The importance of effective urban water management : a case study on water provision, its governance system and stakeholders’ belief-systems in Surabaya, Indonesia

(1)

Graduate School of Social Science

International Development Studies

M.Sc. Thesis

The importance of effective urban water management.

- A case study on water provision, its governance system and stakeholders’

belief-systems in Surabaya, Indonesia. -

(orangesmile.com, n.d.) Maria Gnadl

Student number: 11115815 E-mail: mariagnadl@web.de

Supervisors: Klaas Schwartz & Françoise Bichai Second Reader: Michaela Hordijk

Word Count: 24.818

(2)

ii

Abstract

Rapid urbanisation and population growth in many developing countries lead to difficulties in their water provision. Many years solely technical solutions have been applied to solve these problems. In recent years, the perspective has shifted towards water management and institutional settings when trying to explain the persistence of water provision problems. However, until today only little research on the actual conditions of water governance systems in the Global South and their problem solving capacities has been conducted. This thesis aims to contribute to the closing of this research gap by analysing the water provision, its governance system and management challenges of Surabaya, the second biggest city in Indonesia. The city faces a problematic water provision, which for many decades could not be solved as - despite the support of international organisations like the World Bank - technical solutions could not be implemented effectively. As main challenges within the governance system high fragmentation hampering effective stakeholder coordination, political priorities from other fields interfering with the improvement of water provision and the commercialisation of water utilities could be identified. In the academic debate it is often stated that also stakeholders’ beliefs about the ideal water provision influence the way water provision challenges are perceived and addressed. Therefore, this thesis analyses the belief-systems of the stakeholders involved in the city’s water governance system. Actors are located under one of the two prevailing water management paradigms, namely: the Water Sensitive City and the Modern Infrastructural Ideal. Conclusively, it can be stated that the belief-system influences the orientation of stakeholders’ actions but seldom hampers with the effective solution of physical challenges. Rather insufficient mechanisms within the current management system stand in the way of resolving water provision challenges. However, the belief-systems may play a major role in the solution of institutional shortcomings as they seem to be able to block attempts to reform the governing system. During this research it was found that the design of the water governance system is not acknowledged as an important factor for effective water provision by local authorities and stakeholders and thus inadequate processes in the management system are not addressed and remain unsolved. All in all the findings in this case study aim to inform further research into how institutional settings and belief systems interact in the governance of urban water provision in the Global South.

Keywords: Urban Water Governance System, Belief-System, Stakeholder, Water Sensitive

(3)

iii

Acknowledgement

The realisation of this research project and the writing of my thesis have only been possible, due to the undying support, guidance and effort of numerous people, to whom I am very thankful.

I want to express my special gratitude to my local supervisor Professor Wahyono, who supported my research, introduced me to valuable stakeholders of Indonesia’s water sector, accompanied me to various interviews and provided valuable input for my thesis. I would also like to thank Professor Eddy Setiadi Soedjono for taking the time to share his knowledge with me and answering all of my many questions. I want to give special thanks to Dr. Maria Anityasari, who was so kind to share her valuable data with me, which provided interesting information and helped me to round off my thesis. Special thanks go to IDAA Warmadewanthi for making my stay at ITS University in Surabaya possible.

I am infinitely grateful to have met Fenty Effendy. She has become a true friend and a big sister for me during my stay in Surabaya. She showed me Indonesian culture, Indonesian landscape and Indonesian food and filled my time in Surabaya with experiences I will always remember. My special thanks also go to Setyo, who gave me a warm welcome to Indonesia and filled my stay with fun and laughter. He went out of his way to make my research a great success and supported me as a translator during many interviews. Without him my research would not have been possible. I want to thank Gloria Mayonetta, for supporting me by spending many hours researching and translating.

I am especially grateful to my supervisors Klaas Schwartz and Françoise Bichai, who gave me guidance and advice from the very beginning of searching a research topic until the final steps of writing this thesis. Your experience, knowledge and continuous feedback have made my work so much better.

Special thanks also go to my friends and family and their undying support during my studies.

Last but by no means least, I want to thank all those, who have participated in my research, have shared their valuable time and knowledge with me and made this study possible.

(4)

iv

Table of

Table of Figures

1. Conceptual Framework ... 11

2. Map of the Surabaya River ... 20

3. Map of the Surabaya River within the City of Surabaya ... 20

4. Photography of Small Open Drainage Channel ... 24

5. Photography of Small Open Drainage Channel ... 25

6. Photography of Merged Open Drainage Channel ... 25

7. Important Stakeholders of Surabaya’s Water Governance System ... 31

8. Illustration of Stakeholders’ Relations in Public Policy-Making ... 32

9. Chain of Influence of Long- and Medium-Term Development Plans ... 34

10. Comparison of Jasa Tirta I (PJT1) and BBWS Brantas ... 40

11. Illustration of Stakeholders’ Relations in River Management ... 42

12. Overview: Results Questionnaire ... 56

13. Results of the First Dimension... 58

14. Results of the Second Dimension ... 59

(7)

vii

Table of Abbreviations

BBWS Brantas Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Brantas (Brantas River Basin Organisation)

BAPPEDA Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Regional

Development Planning Agency)

BAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan dan Pembanguan Nasional

(National Development Planning Agency)

BAPPEKO Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Kota

(Local/Municipal Development Planning Agency)

BLH Surabaya Badan Lingkungan Hidup Kota Surabay (Environmental Agency of the City of Surabaya)

BLH East Java Badan Lingkungan Hidup Jawa Timur (Environmental Agency of East Java)

ITS University Institute of Technology Sepuluh Nopember

IUWASH Indonesia Urban Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Project

MII Modern Infrastructural Ideal

PDAM Surabaya Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum Kota Surabaya (Local Water Utility of the City of Surabaya)

PERPAMSI Persatuan Perusahaan Air Minum di Seluruh Indonesia (National Water Supply Association of Indonesia) PJT1 Perum Jasa Tirta I (Public Enterprise for Water Service –

Manages the Brantas River)

RPJMD Jawa Timur Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah Jawa Timur (Provincial Medium-Term Development Plan of East Java)

RPJPD Jawa Timur Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Daerah

(Provincial Long-Term Development Plan of East Java) RPJMD Kota Surabaya Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah Kota

Surabaya (Provincial Medium-Term Development Plan of Surabaya)

RPJPD Kota Surabaya Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Daerah Kota Surabaya (Provincial Long-Term Development Plan of Surabaya)

RPJMN Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional

(National Medium-Term Development Plan)

PRJPN Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional

(National Long-Term Development Plan)

UN United Nations

(8)

1

1. The Importance of Effective Water Provision Management

1.1. Paradigm-Shift

Today, already more than half of the world’s population lives in cities and urbanisation is predicted to continue at an enormous rate throughout the next thirty years (United Nations, 2015a: 2). It is estimated that by 2050 the urban population will already account for 66 percent of all people. The biggest growth is expected to take place in the developing countries of Africa and Asia (United Nations, 2015a: 2). This rapid and often unplanned urban growth is a great challenge for cities’ infrastructure and service provision (United Nations, 2015a: 3), like the delivery of safe drinking water and sanitation. The lack of these services can have severe negative consequences for cities’ health, safety, environment and economic growth (United Nations, 2014). In 2010, the United Nations (UN) declared the access to safe water and sanitation to be a basic human right and emphasised its fundamental importance by stating that its realisation is a precondition for people’s ability to realise other human rights (righttowater.info, 2016). However, today still one in nine people lack access to clean and safe water, which amounts to 783 million people worldwide (The Water Project, 2016). This persistence of problematic access to water in many countries and cities around the world has kept the topic of water provision on top of the political and academic research agenda. Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary General of the UN, described this situation as not only unsustainable but unacceptable (United Nations, 2011). Moreover, he makes national and city governments responsible, when he claims that the urban water crisis is a crisis of “governance, weak policies and poor management, rather than one of scarcity” (United Nations, 2011). This clear attribution of responsibility for insufficient water provision to political leaders and inefficient management reflects a shift of focus that has emerged within the development discourse in recent years.

Political and academic approaches to improve urban water supply have long been focused primarily on technical solutions (Plummer & Slaymaker, 2007: 3). In the 19th and 20th century, when the urban population and industrial and agricultural productivity began to grow significantly and health and hygiene problems emerged, the issue of effective water resource management became increasingly important. To tackle these problems mainly technological approaches were applied, which presented an easy and fast answer (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2011: 838). However, today these solutions, focusing mainly on the physical, biological and chemical treatment of single, traditional water sources like ground- or surface water, are often described as inappropriate to deal with current and future challenges like climate change, environmental pollution and rapid urbanisation. Therefore, in the political and academic debate many emphasise the importance of institutional and managerial aspects of water provision and demand a shift from a focus on technical to management

(9)

2 solutions (Plummer & Slaymaker, 2007). This new awareness has given rise to a great variety of innovative academic concepts demanding a paradigm shift in urban water management (Halbe et al., 2013: 2652). The Water Sensitive City approach of Brown and Wong (2009) is one of the most prominent concepts in this new field. The model claims that a transition towards a water provision system, which makes a city resilient to future challenges, can only be reached if sustainable urban water management is socially embedded in the local institutional context and based on broad political support (Wong & Brown, 2009: 678-679). Rebekah Brown (2008) also criticises that academic research still focuses mainly on technical solutions, while the importance of institutional settings and management in the water sector is well proven. She states that the indolence of administrative systems is the greatest hindrance to real change in water provision, when she says, “While it is broadly acknowledged that the inertia associated with administrative systems is possibly the most significant obstacle to advancing sustainable urban water management, contemporary research still largely prioritises investigations at the technological level” (Brown, 2008: 221).

Besides the reluctance to reform, it can be argued that prevailing values, norms, ideals and thought patterns, which form the dominant belief-system of stakeholders within an administrative system, can also influence policy outcomes (Sabatier, 1993). In the literature about urban water management two paradigms can be identified, which are based on two competing belief-systems: the above mentioned Water Sensitive City (Wong & Brown, 2009) and the Modern Infrastructural Ideal (Graham & Marvin, 2001). While the former calls for a flexible governance system and the introduction of a variety of water sources and decentralised water distribution infrastructure, the latter represents a technology-driven approach prioritizing centralised planning and attributing no importance to institutional settings. Depending on which paradigm the stakeholders of a city follow, the design of water provision and its management will vary significantly. The paradigm of the Modern Infrastructural Ideal is said to be widespread in local governments of the Global South, and could thus be a reason why many developing countries focus on technical aspects of water management overlooking the need for institutional reform (Kooy, 2014: 35-36).

Despite the emergence of new approaches emphasising the importance of water management, little research has been done on the actual current institutional capacities and dominant belief-systems in water sectors in developing countries (Wong/Brown, 2009: 678-679). This thesis aims to contribute to the closure of this research gap by examining the governance system of water provision of a city in the Global South and the belief-system of its stakeholders. Surabaya, the second biggest city of Indonesia, and its local water governance structure have been chosen as a case study.

(10)

3

1.2. Research Objectives

The main motivation of this thesis is to understand what role institutional conditions play in the persistence of water supply challenges. In order to answer this question it is essential to understand how Surabaya’s water governance system works and what belief-systems stakeholders follow. Therefore, three research objectives have been identified. The first one consists of mapping and analysing the governance system of water provision in Surabaya, which enables a deeper understanding of the decision-making and implementation processes of water policies. This is necessary to identify management challenges within the system and to examine their role in the persistence of the city’s insufficient water provision, which is the second objective. A third objective aims at the analysis of the belief-systems of stakeholders involved in Surabaya’s water governance. Based on predefined criteria it is determined whether they rather follow the Water Sensitive City or Modern Infrastructural Ideal paradigm. This allows suggestions on the implication of their belief-system on how stakeholders perceive and address water provision problems and management challenges. It also facilitates the examination of their ability or willingness to solve them.

1.3. Case Study: The Water Governance System of Surabaya

The selection of the case study has followed several criteria arising from the importance of efficient water governance explained above. As this thesis aims to analyse urban water management, the case study ought to be the water governance system of a bigger city or metropole. The respective city should be located in a developing country and be affected by population growth, putting pressure on the infrastructural system, leading to persisting challenges in the city’s water provision, which technical solutions have not been able to resolve so far.

In a first step, Indonesia has been identified as a country where these conditions are likely to be found as the country is facing rapid nationwide population growth and urbanisation. The Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics is expecting that Indonesia’s population will grow from 238.5 million in 2010 to 305.6 million by 2035 (Suryono & Noor, 2016: 58). Furthermore, Indonesia has an enormous urbanisation rate of 4.1 percent per year, which is higher than in any other Asian country. It is predicted that by 2025, 68 percent of the country’s population will live in cities (World Bank, 2016). Moreover, numerous cities are struggling with insufficient infrastructure to sustain the high influx into urban centres (World Bank, 2016). Indonesia is also one of the richest countries in terms of water resources, which account for around 6 percent of the global water reserves and 21 percent of the Asia-Pacific region’s (Ardhianie, 2015). However, the country’s water supply is still deficient as many areas face repeated water scarcity and more than 37 million Indonesians have no access to safe

(11)

4 drinking water (Water.org, 2016). The Jakarta Post claims that the nationwide problems in water provision are rooted in the “chronic mismanagement of water resources” (Ardhianie, 2015) allowing the overuse and pollution of water sources through industries, while many especially poorer Indonesians suffer from the consequences.

Within Indonesia, Surabaya, a metropole of around 3.2 million inhabitants, located on the north-east coast of Java, proved to be an ideal case study, as its inhabitants have been facing the challenges of inadequate and unreliable water provision for many decades. Even though the city flourishes economically as one of the biggest trading hubs within the country and Southeast Asia (Ostojic et al., 2013: 139), the development of the needed infrastructure lags behind (Asian Century Institute, 2016). In 2014, Surabaya’s economy grew by 6.73 percent, which exceeds the growth rate of the province of East Java (5.86 percent), where the city is located, as well as the nationwide economic growth of 5.02 percent (International Enterprise Singapore, 2016: 6). However, the lack of infrastructural development puts high pressure on the city’s water provision system, which is intensified by a solid population growth of 1.2 percent in the past years until 2014 (International Enterprise Singapore, 2014: 3), when it slowed down to 0.63 percent annually (International Enterprise Singapore, 2016: 2). Next to the increasing water demand, heavy pollution of the city’s main water source, the Surabaya River, through the discharge of domestic and industrial wastewater upstream from the city, is one of the biggest challenges (Lucas & Djati, 2007: 322-323). Furthermore, the poor condition of the pipe network, distributing water throughout the city leads to high water loss due to leakage and contamination of tap water through bacteria within the pipes (Lucas & Djati, 2007: 337-338). These are only some of the numerous obstacles Surabaya’s water provision is facing. To address these challenges many urban development projects financed by international donors like the UN, the World Bank and others have focused on technical solutions, like the expansion of the pipe network (Santosa, 2000). However, the progress these programs brought about was rather limited. The 2007 project “Expanding Piped Water Supply to Surabaya's Urban Poor” executed and financed by the World Bank was rated as “highly unsatisfactory” by the organisation itself (World Bank, 2007). This failure was attributed to problems in land acquisition, administrative coordination and especially the insufficient integration of local stakeholders (Sugimoto, 2007).

Besides meeting the set criteria, Surabaya represents an interesting case study of how water provision is commonly governed in Indonesia’s metropoles and can thus inform further research in the Indonesian context. Moreover, many researchers focus on the country’s capital Jakarta, but only little academic literature, especially in the English language, exists on other cities like Surabaya.

(12)

5

1.4. Outline of the Thesis

The following paper is structured as described here: Initially, the theoretical framework is defined, upon which the analysis of the three research objectives is based. Next the research question and sub-questions this thesis tries to answer are established and the methods used for collecting data in the field and its subsequent analysis are described. Moreover, ethical considerations and challenges during the research process as well as limitations of the study are shown. The main part starts with the description of the physical conditions and realities of Surabaya’s current water provision, in order to provide fundamental background knowledge, essential to understand the following analytical steps. Subsequently, Surabaya’s water governance system is portrayed. This is done by analysing the stakeholders involved in Surabaya’s water governance. The next step is the identification and analysis of the challenges, which emerge from the current water governance system. Thereafter, the dominant belief-system of identified stakeholders is examined and they are located within one of the prevailing water management paradigms. A conclusive chapter examines what role the water management system and stakeholders’ belief system play in the persistence of Surabaya’s insufficient water provision.

(13)

6

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Governance System

In political science it is widely acknowledged that in order to understand political decision-making processes and policy outcomes it is essential to identify the actors1_{involved in the} policy field of interest and to analyse their behaviour (Schneider & Janning, 2006: 116-117). These actors can be individuals, groups of individuals aligned through a shared interest or formal organisations, who act within a certain policy field and try to influence the decision-making process within this field (Mayntz & Scharpf, 1995). As the main focus of this research is to examine Surabaya’s governance system in the water sector, the analysis is limited to those actors, who are actively involved in the decision-making process on Surabaya’s water provision on a local level. National and global actors are considered only insofar as they directly influence Surabaya’s water policy. Moreover, groups and individuals, which are affected by these policies, but are not actively involved in their design or their implementation, like Surabaya’s population or companies using the city’s water sources, are neglected as they have no official influence on the decision-making process.

The analysis of Surabaya’s water governance system is based on the theoretical framework of Mayntz and Scharpf (1995) called “Actors-Centred Institutionalism”, which is an often cited approach in the academic field of policy analysis. It focuses on the influence of actors in the policy making process and therefore fits the purpose of this thesis ideally. The authors argue that to understand the decisions and motivations of actors one has to examine the political context and the institutional framework, which enables and limits their choices and actions. This institutional framework comprises the distribution of competencies and material or legal resources, formal and informal relations among actors and political regulations and procedures (Mayntz & Scharpf, 1995). Founded on this definition three important dimensions of political actors can be identified, based on which the analysis of the water governance system of Surabaya is carried out, namely: competencies; influence based on available resources and the power granted by political regulations and procedures; relations among actors. A fourth dimension, which has to be included into the analysis, is the interest of the identified actors, which according to Scharpf also influences their decisions (Scharpf, 1997). These identified dimensions coincide with the dimensions other authors like Lindenberg and Crosby’s (1981) define for a policy analysis, which consist of the identification of the involved stakeholders, their capacities, their influence on the decision-making process or decision-decision-making actors, their interests and their relations among each other.

1

(14)

7 While several authors within the theoretical field of policy-analysis merely understand political decision-making processes as pure strategical competition and alignment of actors’ interests, proponents of a “cultural turn” within the field argue that actors’ interests and actions are also influenced by certain basic programmatic orientations, moral values and normative objectives (Schneider & Janning, 2006: 97). Paul Sabatier (1993) further develops this concept in his “Advocacy-Koalitionen-Ansatz” (Engl. Advocacy Coalition Framework). He argues that actors and their interests are influenced by their belief-systems, which include norms, values, assumptions about problems and their causes as well as the effectiveness of policy instruments. These belief-systems do not apply to all topics but are limited to a certain policy field or sub-field (Sabatier, 1993). Therefore, to understand the interests and actions of actors it is essential to examine their belief-systems in regards to their policy domain. Within the field of urban water management, the Modern Infrastructure Ideal and the Water Sensitive City are identified as two prominent paradigms, which are based on competing belief-systems. Hence, identifying which belief-system the stakeholders in Surabaya adhere to, allows assumptions about their ability and willingness to address the challenges within the water provision and its governance system. By including this dimension of underlying ideologies and motivations a more complete understanding of the policy process is gained.

2.2. Water Management Paradigms

A water management paradigm consists of a set of assumptions about how water provision should be managed. These assumptions determine the ideal goals and forms of water management. Moreover, a paradigm is manifested in the existing technical infrastructure, planning approaches, regulations and engineering practices of a city or region (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2006: 4). Within this chapter the belief-systems underlying the urban water management paradigms of the Modern Infrastructural Ideal and the Water Sensitive City are described.

2.2.1. Modern Infrastructural Ideal

Stephen Graham and Simon Marvin describe the Modern Infrastructural Ideal as a dominant narrative in urban planning that emerged already in the late 19th_{century and is still very} influential today (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 73). It is primarily based on the strong belief that through advancements in science positive transformations in urban infrastructure can be achieved following the vision of the “progressive force of modernity” (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 49). Chaotic metropolises need to be rationally organised, planned and modernised implementing the latest technological advancements (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 43, 44, 52). Following this logic, in the late 1800s the discipline of city planning emerged and was integrated into the policy strategies of most Western countries (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 66). According to these strategies, standardised infrastructural networks and services have to be

(15)

8 made universally accessible across cities and whole nations as they are the basis for modern production, distribution and consumption (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 73). While at first, the infrastructural service provision was limited to elites and wealthy areas, the concern about epidemic diseases, high mortality and potential unrests of the working class soon led to the demand of a universal service provision (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 44). This centralised provision should be taken on by “social institutions based on private or public monopoly control” (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 73), while fragmented or informal provision of infrastructural networks was seen as chaotic and undesirable (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 73).

One of the fields to which this ideal has been applied early on was the urban water provision. Already Georges-Eugène Haussmann, a French prefect commissioned with the infrastructural redesign of Paris between 1853 and 1870, demanded the rational planning and systematic roll out of water networks throughout the city (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 55-56). The key principle of this paradigm is that the urban infrastructure of a city should provide universal access to potable water through a single centralised pipe system (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 55-56). Actors following this paradigm understand the informal water sector as a transitory phenomenon, which will disappear once the ideal is realised (Kooy, 2014: 35-36).

Many governments and municipalities in developing countries, including in Indonesia, adopted the urban planning ideals and strategies of developed countries trying to design their cities according to the Western model (Damayanti, 2006: 40). In Indonesia many planning regulations and laws were adopted from Dutch legislation, during colonial times but also afterwards. However, this effort of imitation often ignored differences in administrative capacities, political philosophy and bureaucracies of many developed and developing countries (Damayanti, 2006: 40-41).

2.2.2. Water Sensitive City

Conventional urban water strategies applied by many cities in developing countries have proven to be unsuccessful in addressing current needs and future challenges stemming from climate variability, population growth and climate change (Wong & Brown, 2009: 673). Wong and Brown (2009) argue that these failures can partly be attributed to infrastructural and institutional compartmentalisation of water supply and the continuing investment in conventional technologies. In order to make a city truly resilient to future challenges, it is argued that conventional approaches have to be overcome and sustainable urban water management, leading to a “Water Sensitve City” has to be introduced (Wong & Brown, 2009: 673-674).

The concept of the Water Sensitive City rests upon three key pillars. The first pillar claims the importance of the development of a variety of water sources and of centralised and

(16)

9 decentralised distribution infrastructures, as the dependency on only one source and one distribution form leads to extreme vulnerability (Wong & Brown, 2009: 676). The resilience of a city can be strengthened effectively through the harvesting of alternative water sources like storm water, rain water and recycled wastewater, which all can be obtained within the city boundaries. Additional diverse water infrastructure solutions allowing different forms of harvesting, treatment, storage and distribution of water are assumed to increase a city’s water security (Wong & Brown, 2009: 677). This aims at gaining as much water as possible within the city and so not only to reduce the financial costs and the environmental impacts of a city’s water needs but also to develop a closed water cycle minimizing water loss. Thus, the import of drinking water and the export of wastewater from and to outside areas of the city can be reduced significantly (Wong & Brown, 2009: 677, 680).

The second pillar demands the provision of ecosystem services within the city. This means the city should introduce regulations, technologies and a city design that makes its water provision resilient to the impacts of climate change and other future uncertainties. It asks for a departure from the conventional approach of urban communities sustaining themselves from the depletion of ecosystems and natural environments to a holistic approach putting emphasis on green infrastructure throughout the whole city (Wong & Brown, 2009: 678). The third pillar emphasises the need of strong institutional capacities within a city to enable a transition towards a Water Sensitive City. The conceptual approach of the Water Sensitive City and the new technologies it entails, have to be socially embedded to guarantee successful implementation. Hence, institutional reforms, broad political support and community acceptance are necessary (Wong & Brown, 2009: 679). This transition is very challenging as it requires establishing a new culture across multiple organisations, professions and tiers of government. Moreover, its new technologies often represent a radical change to the current status quo, demanding fundamental changes in institutional capacity at various levels including new knowledge and skills, organisational systems and relationships, policy frameworks and regulatory rewards and penalties (Brown & Clarke, 2007: II).

Additionally, it must be considered that the concept of the Water Sensitive City has mainly been developed and introduced in Australia, and thus within the governmental and administrative context of a developed and wealthy country. Therefore, its applicability within the context of developing countries, not having the same administrative capacities and political philosophies, cannot be easily assumed. So far, only few cities have adopted effective governance regimes and are on the way to a complete transformation into a Water Sensitive City (Brown & Clarke, 2007: II).

(17)

10

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Questions and Sub-Questions

In order to address the three research objectives of this thesis, stated in the first chapter, the following central research question guiding this study has been developed:

How can Surabaya’s current water governance system be described, what challenges can be identified within it and how do these challenges and stakeholders’ belief-systems influence the persistence of insufficiencies in Surabaya’s water provision?

To facilitate an answer to this complex and wide-ranging question the following set of sub-questions has been formulated, which breaks down the central question into smaller segments. The definition of these sub-questions is based on the theoretical foundation of the analysis of governance systems and belief-systems discussed in the second chapter.

1. What are the physical conditions and challenges of Surabaya’s water provision?

2. Who are relevant stakeholders involved in the development of Surabaya’s water provision and what is their influence in the decision-making process?

3. What interests do relevant stakeholders have regarding Surabaya’s water provision and why?

4. What relationships exist between different relevant stakeholders and why?

5. What challenges can be identified within Surabaya’s current water governance system and why?

6. How do challenges in Surabaya’s current water governance system influence the city’s water provision and its insufficiencies?

7. Based on their belief-systems, under which water management paradigm can Surabaya’s stakeholders be located?

8. How do stakeholders’ belief-systems influence the way they perceive and address challenges in Surabaya’s water provision and governance system?

(18)

11

3.2. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework that has been developed to illustrate the research objectives of this thesis and the way they are answered. The physical conditions of Surabaya’s water supply are the foundation of this research and provide the background information necessary to understand the mechanisms of the city’s water governance system and the condition under which the involved stakeholders work. The physical conditions that have been identified as most relevant are the city’s water sources, water supply, waste water infrastructure and the currently most important water provision challenges. Within this research two units of analysis can be identified: Surabaya’s water governance system and stakeholders’ belief-systems. In order to analyse the water governance system the competencies, the influence, interests and relations of the stakeholders currently involved in the decision-making process of Surabaya’s water provision are examined. Based on the result of this analysis challenges that originate within this water governance system can be identified. Within the second unit is the belief-systems of Surabaya’s stakeholders, it is analysed under which of the two identified water management paradigms Surabaya’s stakeholders can be located. This allows assumptions about their ability and willingness to solve the current governance and water supply challenges. In a conclusive analytical step, it is examined what role the identified governance problems and stakeholders’ problem solving capacities play in the persistence of Surabaya’s physical and management challenges. A detailed operationalisation of all concepts can be found in Appendix 10.

(19)

12

3.3.Data Collection

3.3.1. Identifying Stakeholders

To gain relevant information about the current physical conditions of Surabaya’s water provision and the involved stakeholders, qualitative interviews with relevant actors were conducted. Actors were defined as relevant if they have official influence on water sources, water treatment, distribution infrastructure or public policy-making in the water sector of Surabaya. Also stakeholders that are not officially involved but still take great influence were included. The focus was put on local stakeholders as this research concentrates on the specific characteristics of the water provision and governance in Surabaya.

Before the departure to Indonesia a preliminary overview of potential organisations has been compiled, listing actors mentioned in academic literature, development projects plans and newspaper articles. Additional input has been collected through an informal conversation with three Indonesian employees of the Indonesian Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing2_{, who were currently studying at UNESCO-IHE in Delft. In the beginning of the} fieldwork period the preliminary list was presented to Professor Wahyono Hadi, an expert on sustainable water management with the Institute of Technology Sepuluh Nopember (ITS University) in Surabaya, who agreed to be the local supervisor for this research. He assessed the list by adding further and deleting less important names.

Another method used to expand this compilation was the snowball technique (Varvasovszky & Brugha, 2000: 341). During the interviews, with some of the initially identified stakeholders, the interview partners were asked to name all other actors they deemed relevant in Surabaya’s water sector. The newly named actors were added to the list and interviewed if possible. Within these interviews the newly identified actors were asked themselves to list other important stakeholders. Ideally, this process is continued until saturation is reached, which means no new actors are named (Varvasovszky & Brugha, 2000: 341). However, not all actors on the list could be interviewed. Therefore, and due to the limited timeframe of this research saturation could not be achieved. The idea of applying this method was to prevent a premature focus on a limited number of stakeholders. A risk the snowballing method bears is the production of a sample that is biased by the social network of the first actor in the sample (Reed et al., 2009: 1937). Through the initial identification of actors using multiple sources more than one starting point for the snowball technique has been identified and thus this risk could be reduced. Contact to most stakeholders was established through the ITS University and the local supervisor, who arranged and attended most interviews. The local American embassy facilitated the introduction to a local NGO and

2

The Indonesian Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing is responsible for Indonesia’s water supply on the national level.

(20)

13 a conference of the IndoWater Expo offered the chance to meet further officials of the Indonesian water sector.

3.3.2. Physical Conditions and Governance System Analysis

In sum, seven qualitative, semi-structured, in-depth interviews have been conducted with representatives of six relevant stakeholders of Surabaya’s water provision sector (see Appendix 1). The interviews were based on a set of open-ended questions, which was altered slightly according to the official tasks and responsibilities of the respective stakeholder, which were researched beforehand. All interviews covered the main topics and questions necessary to gain information on the status of Surabaya’s current water supply and its perception by the involved institution as well as the stakeholder’s competencies, interests, influence and relationships to other actors (see Appendix 2). The open-ended questions left room for the interviewee to express individual opinions and bring up new topics, which was essential to avoid excluding important themes that might have seemed irrelevant or were not thought of when drafting the interview questions. As most interview partners did not speak sufficient English, a student from ITS University, who translated simultaneously, attended most interviews. With the consent of the interviewees all but one interview could be recorded. During the interview, which could not be recorded, notes were taken.

To collect more information on the physical realities of Surabaya’s water provision as well as to hear an outside opinion on the water governance system two additional interviews were conducted with university professors of the ITS University (see Appendix 1). These interviews were not structured by a predefined questionnaire but provided the opportunity to discuss in-depth how water provision in Surabaya works and what role stakeholders play. Both interviews could be recorded. Additionally, several informal, not-recorded, conversations were led with the same professors to ask questions that came up during the research and to discuss and assess information gained during stakeholder interviews (see Appendix 1). Within this thesis all interviews and informal conversations are referenced as follows: (Interview (number, as indicated in Appendix 1): Page number of the transcript) or (Informal Conversation (number, as indicated in Appendix 1): Page number of notes (if applicable))

Moreover, throughout the research period contact has been established to Dr. Maria Anityasari, the Head of the International Office of the ITS University. She is currently leading a research project investigating the possibilities to realise Wong and Brown’s model of the Water Sensitive City (2009) in Surabaya. In spring 2016 she and other professors from the ITS University visited several institutions involved in Surabaya’s water provision to inquire

(21)

14 about technical conditions but also about the institutions’ competencies and their opinion on the Water Sensitive City model. A list of the interviewed institutions can be found in Appendix 3. These interviews were recorded and Dr. Maria Anityasari permitted that the gained data can be used for this thesis. As the interviews were held in Bahasa Indonesia, a student of the ITS University was hired to transcribe and translate the interviews. Throughout the analysis information gained from these interviews is referenced as follows: (Anityasari, Interview (Number of the interview indicated in Appendix 3): page number).

Data on official responsibilities and duties of stakeholders were also obtained through collecting information provided on many of the institutions’ websites and official regulation documents. Furthermore, the water utility of the city, granted access to a yet unpublished strategy plan documenting the current physical status of Surabaya’s water supply. The plan is referenced as follows: (Revisi RISPAM, 2014).

This data was supplemented by collecting information from secondary sources like academic literature and newspaper articles. As many documents were only available in Bahasa Indonesian language a student of the ITS university was hired to translate the relevant parts into English. Additionally, academic literature and reports of international development organisations like the Asian Development Bank or the World Bank have been collected to gain information on international and national stakeholders and to locate Surabaya in the bigger context of Indonesia’s efforts to improve its water provision.

3.3.3. Belief-Systems

In order to investigate the belief-system of the interview partners, a questionnaire (see Appendix 4) has been distributed among the participants at the end of each interview. In sum, twelve filled-in questionnaires from five different stakeholders could be collected, namely: Cipta Karya East Java (2 respondents), ITS University (2 respondents), BLH Surabaya (4 respondents), PDAM Surabaya (2 respondents) and Jasa Tirta I (2 respondents). The questionnaire contained twenty-five self-developed practical statements, thirteen representing principals of the Modern Infrastructural Ideal (MII) and twelve reflecting the ideas of the Water Sensitive City (WSC). The statements comprise three different dimensions, which are based upon the three pillars the WSC describes as essential to establish a truly sustainable urban water provision (see Appendix 6). The MII is a far broader concept, also addressing themes beyond water provision. To keep the analysis focused the inquiry was limited to the three pillars defined in the WSC paradigm. The respondents were able to express their approval or disagreement with each of these statements on a five point Likert-scale, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. It is assumed that those stakeholders

(22)

15 agreeing with statements of the MII or the WSC are likely to follow the respective belief-system. The statements were presented in a mixed order on the questionnaire to prevent an easy identification of the paradigms and the three topics within them. As not all interview partners spoke English, the questionnaire was translated into Bahasa Indonesia by a student of the ITS University (see Appendix 5).

To facilitate a better understanding of the three dimensions inquired in the questionnaire the respective ideals of the WSC and the MII within the three topics are defined. A list of all questionnaire statements can be found in Appendix 6 and the respective statements inquiring each dimension are indicated throughout this operationalisation.

The first pillar of the WSC paradigm demands a diversification of a cities’ water supply through the development of multiple water sources. It is argued that this will break cities’ dependency on single supplies and thus increase their resilience against environmental impacts like climate change, droughts or climate variability. Alternative water sources that could supplement traditional sources like river water are urban storm water, rain water, recycled waste water or desalinated sea water (see Appendix 6: Statements 1-3). Moreover, different infrastructural systems to harvest, treat, store and deliver water should be developed. This comprises centralised and decentralised systems including many options from individual rain water tanks to a secondary pipeline delivering non-potable water for uses like toilet flushing or garden watering (see Appendix 6: Statements 4-6) (Wong & Brown, 2009: 676-678).

On the contrary, the belief-system of the MII favours singular and standardised technological networks (Graham & Marvin, 2001: 91). Water should be universally accessible through a single centralised system (see Appendix 6: Statements 10-13) (Graham & Marvin, 2001: 56, 73). The development of alternative water sources is not explicitly mentioned, but as standardised and uniform services for all areas of the city are favoured, it can be assumed that a great number of varying sources that might require a diversified distribution infrastructure are regarded as unfavourable within the paradigm (see Appendix 6: Statements 7-9).

The WSC’s second pillar describes the departure urban communities depleting ecosystems and natural resources in order to sustain themselves. Instead water provision should be a holistic approach that does not only focus on water supply but also on environmental protection and social justice (see Appendix 6: Statements 14-16) (Wong & Brown, 2009: 678). Moreover, the WSC paradigm describes the importance of the development of ecosystem services that increase the resilience of the city. These include measures for flood prevention

(23)

16 and a sustainable and environmental friendly use of city space for example through urban farming or the development of recreational space (Wong & Brown 2009: 678). However, following the advice of the local supervisor, who suggested that the institutions selected as interview partners would not know about these aspects, questions about this topic were excluded.

The MII paradigm understands water provision as a service that increases productivity and economic growth of cities. The standardisation of services like water provision and sanitation are also understood as a crucial precondition to increase public health. Sustainability and environmental factors like the protection of ecosystems and natural resources play only a subordinate role in city planning, while efficient service provision is prioritised (see Appendix 6: Statements 17-18) (Graham & Marvin, 2001: 56, 68). Actors following this paradigm understand the informal water sector as a transitory phenomenon which will disappear once the ideal is realised (Kooy, 2014: 35-36).

The third pillar of the WSC emphasises the importance of the development of institutional capacities to implement a sustainable urban water management. The paradigm stresses the significance of efficient governing to make cities’ water provision resilient for future challenges. It also predicts the necessity of institutional reforms to remove ineffective structures and mechanisms and to form a dynamic system, which involves numerous stakeholders (see Appendix 6: Statements 19-21) (Wong & Brown, 2009: 678-679).

In contrast, the MII believes in the progress of cities through the implementation of new technologies. Cities and their water provision have to be rationally planned using the latest technology and the distribution of water should be managed by a central monopoly, preferably the state (see Appendix 6: Statements 22-25) (Graham & Marvin, 2002: 43-44).

3.4. Data Analysis

All interviews that could be recorded have been transcribed. Interviews in which one or more of the key respondents spoke Bahasa Indonesia and thus simultaneous translation was applied have been transcribed by an Indonesian student, who also translated the parts spoken in Bahasa Indonesia. This way, it was made sure that no information was lost through shortened translations during the interviews, due to time pressure. The transcripts were coded using manual coding (Bogdan & Bilken, 1982). Thereby, predefined dimensions emerging from the theory on governance system analysis and belief-systems were applied, namely: the four dimensions of the stakeholder analysis and the three pillars of the Water Sensitive City paradigm. These dimensions were used to summarise and structure the obtained data. A more detailed coding was achieved through formulating codes that emerged from the data itself (Bogdan & Bilken, 1982). The interviews obtained from Dr.

(24)

17 Maria Anityasari were not coded entirely, as they also contain a great number of technical data not relevant for this research and they did not follow a fixed set of questions. Therefore, the text was filtered for relevant information, which was summarised manually. The so gained information served as additional background information supplementing the data collected during the self-conducted interviews. Additionally, collected primary and secondary documents were analysed through a qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) and the information gained was added and compared to the data from the interviews.

The data obtained through the questionnaire was analysed with simple quantitative analysis methods using Microsoft Excel. The approval and rejection of all statements and the tendencies of stakeholders towards one of the water management paradigms were examined. The raw data can be found in Appendix 8 and 9.

3.5. Ethical Considerations

Several ethical concerns had to be taken into account during the research in Indonesia. This research followed Bryman’s (2012) definition of four main ethical principles of social research: participation on the basis of informed consent, protection of participants’ privacy, prevention of harm and avoidance of deception of respondents (Bryman, 2012: 135). To comply with the principle of informed consent all interviewees were informed thoroughly about the purpose of this research. Most interview respondents participated as representative of their institutions and not as private person. Thus, an open communication about the goals of this research was of great importance, as the consent of participants’ employers to speak about certain issues in the organisation’s name was required. For protecting respondents’ privacy, consent was asked of every interviewee to record the conversation and to use his or her full name and position within the thesis. Within every interview it has been agreed upon the way the provided information can be used and what parts represent official statements of the organisation and what are personal opinions. This also secures that all respondents stay unharmed as only those statements they feel safe sharing are published within this thesis. Furthermore, interviewees’ statements are presented within the context they were expressed in, to avoid wrong conception of participants’ answers. This can be challenging as social research can never be one hundred percent objective. Therefore, own interpretations of interview statements are clearly marked as such throughout this work and so deception of respondents is prevented.

(25)

18

3.6. Limitations

This study shows limitations especially in the number and selection of interview partners. Due to the involvement of high level political actors in the water sector of Surabaya, it was not possible to obtain interview appointments with all stakeholders that have been identified as relevant. The ITS University contacted possible interview partners already shortly before the start of this research. However, the limitation of the research period to approximately eight weeks and its partial overlap with Ramadan Holidays, which meant the closing of many bureaus, made the arrangements of interviews within the possible timeframe challenging and not always successful. Moreover, most interview appointments were arranged by the local supervisor. In order to increase the chances of receiving an appointment, he mainly contacted his former colleagues or friends, who work in a leading position within the organisations of interest. This meant that no influence could be taken on the selection of the interviewed persons and hence a gatekeeper bias might have occurred (Oppong, 2013: 205). The presence of the local supervisor at many interviews and the connection of this research with UNESCO-IHE might have also influenced the answers of some respondents. To counteract these influences, it was made sure that interview partners held a relevant position for my research within their organisation and during the interviews the local supervisor kept in the background. Another limitation is the fact that only one or few people of each organisation were interviewed. This raises the question to which extent their statements and especially opinions can be transferred to the whole institution. This becomes especially challenging when assessing the stakeholders’ belief-systems.

The generalizability of this research has to be considered carefully, as it focuses solely on the water governance system of Surabaya. The influence and role of certain stakeholders and physical conditions of other Indonesian cities might differ. However, in many Indonesian cities the water governance system is built up similarly and thus challenges identified in Surabaya might also occur in other regions. Furthermore, this research can only provide a snapshot of the current situation, since positions, influence and stakeholder’s perceptions might change over time and are influenced through internal or external events (Varvasovszky & Brugha, 2000: 344-345). Nonetheless, this thesis is an important first step in the assessment of water governance systems and further studies using the elaborated framework could yield important results to fill the gap in academic literature.

(26)

19

4. Physical Conditions of Surabaya’s Water Provision

In order to fully comprehend the mechanisms of the water governance system of Surabaya it is necessary to understand the physical realities of the city’s water provision. Therefore, this chapter provides background information on the water sources Surabaya currently utilises, its water treatment and distribution network, its waste water infrastructure and the development plans the city’s government is currently promoting. Furthermore, this chapter describes the main challenges of the city’s water provision. These descriptions are primarily based on data obtained through the conducted interviews. Secondary sources have been used to verify and complement this information.

4.1. Water Sources

The Brantas River is the longest stream in the province of East Java, the main island of Indonesia (Ramu, 2004: 36) and 40 percent of the province’s population lives along the river and its many branches (Interview 5: 4). The Brantas River System provides water for around sixteen million people (Pangare et al., 2013: 61). Next to domestic use, the river water is utilised for farmland irrigation, fisheries, industries and the production of hydroelectricity (Jasa Tirta I, 2005).After 320 kilometres the great Brantas Stream branches into the Surabaya and the Porong River, which both flow into the Madura Strait (Ramu, 2004: 36). The Surabaya River, which runs through Surabaya is the city’s main water source (Revisi RISPAM, 2014: III-3). Several water intake stations are located along the river to extract the needed water supply (Revisi RISPAM, 2014: III-4). The Surabaya River is further divided into the Mas River, the Pegirian River and the Wonokromo River (Lucas & Djati, 2000: 100). The flow of the rivers is depicted in Figure 2 and 3.

(27)

20

Figure 2: Map of the Surabaya River (Lucas & Djati, 2000: 100)

(28)

21 While 97 percent of Surabaya’s water supply stem from the Surabaya River, the remaining 3 percent come from several springs in the Pandaan area and the Umbulan spring, located 70 kilometres southeast of Surabaya (Revisi RISPAM, 2014: III-3). The spring water is discharged into the Surabaya River and thus enters the city’s water intake. Until now only 10 percent of the water volume from the Umbulan spring is utilised, while the rest is lost, as it flows into the ocean (Revisi RISPAM, 2014: III-11). Already since the 1960s, the provincial government of East Java had plans to prevent the loss of the high quality spring water by building a pipeline, which would distribute the water to several districts in the province. Despite several attempts the project never became reality. Reasons behind this failure have been the rivalry between neighbouring districts about the distribution of the water and disagreements on the financial conditions between private investors willing to take on the project and the provincial government (Lucas & Djati, 2007: 343-345). In 2016, however, it seems the project might actually be realised, as the provincial government finally awarded the project to a private company and is currently finalizing the contracts (Syarizka, 2016). The pipeline is expected to be finished by 2019 (Syarizka, 2016) and to increase the spring water volume accessible for Surabaya from currently 110 litres per second to then 1000 litres per second (Interview 1: 4). This would cover 10 percent of the city’s current water demand (Interview 3: 2).

Surabaya’s tap water does not comply with potable water standards and most of the city’s population relies on bottled or refill-bottled drinking water (Hadipuro, 2010: 477). While in the past many people used to boil tap water to make it drinkable, today the growing wealth of the population and an increasing mistrust in the local water utility, led to an increased use of bottled water (Interview 3: 2). Only the poor still drink tap water as bottled water is significantly more expensive.

Unlike many other Indonesian cities, Surabaya cannot rely on groundwater, as it is highly polluted by intruding sea water (Interview 7: 4). Moreover, in many areas of Surabaya the quantity of the groundwater is too low to allow commercial extraction (Revisi RISPAM, 2014: VI-7, VI-8). Furthermore, the city’s soil is dominated by clay, which makes groundwater extraction difficult and expensive (Interview 8: 11). Therefore, groundwater cannot make a worthwhile contribution to the city’s water supply. In order to prevent further sea water intrusion and secure the groundwater level, the local government banned its use in 2012 and prohibited the issuing of any new groundwater extraction permits. However, many informal or poor settlers, especially in the outskirts of the city, who are not connected to the official water pipelines, still rely on the cheap water source, which they access through pump wells (Interview 7: 4).

(29)

22

4.2. Water Supply

The treatment of raw water and the distribution of clean water throughout Surabaya is the task of the local government owned company Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum Kota Surabaya (PDAM Surabaya) (Smets, 2015: 13). The company disseminates water through a 5,000 kilometres long pipe network (Interview 3: 3) and with water trucks to currently 550.000 households (Interview 9: 13) and thus supplies water for 93 percent of Surabaya’s population (Interview 3: 2). The remaining 7 percent are mostly informal dwellers, who live on Surabaya’s outskirts or within the city in immediate proximity to railway lines and river banks (Interview 3: 2). These people cannot be connected to the official pipe network as they illegally build their houses on land that belongs to others or where formal settlement is prohibited. Cut-off from the official water infrastructure most obtain their water from informal water vendors, which buy clean water from PDAM Surabaya and distribute it in jerry cans throughout the settlements. The water from these vendors can be up to fifty times more expensive than regular tap water (Interview 8: 4-5). Others access groundwater through pump wells (Anityasari, Interview 6: 20), which - as mentioned above - often is highly polluted. This difficult access to water puts informal settlers at serious disadvantage and increases their vulnerability. In recent years, the local government has declared the water provision of informal and poor settlers to be a priority and advised PDAM Surabaya to take actions (Interview 3: 4). In close cooperation with the Indonesia Urban Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (IUWASH) Project, the local water utility started to install master meters. These master meters pump tap water up to the entrance of informal settlements. Within the settlements no official pipes can be laid as the ground is often owned by private companies or people. The master meters allow informal residents to access tap water legally and at a close point. The distribution throughout the illegal settlements then is organised by the residents themselves and with the help of IUWASH. However, this programme cannot reach those settling near the railways or on river banks as any settlement on these places is prohibited (Interview 3: 1).

According to national regulations PDAM Surabaya is the only company entitled to serve water to the city’s inhabitants. However, in the Western part of Surabaya private housing developers have the permit to supply their own water to their residents (Interview 1: 5). These permits stem from a time when PDAM Surabaya did not have the capacity to serve the new fast growing areas in the West of the city like Ciputra or Pakuwon (Anityasari, Interview 6: 15-16). In these cases, private companies were allowed to take over the water provision until PDAM Surabaya has increased its capabilities (The Water Dialogues, 11). Even though PDAM Surabaya is now capable and legally entitled to provide West Surabaya with clean water, some 9800 households are still supplied by private housing companies. These companies have their own treatment plants in which they process river water and also