New Jakarta masterplan justifies past violations

New Jakarta masterplan justifies past violations

By Marco Kusumawijaya

JAKARTA (JP): Without much publicity, the old masterplan of
Jakarta 1985-2005 has been replaced by a new one named Jakarta
2010. Local legislation enacted it in June 1999.

The fact that it was made in a hurry six years before the old
one expires has raised suspicion, that it will (like previous
plans) only acknowledge land-use violations of the past
masterplan in order to justify current "trends", and will cover
up many governor decrees against local legislation that would be
considered illegal if stipulated by the old masterplan of 1985-
2005.

Local legislation, as it is enacted by local parliament, is
higher than any governor decree.

The violations that are now justified in the new master plan
will concern many big issues across the capital.

Take "green areas" as an obvious example in comparing the old
and new master plans. The protected mangrove forest in Kapuk
(north of Jakarta, alongside the toll road to Soekarno-Hatta
Airport, on the luxurious estate of Pantai Indah Kapuk), has now
been reduced in terms of area coverage to less than one third of
the area stipulated in the former plan.

Don't be fooled by the two or three rows of mangrove trees
along the northern side of the toll road between the Daan Mogot
exit and the entry to Jakarta: behind them there is no more
"forest", but an estate with a golf-course!

One can rightly wonder how such a small area of remaining
mangrove forest can survive ecologically in the near future. It
still provides an important habitat for some rare species of
Javanese sea gulls.

There has been a noticeable reduction, or in some cases
eradication, of different categories of former "green areas"
which previously covered the metropolis: green areas surrounding
the airport now cover only a quarter of their former area;
nothing is now left of "agricultural green" areas in Kapuk and
Koja; and "recreational green" spots have now disappeared from
where megastructure Taman Anggrek Mall and Hotel Mulia in Senayan
now stand.

These dramatic changes are often suggested without much
deliberation and public consultation. The most notorious of all
is the reclamation of coastal areas. How this will influence the
mangrove forest, the livelihood of fishing communities and the
overall ecosystem is not made clear.

The property crash that marked the start of the economic
crisis should have made it clear that there is not a sufficient
argument for creating more land supply in such a dangerously
irresponsible way.

The only people who can afford the extra land supply are those
who already have first or second plots and houses. Even if that
sector of society is targeted, the existing Pantai Indah Kapuk
provides a good testament to the current situation and economic
climate as it still remains largely vacant speculative plots.

If it is about creating a new "water front", the existing
infrastructure, and environmental and accessibility problems
should be solved first rather than creating new problems.
Priority over the heritage of Old Batavia is also not clearly
stated.

Another example of fundamental decision-making concerns major
public transport infrastructure development. The plan to build
(underground) subways along the North-South axis is now
stipulated in the master plan. Who will benefit from it?
Certainly not the majority of poor workers in the metropolis, who
happen to live and work along the East-West axis.

No cost-and-benefit analysis of the underground subway option
has ever been disclosed to the public. (Does any actually exist?)

The fact is that the world admires, for example, Curitiba's
bus-based system of mass rapid transport in Brazil. With the same
carrying capacity and efficiency, it costs only 3 percent of an
underground system.

But it requires an enlightened mayor and a disciplined
population to achieve a vision for a better future. It requires
leadership that works alongside the public, instead of solely
with investors. Currently this approach is apparently not
possible.

A fundamental flaw of the masterplan is that there is no
conceptual relationship with the surrounding Bogor-Tangerang-
Bekasi region shown. With an ever growing, stronger functional
relationship between them and the metropolis, as well as an
increasingly interdependent ecological relationship between them
all, it is unimaginable how any plan about Jakarta can work
without their co-ordination.

Two of the main concerns of common citizens, are the annual
floods and the dilapidated public transport (certainly not the
"water-front"!), which are crucially dependent on what happens in
the three cities. These should have been treated more seriously
and in detail, while the local MP's went on study tours to the
water-front cities in Hong Kong, Australia and Japan.

Changes in land-use and intensity are detailed in larger scale
blocks in the new master plan. This clarifies what will happen to
almost every individual plot in the city.

Any sensible city administration, moreover one in a "reform"
era after a traumatic reductionist modernization, would
automatically think about, and promptly conduct, public
consultation, especially with direct stakeholders--citizens
living in the respective blocks--before making it legislation.

It concerns not only a concept of general participation within
a framework of "good governance", but also and more
fundamentally, their human rights on land ownership and use.

There are actually several available acts of legislation
(mentioned by the new masterplan itself, ironically, in articles
85-87) that demand some sort of public consultation: Law No.
24/1992 and Government Regulation Number 69/1996. The new laws on
autonomy and decentralization, by the way, are an important basis
for public participation.

For the first time, the masterplan also mentions a "vision"
and "mission" which it hopes to achieve through the collective
commitment of all stakeholders. How could a collective commitment
be drawn up though, if there is no collective deliberation in
formulating commitments?

The case of this new masterplan is the worst example of how
Jakarta is so backward in good governance. It is indeed already
common knowledge that after Ali Sadikin (the only true governor,
some would say) Jakarta has been declining from being a good to a
bad (if not the worst) example to learn from for other regions
and national governments. The largest cases of KKN (Indonesian
acronym for corruption, collusion and practices of nepotism) have
been related to city development projects.

Violations of Jakarta's masterplan have been "national" issues
for years. Now, how can we be sure that the new masterplan will
not be further violated and the violations simply "justified" by
the formation of the next plan again and again?

The case of the masterplan shows that it is incompetent, both
technically and in the skills of "good governance". It neither
offers any sound innovative solutions to problems nor clearly
states the problems themselves.

International consultants and donors have assisted many
regions, towns and cities all over Indonesia in the areas of good
governance. Participatory approaches in planning, programming and
budgeting have been tried out for several years in towns like
Kendari in Southeast Sulawesi and Mataram in West Nusa Tenggara,
just to mention a few. The World Bank and UNDP, as well as
several bilateral aid agencies such as the German GTZ, have been
pleased to engage.

However, nothing for Jakarta.

Ironically, almost all of the offices of good-governance
programs are situated in Jakarta. There is an apparent silence
and reluctance about intervention in metropolitan governance.
There has been a legacy from the past which appears to indicate
that one should not get involved with the capital!

The fact that Jakarta is also a "region" is covered-up by it
being a "capital" of the nation. Only national issues are dealt
with. The physical infrastructure and services of the city appear
to be considered "local", and therefore not necessary to be dealt
with effectively.

The "strength" of its bureaucracy, the protection they have
from "above", as well as the solidity of their closed-system,
have been treated with "respect" which has made intervention
impossible. Jakarta has paradoxically been avoided and forsaken
by the international community.

The case of the masterplan, within the framework of good
governance and the reform movement, must now make us realize, I
think, that it is time for the international community of
consultants and donors to change their attitude about the
metropolis.

To do that, they need only to imagine the conflict and
consequences that will result from this masterplan which defies
any principle of good governance and sound technical competence.

They need to talk to the city's bureaucrats and citizens
soon.

The writer is architect and urbanist, Governance Program
Specialist at the British Council, Jakarta.