FINAL REPORT

The Jawa Pos Instituteof Pro-Otonomi (JPIP)

Prepared byAddressed to

ACCELERATINGTHE CHANGE:

IN EAST JAVA

SELECTINGBEST PRACTICES TOTAL SANITATIONAND SANITATIONMARKETING (TSSM)

TO PROMOTE

ACCELERATINGTHE CHANGE:

IN EAST JAVA

SELECTINGBEST PRACTICES TOTAL SANITATIONAND SANITATIONMARKETING (TSSM)

TO PROMOTE

The Jawa Pos Instituteof Pro-Otonomi (JPIP)

Prepared byAddressed to

As a new parameter in Otonomi Awards (OA) 2009, sanitation is a rising star. JPIP reveals many initia-tives of local government (pemda) to improve the quality of sanitation. There are 48 development initiatives on sanitation.

It is good news since sanitation seems to be a given problem for 100 million of population in Indonesia. They cannot access minimum need of healthy sanitation, particularly healthy toilet.

At the same time, there is a new awareness of local governments to approach sanitation from inner side of community.

Sanitation facilities provision is an old approach and gradually has been left. Local governments in East Java have applied a new reference of sanitation development. They focus more on raising awareness and improving independency of community to achieve sanitation improvement. Non-government actors are involved more to boost the target of achievement on sanitation.

JPIP also reveals that most parties are misleading to say that sanitation is merely about problems. In-deed, sanitation is business opportunities as well. Big amount of money circulates every year range from toilet paper to septic tank emptying business.

Pemdas (local governments) in East Java have not fully realised the economic value added of sanitation yet. Sanitation policies and programs remain to focus more on behaviour change and institutionalisation. It is a challenge for the near future policies.

This fi nal report seeks to record initiatives of 38 districts in East Java on sanitation development. Its con-tent demonstrates an amazing achievement of sanitation development in each district. At the same time, this book explains several weaknesses shall be found its solutions in the near future.

It is also a part of attempt to accelerate sanitation development. JPIP uses otonomi awards as the instru-ment of acceleration. Competition is a new mechanism to shortly cut district and community advance-ment.

JPIP gives highly appreciation to Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) the World Bank for all hardware and software assistances to explore sanitation development practices in East Java. As well, JPIP presents this report to all of parties having devoted its time and dedication. They are Jawa Pos Group, UP3D ITS, and other sponsors.

Last but not least, JPIP will always remember dedication of JPIP’s research team to explore sanitation initiatives in East Java. They are Wawan Sobari, Redhi Setiadi, Hariatni Novitasari, Dadan Suparjo, Gandha W. Prabowo, Tedi Erviantono, Sutikno, Robiyan Arifi n, Anggun Trisnanto, and Oni Sugandha.

JPIP is most welcome for dialogue and critics to improve this work in the future.

Surabaya, 24th June 2009The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro-Otonomi (JPIP)

Rohman BudijantoExecutive Director

FOREWORD

2 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

CONTENTSForeword 1

Contents 2

List of tables 3

List of Charts 3

List of Boxes 3

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND 4

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGI 6

2.1 Indicators 6

2.2 Research Method 7

CHAPTER 3. FIELDWORK REPORT 8

3.1 Sanitation Improvement 8

3.2 Sanitation Marketing 9

3.3 Sanitation Institutionalisation 11

3.4 The Implementation of Community Based Total Sanitation Principles (STBM) 12

3.5 Determined Factors to Succeed Sanitation Programs 13

3.6 Local Budget Commitment on Sanitation 14

CHAPTER 4. THE AWARDEES AND JUSTIFICATION 18

1. Lumajang Regency 18

2. Nganjuk Regency 19

3. Blitar Municipality 20

4. Pacitan Regency 20

5. Kediri Regency 22

CHAPTER 5. RECOMMENDATION: STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE SANITATION IN EAST JAVA 24

5.1 Important Findings 24

5.2 Kebijakan Perbaikan Kualitas Sanitasi Masyarakat 24

5.3 Closing Notes: Proving Governance of Sanitation 25

3ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF CHARTS

LIST OF BOXES

TABLE 1. Facts of Sanitation in Indonesia 4

TABLE 2. Sanitation Parameters 6

TABLE 3. Research Method 7

TABLE 4. Sanitation Improvement in East Java in 2008 8

TABLE 5. Perception Score 9

TABLE 6. Eff orts on Sanitation Marketing in East Java in 2008 10

TABLE 7. Sanitation Institutionalisation Eff orts in East Java in 2008 11

TABLE 8. District’s Budget Allocation on Sanitation in 2008 15

TABLE 9. CLTS Locations in Nganjuk 19

TABLE 10. ODF Sub-Villages in Nganjuk 19

TABLE 11. Rank of Districts on the Parameter of Sanitation 23

CHART 1. Eff orts to Raise Awareness on Sanitation 9

CHART 2. Eff orts on Sanitation Marketing 10

CHART 3. Eff orts on Sanitation Institutionalisation 11

CHART 4. The Implementation of STBM Principles 14

CHART 5. Determination to Succeed Sanitation Program 14

CHART 6. The Ratio of Budget on Sanitation Compared to Total Direct Budget 16

CHART 7. The Ratio of Sanitation Budget Compared to the Number of the Poor in Each District 17

CHART 7. Rank of Districts on the Parameter of Sanitation 21

BOX 1. ODF Networking among Non-Government Actors 8

BOX 2. Supply networking in Jombang 10

BOX 3. Distinguished Institutionalisation in Pacitan and Blitar 12

4 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA4

Jawa PosCMYK

16Jawa Pos .Selasa 10 Februari 2009

AGUS WAHYUDI /JAWA POSBANGGA INDONESIA: Valentino Rossi saat memberiketerangan pers di Hotel Mulia, Jakarta, kemarin pagi.

AGUS WAHYUDI/JAWA POSMASIH PAKAI KRUK: Valentino Rossi di panggung Istora Senayan, Jakarta,kemarin. Kaki kirinya masih belum sembuh, harus mendapat belasan jahitankarena terjatuh dan menginjak meja kaca di rumahnya di Italia pekan lalu.

Kunjungan SehariRossi di Jakarta

JAKARTA – Kunjungan sehari Valen-tino Rossi, bintang MotoGP dari tim FiatYamaha, kemarin sempat mengheboh-kan Jakarta. Sejak datang sampai pulang,pembalap 29 tahun itu seolah selalukucing-kucingan dengan para penggemar-nya. Ketika tiba di Bandara Soekarno-Hatta pada Minggu malam lalu (8/2),kehebohan terjadi sejak Rossi turun daripesawat yang mengantarnya dari KualaLumpur, Malaysia, tempat dia menjalaniuji coba motor pada 5-7 Februari lalu.”Belum sempat sampai ke baris imi-grasi, ratusan penggemar sudah menyer-bu Rossi,” ungkap Dyonisius Beti, vicepresident director Yamaha Motor Ken-cana Indonesia.Dyonisius menceritakan, Rossi sampaidilarikan ke dalam toilet. Di sana dila-kukan meeting bagaimana mengeluarkanRossi dari bandara tanpa diserbu peng-gemar. Saat itu, para penggemar memangsudah menunggu di berbagai pintu ke-luar. Pada akhirnya, Rossi ”diloloskan”lewat pintu keluar yang biasanya dise-diakan untuk tenaga kerja Indonesia (TKI).Kemarin siang, Rossi kembali kucing-kucingan dengan wartawan dan peng-gemar. Dia tampil di panggung di IstoraSenayan sekitar pukul 14.00 WIB, me-nyapa ribuan penggemar yang didatang-kan Yamaha dari berbagai penjuru tanahair. ”Selamat siang,” kata Rossi begitutampil di atas panggung.

Setelah itu, dia seharusnya berjalan ke-luar Istora, mengunjungi panggung dansejumlah stan Yamaha yang telahdisiapkan di luar gedung tersebut. Tapi,

karena ”serbuan” penggemar, penyeleng-gara tak mau mengambil risiko. Rossi pundilarikan lagi ke Hotel Mulia Senayan.Kemarin pihak Yamaha meminta maafdengan segala kejadian itu. Mau tidakmau Rossi memang harus diamankan.Apalagi, semua orang tampaknya me-mang penasaran. Beberapa polisi yang se-harusnya bertugas mengamankan justruikut-ikut mengejarnya untuk minta tandatangan. Bahkan, ada polisi yang mem-bawa helm untuk ditandatangani Rossi!Karena ”pergerakan” yang dibatasi,Rossi pun tak bisa menyapa semua peng-gemarnya. Beberapa yang beruntungbertemu Rossi di ruang VIP Istora Sena-yan sampai menangis-nangis saking se-nangnya bisa bertemu dengan sang idola.Tidak sedikit pula yang menangis karena

tak bisa bertemu Rossi. Apalagi, tidak se-dikit yang punya harapan tinggi bisa men-dapatkan tanda tangan sang bintang.Seperti Nathin Soewandi, 22, salah satupengidola Rossi yang sempat ikut masukballroom Hotel Mulia saat konferensi perskemarin pagi. Dia sempat kecewa danmenangis karena tak bisa mendapat tandatangan Rossi. Padahal, dia sudah mem-bawa karikatur Rossi yang dia buat sendiri.Tak kehabisan akal, sambil seseng-gukan, dia menitipkan karikatur itu ke-pada Masao Furusawa, executive officerYamaha Motor Co Ltd (salah satu bosbalap Yamaha). ”Saya berharap Bapakbisa menyampaikan gambar ini kepadaRossi,” ucap Nathin.Sebagai ”hadiah penghibur,” Nathin min-ta foto bareng dengan Furusawa. (vem)

AGUS WAHYUDI /JAWA POSTUNGGU TANDA TANGAN: Fans Valentino Rossimenunggu tanda tangan buku otobiografi di luarpagar Istora Senayan, Jakarta, kemarin. Sayang,Rossi tidak bisa keluar karena massa membeludak.

Bertemu Tak Bertemu Sama-Sama Menangis

Hukuman BurhanuddinTambah Enam Bulan

AGUS WAHYUDI / JAWA POSDARI SURABAYA: Fans Valentino Rossi dari Surabaya khusus datang untuk bertemuRossi di Istora, Jakarta, kemarin. Mereka berburu tanda tangan bintang MotoGP itu.

AGUS WAHYUDI /JAWA POSINGIN JUMPA SANG BINTANG: Ribuan fans menunggu kedatangan Valentino Rossi di luar Istora Senayan, Jakarta, kemarin.

Putusan BandingKasus Dana BI

JAKARTA – Alih-alih menda-patkan keringanan hukuman,upaya banding atas vonis Peng-adilan Tipikor yang dilakukanmantan Gubernur Bank Indo-nesia (BI) Burhanuddin Abdullahmembuat dirinya merana. DiPengadilan Tinggi (PT) DKI Ja-karta, hukuman mantan MenkoPerekonomian era Presiden Ab-durrahman Wahid itu justru di-perberat setengah tahun.Semula, vonis pengadilan ting-kat pertama yang dijatuhkan (29/11) tahun lalu menghukum Bur-hanuddin lima tahun penjara.Pria 63 tahun itu dianggap ber-salah karena sebagai anggota de-wan gubernur turut memutuskanpenggunaan dana Yayasan Pe-ngembangan Perbankan Indone-sia (YPPI) senilai Rp 100 miliar.Tak terima atas putusan itu,Burhanuddin pun mengajukanbanding. Namun, sidang yang di-pimpin Yanto Kartono, Jumat (6/2), menghukum dirinya lima ta-hun enam bulan. ’’Putusan yangdiberikan majelis hakim me-mang naik. Ada amar putusanyang berubah,’’ jelas Madya Su-harja, humas PT DKI Jakarta, ke-marin (9/2). Madya juga menjadisalah seorang anggota majelisdalam sidang itu.

Menurut dia, pertimbangan ma-jelis adalah Burhanuddin meru-pakan bankir nasional. Dia jugadianggap memiliki jabatan stra-tegis yang sudah dikenal di levelinternasional. ’’Kedudukannyajuga amat sentral. Karena itu, su-dah seyogianya memberikan con-toh yang baik,’’ jelasnya kemarin.Pertimbangan lain hakim me-nambah hukuman Burhanuddin,kata Madya, seharusnya dia tidakmembagi-bagikan uang kepadabanyak orang. ’’Seharusnya tidak

memberikan uang kepada si A, B,C, dan orang-orang itu,’’ ungkapnya.Bukan hanya tambahan hu-kuman badan, hakim juga me-merintah jaksa untuk merampasuang yang telah dibagi-bagikantersebut. Yakni, Rp 68,5 miliardari para mantan pejabat BI yangtersangkut kasus hukum serta Rp31,5 miliar yang mengalir kepa-da sejumlah anggota DPR. ’’Uangyang diberikan itu harus dirampasuntuk negara,’’ tegasnya.Burhanuddin tidak dibebaniuang pengganti sebagaimana ter-dakwa korupsi lain karena tidakada sepeser pun aliran dana kekantongnya. Berdasar putusanitu, hakim menilai Burhanuddinmelanggar pasal 3 UU Tipikor.’’Ini karena Burhanuddin adalahpejabat negara,’’ terangnya.

Semula, Burhanuddin dianggapmelanggar pasal 2 (1) UU yangsama. Majelis yang diketuai Gus-rizal berpendapat, Burhanuddinsecara bersama-sama anggotadewan gubernur lainnya, yakniAslim Tajuddin, Bun Bunan Hu-tapea, dan Aulia Pohan, melaku-kan tindak pidana yang me-rugikan keuangan negara.Tidak semua anggota majelis

hakim kompak pada putusan ter-sebut. Hakim anggota I Moer-diono mengungkapkan pendapatberbeda (dissenting opinion) ter-hadap putusan itu. Dia meng-anggap perbuatan Burhanuddinbersama-sama anggota dewangubernur lainnya bukanlah me-rugikan negara. Kenyataannya,pendapat berbeda tersebut tidakmengubah vonis yang dijatuhkanterhadap mantan orang nomorsatu di bank sentral itu.Madya mengungkapkan, selainmemproses banding Burhanud-din, PT sedang merapatkan ban-ding atas dua pejabat teras BIyang turut terseret skandal Rp 100miliar itu, yakni Rusli Siman-juntak dan Oey Hoey Tiong.

Atas putusan tersebut, tim kua-sa hukum Burhanuddin bersiapkasasi. ’’Semangatnya tetap ada,tapi belum diputuskan,’’ ujarMuhammad Assegaf, pengacaraBurhanuddin, kemarin.Assegaf hingga saat ini belummenerima salinan putusan ban-ding tersebut. Namun, dia me-mastikan kliennya tidak bersalahatas adanya aliran dana Rp 100miliar dari YPPI ke DPR dan paramantan pejabat BI. (git/kim)

AGUS WAHYUDI/JAWA POSPERTIMBANGKAN KASASI: Mantan Gubernur BI Burhanuddin saatmenjalani persidangan di Pengadilan Tipikor, 8 Oktober tahun lalu.

Economic potency of sanitationSanitation is always associated with dirtiness, smell, and other unused matters.

Nevertheless, many people obtain economic benefi t from sanitation activities. According to WSP’s study, 45 percent of population in Indonesia recently live un-

der bad sanitation services. This number is equal to 100 million of population. They live without accessible, secure, and private toilet.

Population growth of Indonesia reaches 1.3 percent per year. Consequently, In-donesia needs 2.8 million decent sanitation facilities. In other words, healthy toilet demands can reach 2.27 million per year.

In order to meet those demands, supply of material for construction can reach at least Rp 2.4 trillion. Meanwhile, healthy behaviour improvements have a potency to open a business opportunities in providing soap, toilet paper, and septic tank emptying. The amount of those opportunities can reach Rp 2.422 trillion per year (WSP, 2008).

TABLE 1. Facts of Sanitation in Indonesia

QUANTITATIVE DATA QUALITATIVE FACTS

Sanitation service growth within 1990-2004 had only achieved 9 % ✦

Total health fi nancial loss achieves Rp 2.719 trillion in 2005 ✦

Total water fi nancial loss is bigger for Rp 8.016 trillion in 2005 ✦

100 million population live with poor sanitation ✦

Demand on healthy toilet can reach 2.27 million per year ✦

Impact of poor sanitation:Health impact ✦

Water resource impact ✦

Environmental impact ✦

Tourism impact ✦

Other welfare impacts ✦

SOURCE: WSP 2008

Diseases and other mortality causes as impact of poor sanitation

DIRECT DISEASES INDIRECT DISEASES

Diarrhoea ✦

Helminthes ✦

Scabies ✦

Trachoma ✦

Hepatitis A ✦

Hepatitis E ✦

Malnutrition ✦

ALRI ✦

Malaria ✦

Chickenpox ✦

Malnutrition of protein energy ✦

The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro-Otonomi (JPIP) has empirical argument to incorporate sanitation as a specifi c parameter in Otonomi Awards (OA). The poor sanitation quality in Indonesia is the strongest argument as recorded by several international organisations.

According to the Join Monitoring Program UNICEF/WHO, sanitation service growth in Indonesia is slower than other ASEAN countries. Within 1990 to 2004, the growth achieved nine percent only. Although, it is a good achievement for a huge and dense country such Indone-

sia, nonetheless, this achievement is lower than Vietnam achieving 25 percent, Thailand 19 percent, and Philippine 15 percent (WSP, 2008).Also, the poor hygiene behaviour worsened this condition. USAID BHS Baseline Survey was conducted in six provinces in 2006 re-

vealed poor hand wash habit. Less than 15 percent of mother takes hand wash prior to or after fi ve important activities. They are prior to preparing food, feeding its children, eat, clean child faeces, and after defecating.

Poor sanitary behaviour and facilities are the main risk of various contagious diseases for children and adult. Referring to WSP, in 2005, the total health fi nancial lost in Indonesia achieved Rp 2.719 trillion. The biggest share is for care cost, then productivity cost, and premature mortality.

Water cost is far greater for Rp 8.016 trillion. The biggest portion is for drinking water, then, domestic water. Thereby, monitoring of sanitation quality improvement policies and programs are very important in OA 2009. JPIP attempts to record both practices, good and poor sanitation practices.

BACKGROUND1CHAPTER

5ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

Those amounts show the huge business opportunities on sanitation. Yet, there are only small number of enterprises can benefi t these opportunities. They undertake business on plastic waste recycling, public toilet service, toilet maintenance service, and septic tank emptying.

In contrast, there are other huge business opportunities on sanitation that have not optimally been managed yet. For example, septic tank construction and standardised closet business, domestic sewerage system, and private solid waste transportation and recycling.

In addition to behaviour change, the role of national and sub-national government in enabling sanitation market is very important. Both levels of governments can promote to generating economic value added on sanitation improvement (sanitation marketing). For instances, a set of policies to endorse the use of standardised septic tank and toilet. Or government can privatise solid waste transporta-tion and recycling.

Sub-national government (pemda) can also take a bigger role to give incentives to sanitation business growth. For example, pemda can issue an easy licensing procedures and requirements for sanitation business enterprises establishment.

h h h b i i i i i Y h l ll b f i

BINGKAI OTONOMI

10

Jawa Pos .Senin 4 Mei 2009

ARENA INOVASI KABUPATEN-KOTA SE-JATIM

Bergantung Komitmen PenguasaKEBERHASILAN mendorong ODF di kabupaten dimungkin-

kan karena tata kelola (governance) sanitasi cukup optimal. Upa-

ya-upaya perbaikan sanitasi melibatkan banyak pihak yang ber-

beda latar belakang. Tidak didominasi pemerintah semata.

Selain itu, hubungan antara masyarakat, pemerintah, lembaga

donor, dan pihak lain mampu meminimalkan perbedaan kedu-

dukan. Tidak ada pihak yang berkedudukan lebih tinggi daripada

yang lain sehingga program tersebut mampu menarik keterlibatan

masyarakat cukup tinggi.Kedua, terkait pembuatan kebijakan. Keputusan untuk menja-

lankan perbaikan sanitasi berasal dari kesukarelaan masyarakat.

Pemerintah dan lembaga donor hanya menawarkan program. De-

mikian juga, pembiayaan yang sebagian besar ditanggung ma-

syarakat. Maka, terjadi negosiasi dan konsultasi dalam memu-

tuskan pilihan kebijakan perbaikan sanitasi.

Terakhir, mekanisme untuk menjamin kepatuhan terhadap kese-

pakatan diserahkan kepada masyarakat. Tidak ada sanksi hukum bagi

pelanggar kepatuhan. Yang ada adalah sanksi sosial yang berasal dari

masyarakat terhadap pihak-pihak yang memiliki kebiasaan sanitasi

buruk. Dengan begitu, keputusan bersama ditaati secara efektif.

Namun, benarkah percepatan pencapaian ODF semata-mata di-

tentukan besarnya peran masyarakat dan kerelaan pemerintah dae-

rah untuk bekerja sama? Atau, karena kuatnya peran lembaga

donor? JPIP menemukan satu faktor lain yang tidak kalah me-

nentukan, yaitu komitmen kepala daerah.

Faktor terakhir ternyata cukup masuk akal. Analisis besarnya alokasi

APBD untuk program sanitasi, hasil pencapaian kondisi ODF, dan

keterlibatan serta perhatian secara terus-menerus dari kepala daerah

ternyata mampu menjelaskan hal tersebut. Peran kepala daerah yang

intensif dan berkualitas mampu mendorong percepatan ODF.

Satu kabupaten di wilayah selatan Jatim berani menargetkan

pencapaian ODF di seluruh kabupaten pada 2010. Padahal, daerah

tersebut baru memulai pencanangannya pada November 2007.

Target pencapaian itu tidak terlepas dari dorongan komitmen

kepala daerah yang tinggi.Kondisi tersebut sebenarnya merupakan tantangan untuk

membuktikan keberhasilan program sanitasi. Sebab, terwujudnya

governance sanitasi ternyata masih bergantung pada faktor

komitmen kepala daerah. Bukan semata karena negosiasi dan

konsultasi antara kebutuhan masyarakat dan pembuat kebijakan.

Maka, untuk saat sekarang sangat beruntung masyarakat yang

memiliki kepala daerah dengan keberpihakan tinggi terhadap per-

baikan sanitasi Meski belum mampu menjamin keberlanjutannya,

/j i )

Hasil Monitoring Otonomi Daerah 2009 Tentang Sanitasi di Jawa Timur

Jamban Terpanjang Mulai Ditinggalkan Meski tergolong baru, temuan indikator sanitasi

cukup mengejutkan. Terjadi perubahan orientasi

pembangunan yang lebih mengedepankan peran

masyarakat. Berikut pemaparan peneliti The Jawa

Pos Institute of Pro-Otonomi (JPIP) Wawan Sobari.

PADA 1970-an program pem-

bangunan sanitasi keluarga lebih

berorientasi fisik. Pemerintah ber-

upaya menyediakan sarana sa-

nitasi, terutama jamban, untuk

memperbaiki kualitas sanitasi ma-

syarakat. Namun, bukannya de-

rajat kesehatan yang meningkat.

Justru prevalensi penyakit karena

sanitasi buruk tetap jadi momok.

Salah satu penyebabnya, pe-

nyediaan sarana tidak dibarengi

perbaikan perilaku sanitasi ma-

syarakat. Maka, walau fasilitas

tersedia, perilaku sanitasi buruk

masih kerap ditemukan. Misal-

nya, penyediaan jamban oleh pe-

merintah ternyata tidak me-

ngurangi kebiasaan buang air di

sembarang tempat. Akibatnya,

pencemaran air dan tanah oleh

tinja tetap tinggi.Belajar dari pengalaman terse-

but, arah pembangunan sanitasi

berubah. Berdasar temuan JPIP,

program sanitasi kabupaten dan

kota di Jatim tidak lagi menekan-

kan pada pemberian subsidi,

melainkan upaya menum-buhkan kesadaran dan pe-rilaku sanitasi masyarakat.

Fokus BaruMayoritas program sani-

tasi berfokus pada upa-ya-upaya perubahan pe-rilaku masyarakat. Me-nurut temuan JPIP, ter-dapat 48 program perbaikan

sanitasi yang disampaikan ka-

bupaten dan kota. Sebanyak 36

di antaranya berorientasi per-

ubahan perilaku masyarakat.

Sementara itu, 12 program lain

berorientasi fisik.Upaya-upaya perbaikan perilaku

sanitasi didominasi program

pengentasan kebiasaan buang air

sembarangan (open defecationfree/ODF). Hingga 2008, 21

kabupaten telah menerapkan

program sanitasi total dan pe-

masaran sanitasi (SToPS). Pro-

gram tersebut terutama fokus pada

peningkatan kesadaran masyara-

kat untuk memiliki atau menggu-

nakan jamban sehat.SToPS yang diimplementasi-

kan di kabupaten awalnya diper-

kenalkan oleh water and sanita-tion program (WSP) Bank Dunia

secara sukarela. Hal ter-sebut cukup masuk akal

dan sesuai dengan fakta

kebutuhan. Menurut hasil

studi Program Pengembang-

an Sektor Sanitasi Indonesia

pada 2006, 47 persen komu-nitas masyarakat masih

buang air di sembarangtempat. Yaitu, sungai,kolam, kebun, dan areal

persawahan. Sehingga, penyakit

timbul karena perilaku sanitasi

buruk tidak terelakkan.Mekanisme pelaksanaan SToPS

oleh kabupaten cukup sederhana,

yakni dimulai dengan road show.

Kegiatan itu bentuk sosialisasi

awal terkait dengan isi dan pen-

dekatan program. Hal tersebut

penting dilakukan mengingat

perbedaan mendasar program itu

dengan program-program sebe-

lumnya. Kemudian, dilakukan pe-

latihan fasilitator yang pesertanya

diambil dari wilayah-wilayah

sasaran implementasi program.

Fasilitator adalah ujung tombak

pelaksanaan program SToPS di

lapangan. Berikutnya, fasilitator

memicu melalui berbagai me-

tode diskusi partisipatif dan con-

toh empiris di tingkat komunitas

(dusun). Intinya, mereka men-

dorong agar masyarakat beralih

dari kebiasaan buang air di sem-

barang tempat.Terakhir adalah monitoring pen-

capaian program. Tujuannya

utamanya adalah mengetahui hasil

pemicuan yang dilakukan bersama

masyarakat. Kemudian, ditentu-

kan langkah-langkah untuk mem-

percepat pencapaian ODF.SToPS tidak hanya menawar-

kan pendekatan baru, melainkan

pula fleksibilitas dan tujuan yang

jelas. Sehingga, pada tingkat ko-

munitas, mekanisme program bi-

sa disesuaikan dengan konteks

spesifik masyarakat setempat.

Tim JPIP menemukan beberapa

upaya pemerintah daerah dan

masyarakat untuk memodifi-

kasinya pada tingkat komunitas.

Beberapa di antaranya upaya

kompetisi dan pemberian insen-

tif. Kabupaten Jombang, Luma-

jang, Pasuruan, dan Nganjuk ada-

lah beberapa daerah yang mene-

rapkan mekanisme kompetisi. Ca-

ranya, antardusun dan desa yang

berbeda dipacu agar berlomba

mempercepat pencapaian ODF.

Sementara itu, pemberian in-

sentif tidak melulu berupa uang.

Di Kabupaten Trenggalek, selain

setiap desa ODF mendapatkan

bantuan Rp 5 juta, bupati atau pe-

jabat lain bersedia hadir saat de-

klarasi program tersebut. Begitu

pula Jombang, Sumenep, Pame-

kasan, Lumajang, Probolinggo,

Nganjuk, Ponorogo, dan Pacitan.

Hal itu menjadi faktor pendorong

tersendiri bagi masyarakat.Perubahan perilaku faktanya

tidak hanya terjadi pada penggu-

naan jamban sehat, tapi juga pilar

sanitasi lain. Kegiatan pemasya-

rakatan kebiasaan cuci tangan

pakai sabun telah dilakukan di 15

daerah. Selain itu, kabupaten di

Jatim menerapkan pengelolaan

sampah berbasis komunitas. Mi-

salnya ditemukan di Sidoarjo,

Probolinggo, dan Lamongan. (*)

Sampah pun Dikelola Berbasis KomunitasSementara itu, penyediaan fa-

silitas MCK bersama ditemukan di

Kota Mojokerto, Madiun, dan Su-

rabaya. Atas dasar analisis kebu-

tuhan masyarakat, pemda memba-

ngun MCK di lokasi yang ditentu-

kan. Kemudian, masyarakat di-

serahi mandat pemeliharaan.Meski cenderung berorientasi

fisik dalam peningkatan akses

jamban sehat, kota memiliki pro-

gram sanitasi lain yang ber-

orientasi pada perubahan peri-

laku. Kota yang bergelut dengan

persoalan sampah berinisiatif

mengembangkan program pe-

ngelolaan sampah berbasis komu-

nitas. Terutama melalui kegiatan

komposting sampah rumah tang-

ga secara mandiri oleh warga.

Upaya paling masif ditemukan di

Kota Surabaya dengan hasil yang

cukup menggembirakan. Dampak-

nya bisa mengurangi volume

sampah yang dibuang ke TPA Be-

nowo. Kota lain yang melakukan

pendekatan serupa adalah Probo-

linggo dan Blitar. Hanya, dua kota

tersebut belum semasif Surabaya.

Program sanitasi lain yang dite-

mukan di kawasan perkotaan, an-

tara lain, program sanitasi masya-

rakat (sanimas), sanitasi pesantren

(sanitren), serta perbaikan dan mo-

nitoring kualitas air bersih. Temuan

menarik lainnya berupa pengarus-

utamaan pembangunan sanitasi

(mainstreaming sanitation).Pengarusutamaan adalah ke-

giatan perencanaan pemba-

ngunan jangka panjang sanitasi

perkotaan. Program tersebut dite-

mukan di Kota Blitar dan Sura-

baya. Dengan demikian, pro-

gram sanitasi merupakan kebu-

tuhan semua masyarakat, tidak

tersekat status kota dan ka-

bupaten. (wawan/jpip)

PROGRAM sanitasi dimiliki

pula oleh kota-kota di Jatim. Ha-

nya pendekatannya yang agak

berbeda dengan program kabu-

paten. Khusus upaya peningkat-

an akses jamban sehat, kota ma-

sih berorientasi pada program fi-

sik. Salah satu program yang ba-

nyak dilakukan adalah pem-

bangunan septic tank komunal

serta fasilitas mandi, cuci, dan

kakus (MCK) bersama.Pilihan program tersebut tidak

terlepas dari keterbatasan lahan

di kawasan perkotaan. Terutama

kawasan-kawasan padat pen-

duduk. Penyediaan septic tankkomunal ditemukan di Kota Bli-

tar, Kediri, Malang, dan Pasuru-

an. Warga satu RW atau kelurah-

an menyalurkan limbah tinja dan

urine mereka pada septic tankraksasa yang dibangun secara

khusus dan terisolasi.

WAWAN/JPIP

KEBERSIHAN: Aktivitas cuci tangan murid SD Gucialit, Lumajang.

SUGENG/JAWA POS

Program Sanitasi Kabupaten dan Kota di Jatim

KabupatenSToPS (TSSM)Replikasi TSSM (Magetan,

Sampang)SanimasJamban KeluargaPemanfaatan limbah IKM

Pengawasan Kualitas air minum

isi ulangGerakan Air Minum Sehat

(GEMAS)Gerakan cuci tangan pakai

sabun (CTPS)Koperasi HIPPAMSTakakura dan Komposting

Sarana air bersih untuk sanitasi

Pengelolaan Sampah Berbasis

MasyarakatMelanjutkan Program WSLIC

Awarding di tingkat Kecamatan

KotaSanitasi massal/Penyediaan

septic tank komunalPengelolaan Kawasan Sanitasi

Terpadu dan Berkelanjutan

Sanitasi PesantrenPerbaikan Sanitasi Masyarakat

Pembangunan Sanitasi

PerkotaanPelayanan Pengolahan

Sampah Terpadu Berbasis

KomunitasProgram Kali BersihProgram Pengembangan

Pengolahan SampahMoU pengawasan kualitas air

PDAMPengawasan kualitas air minum

isi ulangAwarding Pengelolaan SampahKomunitas

6 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

2.1 IndicatorsThe sub-national government’ (pemda) eff orts to boost sanitation quality improvement are the main indicator in assessing sanitation

parameter. It can be programs, policies as well as strategies that have been executed till 2008. However, the focus of assessment is not solely addressed to sanitation facilities provision.

On the contrary, the assessment emphasises on any eff ort to promote community behaviour improvement on sanitation. Those changes are very urgent, since sanitation facilities provision programs had been failed in 1970s-1980s. The programs could not change poor sanitation behaviour.

Also, sanitation improvement is not domain of the government only. In this indicator, JPIP assesses to what extent that sanitation improvement can create networks among communities as well as with the government. In other words, sanitation improvements are participatory conducted by optimally engage communities.

The second indicator is marketing sanitation. It refers to any activity or pemda’s policy to enhance sanitation behaviour. At the same time, the policy or program is economically value added embedded. For example, a program to boost organic fertilizer consumption by farmers, at least, can encourage productive composting by communities.

The last indicator is sanitation institutionalisation. It refers to every pemda’ eff ort aimed to sustain sanitation improvement. Institu-tionalisation can be conducted by pemda as well as community.

Pemda can endorse a political commitment to improve sanitation by forming a task force among local offi ces (SKPD). This policy is intended to integrate sanitation improvement policies. As well, pemda can encourage community wisdom to sustain good behaviour on sanitation. For example, pemda can support village regulation (perdes) to boost open defecation free (ODF) among villagers.

Then, what sort of activities categorised as sanitation improvement? In order to search the activities, JPIP refers to the fi ve pillars of sanitation. Those are access improvement to healthy toilet, raising awareness of soap hand wash, access improvement to domestic water supply, solid waste management improvement, and domestic sewerage system improvement.

As one of the parameters in award competition, JPIP contests programs and policies on sanitation. Then, JPIP ranks them based on the three categories of assessments. The assessments composed of innovation, public survey, and exist-

ing condition of sanitation. For example, budget commitment of pemda on sanitation and budget commitment for the poor to get access to healthy sanitation.

One last note, the more integrated all of the sanitation programs the better its judgement. It means an integrative program covering those three main indicators of assess-ment can gain high score. Moreover, the same assessment

is performed on integrated eff ort to execute the fi ve pillars of total sanitation.

Therefore, JPIP expects that health sanitation behaviour can reduce water fi nancial cost of Local water supply enter-

prise (PDAM) to clean water. As community keep the river from polluted material as the result of poor sanitation. As well, there is an expectation to reduce endemic diarrhoea.

the three categories of assessments. The assesing condition o

pm

isof

caprifrowe

mentara perilaku buruk sanitasimasih kerap dilakukan.Perbaikan perilaku sanitasi bukanhanya milik pemda. Sebab, dalamindikator ini dinilai juga se-berapa kuat usaha perbaikansanitasi mampu menciptakanjejaring (network) antarma-syarakat serta antarmasyarakatdan pemda. Artinya, kegiatan sa-nitasi dilakukan secara partisi-patif dengan keterlibatan ma-syarakat secara optimal.Indikator kedua adalahmarketing sanitasi(memasarkan sanitasi). Yaitu,terkait setiap upaya atau kebi-jakan pemda mengembangkanperbaikan perilaku sanitasi yangbernilai ekonomi. Misalnya,program pemda untuk me-nggalakkan penggunaan pupukorganik bagi pertanian. Programseperti itu setidaknya bisa men-dorong kegiatan komposting yangmendatangkan uangTerakhir adalah indikator pe-lembagaan sanitasi. Yakni, setiapupaya pemda untuk mendorongkeberlanjutan perbaikan sanitasi.Pelembagaan bisa dilakukan padatingkat pemerintah daerah maupunmasyarakat.Pemda bisa mendorong ko im l

Salah satu parameterbaru dalam OtonomiAwards (OA) 2009 adalahsanitasi. Apa saja yangdimonitor dalam param-eter tersebut? Berikutpemaparan penelitithe Jawa Pos Institute ofPro-Otonomi (JPIP)Wawan Sobari.MENJADIKAN sanitasi seba-gai parameter khusus dalam mo-nitoring OA bukan tanpa sebab.Fakta buruknya sanitasi di Indo-nesia merupakan alasan palingkuat. Dalam kurun 1990–2004, ke-naikan pelayanan sanitasi hanyamencapai sembilan persen.Pencapaian tersebut lebih rendahbila dibandingkan dengan Vietnamyang 25 persen, Thailand 19 per-sen, dan Filipina 15 persen(WSP, 2008)

Selain itu diperburukdengan perilakuhigiene yangrendah. USAID BHS Baseli-ne Survey di enam provinsipada 2006 mengungkapkankebiasaan cuci tangan tidakbaik. Kurang dari 15 per-sen ibu mencuci tanganpakai sabun sebelum atausesudah lima kegiatan penting. Yaitu,sebelum menyiapkan makanan,memberi makan anak, makan,membersihkan buang air besar(BAB) anak, dan sesudah BAB.Indikator PenilaianUpaya pemerintah daerah(pemda) untuk mendorongperbaikan kualitas sanitasimasyarakat merupakan indikatorutama penilaian parameter ini.Baik berwujud program, kebijak-an, maupun strategi yang telahdiimplementasikan hingga 2008.Hanya, fokus penilaiannya tidakditujukan kepada upaya penyedia-an fasilitas sanitasi semata.Titik berat justru ditekankan padaupaya mendorong perubahanperilaku sanit i

Sanitasi buruk merupakanwujud dari tiadanya prioritaskebutuhan untuk sehat. Inilahinti pandangan pakar sanitasiITS Eddy S. Soedjono PhDyang dituturkan kepada JPIP.Menurut Anda, apa problem utamasanitasi buruk di Indonesia?Ada dua sisi, yakni persoalan dari atasdan dari bawah. Persoalan dari atasterletak pada buruknya implementasiperaturan. Kontrol lemah, tanggung jawab lintas departemen

menyulitkan. Padahal, peraturannya sendiri sudah bagus.Persoalan dari bawah terletak pada pemahaman masyarakat akan

pentingnya sanitasi. Saat ini masyarakat lebih membutuhkan listrikdan minyak tanah. Sanitasi belum menjadi prioritas kebutuhan.Contohnya?Lihat saja nasib Sungai Brantas di Jawa Timur. Terdapat sekitar

16 juta jiwa yang hidup di sepanjang Daerah Aliran Sungai (DAS)Brantas. Sebagian besar tidak memiliki fasilitas pengolahanlimbah rumah tangga. Akibatnya, kualitas air Sungai Brantassangat rendah. Padahal, airnya digunakan sebagai pasokan olehsejumlah perusahaan daerah air minum (PDAM).Lalu, apa persoalan spesifik pada tingkat daerah?Kurang sekali perda yang mengatur sanitasi. Apalagi, pada

komitmen APBD. Contohnya, kebanyakan alokasi anggaran sanitasidalam APBD kabupaten dan kota di Jawa Timur di bawah satupersen. Meski, ada sejumlah kecil daerah yang sudah lebih baik.Apa kendala yang menyulitkan perbaikan sanitasi?Sebenarnya, sanitasi itu urusan negara. Sebagaimana diamanatkan

Undang-Undang (UU) Sumber Daya Air dan UU tentang PengelolaanLingkungan Hidup yang menyebutkan bahwa infrastruktur dasar ituditanggung negara. Namun, saat ini justru diserahkan kepadamasyarakat dan swasta melalui istilah pemberdayaan masyarakat.Sebenarnya, itu bentuk ketidakmampuan negara.Dengan kondisi seperti ini, bagaimana pemerintah daerah

bisa berkontribusi untuk mengatasi persoalan sanitasi?Pertama, melalui alokasi anggaran yang berpihak pada perbaikan

sanitasi. Kedua, menggunakan jalur pendidikan. Yaitu, menjelaskanpentingnya sanitasi melalui kurikulum pendidikan. Namun harusdalam kegiatan kongkret, bukan hanya hafalan. Sebab, pada dasarnyaperbaikan sanitasi terletak pada perilaku masyarakat. (wawan/mk)

KOKIPrioritas Masih Mitan

kan perbaikan perilaku sanitasi.Misalnya, mendukung peraturandesa (perdes) yang memberisanksi bagi warga yang masihBAB sembarangan.Lantas, upaya seperti apa yangterkategori perbaikan sanitasi? Un-tuk mengetahuinya, JPIP menga-cu pada lima pilar sanitasi total.Yaitu, peningkatan akses pada toi-let sehat, peningkatan kesadarancuci tangan pakai sabun, perbaikansuplai air bersih rumah tangga, per-baikan pengelolaan sampah padat,dan perbaikan pengelolaan limbahcair rumah tangga. (mk/e-mail:wawansobari@jpip.or.id)

Parameter Baru Monev 2009Sanitasi Total Berbasis MasyarakatManfaat Ekonomi TakLagi Diasosiasikan KotorSANITASI selama ini diasosia-sikan dengan kotoran, bau, dan hal-hal yang dianggap tidak berguna.Namun, fakta sebaliknya, banyakpihak yang mendapat manfaat eko-nomi dari kegiatan sanitasi.Berdasar hasil studi WSP, 45 per-sen penduduk Indonesia kini hiduptanpa pelayanan sanitasi yang baik,atau setara dengan 100 juta orang.Mereka hidup tanpa kemudahan ak-ses tempat buang air besar dan kecilyang aman dan bersifat pribadi.Dengan laju pertumbuhan pen-duduk 1,3 persen, setiap tahun ter-dapat kebutuhan 2,8 juta fasilitassanitasi yang baik. Dengan demi-kian, kebutuhan jamban sehat bisamencapai 2,27 juta setahun.Untuk memenuhi kebutuhan jam-ban sehat saja, nilai permintaan ba-han bangunan sedikitnya mencapaiRp 2,4 triliun. Sementara perbaikanperilaku sehat berpotensi membukapeluang usaha pengadaan sabun,kertas toilet, dan bisnis sedot WC.Nilainya tidak tanggung-tanggung,setahun diperkirakan mencapai Rp2,422 triliun (WSP, 2008).Angka-angka tersebut menun-jukkan besarnya peluang bisnis s-anitasi. Saat ini memang sudah ada

sebagian kecil pihak yang bisamemanfaatkannya. Misalnya, bis-nis daur ulang sampah plastik, ja-sa toilet umum, jasa pemeliharaantoilet, sedot WC.Sebaliknya, masih ada sejumlahpeluang usaha dalam bidang sa-nitasi yang potensial tapi belumtergarap optimal. Misalnya, usahapembuatan septic tank dan klosetstandar, sistem pengolahan limbahrumah tangga, dan pengangkutandan pengolahan sampah swasta.Selain perubahan perilaku sanitasimasyarakat yang akan mendorongtumbuhnya pasar sanitasi, peran pe-merintah dan pemda tidak kalah pen-ting. Yaitu, mendorong terciptanyanilai tambah ekonomi atas upaya-upaya perbaikan sanitasi (marketingsanitasi). Misalnya, kebijakan un-tuk mendorong penggunaan septictank dan kloset yang testandar sa-nitasi. Atau upaya swastanisasi pe-ngangkutan dan pengelolaan sam-pah secara terbatas.Pemda bisa pula berperan lebihbanyak untuk memberikan insen-tif tumbuhnya usaha sektor sani-tasi. Contohnya, melalui kemu-dahan perizinan usaha bidang sa-nitasi. (wawan/mk)

10

Jawa Pos .Senin 9 Februari 2009

ARENA INOVASI KABUPATEN-KOTA SE-JATIM

UP3D FOR JPIPEddy S. Soedjono

GRAFIS: HERI OWEL/ JAWA POS

METHODOLOGI2

TABLE 2. Sanitation Parameters

INDICATOR FOCUS POSSIBLE PRACTICES

Behaviourimprovement on sanitation

Pemda ✦ ’ attempts to promote community behaviour change

on sanitation

Pemda ✦ ’ eff orts to encourage networking among

communities and pemda in changing sanitation behaviour

Access improvement to healthy toilet ✦

Raising awareness of soap hand wash ✦

Access improvement of domestic water ✦

supply

Solid waste management improvement ✦

Domestic liquid waste management ✦

improvement.

Sanitation MarketingPemda ✦ ’ Programs or policies to generate economic value

added of sanitation improvement

Sanitation InstitutionalisationAttempts to keep sustaining behaviour change on sanitation by pemda and communities

CHAPTER

7ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

2.2 Research MethodIn conducting this study, JPIP combines qualitative and quantitative method. Qualitative method is addressed to analyse and col-

lect qualitative facts and data relating to initiatives, programs, and local innovations to improve quality of sanitation. Also, JPIP collects qualitative data from supporting documents on innovation conducted by pemda.

JPIP conducts observation to the sites where sanitation improvements are undertaken. JPIP’s research team directly checks the sites, takes pictures and interviews informally with community or direct benefi ciaries of sanitation improvement.

Meanwhile, JPIP conduct the quantitative method through public survey. This survey is intended to dig local community perceptions out concerning the benefi t of sanitation improvements programs and policies. In addition, quantitative data come from offi cial docu-ments of pemda, especially existing data relating to sanitation.

In gathering data, JPIP applies four techniques. First is in-depth interview to explore data and information relating to sanitation programs and policies. Interview is intended to collect information about program design and its implementation and achievement till 2008.

Key informants as data sources are local offi ces (SKPD) that responsible for handling sanitation program. The program practically conducted by health offi ce, environmental offi ce, and clean service offi ce.

Second is by collecting documents and program achievement. JPIP gains these data from SKPD that responsible for sanitation. Third is ob-servation. This technique is addressed to verify factually the informa-tion and data conveyed by SKPD. JPIP’ researchers, then, visit sanitation program sites, observe its results, and conduct dialogues with direct benefi ciaries.

Fourth is public survey. The purpose of public survey is to obtain direct information from public. They are direct and indirect benefi cia-ries. JPIP cooperates with Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (UP3D ITS) Surabaya to conduct public survey in 38 regencies and municipalities.

Fifth is existing data collection. These are program achievements as well as local budget support for sanitation. Then, JPIP processes all of data and score them. Finally, JPIP combines and ranks all of scores are aimed to decide the award winner.

One note, JPIP fi nally does not apply WSP’ existing indicators due to partial comprehensiveness. Several data, such as supply creation for craftsman training can only be found in regencies, not in municipality. Thus, it is unfair for all districts. In addition, JPIP has time limitation to incorporate all indicators. However, JPIP will prepare better in the next OA.

TABLE 3. Research Method

METHODSDATA GATHERING

TECHNIQUESDATA TYPES

RESPONDENT/KEY INFORMATION

NUMBER

Qualitative

Method

In-depth interview Interview notesHead of SKPD that

Responsible for sanitationConditional

Collecting documents Program description SKPD that responsible for sanitation Conditional

Observasi Observation notes

Direct benefi ciaries ✦Professional communities and ✦

civil societySanitation offi cers ✦

Conditional

Quantita-tive

method

Observation Quantitative data Direct and indirect benefi ciaries 3800

Existing data collection Existing data SKPD that responsible for sanitation

Secondgains theservatiotion andprogrambenefi c

Foudirectries. J(UP3mun

Fias wall sco

ducn

Otonomi Awards 2009 dengan Tambahan Parameter Baru

Evaluasi DPRD sambil

Mengapresiasi Sanitasi

Inti otonomi daerah ialah mempercepat

kemajuan daerah melalui keanekaragaman

program. Itu artinya inovasi menjadi kunci.

Berikut tulisan Direktur Eksekutif JPIP Maksum

sebagai pengantar monitoring 2009.

AGAKNYA, tidak ada parameter (alat ukur) yang relatif fair,

jujur, dan sportif untuk evaluasi kecapaian program-program best

practice pemerintah kabupaten-kota selain inovasi.

Dikatakan demikian karena program yang disebut inovatif

adalah sosok program yang konkret. Jelas ’’barangnya’’. Jelas

keberadaannya. Jelas lokasinya. Bisa dinilai dari banyak sisi dan

sudut pandang. Dengan inovasi, sebuah program sulit dikecoh

alias program itu memang benar-benar ada. Bukan diada-adakan.

Terkait pelaksanaan otonomi daerah

(otda), JPIP menyusun strategi dalam

mengevaluasi program-program

pemerintah kabupaten-kota yang

disebut inovatif.

Apa saja? Di antaranya, dampak best

practice-nya terhadap rakyat di kabu-

paten-kota. Dalam hal itu, dampaknya

selain berjangka pendek, menengah, dan

berjangka panjang, program itu harus

strategis dan berkesinambungan.

Bahkan, secara politik dan kebijakan, itu

harus dijamin berkesinambungan.

Toh, itu semua belum cukup. JPIP

menuntut lebih khusus lagi. Yakni, program yang dianggap best

practice itu haruslah dihasilkan dari ide-ide keatif para perencana

pembangunan daerah kabupaten-kota. Kreatif artinya program

itu temuan baru. Bersifat lokalistis. Cerdas. Sesuai kebutuhan

dan kehendak lokal.

Selain itu, harus dihasilkan dari upaya untuk mengatasi keter-

batasan setempat, baik sarana prasarana, modal manusia, keuangan,

kemampuan, skil, maupun tidak memboroskan anggaran.

Karena itu, yang terus-menerus diharapkan JPIP dari tahun demi

tahun dalam menjalankan riset evaluasi dan monitoring otonomi

daerah ialah ’’adu’’ kreativitas program yang inovatif antardaerah.

Bukankah dengan makin banyak program kabupaten-kota di

Jatim yang inovatif akan makin beragam pula program-program

yang khas, lokalistis, sesuai kebutuhan setempat?

Dan, itu artinya mencerminkan keragaman kebutuhan rakyat

di banyak daerah. Bukankah pula kebutuhan rakyat di masing-

masing daerah tidak mungkin diseragamkan?

Jadi, inti otda itu sesungguhnya mempercepat kemajuan melalui

keragaman program-program inovatif. Pada tataran dan perspektif

seperti ini, JPIP senantiasa mengajak dan ingin terus bersama-

sama pemerintah kabupaten-kota di Jatim untuk mempercepat

kemajuan daerah. Maju bersama dalam keragaman.

Ukuran maju, sejahtera, dan menjadi lebih baik itu bersifat

relatif. Karena itu, Otonomi Award JPIP diberikan bukan untuk

mendorong capaian program best practice dengan pola dan me-

tode menang-kalah. Tidak ada juara. Yang ada dan yang diuta-

makan JPIP ialah keragaman dan kesetaraan untuk mewujudkan

program yang best practice guna menjawab kebutuhan dan

tantangan pembangunan di daerah masing-masing.

Selamat berinovasi menuju Otonomi Award 2009.

KOKI

Otonomi Award 2009 akan dilak-

sanakan Mei nanti. Ada inovasi

baru kategoti award. Sarana

dan prasarana umum ditiada-

kan. Diganti kategori sanitasi

total berbasis masyarakat.

Untuk parameter performa

politik, kategori pelembagaan

politik diganti dengan

kinerjaDPRD kabupaten-kota.

Mendorong Komitmen pada Kebersihan

10

Jawa Pos

Senin 2 Februari 2009

Keragaman Inovasi

Memajukan Daerah

RABU pekan lalu (28/1), langkah awal

tahap pelaksanaan Otonomi Award 2009 di-

mulai. Di hadapan beberapa kepala daerah

dan perwakilan 38 kabupaten-kota di Jawa

Timur, JPIP menyosialisasikan parameter

dan indikator Otonomi Award 2009.

Acara sosialisasi di Graha Pena, Jawa

Pos itu sekaligus dirangkai dengan

dialog publik bertema Menyelaraskan

Penanganan Korupsi dan Memacu

Inovasi di Daerah.

Hadir sebagai narasumber, antara lain,

Ketua KPK Antasari Azhar, Deputi Kepala

BPKP Djadja Sukirman, Kepala Kanwil

BPK di Surabaya Zindar Kar Marbun,

Bupati Sragen Untung Wiyono, dan Wakil

Wali Kota Surabaya Arif Afandi.

Dialog publik itu merupakan salah satu

bentuk komitmen keberpihakan JPIP pada

daerah. Sebab, akhir-akhir ini pemerintah

daerah seolah malas berinovasi me-

ngembangkan daerah. Alasannya, takut

berurusan dengan penegak hukum karena

pemerintah daerah menjadi salah satu tar-

get pemberantasan korupsi. Padahal, inovasi

merupakan kunci dalam setiap parameter

dan indikator Otonomi Award JPIP.

Sejak didirikan pada 1 April 2001, JPIP

secara intensif memonitor dan menge-

valuasi pelaksanaan otonomi daerah. Se-

tiap tahun, lembaga yang didirikan Jawa

Pos ini mengumumkan peringkat kabu-

paten-kota sesuai paremeter dan indi-

kator. Bagi kabupaten-kota yang berada

di peringkat teratas pada setiap indikator,

JPIP memberikan penghargaan tertinggi

berupa Otonomi Award.

Tahun ini, untuk kali ke delapan, JPIP

akan mengukur kinerja pemerintah ka-

bupaten-kota dalam mengelola otonomi

daerah. Berbeda dengan tahun sebelum-

nya, tahun ini ada tambahan satu para-

meter khusus, yakni tentang sanitasi. De-

ngan demikian, tahun ini JPIP akan

mengukur kinerja pemerintah daerah pa-

da lima parameter utama dan satu para-

meter khusus.

Pertama, parameter pengembangan eko-

nomi (economic development). Pada pa-

rameter ini JPIP melihat kinerja pemerintah

daerah dalam tiga indikator. Yakni, per-

tumbuhan ekonomi, pemerataan ekonomi,

dan pemberdayaan ekonomi lokal.

Artinya, JPIP mengukur kinerja peme-

rintah daerah dalam mengupayakan

pertumbuhan ekonomi di daerah. Juga

dilihat bagaimana upaya pemerintah dae-

rah memeratakan distribusi ekonomi

hingga ke pelosok-pelosok. Dengan de-

mikian, pembangunan tidak terhenti di

pusat kabupaten-kota saja.

berdayaan ekonomi, peneliti

i ebanyak-

taan ekonomi, dan pemberdayaan ekonomi

lokal, nilai daerah semakin tinggi.

Kedua, parameter pelayanan publik

(public services). Parameter ini terbagi

menjadi tiga indikator. Yakni, pelayanan

pendidikan, kesehatan, dan administrasi.

JPIP akan memberikan apresiasi yang

tinggi pada pemerintah daerah jika bisa

membuat terobosan di bidang pendidik-

an, kesehatan, dan penyederhanaan la-

yanan administrasi di daerah. Bukan ha-

nya menjalankan program pusat. Masing-

masing indikator dinilai secara khusus

oleh peneliti JPIP yang turun ke daerah

selama satu minggu penuh.

Ketiga, parameter kinerja politik lokal.

Ada tiga indikator untuk melihat kondisi

politik lokal suatu daerah. Yakni, dalam

bidang partisipasi publik, akuntabilitas,

dan kinerja DPRD.

Otonomi daerah telah memberikan kewe-

nangan yang luas bagi pemerintah daerah.

Karena itu, harus ada terobosan yang

berarti dalam bidang pelibatan masyarakat

dalam membangun daerah, pemda berani

transparan pada publik, dan DPRD harus

berperan sebagaimana fungsinya, terutama

dalam pengawasan pembangunan.

Kinerja DPRD ini penting untuk dicer-

mati. Sebab, selama ini lembaga yang

mempunyai fungsi pengawasan ini justru

tidak ada yang mengawasi. Akibatnya,

sering wadah legislatif daerah itu justru

menjadi ikon buruk otonomi daerah. Ini

terjadi karena seringnya mereka terjerat

kasus korupsi, terlibat konflik dengan

kepala daerah, dan pertikaian antarang-

gota di dalamnya. JPIP akan memberi

nilai tinggi bagi daerah yang mampu me-

nunjukkan kinerja politik itu.

Keempat, parameter pengentasan ke-

miskinan. Pengentasan kemiskinan yang

dilakukan secara terpusat (baca: Jakarta)

terbukti tidak berjalan secara optimal. Se-

bab, yang paling tahu siapa orang miskin

dan di mana tempatnya pastilah orang

daerah sendiri.

Karena itu, pengentasan kemiskinan

membutuhkan sentuhan lokal yang

terintegrasi. Bukan hanya soal menaikkan

pendapatan ekonomi, tetapi juga

mempermudah akses pelayanan publik

dan memberdayakannya secara politik.

Kelima, parameter pengelolaan ling-

kungan hidup. Kekhawatiran pemerhati

lingkungan tentang dampak desentralisasi

terhadap lingkungan di daerah cukup

beralasan. Pasalnya, setelah diberi ke-

wenangan yang besar, pemda akan serta

merta memanfaatkannya untuk kegiatan

yang tidak ramah lingkungan.

Misalnya, untuk meningkatkan PAD,

pemda memberi banyak izin pada penam-

bang galian C tanpa mengindahkan keles-

tarian lingkungan hidup di sekitarnya.

Ilustrasi itu, sepertinya, cukup mewakili

untuk mengatakan keterkaitan erat antara

desentralisasi dan pengelolaan ling-

kungan hidup di daerah. Ini karena desen-

tralisasi menjadi titik awal dari penge-

lolaan lingkungan yang bisa menciptakan

dua kondisi berbeda.

Kondisi lingkungan akan menjadi rusak

karena desentralisasi, atau sebaliknya akan

menjadi lebih baik. Namun, mungkin pula,

terjadi stagnasi pengelolaan lingkungan.

Karena itu, JPIP akan mengapresiasi

tinggi pemda –lewat–terobosan kebijakan

yang dimiliki––yang mampu memanfa-

atkan kewenangan yang besar itu untuk

pemerataan akses sumber daya alam,

menjaga kelestariannya, dan mengin-

tegrasikan pengelolaan lingkungan hidup.

Sebab, daerahlah yang paling tahu ten-

tang tingkat kerusakan dan bahaya ling-

kungan hidup di daerahnya. (mk/redhi

setiadi, email: redhi@jpip.or.id)

TAHUN ini ada satu parameter baru

yang diperkenalkan JPIP. Yakni, parame-

ter khusus sanitasi daerah.

Karena itu, pada Otonomi Award 2009

ada tambahan penghargaan yang dina-

makan Daerah dengan Terobosan Inovatif

dalam Mendorong Sanitasi Total Berbasis

Masyarakat.Masalah sanitasi masyarakat ternyata

belum terselesaikan secara memadai

a memasuki abad ke-21 ini. Dari

d Bank lewat WSP218

ada sekitar 32 persen penduduk yang

berperilaku buang air besar sembarangan.

Hal itu berpotensi menimbulkan penyakit

dan gangguan kesehatan lain.

Data lain yang dirilis WSP baru-baru ini

menyatakan bahwa akibat buruknya

sanitasi itu, negara dan masyarakat

mengalami kerugian finansial Rp 10,74

triliun per tahun. Kerugian ekonomi lebih

mencengangkan lagi. Nilainya menem-

bus angka Rp 55,96 triliun. Kondisi

tersebut tentu memprihatinkan banyak

pihak. Sebab, masalah sanitasi selama ini

i rhatian pemerintah daerah.g menem-

patkan pembenahan sanitasi masyarakat

sebagai prioritas pembangunan. Beberapa

pemda bahkan lebih senang membangun

proyek mercusuar yang bernilai puluhan

miliar rupiah, padahal warganya masih

banyak yang buang air besar semba-

rangan, membuang sampah di sungai,

tidak mempunyai akses air bersih yang

cukup, dan pengelolaan sampah yang

tidak memadai.

Karena itu, tahun ini JPIP akan menilai

kinerja pemerintah daerah dalam perbaikan

sanitasi masyarakat, mendorong perubahan

perilaku dan kerangka pikir masyarakat

dalam bersanitasi sehat. (redhi/mk)

O l e h

Maksum

BOY SLAMET/JAWA POS

DITANTANG INOVATIF: Pemberantasan korupsi bukan alasan bagi pemda untuk berhenti berinovasi. Salah seorang peserta dialog

publik dari Kabupaten Magetan sedang mengajukan usul kepada ketua KPK.

Kategori Utama

1. Daerah dengan Terobosan Paling Menonjol Bidang

Pembangunan Ekonomi

2. Daerah dengan Terobosan Paling Menonjol Bidang

Pelayanan Publik

3. Daerah dengan Profil Paling Menonjol Bidang Kinerja Politik

Kategori Khusus

1. Daerah dengan Terobosan Inovatif Bidang Pertumbuhan

Ekonomi

2. Daerah dengan Terobosan Inovatif Bidang Pemerataan

Ekonomi

3. Daerah dengan Terobosan Inovatif Bidang Pemberdayaan

Ekonomi Lokal

4. Daerah dengan Terobosan Inovatif Bidang Pelayanan

Kesehatan

5. Daerah dengan Terobosan Inovatif Bidang

Pelayanan Pendidikan

6 Daerah dengan Terobosan Inovatif Bidang

nan Administrasi Dasarfil Menonjol Bidang

KATEGORI OTONOMI AWARDS 2009

8 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

3.1 Sanitation Improvement During 1970’s, the family sanitation program was mainly physical oriented. The government provided sanitation facility aimed to

increase the family’s sanitation quality. However, this program could not improve the degree of health. Yet, the prevalence of sanitation disease remains to be a problem.

One of the causes is that the facility provision did not change community behaviour in tandem. Even though, they use toilets, it was easy, at the same time, to fi nd poor sanitation habit. For instance, community remains to defecate openly though the government provides accessible healthy toilets. Thus, water and land pollution remain high.

Learning from those experiences, the direction of sanitation development has changed. Based on the JPIP’s fi nding, districts in East Java have no longer focused more on giving subsidy in improving sanitation. Nonetheless, districts have attempt-ed to raise awareness of sanitation behaviour.

Majority of sanitation program emphasise on eff orts to change people behaviour. JPIP fi nds 46 programs and policies to increase sanitation in 38 regencies and mu-nicipalities. 36 of them focus on changing behaviour. Meanwhile, 12 programs are physical oriented.

The programs are dominated by eff orts to achieve open defecation free (ODF). By the end of 2008, 21 districts have implemented total sanitation and sanitation market-ing (TSSM). This program mainly focuses on the improvement of people conscious-ness on having or using healthier toilet.

TSSM was introduced fi rstly by Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) of the World Bank. This program is implemented voluntarily. Each district can propose a demand to implement TSSM in its community.

TSSM implementation is quite simple. TSSM is begun with a road show. This is a preliminary socialization relating to the objective of the program and approach. Road show is urgently undertaken since TSSM has signifi cant diff erence from the previous

programs that is physical oriented. Following the show, TSSM team conduct training for local (indigenous) facilitators from targeted areas. They are the main actor in implementing TSSM.

Next, facilitators undertake triggering activities by using participatory method through empirical discussions among communities. Facilitators particularly seek to drive the transformation of sanitation behaviour leading to ODF.

The fi nal activity is monitoring. This activity is intentionally addressed to review the triggering output and outcome. Then, the next step is decisive discussion to accelerate ODF achievement.

FIELDWORK REPORT3

TABLE 4. Sanitation Improvement in East Java in 2008

INDICATORPROGRAM/POLICIES

REGENCY MUNICIPALITY

SanitationImprovement

SToPS (TSSM) ✦

TSSM replication (Magetan, Sampang) ✦

Community Sanitation (Sanimas) ✦

Family Toilet (Jamban Keluarga) ✦

SME’s waste recycling (Pemanfaatan limbah IKM) ✦

Quality control of drinking water refi ll ✦

Healthy drinking water movement (GEMAS) ✦

Hand soap wash movement (CTPS) ✦

Cooperative of HIPPAMS (community water ✦

management and benefi ciaries association)

Socialisation of takakura Basket and Composting ✦

Clean water facilities for sanitation ✦

Community based waste management ✦

Following WSLIC program up ✦

Awarding ✦ on sanitation at the sub-district level

Massive sanitation/providing communal ✦ septic tank

Integrated and sustainable sanitation area ✦

management

Sanitation at Pesantren (Islamic Boarding School) ✦

Community sanitation improvement ✦

Urban sanitation development program ✦

Community based solid waste management ✦

Clean river program ✦

Solid waste management improvement program ✦

Controlling the quality of water supply from local ✦

water supply enterprise

Quality control of drinking water refi ll ✦

Awarding ✦ on community based solid waste

management

Source: Primary data of Monitoring Otonomi Awards 2009

1

In accelerating and socialising sanitation improvement, The Districts of Lumajang attempts to cooperate with non-government actors. One of the cators involved is local radio station, namely FM Radio Swara Semeru.

This private owned radio involved to accelerate ODF. The radio conducted a spectacular activity named 7S or the construction of 1111 tolilets in one day. This attempt succeeded to be documented in Indonesia Record Museum (MURI) on 31 May 2008. The radio located the construction in seven villages and 26 sub-villages at the Pasirjambe sub-District.

CHAPTER

9ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4 4 4 4 4 4

2

3.67

Hand soapwashing

WaterSupply

Solidwaste

Average

ToiletOwnership

Toilet Using

Liquidwaste

RaisingAwareness

TSSM does not only off er a new approach, but also provide fl exibility and clear objective. Thus, TSSM can adjust to the specifi c condi-tion of the community. JPIP discovers some districts and local communities’ eff orts to modify TSSM implementation.

Some of them give positive incentives to boost ODF achievement among communities and villages. In addition, Nganjuk, Lumajang, Pasuruan and Jombang compete ODF achievements and strategies among communities and villages.

Meanwhile, the incentive awarded to the community or village is not merely fi nancial incentive. In Trenggalek, each ODF village is awarded of Rp 5 million. Moreover, the head of district and its offi cers commit to attend every ODF declaration. Furthermore, Jombang, Sumenep, Pamekasan, Lumajang, Probolinggo, Nganjuk, Ponorogo, dan Pacitan have pursued the similar mechanism.

The rise of community awareness is not only in using healthy toilet, but also other practices of sanitation pillars. For example, 15 dis-tricts have campaigned of hand soap washing. Besides, three districts have implemented community based solid waste management. They are Lamongan, Sidoarjo, Probolinggo, and Lumajang.

Public Survey Public survey seeks to reveal community perceptions on pemda’s performance in implementing sanitation improvement, sanitation

marketing, and sanitation institutionalisation. Perception is based on community observation and experiences on sanitation develop-ment initiative. The survey presents some positive statements, then, respondents give their responds to the statements. There are four possible perceptions as shown below:

Each score of survey result is an aggregate of total 3,800 respondents in 38 districts in East Java. Each score represents respon-dents’ perceptions on the fi ve main question, that are ferformance of sanitation improvement, sanitation marketing, and sanitation institutionalisation. As well, perceptions on the implementation of STBM principles and the determined factors to succeed sanitation programs .

According to public survey result, JPIP fi nds that respondent agree to say that pemda has some eff orts to raise community awareness on sanitation behaviour (chart 1). The score reaches 3.67. Five of six statements are justifi ed 4 or agree by total respondents.

It means respondents agree that pemda has shown their eff orts to raise community awareness to use or to have healthy toilet, to improve capability to use healthy toilet (and communal septic tank), to raise awareness of hand soap washing, and to enhance com-munity’s capability for accessing domestic clean water supply. Also, respondents confi rm pemda’s eff orts to raise awareness on solid waste management properly.

In fact, respondents disagree to remark on pemda’s performance in raising awareness on domestic liquid waste management. In other words, there have not eff orts yet of pemda on domestic liquid waste management. Thus, it is a crucial note for pemda and other institutions to raise awareness of domestic liquid waste management in the near future.

3.2 Sanitation Marketing Some regencies and municipalities have started sanitation marketing. However, the result is less in number than behaviour changes

on sanitation. Activities to generate economic value added of sanitation improvement are limited in impact. Economic benefi t has just impacted on

small scale economy. One of the popular attempts is to create a supply network with material store. These supply networks are found in Jombang and Ponorogo.

Other initiatives are plastic waste recycling to make hand bag and handicraft. JPIP fi nd these initiatives in Surabaya, Pasuruan Re-gency, and Probolinggo Regency. As well, Kediri Regency conducts training for closet craftsmen. Meanwhile, some regencies and municipalities have provided walking toilet in public spaces, such as in traditional market and City Park.

Indeed, pemda has not explored other marketing sanitation opportunities yet. It has not been able to promote sanitation market growth yet. Relating to solid waste management, till 2008, there are no pemdas enabling private solid waste transportation. As well, there is no

CHART 1.EFFORTS TO RAISE AWARENESS ON SANITATION

Source: Primary Data of Public Survey OA 2009

TABLE 5.Perception score

SCORE JUSTIFICATION

1 Very Disagree

2 Disagree

4 Agree

5 Very Agree

10 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

00.51

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

00.51

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4

24

4

2 2.8

CompostingInsentive

LicensingPPP

Contracting Out

Average

CHART 2.EFFORTS ON SANITATION MARKETING

SOURCE: PRIMARY DATA OF MONITORING OTONOMI AWARDS 2009

pemda attempting to make enabling policies for emptying septic tank business, sewerage system business, and composting enterprises. In general, table 6 below shows eff orts on sanitation marketing:

Survey public result is in line with those fi ndings. Respondents perceive that sanitation marketing eff orts have not run as smoothly as raising awareness on health sanitation. Respondents confi rm that they do not agree that pemda has attempted to create enabling policies and programs of economic potency on sanitation. The average score of respondent perception is 2.8.

According to public survey result, pemda has not seriously undertaken two eff orts. First is pemda does not give local tax or retribution incentive to the private entities relating to sanitation improvement. Indeed, local government has privileged authority to give such incentive. Those incentives are expected to encourage the growth of sanitation market.

Respondents also confi rm that pemda has less attention to give more chances to enterprises in maintaining sanitation facilities of pemda’ building and other facilities (contacting out). Nevertheless, respondents agree that pemda has opened sanitation market in compost business. Pemda campaigns to use organic fertilizer for soil.

However, rrespondents agree that pemda has served better for licensing process, particularly to sanitation business entities. There are no barriers in licensing process. Moreover, respondents agree that pemda has opened opportunities for private enterprises to make a partnership (public private partnership/PPP) in managing public sanitation facilities. For instances, pemda undertakes sharing of pub-lic toilet management in bus station, traditional market, and other public facilities. Municipality of Blitar, even, has involved a private enterprise in managing solid waste.

TABLE 6. Eff orts on Sanitation Marketing in East Java in 2008

INDICATORPROGRAM/POLICIES

REGENCIES MUNICIPALITIES

Sanitation Marketing

Craftsman training ✦

Communal composting ✦

Recycling SME’s waste for liquid organic fertilizer ✦

Recycling plastic waste ✦

Creating supply networks with fi nancial institution and ✦

material store

Surveying and training closet craftsman ✦

Recycling plastic waste ✦

Partnership between ✦ pemda and

private sector in composting

Source: Primary data of Monitoring Otonomi Awards 2009

In accelerating ODF, Health Offi ce has attempted to make a cooperation between community and private entities in constructing healthy toilets. Cooperation between community and material store is an agreemen in providing discounted toilet materials. Even, the store give a chance for community to pay in installments. Two stores involving in this network supply are “ Toko Dua Putra”

in Pagerwojo Village and “Toko Lumintu” in Glagahan. Both stores are located in Perak Sub-district.

The offi ce also has created an initial network with a cooperative named “Koperasi Karya Sehat”. The cooperative will make a leasing cooperation with material stores in providing toliet material for community demands. Then, community will pay in installments to the cooperative.

2 Supplynetworking in Jombang

11ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

3.3 Sanitation InstitutionalisationSanitation institutionalisation is relatively similar in all districts. 21 of 29 regencies implementing SToPS have formed coordination

team on sanitation. The rests are in progress. Meanwhile, the institutionalisation in muncipalities is more similar than in regencies. In addition to form the same team, sustain-

ability of sanitation improvement is relatively ensured due to strategic long-term sanitation planning (renstra). The two municipalities having the renstra are Blitar and Surabaya.

Community distinctively has unique institutionalisation mechanism. In order to prevent poor sanitation behaviour return, two vil-lages in Pacitan issued two village regulations in 2008. These villages enact sanctions for open defecators.

Another interesting mechanism to boost ODF is by rewarding positive incentive. Pemda give fi nancial incentive to ODF villages. Or, regents commit to attend every ODF declaration. These two sorts of incentive are eff ective enough to encourage ODF achievement among communities.

In general, table 7 below shows sanitation institutionalisation programs:

Public survey on institutionalisation sanitation is relatively better than sanitation marketing. The average score of perception reaches 3.25. Respondents agree that pemda has shown its eff orts to sustain sanitation improvement.

Respondents agree that pemda has formed a team to accelerate sanitation improvements. The team engages sanitarian as well as communities. JPIP fi nds that 85% of total 38 regencies and municipalities in East Java have had the team at the government level.

TABLE 7. Sanitation Institutionalisation Eff orts in East Java in 2008

INDIKATORPROGRAMS/POLICIES

REGENCY MUNICIPALITY

Sanitation

Institutionalisation

Institutionalisation by pemda:Forming The coordination team of SToPS at the district and ✦

sub-district level

Forming School Health Unit (UKS) at the district and sub- ✦

district level

Institutionalising community based water supply association ✦

Forming Forum Kabupaten Sehat ✦

Mid-term development plan on sanitation ✦

Institutionalising Sanitation ✦

Development Plan

Forming the sanitation team at the ✦

municipal level

MoU between health offi ce and local ✦

water supply enterprise to oversee the

quality of domestic water supply

Institutionalisation by communityGive sanctions to whom open defecate ✦

Awarding ✦

Give sanctions to whom open defecate ✦

Awarding ✦

Source: Primary data of Monitoring Otonomi Awards 2009

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

4

2

4 4 4 4 4

23.25

District

Team

Community

Institutio

n

Initiative

Institutionalisa

tion

Toilet

Hand Soap

Washing

Water Supply

Solid W

aste

Liquid Waste

Average

CHART 3.UPAYA PELEMBAGAAN SANITASI

SUMBER: DATA PRIMER

SURVEI PUBLIK OA 2009

12 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

Respondents also show pemda’ supports on social sanction initiated by communities, including another support for composting activities by pemda, in terms of facilitation. Nonetheless, respondents do not agree about pemda’ encouragement to establish specifi c institution in community to sustain sanitation improvement in their neighbourhood. In other words, Pemda has not realised yet the importance of such institution.

In fact, there are some pemdas having encouraged such institution. For example, in Lumajang, the regent issued a decree Number 188.45/271/427.12/2007 concerning sanitation and community based water supply management association of “Tirta Lestari”. This is a community based association consists of 46 groups of ex-WSLIC-2 location programs. This association has demonstrated its roles in providing domestic water supply independently.

The last fi ve questions explore pemda’ eff orts to promote cooperation among communities in achieving the fi ve pillars of total sanita-tion. Among those pillars, respondents do not agree to the statement that pemda has attempted to support cooperation among com-munities as well as pemda in managing domestic liquid waste.

That perception is consistent with the previous answers relating to sanitation improvements. Eff orts to encourage better domestic liquid waste management have not undertaken seriously yet. Thereby, this fi nding becomes a recommendation to be followed up by focusing more on domestic liquid waste management.

3.4 The Implementation of Community Based Total Sanitation Principles (STBM) The implementation of community based total sanitation program has 6 principles as guidance to be applied, namely:

1. The improvement of pemda’ and other stakeholders supports

2. Creating clean and sanitary live style of community

3. Improving sanitation facilities

4. Sustaining local indigenous and wisdom

5. Abolishing subsidy for facilities provision

6. Involving community in monitoring and evaluation

The village regulation of Poko number

6/2008 concerning ODF Program enacts

sanctions for open defecators. The

regulation obliges them to sweep village

offi ce fl oors. Meanwhile, in another village

named Gedompol obliges for paying Rp

50 thousand or equal to 50 kg of cements

to whom open defecate. This sanction is

regulated in the Village regulation of

Gedompol number 01/2009 concerning ODF.

The similar mechanism is also used in

the municipality of Blitar. The Sukorejo

villagers agree to take pictures for

everybody open defecating in the river.

Then, they print and stick the picture

on the village billboard. In order to

implement the regulation, community

shares to buy digital camera.

Distinguished Institutionalisation in Pacitan and Blitar

Banner of

community’s

commitment

to improve

sanitation

at Glagahan

Village, Perak

Sub-district,

Jombang.

3

13ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

0 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.000 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

58.65

6.09

4.95

2.52

1.05

1.88

6.64

1.92

7.33

2.01

2.43

3.53

1.01

Commitment

Rule of Law

Competence

SKPD synergy

Incentive

Transparency

Participation

DPRD's Commitment

APBD Allocation

Socialisation

Community's Commitment

Program Design

Supports

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

34 4 4 4

2

4

AverageParticipation in Monev

Social SolidarityCurriculum

PartnershipIncentive

Participation

JPIP, then, confi rms the implementation of these principles to the respondents. JPIP inquiries about pemda’ eff orts to improve sani-tation, sanitation marketing, and sanitation institutionalisation. Pemda has referred to fi ve of six principles. Respondents say that the second principle has not applied yet.

In this survey, JPIP translates the second principle into any eff ort of pemda to give positive incentive (award) to community’ involve-ments. Community can possibly involve to improve and to sustain sanitation improvement. In fact, some regencies and municipalities have applied this principle. Respondents in Surabaya, Malang regency and municipality, Jombang, Nganjuk, Lumajang, Probolinggo Municipality, and Lamongan testify that this principle has been applied.

Thus, other 30 regencies have to follow these regencies and municipalities’ eff orts to give positive incentives on community involve-ment in improving sanitation.

3.5 Determined Factors to Succeed Sanitation Programs According to JPIP’s study in 2007, the dominant role of head of districts contributes to 73.2% of decision to execute district’s innova-

tion. In other words, head of district is the main decision maker on the implementation of innovation. Indeed, SKPD contributes to 50 percent of the innovative idea. Meanwhile, head of district contributes to 30.1 percent of innovative idea.

Public survey reveals the similar fi nding. Respondents confi rm that determined factor to succeed sanitation improvement programs is mainly the commitment of head of district. 58.65 percent of respondent confi rm this statement.

Following commitment head of district is local budget commitment confi rmed by 7.33 percent of respondents. The next is commu-nity participation confi rmed by 6.64 percent of respondents. These huge gaps show strong dependency on head of district’ commit-ments in improving sanitation.

This is an ironic fi nding as sanitation improvement programs have been claimed to involve more community roles. In fact, the success remains to depend on individual commitment of head of district. Then, it is a crucial point to creativelly fi nd other strategies to highly improve determined factors of community. JPIP believes that the more community participation, the higher prospective sustainability of sanitation improvement programs in terms of policy and implementation.

CHART 4.THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STBM PRINCIPLES

SOURCE: PRIMARY DATAOF MONITORING OTONOMI AWARDS 2009

CHART 5DETERMINATION

TO SUCCEED SANITATION

PROGRAM

SOURCE: PRIMARY DATAOF MONITORING

OTONOMI AWARDS 2009

14 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

3.6 Local Budget Commitment on Sanitation JPIP attempts to know pemda’s commitment on sanitation improvement by inquiring local budget (APBD) allocation. Thus, it is not

only about head of district’s commitment to succeed sanitation improvement, but also local council (DPRD)’s support in enacting the budget. Therefore, sanitation is an important priority in local development.

JPIP applies two indicators to know local budget commitment. First is the amount of local budget allocation compares to direct expenditure (non-salary expenditure). Second is the analysis of comparison between sanitation budget allocation and the percentage of poor population in a district.

The fi rst indicator is intended to know to what extent the commitment of pemda in improving sanitation. Local budget accumulation addressed to the fi ve pillars of sanitation development can demonstrate this commitment. However, after verifying APBD, sanitation improvement programs are also funded by the national government. For example, National government allocates specifi c grant (DAK) for improving water supply programs. Madiun Regency, Magetan, Trenggalek, Kota Blitar and Kota Pasuruan receive DAK for sanitation improvement. These districts shall allocate sharing budget for 10 percent of total DAK.

The other indicator seeks to assess pro-poor sanitation improvement. It founds on an assumption that the poor is very rampant to be ignored in accessing health sanitation due to its less capability. Thus, the more number of the poor should be followed by the higher budget allocation for sanitation.

However, that budget is allocated more on physical sanitation facilities than behaviour change orientation. JPIP identifi es such in-dications from the title of the program as well as the offi ce to execute the program, such as the offi ce of public works and the offi ce of cleaning and park service offi ce.

Table 8 demonstrates the amount of APBD allocation on sanitation improvement, especially for construction. All of districts in East Java allocate sanitation improvement budget.1 The amount ranges from Rp 141 million to Rp 18.2 billion. In general, the average of APBD allocation for sanitation in East Java is Rp 4.750.422.706 million.

Based on this average allocated budget, there are only 14 districts allocating budget more than the average. On the contrary, 24 districts allocate less than the average. Sidoarjo is the most committed to allocate budget on sanitation and Tuban is the least one.

Even though Sidoarjo has the biggest commitment on budget allocation, in fact, Batu Municipality has the highest ratio of budget on sanitation compared to total direct budget (non-salary). Batu is followed by Probolinggo Municipality, Trenggalek, Malang Municipality, and Probolinggo Regency .Chart 6 shows the rank of this ratio.

Tuban has the least ratio of budget on sanitation compared to total direct budget (non-salary). It only allocates 0.0002 percent of

1 These data is distinctivelly for Jember, since JPIP could not access APBD 2008. Then, JPIP assess budget allocation on sanitation based on the APBD 2007.

Communal septic tank at the Nurul Ulum Islamic Boarding School, Blitar Municipality.

15ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

RANKING DISTRICTS TOTAL BUDGET (RP)

1 Sidoarjo 18.247.134.625

2 Trenggalek 14.092.235.000

3 Malang Kota 13.356.060.130

4 Probolinggo Kota 9.438.072.000

5 Banyuwangi 8.917.923.700

6 Batu 7.831.287.100

7 Malang 7.383.306.000

8 Probolinggo 7.274.530.000

9 Gresik 6.253.553.855

10 Jombang 5.797.051.000

11 Bondowoso 5.065.812.400

12 Pasuruan 4.935.900.000

13 Kediri Kota 4.850.432.000

14 Lamongan 4.751.864.300

15 Jember 4.551.449.949

16 Tulungagung 4.503.060.000

17 Kediri 4.430.956.000

18 Bangkalan 4.227.250.000

19 Pacitan 4.182.500.000

20 Sampang 3.660.051.000

21 Pasuruan Kota 3.598.730.600

22 Magetan 3.392.235.000

23 Ponorogo 3.253.000.000

24 Ngawi 3.052.500.000

25 Blitar 2.926.666.650

26 Mojokerto 2.661.050.961

27 Sumenep 2.644.013.908

28 Madiun 2.593.250.000

29 Blitar Kota 2.202.900.000

30 Mojokerto Kota 2.166.388.900

31 Madiun Kota 1.778.584.000

32 Bojonegoro 1.632.819.190

33 Situbondo 1.366.500.000

34 Nganjuk 1.270.750.000

35 Surabaya 877.769.468

36 Lumajang 772.475.100

37 Pamekasan 435.000.000

38 Tuban 141.000.000

TABLE 8.District’s Budget Allocation on Sanitation in 2008

total direct budget. In contrary, Lumajang has the second smallest budget commitment on sanitation. Its ratio only reaches 0,001 percent.

Meanwhile, the average ratio of budget on sanitation compared to total direct budget among districts in East Java can reach 0.0085 percent. 14 districts have the ratio above this average.

Chart 7 shows the ratio of sanitation budget compared to the number of the poor in each district. The average ratio among districts in East Java is 0.139. It means the poor has better chance to receive budget allocation on sanita-tion for 0,139 percent.

Probolinggo Regency allocates the highest budget compared to other districts. The ratio can reach 0.429. Trenggalek position the sec-ond rank with the ratio of 0.422. Then, accord-ing to the average ratio among districts in East Java, 25 districts allocate sanitation budget un-der this average. Tuban has the weakest com-mitment on this indicator.

Despite, there is no sanction for district giv-ing less commitment on sanitation improve-ment. These data have shown empirical situ-ation of the low commitment on sanitation development, specially, compared to the num-ber of the poor.

16 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

CHART 6. THE RATIO OF

BUDGET ON SANITATION

COMPARED TO TOTAL DIRECT

BUDGET (%)

17ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

CHART 7. THE RATIO OF

SANITATION BUDGET

COMPARED TO THE NUMBER OF THE POOR

IN EACH DISTRICT

18 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

In this new parameter, there is a tight competition among regions in East Java. The diff erence of total score among fi ve nominees is almost same. The average diff erence score among them is 13.8 only. Even, the diff erence score between Pacitan (4th rank) and Kediri

(5th rank) is 2 only. The ranking composed of three data sources, namely public survey, innovation and existing condition. A region might have the low

score for existing condition. However, public survey and innovation are high. It is happened to Lumajang. The position of this region is supported by the high score of innovation and public survey. In fact, the existing condition score is very low.

JPIP explains the profi le of each nominee as well as the ranking below:

1. LUMAJANG REGENCYLumajang is awarded Otonomi Award (OA) as the Region with an Innovative Breakthrough in Promoting Community-Led Total Sani-

tation. Nganjuk Regency, Blitar Municipality, Pacitan Regency and Kediri Regency respectively follow Lumajang. Lumajang Regency has the high score of innovation and public survey. Though, the score of existing data is at the second lowest

compared to all districts. Total score of this region is 708. It consists of 354 for public survey, 354 for innovation and 2 for existing condition. Innovation score

donates to the total score. The innovations of Lumajang is an initiation to integrate several programs lead to TSSM. They are improve-ment of better access to healthy toilets, raising awareness of hand soap washing, community based solid waste management, network-ing among actors, and limited implementation of domestic liquid waste management.

The most competitive point of Lumajang compared to other districts is an integrated approach to total sanitation. Each offi ce has sanitation content program.

Lumajang started sanitation development prior to CLTS intervention. However, the development just covered 51.9 percent of need, since this is physically oriented than raising awareness.

Pemda fi rstly conducted a training for trainer for communy facilitators as the preliminary activity in 2005. They consist of community leaders. The training took two sub-villages in Purworejo Village sub-district of Senduro as the fi eldwork sites. They practiced CLTS ap-proach to drive ODF in these two sub-villages.

Pemda continued to train other facilitators at the level of sub-district in 2006. They are facilitators at Pronojiwo, Gucialit, dan Senduro sub-district. The participants are sanitary staff of Community health care, public works offi ces at the level of sub-district, School teach-ers, and other sub-district staff s. As the result of these activities, Gucialit sub-district declared ODF in 2007. As well, in 2007, Lumajang strated to implement SToPS (TSSM).

There have been improvements attained from 2005 to 2008. That are toilet access improvement and community participation im-provement. Healthy toilet access raised from 50.9 percent 84.17 percent. Active communities in line with ODF mision can reach 209 communities. Meanwhile, ODF village can reach 29 villages of 76 involved villages. Two sub-districts had reached ODF, namely Gucialit dan Senduro for 6 months in 2008. As well, Community contribution to achieve ODF can reach Rp 1.3 billion. This success strory, then, inspires other villages to apply the same approace to achive ODF.

The Regent and staff s ussually attend ODF declaration to appreciate community. The attendance can encourage more other villages and communities to achieve ODF.

Pemda also conducts training of hand soap wahing in schools. Pemda use School health related teacher to promote this habit. In addition pemda publishes poster concerning hand soap washing. In this activity, pemda engages PT Indosat and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to boost this habit.

In 2008, helath offi ce undertaken basic sanitation survey. Health offi ce attempt to collech evaluation data on sanitation as well as develop data base on sanitation applied for thev future sanitation policy.

Pemda also endorse community water supply association aimed to contribute more to sanitation development. In 2008, there are 46 association servicing communities to access clean water. The regent issued regent’s decree number 18 8.45/271/427.12/2007 to meet all of community associations into comunity based water supply associations “ Tirto Lestari” at the district level.

One of success associations is “Tirto Mandiri”. This association can cover water supply service for fi ve villages, which are Krasak, Ka-lisemut, Dadapan, Gucialit, Meraan, and Kenongo. Each custumer should pay for Rp 5 million to get water access. This association can collect community contribution for total Rp 250 million.

In addition, Health offi ce conducted basic sanitation survey in 2008. The survey collected crucial data relating to sanitation existing condition per household in Lumajang. In addition to evaluate sanitation improvement, other offi ces can benefi t this survey result as the basic data for other developments related needs.

4 THE AWARDEESAND JUSTIFICATION

CHAPTER

19ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

Lumajang has also undertaken solid waste management. Pemda creates a cooperation between cleaning and park offi ce and com-munity. Each sub-village has garbage cart to collect solid waste from households. In the rural areas, pemda introduces compost man-agement gor organic waste. In addition to solid waste, several villages have started to manage domestic liquid waste.

One key succees of sanitation development in Lumajang is the involvement of non-government actors. Thet consist of Lumajang Healt Forum (FLS), Tirto Lestari community based water supply Association, local radio station, Private sectors (PT Indosat and PT Uni-lever), community fasilitators, and donor agency (JICA).

Another key succees is that local offi ces (SKPD) integrate sanitation into development policies. Local offi ces, such as, Industry and Trade offi ce, Healt Offi ce, Education and Culture Offi ce, Public Works Offi ce have sanitation related programs. In addition, the offi ce of public relations campaign ODF in cooperate with “Swara Lumajang” Radio Station as well as at the pemda’ webiste at www.lumajang.go.id. Meanwhile, information and communication offi ce socialise ODF through Community information Groups (KIM).

Other offi ces and agencies involved are cooperative and SME’s offi ce, Community empowerment offi ce, environmental offi ce, Reli-gious Offi ce, and Laocal Developmen Planning Agency.

2. NGANJUK REGENCYNganjuk positions the second rank in this parameter. Nganjuk can accumulate total score of 708. This regency has fi rstly implement-

ed sanitation program in 1975. This program emphasised more on physical oriented development charity. The government did not touch awareness and behaviour aspects of sanitation. Thus, this approach led to failure of the program.

Refl ecting on this failure, Nganjuk adopted CLTS in 2006. This new approach focuses more on raising awareness of community to the need of sanitation.

As the pioneer, CLTS was conducted in 30 communities (sub-village) in 7 sub-districts.

FIRST PHASE SECOND PHASE

No Sub-Districts Locations No Sub-Districts Locations

1 Jatikalen 4 sub-villages in di 4 villages 1 Gondang 2 sub-villages

2 Lengkong 4 sub-villages in di 4 villages 2 Baron 4 sub-villages

3 Sukomoro 4 sub-villages in di 4 villages 3 Rejoso 1 sub-villages

4 Nganjuk 4 sub-villages in di 4 villages 4 Wilangan 1 sub-villages

5 Bagor 5 sub-villages in di 5 villages 5 Ngluyu 1 sub-villages

6 Berbek 5 sub-villages in di 5 villages 6 Patianrowo 1 sub-villages

7 Sawahan 4 sub-villages in di 4 villages 7 Pace 1 sub-villages

8 Ngronggot 1 sub-villages

Pemda incorporates sanitation policy into all sectors of development. It is supported by several offi ces, such as Health offi ce, Educa-tion offi ce, and Local Development Planning Agency. Each offi ce has commitment to succeed CLTS.

Two months after the coordination meeting among offi ces, pemda conducted TSSM training in January 2008. The participants came from 7 sub-districts. Each sub-district sent 5 participants. Theyoriginated from Puskemas, Public Works offi ce at the sub-district level, sanitation agency at the sub-district level, vil-lage empowering agency at the sub-district level, PKK at the sub-district level, and NGO’s such as NU and Fattayat.

Budgeting policy can show pemda’s commitment to promote sanitation. Pemda al-located Rp 93,065,000 in 2009 (DAU). As well, pemda recieved Rp 99,095,000 from the national government (DAK) for sanitation program.

Tpemda spent this budget on training of facilitators, triggering ODF at the community level, and program monitoring and evaluation. The local government did not provide money to stimulate community. Surprisingly, people were able to donate independently. It can reach Rp 547,000,000 in total. It means that, Rp 1 from local government can stimu-late community participation for Rp 5,50.

By the end of December 2008, two villages declared ODF, that are Perning Village in Jatikalen sub-district and Bareng Village in Sawahan sub-district.

Perning Village only took 3 months to achieve ODF. villagers have changed their behav-iour. They declared ODF on March, 15, 2008. Perning Village has three sub-village, Sum-bergondang, Perning, and Seloguno. Sumbergondang was the fi rst sub-village declaring ODF.

The communities in two others sub-villages collaborated to build toilets. The head of village warned communities in these two sub-villages to work quickly. If don’t, he will ask the people from Sumbergondang sub-district to build them toilets.

TABLE 9. CLTS Locations in Nganjuk

TABEL 10.ODF Sub-Villages in Nganjuk

NO SUB-VILLAGE VILLAGE

1 Sumbergondang Perning

2 Karangasem Balonpacul

3 Karangasem Gandu

4 Barenggeneng Bareng

5 Pulowetan Dlururejo

6 Mlaten Ngrami

7 Songsong Jatikalen

8 Plosorejo Kapas

9 Meko Sidokare

10 Tondowesi Pule

20 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

After seeing the spirit from the people, local government then gave incentives. Local government built clean water facility in Sum-bergondang sub-village. In Perning sub-village and Seloguno sub-village, pemda promised to build roads.

In order to sustain this improvement, Village issued a sanction on 15 March 2008. To whom open defecate, village will fi ne Rp 100 thousand per person.

This program also drives other sector, marketing sanitation. Sanitarians in Jatikalen sub-village and Gondang sub-sub-village have designed healthy and inexpensive toilet. It costs Rp 750 thousand only. The marketing network has spread into several sub-districts such as Jatikalen, Lengkong, Gondang, Ngluyu, and Baron. Till 2008, two thousands toilets have been built by using this model.

3. BLITAR MUNICIPALITYBlitar Municipality positions the 3rd rank with total score 678. It consists of 357 from public survey, innovation 320, and existing data

17. Public survey donates most to the accumulation score.Blitar has aprogram “The Increase of Sanitation Quality for the Poor”. Some areas are becoming the locus, such as Kelurahan Sukorejo,

or Kelurahan Pakunden, Sukorejo. Both kelurahan are located in Sukorejo Sub-District2. Sanitation improvement in Blitar is focused on the poor. They have special qualifi cations, such as poor sanitation and poor condition.

It is collaborated with local government program to fi ght against poverty (GPMK). In GPMK program which has been declared in November 2008, sanitation is one of the programs. It has been signed by six mayors in

Indonesia, who received Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program (ISSDP). Eff orts to promote sanitation, such as controlling pollution and environmental damage, raises by using Sanimas Program, and sanita-

tion quality mapping. The mapping conducted in over populated areas. Local government also monitors the implementation of this program according to strategic plan.

Municipality government also develops waste management. Such as, by making waste management master plan, increasing the waste management, and monitoring of the waste management master plan. Residents also involve in waste management, campaign to use less plastic bags, community to care waste and the environment, and so on.

4. PACITAN REGENCYPacitan positions 4th rank among 38 districts in East Java. It is supported by score of public survey 329, 312 for innovation and 20 for

existing data. Comparing to other four districts, Pacitan has the highest score in existing data. SToPS is one of innovative programs. It has been started since 2007. Like SToPS in other regions in East Java, it is always started with

training amongst the facilitators in district level, sub-district level and village level. It consists of sanitarian from puskesmas, posyandu member, and so on. Then, locations were defi ned in three sub-districts.

2 Kelurahan has the same level with Desa (Village). It is an urban term for desa

Mrs. Ratna Josodipoero from WSP The World Bank and the Governor of East Java,

Mr. Soekarwo, (right corner) with the awardees, including the best performer on sanitation,

the Regent of Lumajang, Mr. Sharazad Masdar (the 3rd from right).

21ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

0 375 750 1,125 1,500

0 375 750 1,125 1,500

354

349

357

329

336

354

284

295

301

354

321

329

354

286

307

270

312

313

312

257

288

322

280

360

291

347

305

283

254

314

301

306

290

315

277

304

260

291

354

341

320

312

303

283

345

317

303

247

260

250

215

284

258

292

246

243

238

293

261

225

265

178

242

178

218

234

234

167

178

165

178

151

178

141

178

141

2

3

17

20

8

23

42

18

32

11

8

12

35

11

6

21

14

11

18

9

14

41

9

31

18

888 11

20

10

19

77 23

8888811

555 19

8

1111112

888 18

113

4

1111116

708

690

678

641

639

637

629

612

604

602

581

579

570

570

565

563

558

556

550

550

549

547

545

539

533

525

523

517

488

481

480

471

469

466

455

446

439

432

Lumajang

Nganjuk

Blitar Kota

Pacitan

Kediri

Malang Kota

Trenggalek

Lamongan

Pamekasan

Malang

Mojokerto Kota

Jombang

Probolinggo Kota

Magetan

Surabaya Kota

Sampang

Blitar

Tulungagung

Bondowoso

Bojonegoro

Ponorogo

Probolinggo

Ngawi

Batu Kota

Sumenep

Kediri Kota

Sidoarjo

Pasuruan

Bangkalan

Banyuwangi

Mojokerto

Gresik

Madiun

Madiun Kota

Pasuruan Kota

Situbondo

Tuban

Jember

Survai Publik Inovasi Eksisting Total

CHART 8.RANK OF

DISCTRICTS ONTHE PARAMETER

OF SANITATION

The three sub-districts are Pringkuku, Donorojo and Punung. The three sub-districts are located in western Pacitan. Water in these three regions is very scare, dry, and stony. 10 villages in each sub-district have been chosen. The natural leaders such as teachers, reli-gious leader, and others have important role to implement this program. The trigger has been done in February 2008.

The result, 91 from 117 sub-villages have declared ODF. 10 villages also has declared ODF, fi ve villages in Donorojo, four villages in Pringkuku sub-district and one village in Punung sub-district. ODF declaration in three villages was attended by the regent (Soko and Poko in Pringkuku and Gedongpol, Donorojo). In 2007, local government has allocated Rp. 25 million for SToPS program, and Rp. 50 million in 2008.

For the sustainability of this ODF, each village has diff erent sanction. It is proposed that they would not return in previous habit. For example, in Poko village, Pringkuku, the head of village has passed Village Regulation Number 6/2008 about Institutionalization of ODF. If they are back to previous habit, they have to clean the fl oor of village offi ce.

PUBLIC SURVEY INNOVATION EXISTING TOTAL

22 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

Meanwhile, in Gedompol, Donorojo, head of village has issued Village Regulation (Perdes) Number 1/2009 about Open Defecation Free. In this Perdes, people who break the regulation have to pay for Rp 50 thousand. It ios equal to one zak cement.

The implementation of STOPS still deals with several obstacles. Such as, Community’ mindset (attitude) is relatively diffi cult to change as well as geographic barriers. Open defecation habit can be found, occasionally, even though they have toilet.

5. KEDIRI REGENCYThe fi fth rank from this parameter is Kediri Regency. Total score is 639. Public survey score is 336, 303 for public survey and 8 for exist-

ing condition. Sanitation was pioneered in Kediri In 2001 by WSLIC-2 program implementation. For fi ve years, this program has reached 55 villages

from 35 target villages. CLTS was started in this regency in 2007. Both CLTS and STOPS have been implemented in 19 sub-districts. But, only seven sub-districts participate intensively. They involve

community organizations such as Fattayat, Muslimat, NU, PKK and other organisations. One of the programs is toilet bowl production. It is not expensive to make bowl. The Health offi ce has trained several people to make

toilet bowl. They have already separated urine from faeces. It can also be used to make organic fertilizer. One pack of cement could produce 14 toilet bowls. It means that one toilet bowl only needs Rp 5 thousand. Community also modi-

fi ed the program by cooperate with some supplier stores. So, they can pay for the lower prices.

23ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

TABEL 11. Rank of Districts on thr Parameter of Sanitation

RANK DISTRICT PUBLIC SURVEY INNOVATION EXISTING TOTAL

1 Lumajang 354 354 2 708

2 Nganjuk 349 341 3 690

3 Blitar Kota 357 320 17 678

4 Pacitan 329 312 20 641

5 Kediri 336 303 8 639

6 Malang Kota 354 283 23 637

7 Trenggalek 284 345 42 629

8 Lamongan 295 317 18 612

9 Pamekasan 301 303 32 604

10 Malang 354 247 11 602

11 Mojokerto Kota 321 260 8 581

12 Jombang 329 250 12 579

13 Probolinggo Kota 354 215 35 570

14 Magetan 286 284 11 570

15 Surabaya Kota 307 258 6 565

16 Sampang 270 292 21 563

17 Blitar 312 246 14 558

18 Tulungagung 313 243 11 556

19 Bondowoso 312 238 18 550

20 Bojonegoro 257 293 9 550

21 Ponorogo 288 261 14 549

22 Probolinggo 322 225 41 547

23 Ngawi 280 265 9 545

24 Batu Kota 360 178 31 539

25 Sumenep 291 242 18 533

26 Kediri Kota 347 178 11 525

27 Sidoarjo 305 218 20 523

28 Pasuruan 283 234 10 517

29 Bangkalan 254 234 19 488

30 Banyuwangi 314 167 23 481

31 Mojokerto 301 178 11 480

32 Gresik 306 165 19 471

33 Madiun 290 178 8 469

34 Madiun Kota 315 151 12 466

35 Pasuruan Kota 277 178 18 455

36 Situbondo 304 141 3 446

37 Tuban 260 178 0,4 439

38 Jember 291 141 16 432

24 ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

5.1 Important FindingsBy deepening fi eldwork and public survey result as well as document analyses, JPIP remarks several critical notes which shall be

found its solutions. Firstly, the implementation of sanitation improvement following governance of sanitation has eff ectively pro-moted sanitation improvement. Flexibility of SToPS implementation can follow local specifi c contexts. JPIP fi nds an argument that by performing fl exibly, SToPS has allowed consultation and negotiation between pemda and community. Thus, the decision to improve sanitation is highly accepted. As well, the community has a sense of belonging to the program

Nevertheless, the domination of head of districts in decision making to improve sanitation is a preliminary weakness. Since the domination can create an independency to succeed sanitation improvement. In fact, the high committed head of district has positively impacted on sanitation improvement.

Secondly, there is a less initiative on sanitation marketing. The district initiatives emphasised more on behaviour change and sani-tation institutionalisation. The districts have not realised yet economic potency beyond sanitation improvement. Thereby, sanitation marketing strategies have not been explored yet.

Finally, among the fi ve pillars of sanitation, majority of districts have not undertaken domestic liquid waste management improve-ment. JPIP does not fi nd many initiatives on domestic liquid waste management improvement. As well, public survey result has shown the similar data. It is necessary, then, to reveal the problems or barriers hampering the initiatives to occur. Why such initiatives are have not been priorities in sanitation improvement? Are there other obstacles faced by community?

5.2 Policies to Improve Sanitation According to the previous arguments, pemda and community remain to face challenges in improving community based sanitation.

Thus, JPIP proposes some relevant recommendations to be critically assessed and followed them up at the district level. First is the importance of pemda’ breakthroughs aimed to endorse sanitation marketing. Pemda can give positive incentives to

communities, cooperatives, and private enterprises to make business on sanitation work. Incentive is not merely fi nancial incentive or subsidy from government, but also enabling policies to stimulate sanitation marketing.

Next, pemda relies more on formal policies in improving sanitation. According to fi eldwork result, JPIP states that ODF achievements rely more on the community participation. Formal regulation cannot easily boost sanitation improvement. Therefore, the role of alter-native to policies is urgently needed. For instance, pemda undertakes public campaign engaging non-government actors as well as mass media. It is logical as non-government actors dynamically follow the change.

Third is to arrange sanitation development system for the near future. The sanitation development system is addressed to release

RECOMMENDATION:STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE SANITATION IN EAST JAVA

5

All head of districts

of the award win-

ners with Minister

of Home Aff airs

Mr. Mardiyanto,

Governor of East

Java, Mr. Soekar wo,

Deputy of Governor,

Syaifullah Yusuf,

and CEO of Jawa

Pos, Dahlan Iskan.

CHAPTER

25ACCELERATING THE CHANGE: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE TOTAL SANITATION AND SANITATION MARKETING (TSSM) IN EAST JAVA

from the dependency on the willingness and commitment of head of district on sanitation improvement. Therefore, pemda can keep sustaining sanitation improvement program though head of districts are periodically changing.

Next, pemda needs to fi nd the best solution to handle the problem of domestic liquid waste management. JPIP proposes to under-take several pilot projects of domestic liquid waste management improvement at the level of community. Pemda, then, can transfer knowledge and experience gained from the best prototype projects to others communities.

Finally, pemda needs more creativity to design positive incentives for communities that can accelerate sanitation improvement. The forms of Incentives are not merely fi nancial incentives. Pemda can also give more attention and seriousness to appreciate community involvement and achievement in improving sanitation.

5.3 Closing Notes: Proving Governance of SanitationOptimal sanitation governance has succeeded to endorse ODF achievement. Eff orts to improve sanitation have involved various

stakeholders from diff erent background. The role of pemda is not dominant anymore. Thus, communication between communities, local governments, donors, and other parties are very urgent. Every party has the same level. There is no party higher than others. Thereby, equal relation among stakeholders can attract community to participate.

Also, relating to policy making, the decision to implement better sanitation comes voluntarily from the local community. There are negotiations and consultations in deciding policy choice to run TSSM. Pemda and donor off er program only. Thus, community supports are the most resource needed.

Finally, among communities agree about compliance guarantee. there are no formal sanctions to be committed to the community. Indeed, social sanctions are issued by community are remarkably eff ective.

However, is it right that achievement of ODF is determined by the role of community and local government partnership? What about the strong role of donor? JPIP found a factor also determining the success of TSSM implementation. It is the head of district’s commitment. Head of district commitment can explain the amount of APBD allocation on sanitation, other achievement, and other pemda’s policies.

The intensive and high commitment of head of district can endorse ODF achievement. The regent of Trenggalek is one of the most encouraged regents to achieve ODF. Trenggalek has targeted to be totally ODF in 2010. In fact, Trenggalek just began TSSM in Novem-ber 2007.

The dependency on this commitment is a challenge to sanitation improvement, as it can reduce the sustainability of sanitation improvement. Thus, negotiation and consultation between community and pemda seem to be meaningless to succeed sanitation improvement. There should be another systematic mechanism to reduce this dependency.

The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro-Otonomi (JPIP) is an

independent and non-profi t organisation that was

founded by Jawa Pos Group in 2001.

JPIP intensively conducts monitoring and

evaluation of local autonomy implementation. JPIP

applies ‘progressive decentralisation approach’ to

endorse local governments to create innovation

in local economic development, public service,

local political performance, environmental

management, and poverty alleviation. JPIP

augmented a new parameter on sanitation in 2009.

These six parameters are references to assess local

advancement in 38 districts in East Java, 40 districts

in Central Java and Yogyakarta, 13 districts in East

Kalimantan, and 23 districts in South Sulawesi.

JPIP annually presents otonomi awards to districts

having the best performance in each indicator.

Graha Pena Building suite 801,Jl Ahmad Yani 88 Surabaya

phone (031) 820 2038, 820 2164 fax (031) 820 2081email otonomi@jpip.or.id