of the facility; (d) Internal performance mDnitoring;

(3) In operation of credit schemes: (a) Preference should be given to locations having

a strong sense of community and functioning community institutions (such as L~MD and PKK).

(b) The role of public works agencies should be limited to providing technical guidance.

(c) Swift action should be taken to correct any bad example by key community figures.

(4) Further study should be made of the feasibility and applicability of partial grant assistance in credit programs. , •

6-11

CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN ON-Sf TE SAN! I A 1/CJN

This page deliberately left blank.

6-12

CHAPTER 1 (1) Pilot projects in shallow sewerage should be

implemented as soon as possible, but their technical and institutional aspects should be checked carefully to ensure success.

(2) The training of local government staff in preparation of Human Waste Disposal Action Plans should be implemented as soon as possible. In this regard, "re-packaging" the Guidelines in the most effective form for usc by local governments is recommended as a useful activity of the Community Water and Sanitation Project (CWSP).

(3) Correct on-site disposal design standards should be promulgated to all local governments, the Department of Housing, Perumnas, and all concerned with building codes and housing estates.

(4) The policy and regulatory framework at all levels should be strengthened to support the Strategy. This includes improved building code human waste disposal requirements, mandatOI)' local government preparation of Human Waste Disposal Action Plans, and consolidation of all on-site disposal design standards used by various agencies (e.g., Perumnas, Health, Public Works, etc.).

(5) Future projects in any city should be conditional upon formulation of its Human Waste Disposal Action Plan, including enactment of necessary regulations, adoption of appropriate standards and codes, designation or establishment of institutions, and initiation or establishment of institutions, and initiation of a program of implementation.

(6) A review of the 1989 National Survey and recent project survey raw data, together with field checks, resun·eys, and other cross-checks (such as comparison with the number of toilets and squat plates sold), should be undertaken to help clarify the real extent of present coverage and the mechanism by which change has taken place during the past decade.

(7) The technology selection flow chart in the Guidelines should be revised to reflect modifications in the text of the Guidelines that shallow sewerage may be used with average ground slopes around 1% (not 2% as indicated). The technology selection flow chmt seems to be widely distributed, but without inclusion of the cautions and qualifications found in the text; a corrected and complete version should be disseminated by the CWSP -- perhaps most

~ appropriately as part of the Guidelines-- to all agencies and individuals involved in wastewater planning.

(8) The technology of on-site treatment of septic tank cmucnt (such as with anaerobic upflow filter or other method) should be investigated for its applicability as an interim solution in some circumstances, and design standards should be formulated.

(9) All future projects and investigations involving on or off-site human waste disposal, including supporting regulations etc., should specifically provide for the disposal of sullage.

CHAPTER 2 (1) The top-down, physical target oFicntcd aspect of

MCK construction programs i'n residential areas should be abandoned.

(2) The applicability of communal facilities in residential areas must be determined through a planning process, the key features of which arc: a) The population to be served needs to be

identified and the "demand" for communal facilities assessed. This implies the need to talk with the community and involve them in the planning process. If there is no "demand" then communal facilities are not applicable.

(b) Adequate water supply must be provided and clear provision made for operation and maintenance. If these cannot be assured, then communal facilities are not applicable.

(c) The disposal problem needs to be considered in the context of the city's overaiJ human waste disposal planning.

(3) Every effort should be made so that schools will have proper sanitary facilities and become models of good sanitation practice. Upgrading of toilet and washroom facilities in schools should be included - and given priority - in programs for construction of public sanitation facilities.

(4) Safe on-site disposal of communal toilet wastes should be based on the following factors: (a) Correct seepage facility design; (b) Provision of adequate land area; (c) Provision of desludging services; and (d) Appropriate local regulations and their

enforcement. (5) The applicability in Indonesia of large MCKs in

serving high-density, low income, or transient population areas should be tested by constructing and operating a demonstration facility in conjunction with an NGO.

(6) A demonstration project should be initiated to identify existing abandoned communal facilities which arc suitable for rehabilitation and, through a procCiS of community education and organization, help re-establish their successful operation.

CHAPTER 3 (1) Correct national on-site disposal design standards

should be promulgated to ~11 local governments, the Department of Housing, Perumnas, and all concerned with building codes and housing estates.

(2) AIJ housing estates should be required to comply with the human waste and wastewater management plan of the local government in which they are situated, and technical solutions should be as approved and enforced by local· government. Local govcrnmcnts.should enforce tlicsc standards by refusing building permission,

R-1

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

or residential permits, in cases where facilities do not comply with the standards.

(3) On-site disposal designs for residential areas should be constrained by national design standards to consider future possible waste vollumes, and not those of the initial occupants. In many cases, design would then be based on area and not on the number of occupants.

(4) Low-cost sewerage with local treatment should only be approved for housing estates when subsequent operation and maintenance can be properly managed. Local governments should be encouraged to consider this in formulating their human waste and wastewater disposal action plans.

(5) A demonstration project should be undertaken for rehabilitation and operation of the Karawaci I sewer system, as described above, to demonstrate localized wastewater management and test the concept of local people taking action to upgrade the value of their property and improve · environmental sanitation.

(6) The technology of on-site treatment (e.g., by septic tank with anaerobic upflqw filter) should. be investigated for its applicability as an interim solution in some circumstances, and design standards should be formulated.

CHAPTER 4 . (1) Further study should be made of actual long term

in:!iltration rates of toilet wastes and septic tank enlucnts in various soils and for various disposal designs.

(2) Standards and regulations controlling the design, construction, operation and maintenance of both technologies should be prepared for use by local governments.

(3) Model procedures should be prepared to support the model standards and regulations recommended in (2). These procedures should also include job descriptions of related personnel (inspectors etc.).

CHAPTER 5 (1) A new shallow sewer pilot project should be

proposed and implemented in JUDP as soon as possible. The proposal should inclucw the following: (a) A description of surveys to be conducted, both

physical and socio-economic; (b) A discussion of the intended approach to

developing community awareness and participation (which have been found to be essential to the success of shallow sewer projects elsewhere). It is hoped that the project will achieve 100% connection of buildings in the area; however, it may be necessary to first perform a de1110nstration in a sm:.1ll sub-area to convince others of its feasibility;

(c) A discussion of the approach to institutional aspects. How will the "condominium" concept be implemented? Arc there legal obstacles to be resolved? How docs management of the

local shallow sewer fit into the context of the city-wide program?

(d) A discussion of the approach to methods of construction and quality control (including testing for leaks). Also, the issue of self-help versus contractor services should be addressed. If two smaller areas arc to be served, rather than one large pilot area, perhaps both self­help and contractor construction can be tried;

(e) Treatment requirements. To avoid unnecessary complication of the pilot project by treatment, waste carried in the pilot sewer could be discharged to a conventional sewer;

(l) Projected costs; also, if appropriate, a comparison with the cost of on-site technology in the same area;

(g) A plan for mopitoring operations. (h) Identification of an appropriate point for

reviewing design decisions. (2) Small bore sewerage pilot projects should be

carefully reviewed to ensure that the institutional means of preventing entry of solids into the small bore sewer (such as from illegal connections, un­maintained septic tanks, or untrapped sullage) arc adequately provided for.

CHAPTER 6 (1) Government regulations should be drafted that

provide for the use of Central Government funds as cash credit.

(2) Credit schemes should incorporate: (a) Moderate interest rates (l-2o/Jmonth) to

provide for overheads; (b) Loan repaymemnt periods of2- 3 years; (c) A minimum borrower contribution of20% of

the value of the facility; (d) Internal performance monitoring;

(3) In operation of credit schemes: (a) Preference should be given to locations having

a strong sense of community and functioning community institutions (such as LKMD and PKK).

(b) The role of public works agencies should be limited to providing technical guidance.

(c) Swift action sl1ould be taken to correct any bad example by key community figures.

(4) Further study should be made of the feasibility and applicability of partial grant assistance in credit programs.

SUGGESTED FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATIONS

In addition to the recommendations for further research given in the report, several follow-up investigations (for which there was insufficicnftime during the study) arc suggested: (I) A follow-up investigation should be made of the

sanitation pilot project in Kupang District and of the sanitation credit program reportedly started by the NTT provincial government for 97 villages.

(2) Both the municipal and Perumnas sewer systems in Cirebon should be visited and investigated, as well as the Perumnas f.1cility in Mojosongo (Solo).

.,,

(3) More examples of community sanitation e1Torts not sponsored by the government should be sought and investigated, especially those conducted through NGOs outside of Java.

(4) More sanitation projects conducted through Bangdcs and Dcpkcs should be looked at.

(5) Additional visits should be made to locations with tidal influence, swampy conditions, expansive clay soils, or other special difficulties.

(6} Experience with sullage disposal systems ("SPAL") promoted by the Department of Health should be investigated further.

'.

R-3

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

This page deliberately left blank.

R-4

("

INDONESIA- Review of Urban and Rural Sanitation Past Experience

Terms ofReference

1. On or about July, 1990 and until September 28, 1990 you will you will travel to Indonesia to carry out a review of urban snitation experience and the appropriateness of current guidelines for future Bank support to the sector.

2. In 1988, a study was carried out by the Directorate-General for Human Settlements (Cipta Karya) of the Dept of Public Works to prepare the National Strategy for Human Wastes/Wastewater Disposal in Urban Areas for Rcpelita V. The Strategy recommended inter alia, greater emphasis on on-site sqnitation solutions (in addition to sewerage as appropriate), testing of intermediate operations and maintenance. A strategy document under preparation by Cipta Karya addresses similar considerations applied to Rural Areas. It is desired to investigate a number of specific issues in the light of recent experience to determine actual experience at project level and to assess the adequacy and usefulness of both sets of Strategic Guidelines. The eventual goal is to then review and strengthen the strategy and guidelines if found necessary.

3 The topics to be addressed, and specific aspects to be investigated, arc as follows: ' ~.

(a) Guidelines and Criteria for On-Site and Off-Site Sanitation. Review the adequacy (with special emphasis on appropriate technology) of the National Strategy for Human Waste/Wastewater Disposal in Urban Areas and the strategy under preparation for Rural Areas in the light of experience in: the Jakarta Sewerage and Sanitation Project; the Six Cities (Java) Sanitation Project~ the Bandung Urban Development Project; KIP and other projects in Yogyakarta; the West Java and Aceh Small Town Sanitation Project; KIP (in and out of Java); and Cirebon, Tangerang and other relevant projects. Make recommendations for amendment as appropriate.

Specific issues to be addressed include: What technologies were used? What were the criteria used in selecting these technologies?

Was their application successful? If not, what problems were encountered? What new or modified criteria are recommended? To what extent was user choice a criterion of technology selection? To what extent was willingness to pay a criterion oftechnology selection? To what extent was cost a criterion of technology selection? Sullage disposal practices and whether problems encountered? Sanitation design criteria and materials used; Waste water treatment and disposal arrangements; Revwnue collection and use of funds; Capital and recurrent costs; Environmemtal impact ofthe schemes; Operational problems encountered; User satisfaction (in terms of cost, reliability, hygiene, convenience and privacy) and willingness to pay for services

(b) Comparative Study of Septic Tanks and Leaching Pits (twin and single); Review the technical, financial and institutional differences between these technologies including a comparison of lifetime economic cost, user attitudes and maintenance requirements.

Specific activities to be carried out include:

A 1-1

.. ·'i

'I I.::

APPENDIX 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

(c)

A comparative analysis of septic tanks and leaching pits (twin and single) including institutional service arrangements, system reliability and environmental impact; Obtain materials list for standard designs of each technology and unit costs of materials and labour; Prepare estimates ofcapital and 0 & M costs and compare equivalent annual costs of the two alternatives for different combinations ofuser numbers and soil permeability; Review the need for, availability and costs of propeily managed outside service (i.e. septic tank desludging, pit emptying, transportation and final disposal of contents) for each technology. Report on any problems encountered with these technologies; Review regulations necessary for each technology and whether adequate regulations are in place and able to be enforced (e.g. right of entry for septic tank emptying, discharge of effluent to surface drains, requirements for households to install sanitation facilities, etc.).

Review of Communal Ablution Facilities - MCKs (mandi, cuci, kakus), KUs (kakus ummum), MKs (mandi, kakus). Review available reports and assess the availability of communal ablution facilities as an urban sanitation option giving account to design, capital cost, availability of water supply services, effluent disposal, user acceptance, maintenance and cost re~overy performance and potential, and viable alternative technical solutions. Carry out surveys of communal ablution facility use, collection of payments from users and the use of the funds collected.

(d) Sanitation of Housing Estates and other areas of limited extent. Review the experience of PERUMNAS (National Housing Board) and other organisations with off and on-site sanitation services in low cost housing estates, slum, coastal and isolated areas and make recommendations of technology choice for future projects. Specific issues to be addressed include:

(e)

Estate size and population numbers; Water service and user payments;

Financing and Cost Recovery. Different approaches have been used for assisting families to acquire improved sanitation facilities, cash loans have been disbursed from community revolving funds enabling families to make private arrangements for purchase of materials and/or construction of facilities. Iri 'Other cases specific suppliers have been appointed from whom approved applicants have obtained designated materials and repaid their va.lue in cash to a revolving fund. Review the experience with cash or materials or the provision of complete units assistance schemes; the extent of utilisation from the basic as well as the repayment fund; responsibility for, and costs of, administration; repayment levels; response to defaulting creditors; amount of assistance; interest rates and repayment period; collateral requirements; and ··· whether funds are available to both individuals and to groups and whether repayment performance is different. Compare the positive and negative features of each scheme and recommend the most appropriate one for rural areas ( desa), urban fringe areas and urban areas. Towns selected for study should include the NTT town ofKupang . ..

(f) Intermediate Sewerages. The proposed JUDP II project in Jakarta includes provision for pilot projects to treat the applicability, under Indonesian urban conditions, of lower cost, intermediate sewerage solutions such as solids free (small bore) sewerage and

A1-2

shallow (flat) sewerage. In the light of findings under this study, review proposals for the pilot intermediate sewerage projects and make recommendations.

4. Task manager for this assignment is Mr Richard Cross who will provide initial briefing, assist with local arrangements and provide copies of reports etc. You should liaise with staff and consultants of the Jakarta Sewerage and Sanitation Project (JSSP) and relevant projects in other cities. The National birector of Project INS/88/005, Mr Adnan Widodo, will supervise the assignment.

5 Within 10 weeks of commencing the assignment and at the completion of field work, you will present and discuss with IBRD and the relevant Indonesian authorities the preliminary findings and recommendations of the studiies. Any views of these authorities, or decisions to take action in response to the study recommendations, should be reported.

6 Within two weeks of presenting your findings and recommendations you will draft a report on your work.

7 The draft report will be reviewed by the relevant Indonesian authorities and the IBRD-and submitted to you in writing within two weeks , and within two weeks of reviewing these comments you will submit your final report.

8 Reporting is requi;ed in accordance with the following s~hedule:

GOI IBRD

Draft Report (12 wk) 10 5

Final Report (16 wk) 20 10

A1-3

' ,·J :!

APPENDIX 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

This page deliberately left blank

-,

A1-4

·:.,

..

Technical Strategy

I) A mix of human waste and wastewater technologies should be determined in each urban area most technically appropriate and cost e!Tectivc to suit local needs and conditions.

2) Priority is to be given to providing human waste disposal facilities for populations suffering the most insanitary conditions.

3) Priority is given to rehabilitation and proper operation and maintenance of all existing facilities. Rehabilitation of existing Dutch built sewerage systems and community toilets should be undertaken wherever feasible.

4) Current major city sewerage projects should all be completed during Rcpelita V to the extent where they arc fully effective.

5) New sewerage projects should be undertaken during Rcpclita V only in areas where on-site disposal systems are not feasible, or in areas where they can be locally afforded.

6) Pilot low cost sewerage and sewage treatment projects should be undertaken to determine their suitability for wider application in Indonesia and for demonstration purposes. Proven low cost sewerage should be installed especially in kampung areas where on-site disposal is not feasible. ·

7) Wide scale community based financial assistance and technical guidance programs should be established for the construction and renovation of private and shared toilets with on-site disposal facilities.

8) Community toilet projects should be greatly extended with much greater community participation, and coordinated with financial assistance programs for private and shared facilities. Community toilets should generally be installed for defined small groups of families. Larger facilities should be constructed at markets and bus stations for unrestricted usc.

9) On-site disposal operation and maintenance should be improved by

- investigation of the causes of septic tank/leaching system failures, -provision of better septage services, and - establishing proper facilities for septage disposal.

10) Central government should give special assistance to regions which have the greatest needs and where there is high development potential, especially in tourism.

Institutional Strategy

(I) In general, existing institutional organisations should be strengthened and improved rather than new ones created.

(2) Central government responsibilities should include:

- Strategy monitoring, direction and adjustment

-Human resources development - Guidance to local governments - Implementing a national promotion campaign -Pilot projects and studies - Some sewerage project implementation

(3) The early establishment of local government training programs and the promotion campaign arc essential to the implementation of the Strategy.

(4) Local governmettt responsibilities should include: -Preparation and development of local Human Waste Disposal Action Plans - On-site disposal projects and programs -Community toilet facility projects -Sewerage projects with assistance as required - Operation and maintenance of sewerage, and septage collection and disposal - Tcchnicai support and control of private human waste disposal facilities

(5) Local governments should select and coordinate agencies for human waste disposal within their institutional structure. ·

(6) IUIDP advisory support should be increased to assist in the preparation of Human Waste Disposal Action Plans.

(7) The current on-site disposal projects should be developed into on-going programs. Local government agencies should gradually assume the functions currently performed by consultants.

(8) Local governments should coordinate human waste disposal programs with KIP activities.

(9) Community participation should be required in the planning and maintenance, and encouraged in the construction of community toilet projects.

(10) Septage collection and disposal services should be provided by private companies where possible, licenced and regulated by, local government. Septage disposal sites should be established and controlled by local government.

(11) Local regulations (Peraturan Daerah) should be introduced and enforced concerning:

-building codes for approved human waste disposal facilities, -·requirements to connect t o sewers where available, and - Control of septage collection and disposal services.

Financial Strategy

(1) Private investment in human-waste disposal should be stimulated by

-Promotional activities -Building code requirements .:. Financial assistance programs for private human waste disposal facilities.

(2) Cost recovery mechanisms and revenues should be developed. Grant funding should generally only be available on the basis of poverty alleviation, for administrative and technical support, and for pilot and demonstration projc~ts. It must be accepted

A2-1

'>

APPENDIX 2 STRATEGY

that this measure of cost recovery will not be achieved in the medium term. Cost recovery may. be achieved by charges both on the user groups and on non-users benefiting from the environmental improvements.

(3) Financial assistance programs for private and shared toilets with on~site disposal facilities should be greatly extended and a wider range of financial options should be developed.

(4) User charges (luran) should be introduced on community toilets constructed for identified small groups offamilies.

Promotion Strategy

(1) An extensive national campaign to educate the public of the importance of human waste sanitation should be developed and implemented. This should be coordinated with a social marketing programme designed to stimulate demand for better human waste disposal facilities, and their usc.

A2-2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alpin Consult

Alpin Consult ,.

Alpin Consult

Argamakmur, Konsortium

Astron Polaris, P.T.

Astron Polaris, P.T.

Astron Polaris, P.T.

Jakarta Sewerage and Sanitation Project", JSSP Plan for Completion Phase I (Executive Summary).

"Jakarta Sewerage and Sanitation Project Construction Supcxvision", Consultant's Advisory Services. Review and Evaluation of Alternatives for Handling and Disposal of Phase I Sewage Flows, 15 Jan. 1987.

"Circbon Surface and Wastewater Drainage Project", Masterplan, Feb. 1985.

(Ciriajasa, et al.) "Rcncana Induk dan Studi Kclayakan Air Bersih dan Sanitasi Kola Argamakmur", Laporan Akhir, Vol. B: Air Limbah, Jakarta 1989.

"Pengembangan Sistem Perencanaan Pembuangan Air Limbah dan Kotoran Manusia di Kota Bogar", Final Report, Bogor, Apr. 1988.

"Pengembangan Sistcm Percncanaan Pembuangan Air Limbah & Kotoran Manusia di Kota Bogar" Interim Report, Bogar, Jan 1988.

Pengembangan Sistem Perencana Pembuangan Air Limbah dan Kotoran Manusia 'di Kota Dcnpasar, Final Report, Denpasar, 1\pr. 1988.

Bandung Urban Development Project "Project Pengambangan Kota Bandung- Dcwi Sartika -",Jan 1990.

Bappeda Tk. II Medan

Biro Pusat Statistik

Coffey and Partners, et al.,

Culpin Planning Ltd., et al.

Dacrea P.T. et al.

de KruijfT, G.J.W.

Deserco Dev. Service PT

Descrco PT, eta!

Deserco PT, et al.

Deserco PT. et al.

DHV

DHV, et al.

DHV, et al.

DHV, et al.

DHV, et al.

DHV, ct al.

"Feasibility Study, Vol. 2- Project Component", Second Medan Urban Development Project, Apr. 1988.

"Statistik Perumahan dan Lingkungannya 1989", Survei Sosial Ekonomi National, Jakarta 1990.

"Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Study", Final Report Volumes I and II, January 1990 (ADB Technical Assistance No.1107-INO):

"Botabek Urban Development Project", Feasibility Report (Balaraja, Serpong, Cikarang) Vol. III: Infrastructure Sector Program, Serpong, Draft Report, March 1990.

"Central Java- Small Towns Urban Development Sector Project Improvement of Sanitation System for 38 Small Towns", Final Report Vol. I and II.

"The Design of Septic Tank Systems with Effluent Disposal Options". Mar. 1986 INS/84/005 Urban Sanitation Investment Support.

(Konsorsium) "Rencana Teknis Pra$arana dan Sarana Air Limbah Domestik di Kota Surabaya (Paket II)" Draft Final, Apr. 1990.

"Tambahan I: Scktor Drainase, Jalan Kota, Persampahan, Air Limbah, KIP, Perbaikan Pusat Kotip Denpasar, Kab. Badung", IUIDP Bali, Jan. 1990.

"Technical Memorandum, Human Waste Disposal", IUIDP East Java, Nov. 1989.

"Dokumen Teknis: Program Investasi Pcmbangunan Prasarana Kota, Sektor: Air Bersih, Drainase, Persampahan, Pembuangan Air Kotor, Jalan Kota, Pcrbaikan Kampung dan Prasarana Pasar", IUIDP East Java, Kabupaten Sidoarjo, Mar. 1990.

"Indonesia Third Health Project" Water Supply and Sanitation Component in Nusa Tenggara Barat. Pre-Appraisal Mission, Final Report, June 1988.

Evaluation Report Human Waste Disposal (Draft); IUIDP East )ava, June 1990.

"Real Demand Assessment Urban Services", for the City ofBanyuwangi, East Java, IUIDP-East Java Project, Dec. 1988. '··

"Real Demand Assessment Urban Services", for Kcdiri, IUrDP-East Java Project Feb. 1988.

"Real Demand Assessment Urban Services", for Kabupaten Sidoarjo, IUIDP-Easl Java Project, Feb. 1988. ·

"Real Demand Assessment Urban Services", for Probolinggo, IUIDP-East Java Project Nov. 1988.

A3-1

APPENDIX 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY

DHV, ct al.

DHV, ct al.

DHV, et al.

DHV, ct al.

DPU

DPU

DPU

DPU, Dir. PLP

DPU, Dir. PLP & UNDP

Dra. H.Naning, SMHK

Drs. Moh. Jufri Pringadi

Ehlers and Steel ·

Elmes Epsilon, et al.

Haskoning & Lestari D.R.

Haskoning & Lestari D.R.

Haskoning & Lestari D.R.

Haskoning & Lestari D.R.

Haskoning & Lestari D.R.

Haskoning, et al.

IHHE Delft, et al.

Indah Karya, et a!.

I waco

Iwaco, et al.

"Strategy and Desigq. Criteria" (Draft) For 38 Small Towns Sanitation Project For Aceh (STS Aeeh), March 1989.

"Penyelidikan Kualitas Air Tanah Dangkal", IUIDP East Java.

"Tambahan IH Rencana Investasi Perkotaan, Sektor Drainase, Persampahan, Air Kotor, Prasarana Pasar dan Jalan Kota, IUIDP East Java Kota Taman, Kab. Sidoarjo", June 1989.

"Botabek Sewerage and Drainage Project" General Plan for Sewerage of Tangerang, August 1980.

Keputusan Menteri Pekcrjaan Umum No.20/KPTS/1986 tentang: "Pedoman Tehnik Pembangunan Peru mahan Sederhana Tidak Bersusun".

Pedoman "Mendirikan Bangunan Gedung" SKBI- 1.3.53. 1987, UDC: 69002, D.P.U. Oct. I 987.

"Tata Cara pcrencanaan Bangunan MCK Umum". SK SNI-T-08-1989-F Dept. Pekerjaan Umum. Yayasan LPMB, Bandung, Juli"1989.

"Pcngelolaan MCK"

"Peran Serta Wanita Dalam Program Sanitasi" Saran dan Petunjuk, Sept. 1987.

(Camat Cibadak- Sukabumi), "Pelaksanaan Proyek-Sanitasi Masyarakat di Kota Demo", Bandung, Nov. 1989.

(Bupati Kab. Majalengka), "Organisasi Pelaksana Proyek Sanitasi Masyarakat dalam rangka Proyek STS West Java, Workshop Pproyek Sanitasi Masyarakat, Bandung, Nov. 1989.

Municipal and Rural Sanitation, McGraw-Hill, 1965

"Pengembangan Sistem Perencanaan Pembuangan Air Limbah dan Kotoran Manusia di Palembang", Final Report.

"On-site Sanitation Institutional/Investment Study with Implementation Support of Sanitation in KIP in Semarang dan Surakarta". Final Report, Dec. 1987.

"Lampi ran I:s2, Study of: Revolving Fund, Cost Recovery Status at Solo and Semarang, Credit Arrordability Aspects", March 1989.

"Septic Tanks in Jakarta and Their Desludging", Urban Sanitation Investment Support, UNDP (INS/84/005), Apr. 1988.

"Pengembangan Institusi Sanitasi Sederhana di Enam Kota: Bogor, Semarang, Yogyakarta, Surakarta, Surabaya dan Malang" Final Report, 4/1989.

"Pilot Program Sanitasi Tcpat Guna" Vol. 1 - 8.

"Buku Petunjuk Workshop Proyek Sanitasi Masyarakat, Bandung Nov. 1989.

"Assessment of the Feasibility of Anaerobic Sewage Treatment in Developing Countries".

"Preparation of National Strategic Plan for the Human Waste and Waste Water Disposal Sub-Sector for Urban Areas:', Draft Final Report, Vol. 1, 2, 3, Oct. 1988

"Kredit Kesehatan Lingkungan Pelaksanaan" Buku Pegangan "Pokja" (Kelompok Kerja).

"Rural Water Supply And Sanitation Programming, West Java", Final Report 1976-1990 Vol. I-III, Bandung June 1990.

Japan International Cooperation Agency, "The Study on Urban Drainage and Wastewater Disposal in the City of Jakarta", Interim Report Supporting (Volume I & II), August 1990.

Japan International Cooperation Agency, "The Study on Urban Drainage and Wastewater Disposal in the City of Jakarta", Interim Report (Main), August 1990.

Kalbermallen, et at.

A3-2

"Pedoman Lapangan Teknik Sanitasi Tepa! Guna" di terjemahkan olch Kartahardjo et at., Feb. 1985.

TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ANDAL APBD APBN Bangdes beerput bidang resapan BKK bn BOD BPJD brandgang BRI BTN BUDP BUKOPIN c Camat CiptaKarya em cubluk cubluk kembar CWSP d Dcpkes Dinas Kesehatan ha IKK IUIDP Jabotabek Jamban Keluarga JSSP JUDP Kabupaten KalkusUmum KBS Kecamatan Kcllurahan kg KIP KK.S Kota Administratip Kol:amadya KPS KUB KUD KUPEDES 1 LKMD Lurah Ill

lfm MCK-Keluarga MCK-Umum MiilP MK-Keluarga MK-Umum mm mo NGO

Environmental Impact Assessment local government budget Central gov~rnment budget A Directorate General in Dept. of Home Affairs, responsible for villag~ development cesspit leach field Badan Kredit Kecamalan billion biochemical ox-ygen demand Bank Pembangunan Daerah, a development bank shallow open drainage channel between rows of houses. Bank Rakyat Indonesi~, a development bank Bank Tabungan Negara Bandung Urban Development Program central cooperatives bank that assists KUD capita Head ofK~camatan ~· Public works agency concerned with human settlements

. centimeter cesspit twin leaching pit Community Water and Sanitation Project (INS/88/005) day Department ofHealth Health agency hectare Ibu Kota Kecamatan, Kecamatan capital Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development Program. acronym for Jakarta, Bogor, Tangerang, Bekasi toilet facilities used by a limited group of households Jakarta Sewerage and Sanitation Project Jabotabek Urban Development Programs Administrative unit below Province (or jambanjamak) public toilet facility Kecamatan-level working group for on-site sanitation credit programs Administrative unit below Kabupaten Administrative unit below Kecamatan kilogram Kampung Improvement Program Kelurahan-level working group for on-site sanitation credit programs. Pre-incorporated city still under the Kabupaten government. In"corporated city Tingkat II-level controlling body for on-site sanitation credit programs. community common-interest group Koperasi Unit Desa, local cooperative village credit program liter Lembaga Ketahanan Masyarakat Desa, a quasi-governmental social service organization Head ofKelurahan meter million MCK for a limited group of households (usually 5-7} "Mandi-Cuci-Kakus", public bathing, washing, and toilet facility.. Market Infrastructure Improvement Program bathing and toilet facility for a limited group of families public bathing and toilet facility millimeter month non-governmental organization

A4-1

APPENDIX 4 TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

P3KT Indonesian Abbreviation for IUIDP parit resapan seepage trench PDM1 Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum, local government water enterprise Penyuluhim Information dissemination/community guidance Perumnas State-owned public housing corporation PKK A women's social service organization, closely linked to LKMD. PLP Public works agency concerned with sanitation, drainage, and solid waste. Pokja Kelompok Kelja, working group Puslitbang Pemukiman Research Institute fur Human Settlements RDA Regional Development Account Repelita Five year development plan resapan seepage facility RW Rukun Warga, administrative unit below Kelurahan SBS Small-bore sewer SD elementary school SMA high school SMP middle school STS Small Towns Sanitation project Tingkat I Provincial level Tingkat II Kotamadya or Kabupaten level. w watts

.....

. . , A4-2

----··--······-·• .. ,._._,._.., rH"'fLJ-"'-"\JVI c;;.;:riiiVII\IC.:.J

;!_~a hie Nu.

I Cm 1:~.!2wf i 011 Co.lfsji_}l" .•.;t • >f u: 2!.111 ks fi II' I. 2_!.1!!!.!...:~ .. [.' o u.w•/w!tl Cuf!!!.E!~fl:...'-:--:-:----..-----------. lt~111 \Jnit l.lnit '""t I llniiS~hn~l · .: , 2 llnu~~hnld 3 llous~hniJ

( Rp) No Tot:.;-1 7-C:-o-:~t--I'--'-:-N.;-o-"-'-'r-'-'-:.::':r"-ot""'a':-1 -=c:-o-st-+:---:N""o-=-..,.:=~T:.::o:.::t:..::I_C_o_st-.1,

I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

I. 2. J. 4.

CCI11CI1l

sand lOr concrck s:mJ for mm1:tr" gravel rcinf(,rcinc slccl hri~k

pipe other: -!ill sand -nails •\\'OOt.l

·Tic wire -Icc 90 <.li:1 I 0 cn1 ·pipe 2,.5 c111 dia -Tee 2,5 em dia Suhtotal material Forcanan Sult-li.uctnan llri~k worker l.1hnr~r

Suht<>tal lahnr

sack m:l 1113 mJ

kJ: unit Ill

mJ kg mJ kJ:

unit Ill

unit

lll:lll·day lll:lll·ll:.y 111;\ll-c.l:•y lll:ln-d:.y. __

.5200 23.500 23000-23000 -

2000 70.

3000

1.5000.

3000: 200000 .

2000 1000-1000' .500.

7000. 6000 . .50()(). 3.500.

Cnntinr.~ncy (I o•:;,) '-::-· Tut:.l Cost Source: Commumty Water and Sazut:lhonl'ro;c.:t, INS/88/00.5

7 0.1.5

0.41.5 0.12

10. 61.5

6 -

O.K 0.16

0.016 0.1 .

2-3 .

I

(l{p.) (Rp.) (Rp.) 36•100

3.525 . 9.54.5 2760 ·.·

20000 ; 430.50 -18000

12000 480 .

3200 200

2000 3000 -

.500: 1•15760

7000 6000

1.5000 J500il 63000 20!!76 .

2296]6 ..

10;7 0.1.5 0 . .55 0.17:

10 85.5

6 ._

0.8 . 0.16 1

0.02 0.15

2: 3 I

I 1 .5;

1.6

.5.5640 3525

126.50 .. 3910 ,.

20000 598.50: 18000 .

12000 480·.

4000. 300

2000. 3000

.500 18605.5

7000. 6000 •

25000 .56000 94000 • 2!W06

308061

13.7 0.15 0.75-

0.2 10

I 12.5 -6

0.12 0.2 .

O.Q2 . 0.15 .

2 3 I

1 I. 6

21

71240 3525

172.50 4600

20000 7&7.50 18000

1800 600

.4000 :wo

2000 3000

.500 215765 .

7000 6000

30000 73.500

116.500 33227

36.5492

Table 2: Pour Flush Septic Tank and leach Field(or 1 - 3 Household Capacity in Silty Soil I llou~chol<.l 2 llouschold 3 I lou5chol<.l

Nc• Item Unit Unit cost No (Rp)

I. gravel mJ 23000 1.2 2. ijuk m3 60000 0.12 3. flow COnVCJt pipe 111 3000 2

~- sand !ill mJ 1.5000 0.4 Subtotal material

5 Foreman man-day 6000 0.5 6 Sub foreman man-day 7 Brick worker man-day 8 l.1horcr man-da\' 3.500 2

Subtotal labor Contingency (I 0%) 10% Cost of leach licld C<>St of ~~ptic t:mk

'---· Tnt:.l t"nst

Table 3 /,each Field for Septic Tank /:.:jjluent in Clay Soil Cistern Flush

No It om Unit No. Unit Totol cost cost (Rpl (RpJ.

1 gravel m3 3.6 23000 82800.

2 ijuk m3 .36 60000 21600 3 llow convert pipo m 6 3000 18000 4 sond fill m3 1.2 15000 18000.

Subtotal material 140400

5 Foreman mon-day 0.5 6000 3000

6 Sub foreman mon-doy 7 Brick workor mon-day 8 Laborer man-day_ 4 3500. 14000 -

Subtotal labor 17000-

Contino ( 1 0%) 15740'

Cost leach field 173140

Col't septic tank 229636

Total Cost 402776 . ' Sourt:c: Commumty W:1t~r and Samtah\111 l'ro;~.:t.

Total Cost No Total Cost No Total Cost - (Rp) . (Rp) (Rp)

27600 2.4 ~5200 3.6 82800 7200 0.24 14400 0.36 21600 6000 4 12000 6 18000 6000 0.25 3750 0.4 6000

46800 8~3.50 128400 3000 0 . .5 3000 0.5 3000 -

7000 2 7000 3 10500 . 10000 . 10000' IJ500 '

.5680 9.53.5 14190 -62480 104885 . 156090

22'J6:1G 30ROGI )6.54')2. 2'J211(t 412946 .521.5!!2

Table 4: Cistern Flush Septic Tank and Leach Ficici for Siltv (15l/m2/d) No I tom Unit No. Unit Totol Cost

cost (Rp)

(Rp)

I. gravel m3 2.4 23000 . 55200 2. ijuk m3 0.24 GOOOO : ),1400 3. now converter pipe Ill 4 . 3000 12000-4. sandlill m3 0.8 1.5000 : 12000 .

Suhlotalmalcrial 93600 .

I. Foreman man-uay 0.5 6000 • 3000 2. Sub foreman man-day 3. Brick worker man-day 4. Laborer man-day 2 .. 3500 ' 7000-

Subtotal labor 10000 .

Contingency (I 0%) 103GO Cost of leach field 113%0 :

Cost of Septic lank 229636 -

Tnt:~ICn~t 3·13~% -

Source: Communrty Water and Sarutallonl'ro;c~1

AS-1

APPENDIX 5 MATERIAL LIST AND COST ESTIMATES

Tab~<:: 5: Cistern Flush Septic Tank and Leach Fie(d in Sandy Soil (25 Um2 /d)

No. Hem Unit No. Unit cost Total cost (Rp) (Rp)

l gravel m3 1.8 23000 41400 2 ijuk m3 0.18 60000 10800 3 !low converter pipe m 3 3000 9000 4 sand fill m3 0.6 . 1.5000 9000

Subtotal material 70200 5 Foreman man-day 0.5 6000 3000 6 Sub foreman man-day 7 Brick worker man-day 8 Laborer man-day 3 3500 10500

Subtotal labor 13500 Contingency (I 0%) 8370 Cost of leach field 92070 - Cost of septic tank 229636 -Total Cost 321706

' Sourc.:: Conumuuty W:tt.:r and Sarut:rlron ProJect

Table 6: Pour Flush Septic Tank and Leach Field, Clay Soil (JO!fm2 /d)

No I! em Unit No. Unit cost Total cost (Rp) (Rp)

I. Material 1 gravel m3 1.8 23000 41400 2 ijuk mJ 0.18 60000 10800 3 !low converter pipe m 3 3000 9000

ri- sand fill m3 0.6 1.5000 9000 Subtotal material 70200

5 Foreman man-day 0.7.5 6000 4.500 6 Sub foreman man-day 7 Brick worker man-day

r!- Laborer man-day 3 3500 10.500 Subtotal labor 15000 Contingencies (I 0%) 8520 Cost oflcach lidd 93720 Cost of septic lank 229636 T<'tal Cost 3233.56

Sourc,:: Communrty Water and Sanrtalron l'roJCCI.

Table 7: Pour Flush Sej}tic Tank and Leach Field, Smulv Soil ('511m2 /d) -·

~ I! em Unit No Unit ''usl Tot:d cusl I gravel nr3 0.6 23000 13lWO 2 ijuk m3 0.06 60000 3600 3 !low converter pipe rn I 3000 3000 4 sand fill m3 0.2 15000 3000

Subtot:rl m:tfcri:rl 2J'f00 .5 Foreman man-day 0 . .5 6000 3000 6 Sub foreman m:rn-d:ry 7 Brick worker man-day 8 l..:rborcr m:tn·d:ry I 3500 3500

Suhtotallahor 6500 Continr;cncics (10%) 2990 Cost of Leach Field 32890 Cost of septic lank 229636

1--Tot:rl Cost 262526

'-::--Sourc.:: Comrnumty Water and Sanrt:rlron l'ro;ccl.

.. . : ~ : '

.... ,

'.

COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PRESENTATION OF 5 NOVEMBER 1990

Findings of the "Review of Sanitation Past Experience" study were presented on 5 November 1990 to members of the "Tim Pendamping" (an inter-departmental and inller-directorate couterpart team of the Community Water and Sanitation Project), other officials of Cipta Karya, a visiting UNDP evaluation mission, and two individuals visiting Jakarta on IBRD assignments. It was requested at the presentation that comments -although they could be made verbally at the meeting -should be submitted later in writing.

Written comments received were as follows:

Jr. Krisno Darusman, Sub-Director of Wastewater, l~I.P

(Translated from Indonesian by L. Silver) (I) Applicability of communal.systems was clarified;

please clarify likewise the applicability of individual systems.

(2) It was explained that materials credit was undesirable and that cash credit was preferable; please describe the pluses and minuses of each, as well as constructed units credit.

(3) It was proposed to use APBN funding for software only. The consultant should note the national targets for Rcpelita V (5000 villages, 200 cities, etc.); we request his recommendation as to how these targets will be reached if APBN is only for software. Please give as many alternatives as possible.

(4) What is the largest interest rate which could be applied with the conditions at this time in Indonesia? '

(5) What repayment period is most suitable (perhaps different for different regions)?

(6) It was mentioned that the simpler the organization structure, the better. The consultant should study each existing organization and say which is best. What about the KPS, KKS, etc. organization; does it still have deficiencies? Please comment.

{7) In fact, standards and design criteria for cubluk, MCK, septic tank, etc., already exist (among others, Puslitbang Pemukiman). It is only that they arc not followed by the developer during implementation and control by local government is lacking deficient. Do you agree?

(8) Ordinarily, when a building is completed, there is a hand-over to the user, which is accompanied by guidance as to usc and maintenance, etc. The consultant is requested to look for more data on this.

(9) As to the consultant's findings, these should not be ' limited to government projects only, but should

also be compared with community projects. (JlO) Every community project, even though performed

by the government, is always preceded by community guidance/information dissemination ("pcnyuluhan"). From the consultant's explanation, one got the impression that

pcnyuluhan was never carried out. Please mention where there was pcnyuluhan, where not.

(11) The consultant should also study MCK (MK, etc) designs, whether they arc correct or in error. Do not give the impression that their design (or construction) is wrong.

(12) Regarding demand, I think it is closely linked to community understanding/awareness. Understanding will emerge when there is an approach or information dissemination. It is only the poor communities who cannot be pressed to build facilities themselves. In this case, the government must intervene or assist (such as making MCKs), even though that community docs not understand.

(13) There is not yet experience with upflow anaerobic filters, so their advantage is not yet clear. The consultant is requested to give concrete examples that this technology is suitable to be recommended.

(14) The consultant should see examples of existing disposal systems such as in tidal influence areas, swampy areas, and areas where on-site sanitation cannot be used; for this can also be categorized as "past experience", although not financed by the government. The consultant's recommendation is hoped for.

(15) Regarding institutional arrangements, the consultant should sec the existing Guideline for Implementation of ABPL & Inprcs project (contact Ir. Mulya or Ir. Gonti of Sub Dit Air Limbah).

(16) Guidelines for percolation tests exist; please look for the materials (Ir. Mulya).

(17) The BOD of grcywater is quite high (sec the Sunter Pollution Control Study); so, attention should be paid to dealing with it.

Ir. Susmono (staff of Ir. Krisno) (1) Financial Assistance Credit Programs. (a) Should we ex-pect full repayment of the credit or

not? What is the goal of this program? (b) T~~ existing organization (KKS & KPS) is

simple; is it required to make it more simple? How to control it if the organization is too simple?

(2) Housing Estates Sanitation. The quality of the housing estates is fully under the

control of the Bank (BTN, Papan Sejahtera, etc.) and local government. So far no enforcement; the technical assistance of the government will fail because of economic and financial forces. The other constraint is the affordabili ty of house consumers.

(3) Communal toilet facilities. So far the development of communal toilet facilities is

just target oriented with no adequate information about the "demand"; problems still arise in the field.

(4) Septic tank versus leaching pits- no comments. (5)- High density low income area!? Low affordability,

many illegal or seasonal inhabitants (very difficult

A6-1

APPENDIX 6 COMMENTS

to educate); the willingness to have the facilities of the pcnnanent inhabitants is not too bad. ·

(6) Guideline and Criteria of Strategy. (a) Population density criteria should not be rigid; the

house pattern, the building coverage, the number of floors of the house, etc. - not following just the density of the administrative area -.should be studied. This criteria should be implemented or used with adeq1._1ate field understanding, and the designer or planner should be well infonncd of conditions of the field.

(b) So far no mobilization of government capability to solve grey water disposal problems; may be difl:icult to control the grey water.

(c) The JICA team (for Jakarta Waste Water Disposal Review Masterplan Study) finding was very · interesting - that there is a correlation between population density and the surface water quality. This finding in Jakarta may also be in other cities in Indonesia. This condition is caused not only by technical issues but also socio-economic and maybe culture issues.

(7) Intermediate Sewerage. (a) From experience, no area of sewerage in the cities

ofindoncsia can usc only one system; the result may be combination of conventional and low cost sewerage.

Other comments were made verbally at the meeting, but not followed up in writing. These are reported (approximately) as follows:

M1· Stuart Whitehead (IBRD) noted that high density areas present the most difficult problem and a'skcd what guidance docs the study give on this. noted the need for local government wastewater planning; however, as most local governments are not yet prepared to undertake such planning because they Jack incentive, experience, etc, what is the solution?

Mr. E. J>anearoglu (IBRD) stated that sanitation planning shouldn't be done in' isolation but should be integrated with other related sectors (e.g., water supply). He suggested including sanitation in provincial 'master plans, as successfully done in the Philippines.

, ' stalled that MCK success in India is due to the involvement ofNGOs; in Indonesia this method may not work. He reported that MCK Kcluarga has been more successful here than larger public MCKs.

Ir. Darmawan Saleh (Director PLP, DG Cipta Karya)

statc:d that although septic tanks arc regarded as more substantial aJid prestigious than cubluks, septic tanks may be too expensive, while cubluks can work well. Also, cubluks do not need outside desludging services. noted that in Japan only 42% were served by sewers, the rest by vault/night soil systems. He

A6-2

suggested that individual package treatment systems using aerators of 30w might have application in Indonesia. noted the problem of high density areas. If off-site system, there is the problem of treatment. He is not optimistic about the applicability of small bore sewers. Perhaps conventional sewers made of PVC will be suitable. noted that master plans for the larger cities are necessary.

Members of the UNDP Evaluation Team Is there any effective·educational component that links sanitation with health? What is the role of women's organizations such as PKK? (Also, community participation.) If health benefit is not attractive enough to people, can sanitation be cntouraged on the basis of economic benefit? What percentage of the urban population is considered poor? (Comment from PLP: About 20% are considered below the poverty line.) (Comment from PLP: A problem is the illegal residents and seasonal migrants who mostly live in high-density areas.)

Bp. Adnan Widodo, Community Water and Sanitation Project.

referred to a Presidential Decree and a regulation from the Minister of Home Affairs, concerning family planning coordination boards (BKKBN), which established "working groups at all levels (through LKMD). He asked whether the Home Affairs organization or the Public Work organization was more applicable for community participation.

F' ·.~~ I. I

)l.' t4 !1 ~:l ', p

j IJ,

~:~ i'.: ~

\ ~' ~1 ·; 7,

" ~ ,,

~·. ·~.

,,

' f.;...,

,,