Independent Evaluation

Share |

Printer-friendly Version

Give Feedback

Evaluation of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in Indonesia
Completed: 2004

ADB provided the Government an $85 million loan for this $135 million project in April 1995. At the start of the 1990s, only 40 million of the 130.5 million of Indonesia's rural population benefited from water supply and sanitation services. The Project had the key objectives of providing safe, adequate, and reliable water supply and sanitation services to low-income rural villages in the islands of Kalimantan and Sumatra. It was also to support hygiene and sanitation education, water quality surveillance, and community management activities. A total of 3000 communities, 3 million people, were to be reached.

Summary of findings

Although 4,405 communities are reported to have been reached, observations made in 124 communities in 3 of the 12 provinces led the evaluation to conclude that the majority of water supply facilities that were constructed are no longer functioning as intended. Less than 4 years after project completion, the use of the facilities relying on spring, river, lake, or groundwater sources averaged only 30-40% of their potential. Many facilities now lie abandoned throughout Sumatra and Kalimantan. Where rainwater harvesting was the source of water, the situation was rather better as around 70% of the facilities provided may still be working, although the majority of these only serve individual houses rather than the community as initially intended.

The situation was similar for sanitation, as in the 80 communities visited where some form of facility was constructed, only an estimated 30% were still being used. Representatives of provinces not visited by the evaluation team confirmed at a workshop that project outcomes had been less than successful. In their view, only an estimated 40-60% of water supply facilities were still in use. Taking into account also the over reporting of facilities constructed, the evaluation estimated that less than 1 million people within the 4,405 communities may have received a direct benefit from the Project, or only 22% of the population, instead of the intended 80%.

The Project was rated partly successful, bordering on unsuccessful.

• The project was rated less relevant because, with the implementation modality adopted, more attention was paid to subdistrict capitals than rural communities.



• The Project was rated less efficacious, given the lower than anticipated output and, particularly, use of the output.



• The outcomes were too uneven and too many subprojects that did not work or worked below their capacity, to allow an overall positive economic and financial rate of return. Hence, the Project was rated inefficient.



• The lack of community training and the generally poor status of the larger scheme-operating authorities resulted in an assessment that the Project was less likely to be sustainable.

  Lessons Identified

• The sector modality should be utilized with much caution for projects where a new approach to project implementation is being adopted. The provision of water supply and sanitation services to remote rural communities presents unique technical, implementation and operational challenges. Appropriate provisions need to be made for these in advance of construction.



• ADB should not attempt to implement over-complex technical solutions in small communities, which are beyond the capability of the organizational structure in place.



• ADB should not combine target groups that require different operational modalities. Projects should be either community-based or water authority-based in order to avoid the tendency to focus on the easier-to-implement, more profitable larger schemes.



• Standard designs are acceptable in certain circumstances but must not be over utilized if schemes are to remain both appropriate and financially efficient.



• Major changes in the project context (such as those stemming from decentralization) should normally lead to adjustments in implementation arrangements.



• ADB provided technical assistance to strengthen the Inspectorate General to combat fraud and corruption in the operations of Ministry of Settlements and Regional Infrastructure. An action plan to mitigate the risk of fraud and corruption was approved in June 2004. ADB needs to make sure that implementation arrangements can be worked out that prevent the recurrence of the situation found by this project performance audit report.