Toward community water supply

Mohamad Mova Al’Afghani,
The Jakarta Post,
Bogor, West Java | Opinion | Fri, March 22 2013, 11:22 AM Paper Edition | Page: 6

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.

The writer, who obtained a PhD from the University of Dundee, lectures at Ibn Khaldun University’s school of law in Bogor, West Java. In 2010, he was involved in the “Review of Legal Framework for Community Water Services” in cooperation with UNICEF and AMPL, East Nusa Tenggara.

Tags: #water #community #rural #village #indonesia #governance