|
Under a government policy issued in 2003,
the Indonesian water system is divided into “institutional” and
“community-based” water services. The institutional category is meant to
denote water services provided by ordinary water utilities (PDAM) whereas
the “community-based” category is meant to denote water services provided
by local community associations.
The community category is predominantly found in rural Indonesia,
although in some cases it is also applicable in urban settings untouched
by PDAM services. According to some sources, while the majority of PDAM
are currently ailing and in financial trouble, the community category has
been very successful and now constitutes more than half of Indonesia’s
total water services.
In many ways, the community category — supported by the 2003 policy — has
been a successful endeavour of the government, local communities and
donors. Nevertheless, there are problems with both the concept and
implementation of the community-based system that threatens its
sustainability.
Although cited in various documents by donor institutions, the typology
made by the 2003 policy, which categorizes water services into
“institutional” and “community” categories, is flawed.
This is because the community is also a form of institution and delivers
water services through formal organisations.
The second problem is the term “community” itself. What do we mean by it?
Perhaps the term community is used to distinguish from other entities
such as corporations. But what if, for example, a particular local
community owned shares in a water corporation? Could we not say that the
corporation was community-based?
The third problem is the notion of community ownership. Many donors and
water activists assume that community ownership is self-explanatory in
practice.
The assumption is that when a donor institution disburses funds to build
water service infrastructure in remote villages, the community will “own”
that infrastructure. This is incorrect.
The truth is that the so called “community” in the context of water
services cannot be legally identified. Therefore, water services assets
can only be owned by a legal entity and not directly by the individuals
of
the community.
For example, an individual in a village does not directly own a communal
toilet. He or she can “own” a toilet via the entity that owns it, such as
a cooperative, a foundation or an association that has been accorded legal entity status, or
even a corporation.
Thus, the notion of community ownership is flawed, for it is not the
community that owns water services assets, but the legal entity in which
the individuals of the community can be members.
In this respect, the key issue is whether the legal entity owning the
water assets is sufficiently democratic in terms of its decision making
process.
The questions that donor institutions should ask are whether women are
adequately represented and whether marginal groups’ access to water is
guaranteed.
Activists need to be wary of power politics and whether patriarchal
relations are embodied into legal entities. This is done by evaluating
the entity’s articles of association and its application.
The fourth problem is with respect to its assets. I said earlier that a
community can only “own” water services assets through a legal entity.
Under the Indonesian legal system, the process of forming a legal entity
is very cumbersome and can take up to more than a year.
Village communities often do not have means at their disposal to handle
this. In one research project, I found no clarity as to who owned the
infrastructure assets built by donor funds.
The fifth problem relates to the fourth, namely, its operation and
maintenance. Without clarity on asset ownership, no one is responsible
for maintenance.
In turn, assets will be abandoned by the population due to a lack of
maintenance. Ownerless assets also mean that they are vulnerable to
confiscation or expropriation from third parties, like developers or
powerful village figures.
The sixth problem relates to incoherencies in the national legal
framework. Due to (unproductive) debates on water privatization, the
government prioritises PDAM to provide water services in Indonesia and
leaves the community and private sector only a secondary role. As a
result, there is a lack of recognition and standards for non-PDAM
services in national law.
The trend now is for some regions to enact regional bylaws on
community-based water services and due to problems number three and four
above, resort to village government to own and maintain assets.
However, the bylaw is often inconsistent with national legislation and
often there are areas of overlap and even clashes between PDAM and
community-based water services.
Furthermore, resorting to villages — which in a way, are state
instruments — means that we are moving away from community-based water
and back toward traditional state provision.
The community-based water system has (so far) been a tremendous success
in improving access to water in Indonesia and the credit goes partially
to donor funds.
But without a clear conceptual framework, without clarity on who owns and
who is able to own assets and without support from national legislation,
the sustainability of community-based water services is of great concern. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar