Twinning Programme: Learning from Horizontal Learning on Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Three Districts in South Sulawesi

36

Published by Research Institute for Humanity and Nature Proceedings of the Online International Symposium on the Sanitation Value Chain 2020 (SVC2020)

https://doi.org/10.34416/svc.00041

Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (1) pp.036–037, 2021

* Correspondence

wsetiabudi@unicef.org

Twinning Programme: Learning from Horizontal Learning on Domestic Wastewater Treatment

in Three Districts in South Sulawesi

Wildan SETIABUDI

*

1

UNICEF Makassar Field Office, UNICEF Indonesia, Indonesia

Keywords: faecal sludge management, safely managed sanitation, horizontal learning

Indonesia is committed to achieve Sustainable Development Goals, including target on safe and sustainable sanitation. More than 97% districts in Indonesia rely on the off-site sanitation system, which needs chain-service from the septic-tanks to the domestic waste-water treatment (DWWTP). In South Sulawesi, only seven out of 24 cities/districts already have DWWTP, which were built with big investment from the national budget. However, there are lack of management capacity to operate them by city/districts after the facilities were handed over.

Twinning programme is an information exchange programme through horizontal learning, initially developed by Indonesia’s Wastewater Operator Association (Forkalim) on off-site and on-site DWWT, by exercising mentor-mentee schematic in defined and agreed timeframe (Figure 1). The specific objective is to accelerate the dissemination of knowledge and technology on domestic wastewater treatment.

Oral presentation

Implementation stages of the Twinning program

1. Identification

 Topic identification

 Mentor

 Mentee

 Senior Services Provider (SSP)

 Sponsor (if any) 2. Diagnostic

 Willing to be a mentor

 Topic selection by mentee

 Matching mentor with mentee

 Matching mentee with topic

 Developing working plan, target, implementation stages, human resources, etc.

3. MoU

 Signing the agreement between mentor, mentee and sponsor, if any

4. Implementation

 Mentor and mentee respectively conduct visit

 Mentee adopted best practices from the mentor area

 Mentor provided advices based on their experiences

5. Monitoring and evaluation

 Mentor conducted monitoring and evaluation of activities running by the mentees in their institution

 SSP conduct monitoring and evaluation to improve capacity of mentor and mentee in developing program implementation report

Identification Diagnostic MoU Implementation Monitoring

&

Evaluation

Figure 1. Implementation Stages of Twinning Programme.

37

Proceedings of the Online International Symposium on the Sanitation Value Chain 2020 (SVC2020)

Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (1) pp.036–037, 2021

Topic Mentee Mentor

Design and operational of conventional DWWT Plant Parepare city

Pinrang district UPTD Sidoarjo district Institutional strengthening of new DWWT Plant management Palopo city UPTD Gresik district

Table 1. Arrangement of Mentor and Mentee.

Three districts from South Sulawesi, Palopo, Parepare, and Pinrang were selected and paired with their respective mentors from Gresik and Sidoarjo in East Java (Table 1), and exercising learning visits, developing actions plans, implementing them, and evaluating them in an assisted process. Three or four round of learning visits were planned to mentor districts and mentee districts respectively, with follow-up action plans to be developed in between, in the course of 6–8 months. Assistances and supports were provided to the mentees to ensure substantial improvements in short and mid-terms.

The mentee districts were experiencing comprehensive improvement throughout the process, with institutional, technical, and management capacity enhancement were observed. Low hanging fruits technical and non- technical improvements works had been finished in the treatment plant, in the course of six months of the implementation. Longer institutional reorganisation that needs multi stakeholders’ agreement and senior-level approval were also made in the districts that will affect the planning and budgeting capacity, and will lead to substantial improvement in manpower, O&M, and services in longer term. Political process is needed in the parliament that needs further follow-ups.

There are several learnings from the implementation phase. First, significant improvements only can be addressed

in comprehensive approach, topic-wise (institutional, management, and technical) and strategy-wise (comprising

advocacy, institutional improvement, technical assistance, capacity improvement). Second, the level of multi-

sectoral collaboration within the district, and support from the high-level decision makers are essential to ensure

long-term and sustainable transformation. The province can play its role as ‘knowledge broker’ within its districts

and organize the similar horizontal learning, to ensure that the learning processes are accountable, institutional

supports can be provided, and future follow-up and replications can be facilitated. Third, the implementation

during pandemic situation posed challenges and opportunity to the replicability. The usable cost was only less than

40% from the initial budget, with most of follow-up meetings and consultations were conducted virtually. The

exploration of different ways of implementation approaches cuts the cost drastically and forced all the involving

parties to adapt while ensuring the process were still as effective.