2011年-世界发展银行全球_Economic_Assessment_of_Sanitation_Interventions_in_Indonesia_210页_22mb

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Indonesia

Core Content

This report presents the findings of a six-country study conducted under the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI) Phase 2, with a specific focus on Indonesia. It evaluates the economic feasibility and benefits of various sanitation interventions in both urban and rural areas, aiming to support policy and investment decisions in the sanitation sector.

Main Viewpoints

1. Sanitation Progress and Challenges

• Indonesia's sanitation coverage has not met the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) targets, requiring an increase of over 13 percentage points from 2008 to 2015.
• Sanitation has become a priority in recent years, but budget allocation remains low, at $0.03%$ of national government spending.
• A specific sanitation budget has been in place since 2010, and the Sanitation Technical Team (TTPS) has been promoting the development of the national sanitation sector.

2. Study Objectives and Methodology

• The ESI Phase 2 study aimed to generate robust economic evidence on the cost and benefits of sanitation improvements across different geographic and programmatic contexts in Indonesia.
• The study used a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, including household surveys, focus groups, physical location surveys, water quality measurements, market surveys, and health facility data.

3. Economic Analysis and Key Findings

• Benefit-Cost Ratios (BCR): Most sanitation interventions had BCR values greater than 1, indicating economic viability. However, in some urban areas, BCR values fell below 1 due to suboptimal capacity utilization.
• Cost Components: Capital costs are the main contributor to economic costs in both rural and urban areas, though program costs were significant in some contexts like SANIMAS and CLTS.
• Health Benefits: Health costs averted due to improved sanitation accounted for 60–70% of total health costs in both rural and urban areas. Savings were higher in rural areas due to higher disease prevalence.
• Water Access and Treatment Costs: In urban areas, water treatment costs are higher than access costs. Improved sanitation allows for cheaper treatment methods, leading to cost savings.
• Time Savings: Time saved from not traveling to defecation sites is a major benefit. Households in Tangerang and Malang experienced the highest time savings due to longer access times to open defecation sites.
• Intangible Benefits: Factors like privacy, cleanliness, and comfort are highly valued by households, especially by women and the elderly, but are not monetized in this study.
• Tourism and Business Benefits: Improved sanitation positively influences tourism and business by enhancing public perception and creating a better environment. Businesses prioritize clean and healthy environments for location decisions.

Key Information

Study Sites

• Five study sites were selected: Banjarmasin City, Malang City, Payakumbuh, Lamongan District, and Tangerang District.
• These included three urban and two rural areas, with detailed data collected on sanitation practices, health outcomes, and economic impacts.

Economic Performance

• Rural Areas:
  • BCR values for sanitation interventions ranged from 2 to 6.
  • Program costs were significant in some areas, especially for SANIMAS and CLTS.
• Urban Areas:
  • BCR values for optimal capacity utilization ranged from 1.1 to 4.
  • Actual BCR values were often below 1 due to low utilization rates.
  • The cost of private sewerage was lower than the cost of private septic tanks in some cases.

Financing and Utilization

• Most sanitation financing comes from households, though community toilets and sewerage systems are often funded by non-household sources.
• The percentage of household members using improved toilets regularly varied between 70% and 84% across different areas.
• Handwashing practices were low in several urban areas, indicating a need for hygiene promotion alongside sanitation infrastructure.

Program Performance

• The Program Approach Analysis (PAA) was used to assess the effectiveness of sanitation programs.
• Sensitivity analysis suggests that actual benefits from improved sanitation may be higher than those reported, due to the omission of several non-monetary factors.

Recommendations

• The ESI findings can support the six stages of the Acceleration of Settlement Sanitation Development Program (PPSP), including advocacy, institutional preparation, and monitoring and evaluation.
• Robust economic evidence from the study should be used to advocate for sanitation investment at all levels of government.
• The CBA model can be integrated into the City Sanitation Strategy to enhance environmental health risk assessments.
• Detailed technical proposals should incorporate field evidence on costs and benefits to secure stakeholder commitment.
• Monitoring and evaluation frameworks should include the CBA and PAA models to better assess program performance and impact.

Conclusion

The study concludes that sanitation interventions in Indonesia are economically feasible, particularly in rural areas, and can yield significant health, time, and cost benefits. However, achieving these benefits requires optimal utilization of sanitation facilities and treatment systems. The ESI results provide valuable evidence to support the mainstreaming of sanitation in Indonesia's national development agenda and to secure adequate funding and political commitment.