Date. Reporting period Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Jakarta, Indonesia June

Transcription

1 Organisation Date Reporting period Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Jakarta, Indonesia June Activity 2016 Implemented by Result area Rio marker Gender marker Number Name Actual expenditure Name organisation Channel Result area Mitigation/Adaptation Significant/principal2 Significant/principal WSES Oost Indonesië SIMAVI NGO Sanitation Bima Y Consultancy BV Government Sanitation Project Lampung SNV NGO Joint Cooperation Program II Stichting Deltares Research institute and companies R'dam-DKI JKT Training Program (DUTEP) Nuffic/NESO Research institute and companies Delegated Representative MoU Water RVO Government General Mitigation and adaptation Significant Not applicable safe deltas Adaptation Significant Not applicable General Adaptation Significant Not applicable Urban Sanitation Development Project HaskoningDHV Government Sust. San&Hyg for East Indonesia SEHATI SIMAVI NGO Dutch Water Authorities HHSK Government NCICD 2 General Consultants RVO Government WAMI Stichting Deltares Research institute and companies NCICD 2 Knowledge Management Stichting Deltares Research institute and companies General Mitigation and adaptation Significant Not applicable safe deltas Mitigation and adaptation Significant Not applicable General Mitigation and adaptation Significant Not applicable safe deltas Mitigation and adaptation Significant Not applicable

2 28916 Studie Kusterosie Pekalongen HHSK Government DUTEP II Nuffic/NESO Research institute and companies NCICD 2 Financial Engineering RVO Government safe deltas Mitigation and adaptation Significant Not applicable safe deltas Adaptation Significant Not applicable safe deltas Mitigation and adaptation Significant Not applicable

3 Result Area 1 Result question 1a: To what extent has the ratio between crop yield and water use been improved in a sustainable manner in the target area of your programme ( more crop per drop )? Efficient water use in agriculture Objectives for irrigation and water management were incorporated in the Medium Term Development Plan of Indonesia. No specific programs or targets for improving ratio between crop yields and water use have been formulated however. Given the very high utilization rate of surface water on Java (in particular during the dry season) and the high cropping intensity of irrigated paddy land (on average 1,7 paddy harvests per ha per year plus additional non-rice crops in the third season), rapid increase in yield levels at the short term are not realistic. Indicator 1: Agricultural yields of main crops in kg per hectare: rice 4980,2 kg/ha (2011) No national target 5136 kg/ha 5152 kg/ha 5135 kg/ha 5341 kg/ha No data available Statistics Indonesia Result question 1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result? The Participatory Irrigation Sector Program ( ), in which the Netherlands participated, had as its main objective sustainable management of irrigation systems and water resources through improved irrigation infrastructure, the development of water-user organizations and the strengthening of local government in the area of water- and irrigation management. It was foreseen that in 2014 a follow up project would start but this has not materialized. In the below it has been assumed that the results achieved by the end of the project (2013) have been consolidated since. Indicator 1 Rehabilitated area of irrigation systems under PISP1 0 (2005) ha ha ha ha ha ha ADB Final Report PISP 2014 Indicator 2 Participatory Management of irrigation systems; number of Water User Associations (WUA) established under PISP1 0 (2005) WUA ADB Final Report PISP 2014 Indicator 3 District Irrigation Management Plan operational and financed (number of districts) under PISP 1 0 (2005) ADB Final Report PISP 2015 Indicator 4 Presence of women in Boards of WUA : % of WUA with at least one female board member, as result of PISP1 0 % (2005) 15% 21,14% 21,14% 21,14% 21,14% 21,14% ADB Final Report PISP 2016 Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result Area 1 Assess achieved results compared to planning: Reasons for result achieved: Efficient water use in agriculture B. Results achieved as planned Results of the PISP have in been conform planning in terms of outputs and impact. Results achieved in that period are assumed to have been sustained in the subsequent years. PISP is at present being evaluated by IOB. Implications for planning: Due to the limited budgetary means available and the gradual phasing out of the delegated Development Cooperation budget, the Netherlands will not participate in the co-funding of the IISP project (as co-financier of AsDB and IFAD). The Netherlands will however participate in this programme through funding of specific technical components where Netherlands organisations have specific added value (e.g. use of spatial planning techniques for water management and irrigation development planning). One ongoing activity in this sense was the improvement of the software program for the inventorizing of District Irrigation infrastructure (one of the components of the District Irrigation Management Plans) funded through the ADB/NL water trust funds.

4 Result Area 2 Result question 2.1a: To what extent has there been progress in the development and implementation of plans for sustainable growth and water safety (incl. good governance) in the target area of your programme? safe deltas Cooperation with Indonesia in this result area has in the past focused on three main themes: 1) reduction of flood risks in urbanized deltas and coastal plains, 2) improved river basin management and 3) the establishment of a National Strategy for Coastal Lowland Management (including peatlands and mangroves). From 2015, the bilateral cooperation focused on the first component mainly, in particular in the cities of Jakarta and Semarang. The programs for coastal protection/development and flood management in Jakarta made good progress in preparing and then reviewing the National Capital Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD) master plan for flood management and the restoration of the drainage system within the city. Implementation of the Banger Polder program in Semarang, in spite of several further delays in 2016, is set to be fully completed in 2017 only. However, measures taken thus far have already resulted in a substantial reduction of floods which used to negatively impact on the lives and livelyhoods of some 85,000 people living in the polder. The project is now fully financed by the local government itself and the polder management committee is operational. Indicator 1 Floods in Urban Area: Banger area in Semarang Central Java Indicator 2 : Banger Area Semarang : sustainable water management and flood control by local governance organisation Indicator 3 Floods in urban area: Jakarta: reduction in average flood risks (from rivers, local rainfall) inside city of Jakarta Daily tidal floods No tidal floods Daily tidal floods Daily tidal floods Daily tidal floods Daily tidal floods No local organisation Water management in Banger area by dedicated local 'polder committee' Polder committee operational; budget approved 2007: ha, 3 million people at risk ha, 1.1 million people at risk ha, 1.4 million persons at risk NNB Idem Idem, cost recovery system agreed and legalized Frequent risk limited to ha, persons Idem Further improvement however difficult to quantify. No floods during rainy season 15/16 Daily tidal floods ceased with the completion of the pump house and (temporary) dam HHSK Local organization operable. CBO for management and Service Agreement with HHSK Municipality for operation As in 2015, further improvement difficult to quantify. No major floods during rainy season 16/17. Rivers are generally able to drain off the rains. Flood Monitoring Information System in Jakarta, estimates Deltares Indicator 4 Floods in urban area: Jakarta: long term master plan for coastal defence and development completed 2 million people at risk from seafloods in 2010 (4.5 million) in 2025; no agreed action plan Masterplan NCICD implemented : phase A Start Masterplan exercise from 2015, phase B from 2017/18 Final Implementation model for NCICD I masterplan defined Masterplan completed and accepted by government; start of phase A (strengthening of existing walls/dams) of NCICD Detailed design/procurement phase A. Stagnation in decision making on phase B Government decided to completely review NCICD I Masterplan, integrating long term flood protection with land reclamation and short/medium term measures against land subsidence, water pollution Various communications, bilateral consultations, progress reports Indicator 5 Floods in Urban Area: city and district of Pekalongan: coastal erosion and tidal flooding Daily tidal floods Water management activities in priority Not applicable : no operational program areas affected by tidal flooding operational Idem Idem Request of city of Pekalongan to HHSK Study completed. Further cooperation water board. First study on coastal erosion under investigation HHSK Result question 2.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result? At the request of the government, and within the context of a trilateral MoU involving also KOICA, GoN has, in the course of 2016, provided inputs to the review of the NCICD Masterplan and initiated three new activities to support a second phase of the NCICD program, aiming at assisting GoI to prepare for a final investment decision for an outer sea wall in In November 2016, during a large trade mission led by Prime Minister Rutten, two Letters of Intent were furthermore signed in which the two governments agreed to continue and intensify collaboration in the fields of coastal restoration (through Building with Nature) of Northern Java and Integrated Water Management in the City of Semarang. The Netherlands role in the urban flood related programs has been largely the placing at the disposal of the Government of Indonesia and local governments of water management and (financial) engineering expertise through focused technical assistance activties. These technical assistance activities are very small in relation to the subsequent investments made by the GoI in the implementation of the programmes designed with Netherlands support. Examples are: NCICD Jakarta (GoI, DKI Jakarta, private sector), Jakarta Flood Management Programmes (GOI, World Bank, Private Sector) and Semarang Banger (City of Semarang, provincial government Central Java). The multiplyer effect of these comparative small NL contributions are potentially enormous in terms of investments and impact on people. Indicator 1: Number of urban delta's with water allocation / flow management / coastal defense plans that are ecologically and socioeconomically sustainable: Jakarta, Semarang, Pekalongan Indicator 2: Number of people (male/female) targeted in the Dutch water management projects (urban deltas) 0 (2007) EKN River Floods Jakarta: 0 (2007); Seafloods Jakarta: 0 (2007); Tidal floods Semarang: 0 (2007) River Floods Jakarta : Seafloods JKT: 4 M persons (target 18/19); Tidal floods Semarang Safe from Riverfloods Jakarta idem Safe from riverfloods Jakarta Safe from riverfloods Jakarta Safe from river floods Jakarta ; Safe from Tidal Floods Semarang: Flood Management Information System Jakarta; Deltares; HHSK Result question 2.2a: To what extent has transboundary and collective river basin management been improved in the target area of your programme? As Indonesia is an archipelago with hardly and land border there are no major transboundary rivers and issues

5 Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result Area 2 Assess achieved results compared to planning: Reasons for result achieved: safe deltas B. Results achieved as planned Based on the experiences in Jakarta and Semarang and this interest by NL and Indonesian partners the bilateral cooperation program will continue to focus on urban flooding. Results of the cooperation program on river floods have been satisfactory. Good initial progress in due to in particular major investments by the City of Jakarta in improving drainage has been followed by a period of reviews and delays in decision-making with regards to medium/long-term flood protection measures (NCICD 1). The latter and the slow progress in the establishment of a designated project organisation for NCICD 2 are currently main points of concern/close monitoring. Implications for planning: In line with the trilateral MoU signed in 2016, KOICA and NL have in the meantime mobilized substantial TA to assist GoI in preparing for an investment decision for flood control by Given the delays in GoI decision-making and action, both with regard to the implementation model and the establishment of the project organization, the TA will have to be flexible and adaptative. Result Area 3 Result question 3.1a: How many people (male/female) have gained sustainable access to an improved water source or improved sanitary facility and to what extent has governance been improved on this topic in the target area of your programme? Indonesia has for decades been lagging on improving its sanitation standards, also in comparison with other low-income countries in the region (Laos, Cambodia). Between 2006 and 2010 the World Bank-based Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), with funding from Sweden and the Netherlands, generated increased political commitment for sanitation and increased the national government's capacity for sanitation planning through the "Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program" (ISSDP). This ultimately resulted in the Program for the acceleration of Settlement Sanitation (PPSP1) for urban sanitation, and the local version of the Community Lead Total Sanitation approach (STBM) targeting the rural areas. PPSP1 ( ) focused to a large degree on advocacy, strategy development and planning at the level of the majority of towns and urbanized settlement in the country. In 2015 the implementation of the second Program for the acceleration of the settlement sanitation (PPSP2, ) started as part of the new five-year plan. Objective is universal access to sanitation by Government investments in (urban) sanitation have more than quadrupled since At local local government levels, actual implementation of sanitation development plans and STBM is however still limited due to budgetary constraints and procedural and technical capacity issues. Resultant progress in sanitation coverage is steady from year to year but overall still rather modest. As for the national coverage figures, the JMP figures for 2016 are still not available while the figures for 2015 are informal estimates provided to us by UNICEF Jakarta only. The latter figures show a large jump in sanitation coverage between 2014 and 2015 which is a/o largely due to revisiting of all surveys used for JMP. Indicator 1: Percentage of people in rural areas with sustainable access to and use improved water supply 76% (2010) persons 88% (2015) persons (2015) Universal access by 2020 NA NA 79% persons 81% persons Not yet known JMP/UNICEF Jakarta Indicator 2: Percentage of people in urban areas with sustainable access to and use of improved water supply 93 % (2010) persons 97,5% (2015) persons Universal access by 2020 NA NA 94 % persons 96 % persons Not yet known JMP/UNICEF Jakarta Indicator 3: Percentage of people in rural areas with sustainable access to and use improved sanitation 44% (2010) persons 72 % (2015) persons Universal access by 2020 NA NA 47 % persons 71 % persons Not yet known JMP/UNICEF Jakarta Indicator 4: Percentage of people in urban areas with sustainable access to and use of improved sanitation 70 % (2010) persons 85 % (2015) persons Universal access by 2020 NA NA 72 % persons 92 % persons Not yet known JMP/UNICEF Jakarta

6 Result question 3.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result? The Netherlands supported the PPSP1 through the Urban Sanitation Development Project1 with as main elements: methodology development for lobby & advocacy, planning, budgeting and implementation/monitoring of urban sanitation development. At the end of the PPSP/USDP1 482 towns and districts participated in this programma. The role of USDP has been crucial as it was the central consultant to the coordinating Planning Ministry (Bappenas) and the 4 involved ministries as well as the involved provincial and local governments. In 2015 the Netherlands mobilized technical support to the second phase of PPSP through the USDP2 project ( ). This project focuses on the actual implementation of local sanitation investment programs in 10 provinces and 100 districts and towns At a more local level the Netherlands supported the PPSP planning and implementation on the island of Sumbawa through a more intensive support. In the area of rural sanitation the Netherlands supported the SHAW project in Eastern Indonesia ( ) which was the first project in Indonesia to implement the STBM at scale. The Netherlands NGO Simavi and five local NGO partners, who work together in SHAW, reached impressive results exceeding their original targets. A similar project in South Sumatra (Lampong) was started in 2014 with SNV. In 2016 a follow up program of SHAW (SEHATI) was started envisaging consolidation and extension of the results of the SHAW program. Indicator 1: Number of people (rural) reached with sustainable access to, and using, improved sanitation facilities (SHAW) (2010) households or persons (target for 2015) million 1.5 million Indicator 2: Number of people (rural) reached with sustainable access to, and using, improved sanitation facilities (SEHATI) (2016) 210 villages or persons (2019) NA NA NA NA no progress yet SIMAVI SEHATI progress report. Started 2016 so no progress yet Indicator 3: Number of people (rural) reached with sustainable access to, and using, improved sanitation facilities (SNV) (2014) NA NA SNV: STBM Lampung Indicator 4: Number of people (rural) reached with sustainable access to, and using, improved water sources (SHAW) NA households or persons (2015) NA Indicator 5: Number of people (urban/rural, male/female) reached with hygiene education and social marketing programmes (SEHATI) NA 190 households or persons (2015) NA Indicator 6: Number of people (urban/rural, male/female) reached with hygiene education and social marketing programmes (SNV) (2014) NA NA SNV: STBM Lampung Indicator 7: Number of communities/schools declared open defecation free (ODF) through central programmes (SHAW) NA 400 villages 89 villages 422 villages 564 villages (desas) 855 villages (desas) 855 villages (desas) Indicator 8: Number of communities/schools declared open defecation free (ODF) through central programmes (SEHATI) 7 villages 91 villages NA NA NA NA no progress yet SIMAVI SEHATI progress report. Started 2016 so no progress yet Indicator 9: Number of communities/schools declared open defecation free (ODF) through central programmes (SNV) 0 36 villages NA NA 0% 1 village 13 villages SNV: STBM Lampung Indicator 10: Number of towns that take part in the National Sanitation Programme PPSP 1 and 2 12 towns (2010) 487 towns and district (2015) 508 towns and districts (2020) 226 towns and districts 349 towns and districts 446 towns and districts 467 towns and district 482 towns and districts USDP I+II Indicator 11: Number of cities and districts with good quality, pro poor sanitation plans drawn up through a participatory and pover/gender sensitive methodology 12 towns (2010) 473 towns and districts (2015) 508 town and district (2020) 59 towns and districts 217 towns and districts 340 towns and districts 437 towns and districts 458 towns and districts USDP I+II Indicator 12: Number of schools with improved sanitation, hygiene education (SHAW) NA 90 schools (2015) NA Indicator 13: Number of schools with improved sanitation, hygiene education (SNV) 0 (2014) 40 schools NA NA 0% 0% 138 SNV: STBM Lampung Result question 3.2a: To what extent have water management aspects and a more business oriented way of working been applied in your WASH programmes? As part of the SHAW project in East Indonesia, the five participating NGOs developed an approach for sanitation marketing in collaboration with local entrepreneurs and specialized other NGOs. No operational programs/approaches for sanitation marketing/business development at national level exist as yet. Only the targets and achievements of the SHAW project have been mentioned here for this reason. Indicator 1: NGOs in East Indonesia have a sanitation marketing strategy 0 ngos 5 ngos (2015) 2 ngos 3 ngos 5 ngos 5 ngos 5 ngos Indicator 2: Local entrepreneurs develop and offer sanitation packages in collaboration with NGOs 0 ngos 5 ngos (2015) 2 ngos 3 ngos 5 ngos 5 ngos 5 ngos report 2016

7 Result question 3.2b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result? See above. Indicator 1: NGOs in Indonesia have a sanitation marketing strategy 0 ngos 5 ngos (2015) 2 ngos 3 ngos 5 ngos 5 ngos 5 ngos Indicator 2: Local entrepreneurs develop and offer sanitation packages in collaboration with NGOs 0 ngos 5 ngos (2015) 2 ngos 3 ngos 5 ngos 5 ngos 5 ngos report 2016

8 Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result Area 3 Assess achieved results compared to planning: Reasons for result achieved: B. Results achieved as planned. The impact of the Netherlands bilateral cooperation in the field of sanitation has generally been larger than anticipated due to the rapid increase in government spending in programs initiated with the Netherlands notably PPSP. However the achilles heal of the programme remains the actual implementation at local government level, which is lagging behind. In the field of Community Led Total Sanitation the same applies thanks to higher than anticipated interest taken by communities and household in sanitation and the considerable household investment in sanitation facilities. Implications for planning: The Netherlands bilateral program in coming years will continue to focus on the support to local governments and communities in the implementation of their city and district sanitation plans. In order to assess the effectiveness of the program, it will be required to shift from measuring the number of districts, towns, schools and NGOs covered by the respective NL-supported programs (as for instance USDP does) to measuring the actual results achieved at those levels. Result Area 4 Result question 4.1a: How has the added value (knowledge, expertise, products and services) of the Dutch water sector been deployed in the preparation and implementation of programmes in the water sector? Trade and development cooperation The bilateral cooperation program on water has a direct, intentional and comprehensive influence and responsability for the growing involvement of the Netherlands companies in the water sector. The impact of the bilateral cooperation programme on the market position of the Netherlands water sector in Indonesia is more indirect and less easy to quantify. Besides, exact statistics on the turnover of the sector in Indonesia, the number of contracts signed etc. do not exist. The Jakarta Bay case provides however a good example how the activities of the Netherlands on coastal protection and development in this area created a (spatial) framework for broader developments in terms of land reclamation and port development. At the same time the companies underline that their involvement in the more strategic and planning activities in the public sector, support their profile and credibility in the private domain. The results for 2016 are based on a list prepared by NWP in early 2016, and will hence have to be updated. Number of Dutch water knowledge institutions active in the local water sector 4 (2010) NA NWP Number of Dutch NGOs active in the local water sector 3(2010) NWP Number of Dutch companies active in the local water sector 25 (2010) > NWP Number of Dutch water boards and drinking water companies active in the local water sector 4(2010) NWP Result question 4.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result? Main NL partners which are contracted within the Development Cooperation programme Indonesia are at present. 14 Private companies: Ecorys, Euroconsult MM, Wi+Bo, RHDHV, Bos Kalis, van Oord (through Ecoshape and DUTEP), SWECO, BAM, Rebel group, Kuyper Compagnons, Holland Water Challenge, MDF, Sarvision, Triple A 5 NGOs: Simavi, Wetlands International, SNV, Stichting Ecoshape, HCC 14 Knowledge institutes: Deltares, Hogeschool Rotterdam, TU Delft, UNESCO-IHE, IMARES, WUR, Alterra, IRC, NUFFIC, ITC, KNMI, World Water Academy, Utrecht University, University Twente 4 Water companies: Oasen, WMD, Waternet Amsterdam, Vitens Evides. 4 Water boards: Delftland, Zuiderzeeland, Aa en Maas, en HHSK. 4 Government: I&M, City of Rotterdam, RVO, DWA. 1 Branch organisation: Netherlands Water Partnership. Indicator 1: Number of Dutch water sector actors directly involved in preparation and implementation of Dutch funded programmes (by companies, NGOs, Knowledge institutions) In spite of the reduction in delegated budget the number of partners has generally been increasing due to focused programming, considerable own contributions and projects realized with nondelegated DGIS funding. 11 (2010) not defined EKN Jakarta Indicator 2: Growing proportion of Netherlands parties responsible for the implementation of bilateral development cooperation 35% 100% 60% 86% 100% 100% 100% EKN Jakarta

9 Result question 4.2a: What are the results of the transition to a more trade related relationship in the water sector? The transition to a more trade related relationship in the water sector has been a gradual proces since the 1970's. The proces has been differentiated as to subsector. In the area of delta technology and hydraulical engineering the transition has been quite thorough and resulted in the establishment of local companies and representative offices of the main consultancy firms and contractors. The two main dredging contractors only opened offices in 2010 and These firms depend for 80 % or more on contracts from private sector parties and state owned companies. In the field of water supply & sanitation and notably companies delivering technologies and equipment for this (pumps, treatment plants & devices) the market penetration has remained limited and no local companies or representative offices have been opened up (with the exception of the consultancy firms which offer some of these product e.g. RHDHV). Indicator 1 : Number of local branches or representative offices of Netherlands water sector companies 2 (2010) no target set EKN Jakarta Result question 4.2b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result? see 4.1.b Indicator 1 : Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result Area 4 Assess achieved results compared to planning: Reasons for result achieved: Trade and development cooperation B. Results achieved as planned The results of the efforts to deploy the added value and expertise of the Netherlands water sector in the develoment cooperation programme have overall been substantial since 2008 but differ very much from sub-sector to sub-sector. Reasons for limited success or outright failures in the field of drinking water ( ) have been the overambitious goals, the inappropriate (institutional and technical) approach of the NL parties in combination with limited capacity to deliver programmes on the ground in Indonesia. The enabling framework was in general not there for such programs. At a small scale Waternet Amsterdam and Oasen have however been developing well targeted cooperation programs over the past five years while in 2015 VEI started a major FDW funded project in Bandung (all having to deal with substantial challenges). Reason for the limited succes in the field of drinking water and sanitation technology is that the NL players in this field are MKB firms which have great difficulty in getting access to the Indonesian market. Reasons for considerable success in the field of coastal protection and development have been the joint effort of knowledge institutes, private firms and the NL government, the solid policy dialogue between NL en Indonesia and the adequate steering mechanisms between all NL (and Indonesian) partners as well as the long-term approach resulting in a common NL and Indonesian vision and practice. Implications for planning: As also stated last year, the embassy will continue to strive to provide MKB companies in the field of water & sanitation technology with a platform to introduce their technology in Indonesia. This may be realized through the IDH facility of RVO (demonstration projects) and the development of a dedicated platform for NL water technology providers in Indonesia (Centre of Expertise), a concept with which NWP has gained some experience in a limited number of other partner countries.