Agencies in Planning Jakarta: The Capital Megacity Challenge Aryani Sari Rahmanti s0205783 a-H025Ra-0910 . Institutional Aspects of Spatial Planning . Prof.Frank Moulaert. Dr.Loris Servillo MaHS/MaUSP 2009-2010. ASRO. KU Leuven. Belgium
Abstract This paper discloses the correlated institutions’ role for spatial planning in Special Capital Territory of Jakarta (Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta), Indonesia, that is run under the legal basis of democracy system and decentralized governmen. Possessing a distinctive political geography as the capital of the nation which governance is directly positioned under the highest authority of national level governance structure, Jakarta is significantly influenced by the national circumstances. Thus, to understand the planning systems in Jakarta and relating them with theoretical framework of planning tradition and philosophy, it is necessary to initially investigate the former governance structures and spatial planning from national to local level as the city has undergone with multifaceted records of power regimes, urban planning and development evolution. The paper will as well unfold the mechanism of regional spatial plan endorsement at provincial level to observe how the related institutions and other agencies operates to treat and facilitate the particular needs that Jakarta and its surrounding (Jabotabek) encounter through planning initiatives and strategies, demonstrated with a study case of North Jakarta Coastal Development. To conclude, a reflection between the planning ideology and performance from institutional standpoint, which is considered as the shaping of spatial planning character in Jakarta, will end the paper. Content Abstract
1
1. 2.
2
3.
4. 6. 7.
Introduction: Contextual Overview From Batavia-Oost Indies to Jakarta-Indonesia: History of Politics and Spatial planning at National and Provincial Level in A Nutshell 2.1. Colonial Governance (20th C to 1940’s) 2.2 Prior and early independence time (1940’s-1950’s) 2.3. Globalization-neo liberalism influence and New Order regime (1965 until 1998) Democratic Planning for a Larger Territory: Positions of Multifaceted Institutions for Nowadays Urban Planning and Developments in Jakarta 3.1. Reestablishment of the New Laws and Institutions 3.2. Operational Planning Framework and Roles of the Institutions 3.3. Provincial Spatial Planning Case Study: North Jakarta Coastal Development Concluding Remark: A reflection between ideology, performance, and impact of spatial planning in Jakarta Bibliography Appendix Appendix I Institutions for RTRWN and RTRWP Appendix II Post reformation government structure Appendix III History of Political Regimes, Governance Structure, Related Laws, and Spatial Planning Acts
4
8
12 13 14
1
1. Introduction: Contextual Overview “Spatial and environmental planning …is not just a response to problems. It has the potential actively to shape, or frame, the ongoing flow of events and attitudes…It contributes to the enterprise of building up institutional capacity in urban regions, through ways of thinking and ways of organizing over issues to do with co-existence in shared spaces…”(Healey, 1997). To perceive the institutional role in a spatial planning, it is necessary to understand the system to which extent the multilevel spatial planning is coherently performed through the strata of powers distributed in each organization or agency as they are embedded with the policy decree and operations, in which it is run under a justifiable political umbrella, as planning system is ‘systems of law and procedure that set the ground rules for planning practice’ (Healey, 1997). Spatial planning in Indonesia was actually rooted in the establishments of the ancient kingdoms through feudal practices strict to traditional norms and cultural values (Hudala, Woltjer, 2007) but without considerable impact to the spatial formation and development and systemic organizations. Indonesian planning system was legitimately introduced in first years of 20th C when the whole nation was under the Dutch supremacy1 bringing fundamental change toward the governance system in both nation and the lower governmental levels. Subsequently to the political situation occurring in the country, amongst the early Indonesian cities, Batavia, the former name for Special Capital Territory of Jakarta (Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta), was the center of the country’s administration receiving the greatest effect of the new national governmental structure formation and laws implementation (Van Roosmalen, 2004). Jakarta endured many stages of urban form progressions for centuries. When it flourished as a trading port city by the edge of Ciliwung River on a fertile delta plain around 14th C, nobody could foresee that the small river colony would drastically transform into the largest city holding the most significant responsibility for the country. Batavia in the Dutch occupation time underwent a big step of town planning indicated by some development executions guided with more developed regulations and specific masterplans. In the beginning of post independence era when the nation entered the governmental form as a republic nation, the colonial town planning system continued with power transition from the Dutch party. Later on in Indonesian modern cities’ period, although the planning frameworks were much more upgraded, due to external factor such as neo liberalism and globalization pressure, Jakarta started to be rapidly urbanized, until its territory expanded radically equivalent as a province, enveloping 7.659,02 sqkm area2.
1
Through trading activities, the Europeans intruded in the country since 14th C. Java island itself surrendered to Dutch in the early of 17th C letting the company trade, VOC, take over the native governance and run a monopolistic economy, while some parts of the lands in Indonesia were still under Portuguese colonialism. After the glorious era in 19th C, VOC fell to bankruptcy. Transitional power occurred from Dutch to British authority, but immediately in the early 20th C, the Dutch succeeded to regain its victory and started to expand its imperialism territories not only in Java and Sumatra, but also to eastern part in Indonesia. During this century, most of the boundaries were defined. The process of political, military, and economic integration concentrated in Java Island begun. From this history trace, we can agree that the legitimation of the spatial planning and planning system only occurred in Indonesia once the politic was already settled. This is the reason why the earlier colonial towns established before the 20thC is not considered as spatial planning practice in the country. 2 Keputusan Gubernur Nomor 1227 Tahun 1989, Governor Act no. 1227 year 1989 about the administrative and geographic region of Jakarta. 2
Jakarta hosts more than 8,96 million inhabitants3, distributed unequally within five municipalities (kotamadya): North, West, South, and East Jakarta; and Thousand Islands regency4 (kabupaten administratif) (See Fig.1). The governance is run by a central power under a governor holding a direct responsibility under the leader of the nation with Ministry of Interior Affairs5 as their conduit. The power of DKI Jakarta governor overshadows the position of the mayors from each municipality/regency. Though each of them has its own administrative systems, but, as no city council is present in the planning system, they have less autonomy compare to the other provinces in Indonesia (Cybriwsky and Ford, 2001).
Fig. 1 Municipality and regency division in Jakarta. (Source: RTRW 2010 Jakarta, redrwan by author)
Jakarta benefits heavily from service of financial, trade, logistics, and manufacturing industries, in which each service is allocated in specific area corresponding to the government development plan. The outskirt of Jakarta as its metropolitan area (See Fig.1) known as Jabotabek (Jakarta, Bogor, Tangerang, and Bekasi) is part of the regional planning objective. With the three additional satellite cities whose level comparable to a district (kabupaten), a double total population number of 20,159,655 people within an extended ground of 6418 sqkm area (Cybriwsky and Ford, 2001) are reached. Jakarta is booming with its unique phenomenon of contrast and multi faceted cityscapes emergence: the formal cityscape formed by city regulations through architects and urban planner or designer; and, the non formal cityscape which is accumulatively formed without formal regulations through informal sector. These characteristics reveal a real reflection of social, cultural, economy, and politic manners of the city (Danisworo, 3
The number represents the inhabitants within the city itself. The population increases to double number if the agglomeration area is also covered. Although the population is annually increasing, It was reported that the numbers of population growth has decreased due to suburbanization. Source: http://www.jakarta.go.id/v70/index.php/en/tentang-jakarta/demografi-jakarta 4 Special Capital Territory of Jakarta consists of five ‘inland’ municipalities: North, East, West, East, and Central Jakarta; and a regency Thousand Islands, which covers the several small islands in Java Sea. Both municipality and regency have the same position in the governmental structure and planning system. 5 As a Special Capital Region, local governmental position of Jakarta is similar to provincial level. Hence, compare to the other 32 provinces in the country, the position of Jakarta is marked with a clear difference to be directly under the central executive body. Thus, this situation gives greater intervention effect on the spatial planning of the region. http://www.jakarta.go.id/ 3
2002). The city as well battles serious problems of being overpopulated, insufficient public/social housing provision, depleted transportation system, limited employment availability, annual flooding, and poor environmental quality (Cybriwsky and Ford, 2001) despite the vivid forthcoming opportunities for its international reputation in South East Asia region. By grasping the context of Jakarta as the country’s headquarters with its special political status and as an expanding metropolitan ground, it is interesting to examine how the spatial planning is conducted for an enormous territory dimension through the mediation of appointed institutions, which will lead us to know how far the contextual predicaments and prospects are incoorperated within the planning framework. 2. From Batavia-Oost Indies to Jakarta-Indonesia: History of Politics and Spatial planning at National and Provincial Level in A Nutshell The practice of urban planning has been concerned with making public or political decisions more rational (Rukmana, 2010). Following the transition period, the Indonesian planning system has become more complex thus requiring a comprehensive explanation of its persistent as well as changing characteristics (Hudallah, 2010). The chronological planning systems in Indonesian cities went concurrently with the spatial development and planning framework in Indonesian major cities, which can be classified into four periods according to the political and supremacy situations: Colonial Governance (which will focus on the colonial period since early 20thC only); Early independence time when the country suffered from a premature governance; Intermediate time during Soekarno year until the late 1970’s; time of Neo liberal and globalization influence until the 1998 reformation throughout Soeharto era. The era of post reformation affected the former government to be reshuffled and reestablished. The spatial planning will be classified as another period and discussed in the next chapter. 2.1. Colonial Governance (20th C to 1940’s) Early Indonesian towns of the first foremost kingdoms (from 4thC to 16th C) esteemed a clear inland city structure derived from traditional values and cosmological philosophy without an implication of a systematic planning. The Dutch invaded the country as VOC and it was shortly followed by conquest running the country under colonial administration6. After the two century era of Indische towns7 development, including Batavia, the insight of spatial planning system was introduced in Indonesia. In early 1900’s, three principals from Ethical Policy were generally implemented to raise the indigenous population prosperity due to their labor and resources exploitation (Silver, 2008). This policy was manifested in the Decentralization Planning Act decree (Decentralisatiewet) in 1903 in which an early decentralized planning system was formally initiated, allowing the establishment of the Local Council Ordinance (Locale Radenordonnantie) owing the responsibility to pilot the rules for the local governments. The local governments were very much involved into the development in planning of their territories which was the first steps to the first systematic spatial planning in Indonesia (Van
6
Subgovernance in Indonesia’s land was run under the power of governors which was directly positioned under the imperial level in the country of origin, the Netherlands. 7 Towns with spatial and architecture articulations of Indonesia-Dutch culture mixture. 4
Roosmalen, 2004). Larger Batavia was planned with the initiations of municipal departments delivering the 1910 and 1918 masterplans which purpose was European residential quarters (Silver, 2008) and flood drainage canals8. The enactment of Nuisance Ordinance 1926 in the first quarter of the twentieth century indicates another phase of spatial planning for the country, which is believed as the naissance of planning system in Indonesia (Hudallah and Woltjer, 2007). Almost at the same time, Thomas Karsten as a town planner whose projects were mostly carried out in Java from 1915-1940 permeated the Indonesian spatial planning with his new suggestion of town planning ‘package’ that could be applied by the local authorities. The autonomy granted at the municipality level (gemeenten) eased the municipal cooperations in Java, but with restricted authority. His writing in 1935 as well highlighted the centrality role of planners to coordinate all the city development activities, as a technical subject with assemblage, organizations, and cooperation (Silver, 2008). Subsequently, Batavia was run under the municipal government rather than the central government (Silver, 2008). As the area of Batavia expanded as a result of larger administration function demand for a new mayor as a non elected advisory body, an executive council (college van wethonders) to complement the existing legislative council (gemeeteraad) was created (Silver, 2008). Furthermore, various issues assistance (such as industrial zones, housing, rights on land, urban extensions9) requested by local councils were responded by Batavia government with the mediation of decentralization advisors (Van Roosmalen, 2004). 2.2 Prior and early independence time (1940’s-1950’s) Before the sovereignty transfer and during the Japanese occupation, the planning was stagnant as the condition was instable due to the civic and second world war. Only after the proclamation of Indonesian independence in 1945 the administrative configuration was necessary to be revised (Van Roosmalen, 2004). As a democratic nation upon the Amendment of the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945), Indonesia applies the politic principal of power separations trias politica between legislative, executive and judicial bodies governing its 27 provinces10 (See Fig.3). Executive body with its presidential cabinet and non departmental agencies and legislative body had a direct relation for spatial planning issues. The first planning regulatory framework was inaugurated through the promulgation of Town Planning Ordinance (Staadvorming Ordonatie/ SVO) in 1949, almost twenty years later after the decree of Nuisance Ordinance. The regulation known as Stadsvormings 8
Flood management was taken care by Burgelijke Openbare Werken (BOW) since 1854. This institution was the embryo of Ministry of Public Work. 9 Kampung (urban village) improvement programs were one of Thomas Karsten’s planning agendas with his social philosophy to react toward the decreasing quality of the indigenous people housing settlements. His planning framework was as well a reaction against the prevailing planning which character was obviously racialist. He as well broke the inaccessibility of the educated indigenous people to participate at planning organizations 10 The legislative authority is under the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) that consists of two bodies namely the Parliament (DPR) composing of members of political parties and the Regional Representative Council (DPD) composing of representatives from each province in Indonesia. MPR is the highest nation institution. Formerly the MPR consisted of the parliament members and group representatives. Since 2004, the MPR has become a bi-chamber parliament with the DPD as second chamber. The executive institution is centralized under the president, vice president, and the cabinet of ministers. The cabinet is a presidential cabinet in which the ministers report to the president and do not represent the political parties. The judicial institution, since the reform era, is administered by the Supreme Court (MA) including the administration of the judges (National Government of Indonesia, 2005). 5
Verordening (SVV) was implemented in the same year (Dirdjosisworo, 1978; Winarso, 2002; Hudallah and Woltjer, 2007). Still affected by the idea from Thomas Karsten, the urban planning program majorly contained urban housing improvement mostly in Java as the problem of urbanization has appeared. This first integrated planning system was continued to be applied by the Indonesian government to all regions included regions outside Java (Hudallah and Woltjer, 2007). In Djakarta, when the highest conflict happened between the two countries, Prof. Van Romondt produced a scheme for new satellite city, Kebayoran Baru. One year after its approval, first president Soekarno created an advisory board to merge Kebayoran Baru as part of the capital as an expanded metropolis ‘Djakarta Raya’ (Greater Djakarta)11. For this planning, Ministry of Public Works and Engineering was refounded to guide the future development of the capital of the newly independent Indonesia. Several initiaves provincial plans by the governors were subordinated to the Ministry of Public Works with Soekarno’s supervision. But later on, as the function of city administrators between Indonesia and Jakarta was not clarified in a legal structure (Silver, 2008), this system went oppositely with the dominancy from Soekarno who ambitiously fashioned and modernized Jakarta to be equally mapped as any other world cities. His ruling was the generator for the extreme transformation and urban ailing of Jakarta as there was no appreciation toward the actual locality problems of urbanization and water management. His ruling ended after the New Politic Order took place in 1965. 2.3. Globalization-Neo liberalism influence and New Order regime (1965 until 1998) New Order regime maintained the governmental structure from Soekarno (See Fig. 2). After SVO/SVV enactment, there were no legal frameworks for spatial planning as legal structure of the administrative relationship between Indonesia’s central government and Jakarta remained uncertain. Between 1976 and 1992, the legal frameworks were set up to regulate particular areas including the Greater Jakarta Area (Keppres 13/1976), although all of them were presidential acts (Rukmana, 2009). Suharto continued Soekarno’s scheme and political character, but with more attention at infrastructural projects. In October 1992, parliament delivered the Spatial Planning Law 24/1992 that defined and guided the plan-making process (proses perencanaan tata ruang), plan implementation (pemanfaatan ruang), and development control (pengendalian pemanfaatan ruang) for national, provincial, and local levels with its specific hierarchical spatial plans: General Spatial Plan (RTRW), Detail Spatial Plan (RDTR), and Detail Engineering Design (RTRK) (See Fig.3), with allowance of citizen participation. The spatial plans are included in the bigger framework of national planning which regulation, position, hierarchy, and budgeting can be seen in Fig.4. All level of the government was required to make spatial plans for directing the development in their respective regions.
11
Independence era was the time when area of Jakarta was larger, that the level did not longer stay as municipal but provincial level. Concept for a greater Djakarta was prepared with its forth main agendas: concentric layers for Djakarta development with ring highways, garden city metropolitan area, and green belt limiting urban development (Silver, 2008). 6
Fig. 2 Political structure in Indonesia during New Order (1965-1998)
Since 1980’s, external forces of globalization process and neo-liberalism12 has permeated the planning system as an economic regime with market oriented law requesting more efficient governance and economic health improvement. This means the decentralization system which is more demanded. It retreats central government’s role to the lowest possible tiers, in which democratic process and participation are more possible to be more encouraged.
Fig. 3. Spatial plan system in Indonesia based on the Law 24/1992 (Source: Hudallah and Wojtjer, 2007)
12
These neoliberal ideas are divided into three main aspects: (1) efficient government; (2) rule of law; and, (3) decentralisation. In the context of the increasingly globalised world society, it is argued that such neoliberal ideas are more easily transfered across nations (European Commission, The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, 1997; Hajer & Zonneveld, 2000; Healey & Williams, 1993; Sanyal, 2005 Hudallah, 2010). 7
Fig.4. Spatial plan system in Indonesia based on the Law 24/1992 (Source: Winarso, 2000)
In Jakarta, in relation to Spatial Planning Law 24/1992, a single planning board at provincial level (Bappeda) formulates the development plans for the provincial level itself (RTRW Provinsi) and the municipality level (RTRW Kotamadya). This includes the related environmental management plans (AMDAL), administered by the Local Environmental Impact Agency (Bappedalda) in the respective municipalities. 3. Democratic Planning for a Larger Territory: Positions of Multifaceted Institutions for Nowadays Urban Planning and Developments in Jakarta 3.1. Reestablishment of the New Laws Economic crisis and 1998 revolution had such a huge impact to the governmental structure in the country. All governmental organizations were reformed and reestablished as the nation entered a new phase of political identity13 (Appendix III). Spatial Planning Law 24/1992 was no longer applicable, particularly in relation to the actual aim of democratization and decentralization atmospheres (Hudallah and Wotjer, 2007). As per 2001, the government structure in Indonesia has altered from a centralized into a highly decentralized structure. The decentralization is strengthened with the Regional Administration Act 2004, where the administration affairs have been reassigned to the provincial and local level. It provides an opportunity for them to play a part in developing plans for their own cities and rural hinterlands (DFID, 2000). In 2007, Spatial Planning Law 26/2007 was formulated and implemented with validation toward some major issues unmentioned in the previous ones, which is the concept of TURBINLAKWAS (management, guidance, implementation, and supervision) from planning process to execution; more strict spatial planning control through zoning system; incentive and disincentive mechanism; and law punishment for improper planning process and implementation. The issuance is as well anticipated to correspond with the enthusiasm of Indonesian people for more transparent and accountable system of government (Rukmana, 2009).
13
The New Order Era (1965-1998) ended with the second president Soeharto resignation. In 30 years during his leadership, the government actors performed with disgraced moralities of corruption, nepotism, collusion and bribery. Post reformation era started with political revolution and reinvention of the new identity. Government bodies were re-examined and independent supervisory bodies were created to monitor the government activities, particularly the funding issues. 8
Fig. 5 Spatial planning system at national level (Source: MLIT-Japan,, 2010)
With the change of the former law in 2007, the government released Spatial Planning Act No. 26/2008 to revise the national general eral spatial plan (RTRWN) procedure covering20 year period, with a regular review every five years (Fig.5). The national spatial plan as well points out the decentralization system as it should include guidelines for effective and efficient planning processes to achieve achieve the stated objectives of the plan. plan Lastly in 2010, the most recent Spatial Plan Act 15/2010 was issued to reinforce the spatial planning procedure. There is a strategic development framework for the purposes of creating a national land strategy. The framework seeks to achieve security, economic viability, and sustainability in the use of land in this archipelagic country, in addition to national cohesiveness and stability (MLIT, 2010). 3.2. Mechanism of Provincial Spatial Planning and Roles of the Institutions As mentioned entioned in the previous chapter above, there are three kinds of spatial plans in Indonesia in relation with the governance levels: RTRWN (national); RTRW provincial; and RTRW municipal/ regent (See Fig. 3 to refer). Formulation of RTRWN originates from na national tional strategic development planning by Bappenas, Bappenas but in more technical manner. The related ministries and non departmental agencies are responsible for the technical planning, including RTRWN itself that is formulated by the Ministry of Public Works. Works Technical consultations scheduled between these institutions will del deliver Draft of Spatial Planning presented to several organizations not included in the executive body (such as Indonesian ndonesian Forum for the Environment or WALHI, AMDAL, etc), NGOs, private sectors, and heads hea of community through a public consultancy. The next stage after the approval from the public is the endorsement from National Spatial Planning Coordination Board (BKPRN). (BKPRN) The draft will be submitted and evaluated by House of Representatives (DPR) for approval ap before it is finally commended as a Government Law (PP). Likewise the RTRW at national scale, provincial level RTRW is processed with almost the same procedure. However, since the autonomy 2004, the service from central government (in this matter is i intervention from Ministry of Public Works) is no longer required. required Consequently, each governor or mayor from provincial and 9
municipality levels have tendency make their own decision and each of them may have different government organization structure and as well as the configurations of planning institutions. This signifies, that, although the formulation of regional RTRW is normally initiated by the Regional Planning Board (Bappeda), the governor or the mayor can appoint another institution.
Fig.6. Mechanism of Provincial RTRW in Jakarta (Source: INA Benelux Chamber of Commerce, 2009, redrawn by author)
Differed from other province in Indonesia as a special region, Jakarta’s RTRW is prepared only by provincial level institutions such as Bappeda and DKI Jakarta Spatial Planning Board (Dinas Tata Ruang DKI Jakarta) under the framework of National Spatial Plan (See Fig.6). However, after the draft plan is completed, regardless of the involvement of any institutions, it should be followed up for evaluation from National Spatial Planning Coordination Board (BKPRN). A recommendation from the governor is required with the intention that the draft will pass the authorization from Minister of Public Works through the BKPRN representative division within the ministry body. Finally, the draft will be delivered to Provincial Level House of Representatives (DPRD I) and issued as Local Government Act (Perda). 3.2. Provincial Spatial Planning Case Study: North Jakarta Coastal Development A study case of North Jakarta Coastal Development project as part of Provincial RTRW DKI Jakarta will be analyzed as a dialogue between the idealism and practice of planning. The project itself has been through five presidential regimes (from New Order to Post Reformation), three generations of DKI Jakarta governor, and several policies of spatial planning (1992, 2004, 2007 and 2008). After long disputes and postponement due to the analysis of the project’s damaging impacts to the natural environment and the city itself, it officially obtained government endorsement in 2003 and resumed to be constructed in 2010. 10
Jakarta Coastal Development is believed to be the solution of future urban expansion need of as the search of vacant land has attained to its limit. The city will expand its land territory 2 km depth toward Java Sea, replacing 32 km the city coastline with approximately 2700 hectare reclaimed area and 8 meters deep. Scheduled to be accomplished in 20 years, the project, which is a joint of public and private venture facilitating commercial, residential, recreational, luxury hospitalities, and industrial areas for approximately 1.750.000 inhabitants, is expected to recapture the new city identity of Jakarta as a waterfront city (See Fig. 7).
Fig. 7 Plan of North Jakarta Coastal Development. Source: www.infojakarta.com
Revitalization and development was inaugurated in 1993’s from the provincial government of Jakarta. Subsequently, statement that North Jakarta bay area is one of the strategic areas for regional development to possess a high economic value was confirmed in within the Sixth - Five Year General National Plan program (PELITA VI) in Presidential Decree 17/1994. A year later, Presidential Act 52/1995 was issued to press ahead a full authority for the appointed Jakarta Governor to carry on the development plan, consecutively followed by the establishment of North Jakarta Reclamation Development Board. The plan was rejected by the Ministry of Environment calling for project termination due to the negative environmental impact. While legal fighting between the institutions followed up, the provincial government of Jakarta somehow succeeded to assign six developers to begin the project. In addition, the masterplan of the project developed by Bappeda acquired an agreement to be incorporated in DKI Masterplan RTRW 2010. In May 2008, with the overturn of the ministry’s ban, the reclamation started. According to Van Breen’s and Blommenstein masterplans during the colonial time, the North Jakarta area was designed to remain inbuilt to mitigate the annual flooding the city has suffered for centuries to be located just above the sea level. However, behind all of the legal endorsements, the project itself, even in the stage of planning process, has resided as a controversial issue. At the same time during the agreement of the masterplan by the governor in 2003, Ministry of Environment, as one of the involved planning agency, overcame the court after being claimed by the developers and issued Ministerial Decree 14/2003 to revoke the reclamation project due to the loss of biodiversity, imbalance environmental condition, and the increase risk of flooding, which will happen not only in Jakarta, but as well within the agglomeration area and the sea. As the area receives 13 rivers streaming from the hinterland, no coordination was found between Jakarta and the neighboring provinces (Banten and West Java) or municipalities (Bogor, Depok, Tangerang). Furthermore, the lack of coordination 11
from the planning institution surprisingly happened inside the territory of Jakarta itself, as North Jakarta Power Plant complained for their operation disturbance. Moreover, the awareness for the priority of Jakarta urban development is still at the lowest level. This can be seen from the swapped precedence of setting up a high end project while the construction of East Canal Drainage, which will relieve the city from extreme flooding, was halted. It is obvious that there is low public investment for certain kinds of projects. Social issue as well comes across the conflict. Fishermen village will have to move without a clear compensation of resettlement. Numbers of household are threatened of losing their fishery jobs which are not easily substituted if they move to inner part of the city. Arguing the flaw of North Jakarta Coastal Development way will never bring to an end. It is one of the exemplars of urban planning practice at a provincial level predominantly in the issue of planning Jakarta. There is a polarity if we contrast the planning performance and how the democratic planning philosophy and decentralized system are expected. 4. Concluding remark: A reflection between ideology, performance, and impact of spatial planning in Jakarta “Spatial and environmental planning practices are embedded in specific contexts, through the institutional histories of particular places and the understanding that are brought forward by the various participating groupings, and the processes through which issues are discussed, through this double activity of embedded framing, spatial and environmental planning practices thus both reflect the context of power relations and carry power themselves” (Healey, 1997). Regardless the age of systematic spatial planning in Indonesia that has been existed over centuries ago through colonialism, it does not mean that the realization continues without a quandary as the missing linkage between the planning idealism and performance constantly appears. Throughout Soekarno’s regime in the early independence time intended to bridge the planning void between the colonial and early post colonial time with a democratic political point of view, a methodical planning framework was missing into practice as it turned out to be a dictating planning as the institutions’ voices stayed unspoken behind his tyranny. The time when Jakarta was being upgraded as a result of his aspiration, the symptom of rapid urbanization in the capital was ignored. The New Order politic era has left an inheritance of moral defect in all levels of governmental bodies, including the planning institutions. This is a fundamental moment which the governance and as well as the civilian culture will take more some generations to heal the corrupted ethics. On the subject of democratization, planning process and implementation in Indonesia should accommodate the bottom up approach which is still not happening in practice. Inconsistency of democracy principal in planning and reality is as well indicated with restricted socialization and involvement of the citizen, which is expected to be mediated by the planning institutions. The external factor globalization and neo liberalism as well have an impact to open the macro economy opportunity doors much wider where most of the planning purpose is addressed. The materialization of the city planning in Jakarta is obviously steered with the elite politics where the power of capital overcomes the required 12
development undertaking the real problems and social issues of the city. The 2004 autonomy governance system installment in Indonesia, as one of the decentralization adjustments, is not well accepted by the unprepared status quo. Interventions or dominancy from the higher level institutions are still found in the lower levels of the governance (Sunardi, 2004) and planning cannot perform in such an efficient way due to the intragovernmental and planning agencies conflicts. The reduction of the role of government required a strong rule of law, which remains a big challenge in Indonesia (Hudallah, 2010). Indonesian planning system still indicates an incomplete adoption of an integrated-comprehensive approach (Hudallah and Woltjer, 2007). From 1969-1974 in Jakarta, it had showed that there was small coordination of urban road and drainage construction, for example, because they were the responsibility of different institutions (Hudallah and Woltjer, 2007). In addition, related sectoral policy systems like housing and water management promote privatization instead of participation (Hudallah and Woltjer, 2007; Housing and Settlement Act of 1992; Winarso, 2002; Siregar, 2005). This fragmented system and coordination is as well revealed in North Jakarta reclamation, where severe urban problem is nurtured in the future because of the clashes between the planning institutions. Although principally speaking democratic system and decentralization are the legal basis in all governance aspects, the root the spatial planning problem in Jakarta needs an improvement of capacity of the planning institutions with the intention that they can be more reliable to bear the heavy responsibility of the city’s urban development and planning with its dynamic situation and rapid changes. Who runs Jakarta? Why, it runs by itself (Thomas Belfield, 2009)…
5. Bibliography 1. CYBRIWSKY, Roman & FORD, Larry R. Ford, Jakarta City Profile, Cities (Vol. 18, No. 3, p.199–210), Great Britain, 2001. 2. DANISWORO, M., Jakarta: a Car Oriented City Marked with Contrast, paper presented for AIUS Seminar on Current Thinking on Regional Planning at NSW, Sidney, 2002. 3. HEALEY, Patsy, Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies, McMillan, London, 1997. 4. HUDALAH, Delik & WOLTJER, Johan, Spatial Planning System in Transitional Indonesia, International Planning Studies (vol. 12, No. 3, p291–303), August 2007 5. KUSNO, Abidin, Behind the Postcolonial: Architecture, urban space and political cultures in Indonesia, Routledge, New York, 2000. 6. MOULAERT, Frank, Strategic Spatial Planning Reader, ASRO KU Leuven, Leuven, 2009. 7. NAS, Peter J.M., The Indonesian Cities: Studies in Urban Development and Planning, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland, 1986. 8. SILVER, Christopher, Planning the Megacity: Jakarta in the Twentieth Century, Routledge, New York, 2008. 9. VAN ROOSMALEN, Pauline K. M., Expanding grounds: The roots of spatial planning in Indonesia, research paper for 1st International Urban Conference Surabaya, 2004 10. http://www.dsfindonesia.org/apps/dsfv2/cgi-bin/dw.cgi?cn=about_us-decentralization_indonesia, last consulted on June 3, 2010. 11. http://www.ina.or.id, last consulted on June 11, 2010. 12. http://indonesiaurbanstudies.blogspot.com, last consulted on June 5, 2010. 13. http://www.jakarta.go.id/v70/index.php/en/tentang-jakarta/perangkat-daerah/135-fron-page-artpict/435-sejarah-pemerintahan, last consulted on June 3, 2010. 14. http://www.mlit.go.jp/kokudokeikaku/international/spw/general/indonesia/index_e.html 13
15. http://home.wmin.ac.uk, last consulted on June 5, 2010. 16. http://www.korantempo.com/korantempo/koran/2010/06/04/Metro/krn.20100604.202363.id.html, last consulted on June 9, 2010. 17. http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu11ee/uu11ee15.htm, last consulted on June 3, 2010. Appendix I Institutions for RTRWN and RTRWP in relation with Spatial Planning Laws
Source: Indonesia Benelux Chamber of Commerce, 2008 Legislative cabinets Non Departmental Agencies
Executive cabinets
National level
Responsibility
Provincial Level
National Board of Land Affairs
Land use planning and issuance
-
National Development Planning Board (Bappenas), coordination for cross sector development in national strategic areas National Spatial Planning Coordination Board (BKPRN) Ministry of Settlements and Territorial Development Ministry of Transportation
Coordination for cross sector development in national and provincial/ municipal strategic areas
Regional Development Planning Board (Bappeda, Bappedalda)
Evaluation and approval of RTRW drafts
Provincial Spatial Planning Coordination Board (BKPRD)
Ministry of Public Works
Ministry of Industry Ministry of interior affairs
Direct and indirect coordination for spatial planning, management, urban development policy Transportation management and public transport provision Coordination for the general Public Works affairs in Indonesia, supporting Ministry of Settlements and Territorial Development Directly or indirectly administers the industrial development in urban areas Indirect coordination in urban development. Issuance of area management right Approval of RTRWP draft for recommendation letter
Ministry of Public Works
Ministry of interior affairs
Governor
Source: Winarso (2000) 14
Appendix II Post reformation government structure
15
Appendix III History of Political Regimes, Governance Structure, Related Laws, and Spatial Planning Acts Source: Putri and Rahmanti, 2010, reinterpreted by the author
16