Models, Myths, Realities: Global models of pro-poor service delivery & political economic realities in Jakarta, Indonesia
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•349 views
STEPS Water & Sanitation Symposium 2011
![Models, Myths, Realities ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/michellekooy-110404103743-phpapp01/85/models-myths-realities-global-models-of-propoor-service-delivery-political-economic-realities-in-jakarta-indonesia-1-320.jpg)
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (8)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (6)
Ähnlich wie Models, Myths, Realities: Global models of pro-poor service delivery & political economic realities in Jakarta, Indonesia
Ähnlich wie Models, Myths, Realities: Global models of pro-poor service delivery & political economic realities in Jakarta, Indonesia (20)
Mehr von STEPS Centre
Mehr von STEPS Centre (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Models, Myths, Realities: Global models of pro-poor service delivery & political economic realities in Jakarta, Indonesia
- 2. Global models of pro-poor service delivery & Political economic realities in Jakarta, Indonesia
- 4. Jakarta
- 5. Multiple waters, decentralised supplies, non-networked
- 7. Spatialised access – political policies
- 14. Challenge: exposure to hazards & allocation of risk
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Questions: Is the current global architecture leading us to new and more sustainable futures in providing water and sanitation? Models, Myths, Realities How appropriate are global solutions to national, regional and local contexts? What politics and issues concerning wider political economy drive the process?
- Introduction – what question is my ppt addressing global architecture service delivery models state, non-state actors – how is it working to achieve MDGs case studies in Jakarta illustrating the ways in which relations of power and historical geographies influence relative success in increasing access of the poor to a clean water supply.
- City of contrasts, very rich with very poor - Fragmented city Capital city of Indonesia; previously colonial capital city (Batavia) – Indonesian independence around 1950 Currently 12 million residents Poorest residents live on most marginalised land/spaces in the city; along river banks, coastal areas (flooding) and under toll roads/overpasses -as I illustrate later, this has implications for technical options available in order to ensure access to piped system
- Jakarta – context – why pro-poor service delivery models were needed, why global models were tested here Historical + current coverage = LOW Currently less than 50% of residents served with piped water supply; much lower levels of access by the poor (<10%) Piped water not potable, must boil or treat with chlorine Not access 24/7 – some households only have water in their taps for 2-3 hours/day, often in the middle of the night
- Multiple waters: Piped water supply (treated surface water) + Shallow groundwater – individual HH, supplementary supply + Deep groundwater poor pay more – poorest residents of the city pay up to 20x more than do the middle/upper class residents who do have access to piped water 90% of shallow wells in the city contaminated with e-coli City of septic tanks, no centralised sewerage system High rates of diarrhea, especially amongst CU5 who drink contaminated water supply High levels of water theft/water loss – up to 50% of water through system lost either through leakages in the pipes, or through theft/illegal access
- … turning towards non-state actors, govt blamed for the ‘failure’ Privatisation – contract issue, players, Suharto/Political economy, Asian financial crisis privatized in 1997, renegotiated contract in 2001, concession is for 25 yrs -debt levels -contract -no direct disincentive for PSP to service poor, but an indirect disincentive re: average tariff rate -direct disincentive for local government/municpality to servce poor!
- Low coverage did not = failure, but purposeful political policy Colonial and post-colonial political ideologies, able to rationalise the exclusion of the poor also used as a political/cultural tool – to physically inscribe differences, first b/w race and then b/w class Recent political and economic events have been important, but have only built upon existing infrastructure and the political ideologies which they materialised -understanding the PSP and what followed as embedded within history of relations of power -Colonial map….a political rationality of colonial government that was premised on, and required, a visible differentiation between the ruler and the ruled: between european white colonial residents and native/indonesian -required a spatial and physical segregation b/w 2 populations -built the city’s first water supply system to only serve European residents --- written policy
- Objective of OBA – results based aid, subsidise the connections of poorest HHs in Jakarta -challenges related to the disinterest of local government in connecting the poor, bc it brought down average tariff rate and historical legacy of attitude of govt towards urban poor
- -structural incompatibilities of programme: -poorest households vs. legal households; “there are no thirsty poor”! -low demand from HH for cxns, given poor service: when actually connected received little/no water - 200x – 20xx -targets vs. realities -North Jakarta: challenges to implement in location of water mafia – port/industrial area where WS controlled by local thugs; resisted reduction in business – didn’t want Palyja to take out standpipes
- -
- action research project funded by IDRC as part of their Urban Poverty Programme – Focus Cities -from 2007-2010, 3 yrs -enable access of the poor to piped water supply -worked in 1 of the biggest urban poor settlements, in North Jakarta How case study reflect the political/econ/social barriers to access by the poor, the contemporary impact of the historical ---- of relns to, the historical dimensions of, and encounters the multiple dimensions of urban poverty…
- Loss of financing – DRR – Other priorities of the community Exposure to hazards and risk…. RISK – risk of non-payment by neighbours risk of investment all borne by poorest community
- Conditions of access have been constructed to exclude the poor --- Challenges faced by current operators – not b/c they are private companies, but historical legacy of poor maintenance politics – local government non-recognition of poor New models emerging – but how to finance this and distribute risk?