indonesia country report. working group i: urban and rural planning and management
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
Table of Contents
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. 2
PREFACE ......................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION: .......................................................................................................... 6
KEY MESSAGES AND ACTION PLAN FOR URBAN AND RURAL PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 6
FROM APMCHUD III .............................................................................................................. 6
Pro-poor urban governance and planning .................................................................. 6
Comprehensive and inclusive planning ......................................................................... 6
Enhancing cooperation ........................................................................................................ 6
Community participation .................................................................................................... 7
MOVING FORWARD TO URBAN AND RURAL LINKAGE ....................................................... 7
1 | OVERVIEW OF INDONESIA ................................................................................. 9
1.1 GEOGRAPHY AND LAND USE ............................................................................................ 9
1.2 POPULATION DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 10
1.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 10
Human Development Index of Indonesia .................................................................. 10
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Indonesia ............................................................ 11
Poverty Level .......................................................................................................................... 12
Housing ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Roads, Water Resources, Settlements ......................................................................... 12
Gaps of Urban-Rural Areas .............................................................................................. 13
1.3THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ..................................................................................... 14
2 | PLANNING SYSTEM IN INDONESIA ............................................................... 15
2.1 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SYSTEM ......................................................... 15
2.2 NATIONAL POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND PROGRAMS ................................................. 16
2.2.1 Spatial Planning ................................................................................................. 16
National Spatial Plan ......................................................................................................... 16
2.2.2. National Policy for Cities and the Growth Centres ............................. 16
National Urban and Rural Development Policy ..................................................... 16
The Masterplan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic
Development (MP3EI) ........................................................................................................ 17
3
2.2.3. National Policy on Housing and Infrastructures ................................ 17
National Housing Development Policy ....................................................................... 17
Strategy for Infrastructure Development ................................................................. 18
Green City Development Program/Program Pengembangan Kota Hijau
(P2KH) ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Sustainable Rural Area Development Program (P2KPB) ................................. 19
Heritage City Management and Conservation Program (P3KP) ................... 19
2.3 THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONSAND GOVERNANCE IN POLICY, STRATEGY, AND
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................. 19
3 | EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL .............................................................................................................. 21
3.1 SOLO – STREET VENDOR MANAGEMENT .............................................................. 21
3.2 SURABAYA CLEAN AND GREEN PROGRAM .................................................................. 23
3.3 COMMUNITY BASED WASTE MANAGEMENT IN DESA TEGAL KERTA,
DENPASAR BARAT ................................................................................................................. 24
4 | FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR URBAN PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN
INDONESIA .................................................................................................................. 26
4.1 PREPARING NATIONAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY ............. 26
4.2STRENGTHENING THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ..................................... 27
4.2.1. Good Governance in Urban Management .............................................. 27
4.2.2. Capacity Building In Housing and Infrastructure Development . 29
4.2.2 Awards to Encourage Innovative Governance ............................................ 29
5 | PROPOSAL FOR GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE ASIA PACIFIC .......... 30
5.1. CITYNET ..................................................................................................................... 30
5.3. DATA AND INFORMATION CENTRE ........................................................................ 30
5.3. SISTER CITY ............................................................................................................... 30
4
Preface
The Asia Pacific Ministerial Conference in Housing and Urban Development
(APMCHUD) was established in New Delhi, India in 2006. The first conference set
the vision for sustainable urbanization in the Asia Pacific. The conference aims to
promote sustainable urban development through a consultative mechanism and
establishing APMCHUD as a knowledge hub for sustainable housing and urban
development. The second conference provided a framework for regional
cooperation, while the third conference stressed the importance of empowering
communities for sustainable urbanization.
Five working groups were established: 1) Urban and rural planning and
management, 2) slum upgrading and prevention, 3) delivery of water and sanitation
for MDGs, 4) financing sustainable housing and urban development, and 5) urban
development with a focus on natural disasters.
The Working Group on Urban and Rural Planning and Management coordinated by
India has organized a two-day expert group meeting on August 16-17, 2012 in New
Delhi. This country report follows the format recommended by the expert group
meeting. The report is divided into …. Parts. Part one provides an overview of issues
and challenges in urban development in Indonesia. Part two describes the current
planning system and national urban policies. Part three provides several best
practices in urban planning and management, and recommendations for future
directions in Indonesia. Part four provides several recommendations for Asia Pacific,
in particular on participatory planning.
We hope that this report is useful as reference for country members of APMCHUD.
Amman, December 2012
Ministry of National Development
Planning
Republic of Indonesia
5
6
Introduction:
Key Messages and Action Plan for Urban and Rural Planning and Management
From APMCHUD III
From the 3rdAPMCHUD conferences held in Solo, the key messages and
recommendations for action are as follows:
Pro-poor urban governance and planning
Propoor policy orientation, inclusiveness of community and and empowerment
A pro-poor orientation needs to be emphasized, which includes: an enabling
condition for the poor, increased space for engagement, empowerment as well
as the prevalence of inclusive systems
considering the prospects of vision 2020, governance and planning processes
should aim at achieving cities without slums which are environmentally
sustainable, liveable, and economically viable.
Comprehensive and inclusive planning
A new culture of planning process should be inclusive and provide a valid space
for urban poor livelihoods and their living, which includes a comprehensive,
intensive utilisation of land and promoting innovative policies for formal access
to lands by the poor, such as land sharing, land pooling, and equality land and
property rights.
The planning process should establish pro-poor planning standards and
building and construction regulatory framework that overcomes the rigidities
often characterizing urban development and delivery of services especially for
the urban poor population.
Comprehensive strategic plans that prepared at national levels should reflect
local needs and community aspirations.
Enhancing cooperation
Enhancing local investment climate that promotes economic growth and
increases employment. This includes nurturing partnership between public,
private and civil sectors. Countries of the region are urged to promote public-
7
private partnership to leverageresources and increase efficiency in the delivery
of basic services
Cooperation among countries of the region should be strengthened for
mitigating theimpact of the climate change on cities, particularly in coastal
regions, and adapting urbaninfrastructure to better protect vulnerable human
settlements.
Recognizing the serious challenge facing the management of large cities
andmetropolitans, governments of the region are called upon to cooperate in
the formulation of appropriate tools for good governance.
Community participation
Passing relevant policies and legislation for ensuring community participation
in Housing and Urban Development projects at local and national levels that will
benefit all parties concerned, particularly the communities.
Setting up regional management information centers to develop networking
activities including establishing cooperation with relevant networks, conducting
training, and follow-up actions in the Asia Pacific region.
Identifying and publishing best practices and lessons learned on community
participation.
Undertaking impact assesment of community participation and identification of
the benefits at all levels periodically.
Establishing inter regional and cities awards on community participation
among Asia Pacific countries on housing and urban development projects
Moving Forward To Urban and Rural Linkage
Urban and Rural linkage becomes Asian issues since urban development achieve a
tremendous economic development which attracts urbanization into the cities, and
even widen city fringe areas into the rural areas. The most visible impact is that the
regional income of the cities much higher than the district areas. Within Indonesia
regions, the gaps between urban and rural also spreads out between growth centres
in the most developed regions with the less developed regions.
Based on Law 26/2007 concerning SpatialPlan, urban area is a region with the main
activity not in the agricultural field, and with areas structured as urban residences,
centralization, and distribution of governmental services, social services, and
economic activities. Whereas rural area is a region with agriculture as its main
8
activity, including natural resource management that is indicated by its functional
relevance and space hierarchy for each residential system and agribusiness system.
A comprehensive urban planning which should balance the pace development
between metropolitans, middle and small cities in Indonesia, also includes
developing linkages between urban areas and rural areas.
The following report, will explain how the geographical regions of Indonesia and the
poor acces for transportation contributes to the economically gaps between urban
and rurals. How is the planning actions as well as urban management addressed to
overcome the problems in Indonesia, may be shared for Asian experience. Moreover,
how is it to be implemented in the local level, also more valuable to be shared.
9
1 | Overview of Indonesia
1.1 Geography and Land Use
Indonesia has about 17.504 islands, about 6.000 of which remain unihabited. The
islands spread around the equator, giving the tropical weather. The five major
islands of Indonesia are Jawa, Sumatera, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua.
The island with highest density is Jawa, where more than half of Indonesia
population lives.
Indonesia located in the southeast Asia, between the Indian Ocean and The
Pacific Ocean. Geographical coordinate of Indonesia is 6°N - 11°08'Sand dari
95°'E - 141°45'E. The total area of land in Indonesia is 1.922.570 km²
and the total area of ocean is 3.257.483 km².
1.2 Population Development
Total population in Indonesia is 242,3 million in the year 2011.
population resides in the urban area, and in 2025 it is expected that the urban
population will reach 67,5%.
Figure 1Indonesia Population 1971
1.2 Socio-economic Development
Human Development Index of Indonesia
According to Human Development Index (HDI) published by UNDP, in 2011,
Indonesia was ranked 124 with the index value of 0.617. This value is compared to
median value of world Human Development Index is which is 0.682 and also median
value of East Asia and the Pacific which is 0.671 (PICTURE 2). Human Development
Index value is generated from combination of indicators where each of indicator has
its own rank and value among countries (attached with this report).
10
Total population in Indonesia is 242,3 million in the year 2011. Half of the
population resides in the urban area, and in 2025 it is expected that the urban
Indonesia Population 1971-2010
economic Development
ndonesia
According to Human Development Index (HDI) published by UNDP, in 2011,
Indonesia was ranked 124 with the index value of 0.617. This value is compared to
median value of world Human Development Index is which is 0.682 and also median
Asia and the Pacific which is 0.671 (PICTURE 2). Human Development
Index value is generated from combination of indicators where each of indicator has
its own rank and value among countries (attached with this report).
Figure 2Human Development Index: Trends 1980
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Indonesia
According to Indonesia Central Statisctic Agency, Indonesia GDP (constant) in 2010
is 2,221,603,860.73. This value increases from previous years as the graph shown
below.
Figure 3Gross Domestic Product of Indonesia
*) preliminary figures
11
Human Development Index: Trends 1980-2010
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Indonesia
According to Indonesia Central Statisctic Agency, Indonesia GDP (constant) in 2010
is 2,221,603,860.73. This value increases from previous years as the graph shown
Gross Domestic Product of Indonesia
In 2006, GDP of Indonesia (nominal) was approximately $364,239 and ranked 21
among 181 countries in the world based on World Economic Outlook from
International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2007.
Poverty Level
Based on Indonesia Central Statistic Agency data, poverty level in Indonesia is
decreasing each year. This condition can be seen in the picture below that in 2007
2011, the precentage of poor people is decreasing approximately 4 % from
to 12,49%. This trend also happens in poverty gap index which is decreasing from
2.99% to 2.08% in 5 years at the same period.
Figure 4Precentage Of Poor People And Poverty Gap Index
Housing
The rapid growth of population has led to the need for new housing that increases
from year to year. Meanwhile, from the supply side, the number of housing has not
been able to keep up withthe growth itself. Throughout the period from 2005 to
2009, the number of households has reached 3.6 million. This figure has not been
matched by construction of housing to accommodate, which is still at 2.5 million
units. Additionally, 555,000 houses are in severe need of repair, thus the shortfall in
the number of available homes (backlog) increase from 5.8 million units in 2004 to
8.2 million by the end of 2010.
Roads, Water Resources, Settlements
The provision of roads, infrastructure for water supply, ad settlements is not yet
adequate to serve population through out Indonesia regions.
Indonesia is 407.634 km in the year of 2011
regions in Jawa and Sumatra. Of the total raw water potential of 3,9 trillion m3, only
about 13,5 billion m3 can be managed through a reservoir/water catchment. Water
usage in Indonesia were predominantly for irrigation (80,5%) and the remaining is
to meet the needs of households, industrial activities, and urban areas (19,5%). In
12
In 2006, GDP of Indonesia (nominal) was approximately $364,239 and ranked 21
among 181 countries in the world based on World Economic Outlook from
International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2007.
Based on Indonesia Central Statistic Agency data, poverty level in Indonesia is
decreasing each year. This condition can be seen in the picture below that in 2007-
is decreasing approximately 4 % from 16.58%
This trend also happens in poverty gap index which is decreasing from
in 5 years at the same period.
Precentage Of Poor People And Poverty Gap Index (%)
as led to the need for new housing that increases
from year to year. Meanwhile, from the supply side, the number of housing has not
been able to keep up withthe growth itself. Throughout the period from 2005 to
2009, the number of households has reached 3.6 million. This figure has not been
matched by construction of housing to accommodate, which is still at 2.5 million
units. Additionally, 555,000 houses are in severe need of repair, thus the shortfall in
mber of available homes (backlog) increase from 5.8 million units in 2004 to
Roads, Water Resources, Settlements
The provision of roads, infrastructure for water supply, ad settlements is not yet
through out Indonesia regions. Total length of road in
407.634 km in the year of 2011, mostly dispersed in The host populated
otal raw water potential of 3,9 trillion m3, only
managed through a reservoir/water catchment. Water
usage in Indonesia were predominantly for irrigation (80,5%) and the remaining is
to meet the needs of households, industrial activities, and urban areas (19,5%). In
13
2009, 47,71 % of residents have access to water supply, and 25,56% of residents
have access to pipe. While the sanitation services has covered 51,19%, and the
percentage of urban slum houses is still on 12,12%. In 2015, it is targeted that
68,87% of residents will have access to water supply, 41,03% residents will have
access to pipe, sanitation services will cover 62,41% and the percentage of urban
slum houses will decrease to 8,26%.
Gaps of Urban-Rural Areas
At the national scale, regional development still facing some major problems. The
general problem is high disparities between regions, which are: (1) disparity
between regions in Java-Bali and outside Java-Bali, (2) disparity between regionsin
western and eastern Indonesia, and (3) disparity between the centers of growth and
the major cities and metropolitan areas with rural areas, particularly the gap in
economic development and social welfare. Meanwhile, the use and utilization of
abundant natural resources and socio-cultural has not been optimized, while efforts
to develop strategic areas which have multiplier effects for its surrounding area,
local and regional economic development has not given a significant role for
improving people’s welfare. One indicator that describes the gap between the
growth centers or cities, with rural areas is income per capita in cities and villages,
which is described in the following BPS data in 2011.
Figure 5 Income per capita in Village (Desa) and City (Kota) in 2011 (Rupiah)
Source: Adopted and modified by author from Susenas, 2012
0500.000
1.000.0001.500.0002.000.0002.500.0003.000.0003.500.000
Kota Desa
1.3The Governance Structure
The Government of Indonesia structure is d
executive and judicative. The Government of Indonesia is led by a president who is
assisted by ministers incorporated in a minist
Governors (provincial level) and Regent
regional administration with policies established by the Regional House of
Representatives. The Government Regulation
authority between the national government and the regional/local government.
Figure 6 Governance Structure In Indonesia
14
Government of Indonesia structure is divided into 3 main bodies: legislative,
Government of Indonesia is led by a president who is
incorporated in a ministerial cabinet. At the local level,
and Regents/Mayors (regency/city level) lead the
regional administration with policies established by the Regional House of
The Government Regulation 38/2007 outlines the division of
authority between the national government and the regional/local government.
Governance Structure In Indonesia
2 |Planning System
2.1 National Development Planning System
Law 25/2004 on the National Development Planning System
national development planning in the central and regional/local government level.
Generally, the National Development Planning System aim to produce a coherent
long term, medium term, and annual
level. The picture shows how the planning and budgeting prepared and also the co
relation and synergy between ministries at national level through national regional
development planning meeting and synergy betwe
through regional development planning meeting.
Figure 7 National Development Planning System
15
System in Indonesia
Planning System
National Development Planning System outlines the process of
national development planning in the central and regional/local government level.
Generally, the National Development Planning System aim to produce a coherent
long term, medium term, and annual plan in the central and regional government
The picture shows how the planning and budgeting prepared and also the co-
relation and synergy between ministries at national level through national regional
development planning meeting and synergy between national and regional level
through regional development planning meeting.
National Development Planning System
16
2.2 National Policies, Strategies, and Programs
2.2.1 Spatial Planning
National Spatial Plan
Government Regulation No. 26/2008 on the National Spatial Plan (RTRWN) as a
mandate of Law No.26/2007 on Spatial Planning sought linkages between urban
and rural development to reduce the development gap between regions through the
National Urban System.The National Urban System defined urban areas that are
expected to serve as the National Growth Centre (PKN), Regional Growth Center
(PKW), and the National Strategic Growth Center (PKSN). Each center is expected to
serve and develop not only its own territory, but also the surrounding areas,
including rural areas. It also defined seven urban areas as the National Strategic
Areas (KSN). The urban areas KSN are strategic areasfrom economic standpoint.
Each areas coverseveral administrative area of cities and regencies. They are
expected to serve as growth centers based on the potential of natural resources and
the primary cultivation as a major driver of regional development.
This National Spatial Plan has to be elaborated at the provincial level (RTRWP) and
at the city/regency level (RTRW Kabupaten/Kota), as a basis of local planning in
determining programs and activities.
2.2.2. National Policy for Cities and the Growth Centres
National Urban and Rural Development Policy
The National Long-Term Development Plan/RPJPN 2005-2025 (Law No.17/2007)
Indonesia has established a policy to balance the development between
metropolitan, large, medium, and small cities with reference to the National Urban
System. Balancing the development is sought to be achieved through prevention of
uncontrolled physical growth and migration flows control from rural areas to large
cities and metropolitan areas by creating employment opportunities in medium and
small cities, especially in outside Java. Linkages improvement of economic activities
in urban and rural areas needs to be implemented from the beginning through the
regional system of economic development, some of which were carried out through
expansion and diversification of economic activity and trade in rural areas which
linked to the markets.
The National Medium-Term Development Plan/RPJMN 2010-2014 (Presidential
Regulation No. 5 of 2010) has also outlined policies that seek to reduce the
development gap between urban and rural areas. Inequality reduction is pursued
17
through the development of cities as drivers of national growth and regional and as
a dweller’ need-oriented place to stay, balanced by rural development through self-
reliance and rural appeal development. While the increase in economic activity
linkages between urban and rural areas pursued through the development of
commodity value chains, development of the sector/commodity based on the
characteristics and needs and local aspirations, supported by the processing
industry as the driving sector, and other supporting sectors, as well as the market
system development.
The Masterplan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development (MP3EI)
The Masterplan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic
Development (MP3EI), aims to accelerate the economic transformation of Indonesia
through three main strategies: (1) Economic potential development through
economic corridors (six economic corridors namely Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan,
Sulawesi, Bali, Nusa Tenggara, and Papua - Maluku Islands); (2) Strengthening the
national connectivity; and (3) Strengthening national human resources capability,
science and technology. The MP3EI emphasizes and accelerates the development of
cities and growth centres outside Java, thus also accelerates the function of National
Growth Centres throughout Indonesia. But MP3EI remains problems addressed to
the connectivity between its corridors with the surrounding areas including small
cities and rural areas.
2.2.3. National Policy on Housing and Infrastructures
National Housing Development Policy
The National Long Term Development Plan 2005-2025 has stated that the goal of
housing development is to meet the people’s housing needs and with the aim of
creating cities without slums, provision of housing as well as the necessary
supporting facilities and infrastructures. It is expected to be achieved through (1)
Implementation of housing development that is sustainable, adequate, decent,
affordable and supported by adequate and quality facilities and infrastructures
managed in a professional, credible, independent, and efficient manner; (2)
Implementation of housing development along with the setting up of supporting
self-sufficient infrastructures and facilities capable of generating financing derived
from the public and capital market, create employment, and promote even
distribution in development; and (3) Construction of housing along with supporting
18
facilities and infrastructures that takes into account environmental function and
balance.
While the National Policy on Public Housing Development (National Middle Term
Plan) stated that the goals of housing development are (1) To increase the provision
of decent and affordable housings for low income households; (2) To increase the
accessibility of low-income households to decent and affordable housing; (3) To
improve the quality of human settlement areas through provision of infrastructure,
basic facilities and adequate public utilities, integrated with housing development in
order to create cities without slums; (4) To strengthen the security of tenure
through facilitating pre-land certification and post-land certification for low-income
households, as well as standardizing building permit issuance; (5) To promote the
quality of planning and implementation in housing and human settlements
development; and (6) To promote primary housing markets and secondary
mortgage finance supported by long-term sustainable financing sources through
information dissemination and standardization of mortgages, as well as
development of required regulatory support.
Strategy for Infrastructure Development
Infrastructure mid-term Development Plan and Investment for Public Works
(RPIJM-PU), provides Master Plan for Infrastructure Development System for Public
Works which is based on the Strategy for Urban Infrastructure and Housing
Development (SPPIP). SPPIP, together with action plan for its strategic programs
(RPKPP) mainly develop as a basis for provincial, district and municipality for city
planning and budgeting. RPIJM is needed to synchronize plan, program, and budget
between national government, and local government, from all sources of budget.
Green City Development Program/Program Pengembangan Kota Hijau (P2KH)
Since 2011, Green Cities Program (P2KH) has been launched, and introduced8
attributes of Green Cities, which are Green Planning and Design, Green Open Space,
Green Community, Green Energy, Green Water, Green Waste, Green Transportation
dan Green Building. The 60 Cities and Districts/Municipalities develop this program
since then, with the facilitation of national and local government. The program aim
to develop sustainable cities, and have strong commitment for creating
progressively green cities as well as responses to mitigation and adaptation to the
climate change. P2KH is a form of acceleration of regional spatial plan of cities and
districts. One of its form is to create the 30% green space, with the proportion of
20% from public green space and 10 % form provate green space. The first three
19
attributes is a mandate for each city to be implemented on the ground, which arethe
masterplan of the green open space, the development of environment friendly of
urban forest, and green community and green campaign at the local level to explore
the inclusiveness and participation of the local community.
Sustainable Rural Area Development Program (P2KPB)
P2KPB is a rural program that is designed to give solution for the gaps between
urban and rural area, that is showed in one hand by the decrease of agriculture land,
and the increase of watershed damages and deforestation in rural areas, and the
other hand urbanization from villages to cities and unemployment in urban asreas.
The program also enforce the linkage of rural-urban in an equal and self supporting
condition.P2KPB program introduces rural area development which is based on
provision of basic infrastructure and food security and livelihoods. 14 districts has
been developed the program, strating with action plan and management institution,
and continuing with implementation.
Heritage City Management and Conservation Program (P3KP)
The P3KP program is a collaboration program of government, private and local
community. The 3 main focuses of P3KP are the road map for Indonesia Heritage
City and the World Heritage City, to drive Local Government Regulation on Heritage
City, and internalization of management institution in local government. Up to now,
26 cities and districts has joined the program, and facilitated in the form of its
conservation capacity, institution, and area rehabilitation.
2.3 The Role of Institutionsand Governance in Policy, Strategy, and Program Implementation
In order to implement those policies, strategies, and programs, role of institution
and governance are very important. Strategies to improve the institutional and good
governance are through (1) Increase cooperation among cities and regions, among
countries, and among governments, businesses and communities in improving the
capacity of local institutions, and (2 ) Increase the capacity of citizens to be involved
in the planning, development, monitoring, and evaluation of urban development.
But, currently in Indonesia, the efforts to improve the quality of institution and
governance in city/urban management are not implemented optimally yet.
As the example, the Jabodetabekjur area (Jakarta-Bogor-Tangerang-Jakarta, Depok-
Cianjur) which has been legitimized as a National Strategic Areas (KSN) in RTRWNis
Indonesia's largest urban areas, and in need of coordination and synchronization of
20
development among cities/ regencies related. Coordination and synchronization is
pursued through the establishment of the Development Cooperation Agency of
Jabodetabekjur (BKSP Jabodetabekjur), but until now the agency haven’t been able
to fulfill its function optimally to coordinate the development in Jabodetabekjur.
Some of problems are (1) there has not a common perception and priorities to
handle the development of Jabodetabekjur, (2) inadequate human resource capacity
in coordination and cooperation among regions, (3) lack of development
coordination between government institutions, community and the private sector,
(4) the absence of Jabodetabekjur Medium Term Development Plan which agreed by
all the stakeholders; and (5) the absence of budgetary support for development
cooperation across Jabodetabekjur.
There are already several regulations passed in order to improve the quality of
cooperation among cities and regions. To name a few are the Government
Regulation No. 50 of 2007 about Procedures of Regional Cooperation, Minister of
Home Affairs Regulation No. 22 of 2009 about Technical Procedures of Regional
Cooperation, and Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 69 of 2007 about Urban
Development Cooperation. However, those regulations are not yet implemented
optimally in conducting regional cooperation. Therefore, in order to improve the
quality of institutions and governance in urban areas development that aim to
improve the linkages of economic activities between the core city and surrounding
areas, many innovative efforts need to be implemented, such as (1) revitalization of
institutional forms of cooperation, especially regarding the authority of institutions
of cooperation, in order to bind all the stakeholders involved to comply with the
agreements that have been made, (2) create new regulations regarding the inter-
regional cooperation that is coordinated at the national level; and (3) create
financial support schemes for the cooperation agencies, from the central
government or from the contribution of local government within the scope of the
urban area.
21
3 |Examples of Successful Planning and Management at the Local Level
3.1 Solo – Street Vendor Management
Earlier, the existence of street vendors in Solo is disrupting traffic and city landscape,
polluting the environment. Past efforts to relocate the street vendors always failed
and often ended with conflicts between the local government and the street
vendors.In 2006 there were 5,817 street vendors, most from the surrounding area
and provinces. The vendors occupied sidewalks and public spaces and could be seen
on almost every street corner. The street vendors disrupted traffic and was
considered an eyesore to the city. Their waste also polluted the city.
Several policies were adopted for street vendor management: building better
communication, creating space (physical and legal recognition), education and
training for street vendors. The strategies included relocation, providing shelter,
tents and new vendor carts adopting a traditional Javanese style.
The site of Monumen 45 Banjarsari Park (referred to as Monjari) was chosen as
priority area as it had the largest number of street vendors (989 street vendors)
occupying the park. After more than 50 meetings between the Mayor and street
vendor representatives, an agreement was signed between the street vendors, who
were represented by 9 paguyuban or traditional associations). A traditional
procession of street vendors (referred to as kirab) symbolized the move to the new
marketplace and that the government is standing by its citizens.
Now, the street vendors (now referred to as traders) have improved their business.
The local government provided free trade permits, free use of kiosks, tax exemption
for first 6 months, support for promoting new market place, office space for traders’
cooperative, soft loans and training for the traders in business development.
The budget for this initiative was shared by the municipality’s annual budget and
the street vendors’ self-help budget. The supporting technique was given from the
local leading university and related government administrator. The three month
research was conducted to get the picture of the street vendors’ behavior and
ability; what was the best design for the relocation place and what training should
be given for them. The related city administrators are the parking division, street
vendor division, city planning division, and public markets authority were involved
22
intensively in planning, designing, budgeting, and coordinating the initiatives. The
local parliament also involved to give suggestion on the social investment strategy
and two-way consultative approach to minimize the possibility of social conflict.
The most significant result of this initiative was trust and acceptance of citizens, in
particular the informal sector. The government’s inclusive approach has provided
better access to all institutions and the opportunity to negotiate decisions
concerning the livelihood of the informal sector. The new vendor carts are more
attractive and create a unique traditional atmosphere for citizens and tourists.
The city has been able to increase revenue from street vendors. In addition, they
have been able to gain back the Monjari urban park. New trees were planted, areas
for children to play were built and the public could enjoy a greener and fresher
environment. The success of Monjari relocation has set an example of good
governance and better street vendor management. The city has benefited not only
from higher revenue, but also more beautiful and livable city.
The initiative was legitimized by a new city mayor decrees and City bylaws on
guidelines to improve the condition of street vendors. The initiative is also enforcing
the regulations, such as:
Road Traffic Act no.38/2004
Surakarta City bylaw no. 29 / 1981 regarding Beautiful and Clean City
Surakarta City bylaw no.8/1988 regarding Building Construction Permit.
Surakarta City bylaw no.8/1993 regarding City Spatial Plan 1993-2013
(RUTRK)
Surakarta City bylaw no. 4/ 1995 regarding City Green way Spatial Plan
(RUTRHK)
Surakarta City bylaw no. 8/1995 on Supervision of Street Vendors
Surakarta City bylaw no.6/2005 on Traffics and Urban Transportation
Surakarta Mayor’s Decree no.660.1/26/III/1988 regarding Improvement and
Preservation BERSERI (Clean, Health, Neat and Beautiful City) Program
Surakarta Mayor’s Decree no.2/2001 regarding Guidelines to implement
Improvement Programs for Street Vendors
The initiative had introduced a new way in formulating public policies by applying
more consultative and participatory approaches.
23
3.2 Surabaya Clean and Green Program
Surabaya is the second largest city in Indonesia and one of the major hub that
supports central Indonesia. The population in 2011 was over 3 million people, in an
area 326 square kilometers. The city consists of 31 kecamatan (districts) and 160
kelurahan (sub-districts), with over 1400 neighborhoods (rukunwarga/RW).
Waste has been a major problem in Surabaya since 2001. The closing down of the
KeputihDiposal area (2001) resulted in the piling of garbage at 155 temporary
disposal sites. The appalling situation convinced the Surabaya Municipality, NGOs
and citizens that they need to start dealing with the problem and finding solutions
together. After identifying that the main source of waste in Surabaya came from
households, the Surabaya Municipality decided to implement a community-based
waste management program, also known as the Green and Clean Initiative.
Since 2004 with the support of local NGO’s, the Surabaya Muncipality started an
community education program about waste management. The substance of the
education program included how to sort organic and non-organic waste, how to
make use of waste – applying the principles of Reduce, Re-use, Recycle (3R).
Participants of the training course receive a free composting basket. This small
movement began to gain popularity among the people of Surabaya.
In 2005 the Surabaya City Government created several competitions to popularize
and bring the program to wider level. There are several categories in the ‘Green and
Clean’ competition, which are (1) Waste management (waste sorting,
processing/composting, waste facilities and waste monitoring); (2) Waste recycling
(creativity, artistic and economic value); (3) Cleanliness (street and environment
cleanliness, sewage and drainage condition); (4) Greenery (biodiversity, icon-
plantation, compost usage); and (5) Toilet/bathroom condition: cleanliness,
existence of mosquito larva, knowledge of community in dengue fever prevention.
Several actors were crucial for this initiative in the early stages and had significant
roles and contributions, they are:
The Kitakyushu City provided knowledge (by sharing experiences, methods and
technology), tools (for instance Takakura composting basket) and technical
assistance (research assistance);
The Household Skills Training Organization (PKK, abbreviation of Pendidikan
Kesejahteraan Keluarga– a local Women’s Organization) to promote the
community based waste management program to the local communities;
The local NGO’s namely Bangun Pertiwi, Pusdakota, Sahabat Lingkungan,
Yayasan Mitra Alam Indonesia, Tunas Hijau, Bina Lingkungan dan Tata Kelola
24
Indonesia, Tirta Buana, and Bina Mandiri, provide information to local
communities regarding waste management and assist the local community
during the implementation process as well as monitoring the progress;
The environment cadres play role as information provider to the member of the
community on how to manage household waste (e.g. how to use takakura
basket, composting bins, etc) and keep their environment green and clean.
The media (JawaPos) and Unilever Care Foundation become partners of the
municipality of Surabaya in establishing several prestigious competitions,
Results Achieved
The competition proved to be a success, turning Surabaya to one of the benchmarks
in waste management in Indonesia. In 2007, there has been 18.6% reduction of
waste transported to final disposal area compared to the years before the Green and
Clean Initiative was taken. The number of waste was reduced to 1,480 tons.
Furthermore, the community based waste management program has increased
community awareness and cohesiveness.
Surabaya has also received international awards that acknowledge their
achievements in improving the environment:
1. EGA (Energy Globe Award), Austria 2005 : Water & Environment Category
2. Green Apple & Green Organization (London) 2007
3. Category Good practice in Dubai Award for Best Practices in Improving the Living Environment (2008)
4. UNESCAP (United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Asia Pacific) Award 2007 for Urban Environment Improvement
3.3 Community Based Waste Management in DesaTegalKerta, Denpasar Barat
Tegal Kertha is the place of the most densely and oldest community housing
“Monang Maning” in a village, lay on the center of Denpasar City. It covers 35 Ha in 8
smaller areas with 15.282 inhabitants.
Generally, the community of Tegal Kertha realize the importance of “cleaness”, as
the way on their community self help activity for each month. They also haveself
help system of garbage carrier, house to house, with the help of local government.
The Monang Maning community house it’s the biggest producer of garbage in
Denpasar, which can threaten the healthiness of Tegal Kertha community.
25
To overcome the problem, the waste management is initiated, aiming to increase
participation of the community in a friendly and sustainability environment; to
reduce trash in TPS/TPA; and to increase the quality of housing environment in
Tegal Kertha by economically utilization waste management. The program involves
the trash pickers through a collaborated business group (KUB), household (KPL) by
composting at a house scale, and waste management at area scale in aeco center.
The role of Bali Fokus/BORDA Indonesia and JFGE (Japan Fund Global
Environment) through KITA (Kitakyushu International Techno-cooperative
Association), is important to build the waste management depo (Eco-center). It is
built in Padang Sambian Village in Denpasar Barat to develop an integrated housing
waste management .
The collection of waste at the household scale reduces 25-30 % of household
trashes. But because it is only 7% of MonangManing household implemented the
program, it is still needed to be recognized and disseminated to the other
community.
26
4 | Future Directions for Urban Planning and Management in Indonesia
4.1 Preparing National Urban Development Policy and Strategy
Currently, the draft of National Urban Development Policy and Strategy (NUDPS)
has been formulated. NUDPS is a long-term urban development policy that outlines
the direction of urban development policy in National Long Term Development Plan
(RPJPN) and National Spatial Plan (RTRWN). NUDPS is intended to be able to put
the city as a base of development (urban-led development) and reduce the
development gap between cities (decentralized concentration).
The vision of the national urban development as outlined on NUDPS is to realize the
Sustainable and Competitive cities. The sustainable and competitive city encompass
livable city, smart city, and green economy city.
Considering the current position of Indonesian cities that is fulfilled only 30 percent
of its minimum service standard, the stages of targets to be achieved is first to fulfill
the minimum service standard, next is to realize the National Urban System, and
finally to realize the sustainable and competitive cities.
The target of National Urban Development Policy and Strategy to achieve
Sustainable and Competitive Cities is determined in 2 phases of long term
development plan. Assuming that it will be implemented at the third medium term
development plan at the on going long term development plan, it is targeted that the
fulfillment of minimum service standard will be reached in 2025, the National Urban
System will be realized in 2040, and the Sustainable and Competitive Cities will be
realized in 2050.
The main and generic policies for all cities are : (1) Promote human and social-
culture development in urban development; (2) Stimulate cities and their
surrounding areas to be able to develop local economy and improve fiscal capacity;
(3) Push ahead the fulfillment of the needs of urban infrastructure, facilities, and
utilities as well as the provision of housing and settlements that are decent,
affordable, in accordance to the characteristics of the community, surrounding
environment and urban typology; (4) Stimulate the establishment of compact cities
supported by an efficient utilization of urban space and an equitable urban land
usage; (5) Stimulate cities in increasing the quality of environmental health and in
27
preparing to encounter climate change as well as adaptive to the possibility of
disaster; (6) Improve human resource and institutional capacity, and apply the good
governance principles, as well as encourage the emergence of visionary leadership.
While for some cities, such as metropolitan and large cities which has its own
characteristic also have to address other agenda, the policies are (1) Increase the
integration of spatial and transportation planning, and mixed-use development; and
(2) Improve integrated management between metropolitan and large cities and its
surrounding areas. metropolitan areas and surrounding. Whereas for the medium
and small cities, the policies are (1) Improve local economic development and the
linkages between the economic activities in medium and small cities with the
surrounding rural areas; and (2) Improve compliance with basic public services
infrastructure.
While the policies to realize the National Urban System are : (1) Enhance the cities’
role as drivers of growth of the local, regional and national economy that is climate
resilient, as well as drivers for the improvement of people's welfare and poverty
alleviation ("urban-led development policy"); and (2) Spread out urban growth
centers to address the development imbalances between regions and ensure urban-
rural relations that are mutually beneficial (decentralized concentration).
4.2Strengtheningthe Capacity of Local Government
4.2.1. Good Governance in Urban Management
The key to dramatic and continual improvement of urban development is the
knowledge and understanding of dynamic situations. Knowledge and understanding
come from having continual information about conditions, impacts, outputs, and
actions related to urban development from the citizens, clients, researchers and
government agencies. By evaluating such information all parties are able to take
timely, appropriate and synchronized action, according to their responsibilities.
Implementation is no longer based on the traditional budget cycle that starts with a
proposal for an intervention, and finishes with an evaluation. It is based on a cycle
that starts with monitoring and evaluation, as the basis for updating rolling
improvement plans based on an assessment of the best alternative action.
28
Monitoring and evaluation becomes the common starting point for :
1. Program managers to continually improve performance by providing better
value to citizens and customers, based on current policies
2. Spatial and economic development planners to continually supply policy-
makers with professional advice on urban development issues
3. Bupati and Walikota with support from their local parliament (DPRD) to
continually provide the best value of service by improving the policies and
funding for urban development and urban services
4. Governors with support from their local parliament (DPRD) and their
apparatus to continuallyguide and support urban development within their
province
5. National government to assurethe national interest of sustainable urban
development with equity
6. National parliaments (DPR and DPD) to assure the accountability of
government in guiding urban development, to improve policies that affect
urban development, and to allocate the necessary resources effectively.
Another thing needed is a clear division of roles and responsibilities of urban
development between the national government, the local government in provincial
level, and the local government in city/regency level.
The main roles of the national government are (i) to coordinate between the line
ministries, (2) to enforce professional development required for the urban
development management, and (3) to prioritize urban development in the
upcoming national medium term development plan.
The main roles of the local government in provincial level are (i) to prepare the
urban development policy and strategy together with the city/regency government
within the scope of the province, as part of their medium term development plan,
(ii) to enforce and manage the urban development within the scope of the province
in a fair and sustainable manner, and (iii) the local parliament in provincial level to
monitor and assess the urban development comprehensively and report it to the
governor.
While the main roles of the local government in city/regency level are (i) to prepare
the urban development policy and strategy as part of its medium term development
plan, and (ii) to focused on better public service delivery.
29
4.2.2. Capacity BuildingIn Housing and Infrastructure Development
Capacity building for the local government is very much needed to improve the
competency and independency of the local government in developing the
infrastructure which are enviromental friendly, encouraging the private sector’s
role through conducive regulation and business climate, and encouraging the role
and participation of community in every step of the way.
The priority goals of the capacity building are (1) improvement of public service
quality, (2) improvement of performance accountability, and (3) realize the clean
and corruption-collusion-nepotism free government.
4.2.2 Awards to Encourage Innovative Governance
Awards are being given to the local government in various aspects. One of the
awards is Assessment of Local Government Performance in Public Works/Penilaian
Kinerja Pemerintah Daerah Bidang Pekerjaan Umum (PKPD-PU). The award is
divided into 5 aspects, which are spatial planning, water resources, roads and
bridges, human settlements, and construction services. Awards for every aspect are
given to the local government in provincial, city, and regency level.
30
5 |Proposal for Guiding Principles for the Asia Pacific
5.1. CityNet
CityNet is a forum that is built to increase the quality of sustainable urban and
housing development, by networking collaboration between cities (The Regional
Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements). CITYNET
is formed based on the need of cities in Asia-Pacificthat was stated in the1st
Regional Congress of Local Authorites for the Development of Human Settlement in
the Asia Pacific, in Nagoya, and supported by UNESCAP, UNDP, UN-HABITAT,
Nagoya City Government and other 27 members. CityNetactivities includes
knowledge and experience sharing, access to information and sources, acceleration
of sustainable city development globally, and technical collaboration. Until now, 22
city government has joined CityNet.
City networking need to be developed progressively between cities in Asia Pacific,
tobe benefitted by other cities in all countries. The city networking needs to include
information sharing about basic data/profile of cities, urban development progress,
best practices, and other valuable information related to urban development.
5.3. Data and Information Centre
A regional management information centers need to be set up to develop
networking activities including establishing cooperation with relevant networks,
conducting training, and follow-up actions in the Asia Pacific region.
5.3. Sister City
Cooperation undertaken with foreign parties can be made through the Sister City
scheme that sought benefits for both parties working together.
Minister of Home Affairs Regulation 3/2008, on Guidelines for Local Government
Cooperation With The Foreign Parties has set the principles of cooperation with
foreign parties, namely (i) equality, (ii) mutualbenefit, (iii) not disrupt political
stability and economic security, (iv) respect the sovereignty of the Republic of
31
Indonesia, (v) maintain environmental sustainability, (vi) support gender
mainstreaming, and (vii) in accordance with the regulations.
Currently, at least 47 municipalities of 33 provinces in Indonesia have Sister City
partnerships. Various policies and programs have been done by the central
government, so the local government will be able to leverage these relationships in
order to stimulate growth and regional development.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has established the city of Surabaya as accomplished
and successful city in implementing Sister City cooperation. One of the successful
Sister City activities done by Surabaya is the Community Outreach Program (COP).
This activity managed to bring in students from six countries, namely the
Netherlands, Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan and India, which is also associated
with the Surabaya-Busan Sister City program.
However, some ways need to be done in order to improve the quality of sister city
partnership :
1. Improve coordination between the relevant institutions in the implementation
of the sister city cooperation to keep the consistency in the formulation of the
work program in accordance with the areas of cooperation.
2. Increase institutional capacity in managing the sister city cooperation.
3. Information sharing of cities’ potential that can easily accessed by cities across
Indonesia. Thus opening up opportunities for cities in Indonesia for
international collaboration.
4. Sustainable city government's commitment to support the continuity of
cooperation sister city.
5. Efficient funding especially to support the implementation of a realistic work
program.
6. Increase outreach to the public about sister city cooperation, to enhance public
participation in the implementation of the sister city partnership.
7. Set up an organizational unit in each city with the functions to manage the sister
city cooperation.