Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Indonesian Embassy in London
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared to respond to the letter
from International Development Committee inquiring about the effectiveness
of current UK Department for International Development (DFID)
in addressing the challenges presented by urban poverty in partner
countries.
The Ministry of Housing has not received any
assistance from DFID, however in this report will highlight the
Ministry's work and case studies related to the key issues of:
— The provision of basic services and infrastructure
in slums.
— Post-disaster reconstruction.
We hope that this report is useful for DFID
in supporting developing countries in dealing with urbanization
and poverty.
1. BACKGROUND
OF INDONESIAN
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The Republic of Indonesia is an equatorial archipelago
of over 17,500 islands (6,000 islands inhabited) extending
about 3,200 miles or 5,150 kilometers East to West and
1,250 miles or 2,012 kilometres North to South. It is
the largest archipelago in the world with 1,919,443 square
kilometers or 741,098 square miles divided into 33 provinces.
Indonesia is also the fourth largest (and the largest Moslem)
population in the world with 218,868,791 people.[123]
The Capital City, Jakarta (located on Java Island)
has a population of 8,699,600 people in 2005. The city is
surrounded by seven neighboring urban areas, better known as Metropolitan
Area or Greater Jakarta or Jabodetabek (Jakarta-Bogor-Tangerang-Depok-Bekasi)
with total population of 23.650.350 million people. The government
of Indonesia estimates that the population of the Jabodetabek
region will reach 32 million by 2016.[124]
As the capital city, Jakarta is referred to as the "window
of Indonesia" as it is the national strategic center of activities
including administration, education, trade, etc.
The level of urbanization has reached 50% in
2008 and is projected to reach almost 68% by 2025, mostly
generated by migration from rural to urban areas (contributing
30-40% of urban population growth), natural population growth,
and reclassification of areas from rural to urban. Geographically
urbanization in Java Island already exceeds the national level
(60%) compared to Sumatra (17,1%), Kalimantan (20,3%), Sulawesi
(16,1 %), Irian Jaya (16,3%). However, migration amongst
urban areas is also high.
Urban challenges in Indonesia are increasing
with regard to urban poverty, pollution, traffic congestion, crime
and violence, lack of access to almost all basic urban services
and facilities such as clean water, sanitation, solid waste management,
energy supply as well as haphazard urbanization or emergence of
informal settlements (slums and squatters).
In the political sector, the decentralization
in Indonesia was marked by the Laws 22 and 25 of 1999 that
defined Regional Autonomy and Fiscal Decentralization. These laws
devolved most government services and functions to local authorities—apart
from defence and national security, foreign affairs, fiscal policy
and religion. Since 2001, decentralization in Indonesia has entered
new phase of consolidation, where actors are working to refine
rules of game, reinvigorate decentralized governance, gather lesson
learned, and replicate best practices. However, local institutions
in many areas still lack the capacity to fulfil their new mandates
effectively.
The National Long Term Development Planning
is a national planning document which explicates the goals as
stated in The Constitution of 1945 through national development
vision and mission for 20 years period (2005-25). The objective
of this long term plan is to pursue "sustainable development"
which translates to a more compact, efficient, comfortable, healthy,
prosperous and productive urban settlement. In addition, the National
Mid Term Development Plan endeavours to reduce the unbalance development
between islands, or even cities/urban areas.
2. POLICIES AND
PROGRAMS
2.1 Urban and Rural Planning and Management
Spatial plan is not a new thing in Indonesia.
Municipal (town and city) administrations applied urban development
law (stadvorming ordonantie) issued by Dutch Administration
in 1948 until then in 1992 Government of Indonesia issued
its own Law 24/1992 concerning Spatial Management (the law
was considered ineffective in terms of land use control and then
was replaced by Law 26/2007).
Under the Law 24/1992, government at all levels
was obliged to prepare spatial plan. As the result, almost all
provinces, municipals and regencies had already had at least a
comprehensive spatial plan which was functioned as guidance in
urban and regional development. Since Law 24/1992 did not
regulate sanction, violation to prevailing spatial plan was not
really considered as a wrong doing. Subsequently, violations were
common and spatial plan became ineffective in directing spatial
development.
Revision of spatial management law was not about
strengthening regulations related to land use control but also
broadening the scope of spatial management aspects. Consequently,
spatial plans previously prepared are subject to adjustment in
order to incorporate all spatial management aspects. Law 26/2007 defines
the time limit for provincial governments to complete their comprehensive
spatial plan adjustment by two years after the law was put into
effect. For local government, comprehensive spatial plan adjustment
should be completed within three years after the law was put into
effect. The time limit is considered as "very short"
but it represents that the founder of the law thought that spatial
plan is very important and need to be prepared quickly.
The following table shows the status of the
comprehensive spatial plan of provinces, municipals and regencies:
Table 2.1
STATUS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE SPATIAL PLAN
|
| Administration Level
| Adjustment Status*
| Total |
| Not Yet
| On Going | Approval
Stage
| Passed |
|
|
| National | -
| - | -
| 1 | 1
|
| Provincial | -
| 22 | 10
| 1 | 33
|
| Local | 278 |
173 | 23
| 3 | 476
|
| (a) Municipal | 46
| 43 | 7
| 0 | 93
|
| (b) Regency | 232
| 130 | 16
| 3 | 383
|
|
| Note:* Status of January 2009.
|
| Source: Ministry of Public Works, 2009.
|
2.2 Urban Poverty Alleviation: Empowering Communities
The Government of Indonesia is committed to achieving the
millennium development goals (MDGs). One such target within the
MDGs is to reduce the poverty level by 50% in the year 2015. To
reduce poverty from 16.58% in 2007 to 8.2% by the end of
2009 and to cut the unemployment rate from 10% in 2006 to
5% by 2009, On August 2006 the Government of Indonesia (GOI)
launched the first nationwide poverty reduction program, comprising
three cluster programs:
(a) The Social Protection System Program, primarily through
the conditional cash transfer system targeting poor communities;
(b) The National Program for Community Empowerment or Program
Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (PNPM); and
(c) The Micro Credit Program with focus on promoting pro-poor
growth, with a special focus on small and medium enterprises.
The National Community Empowerment Program or "Program
Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Mandiri (PNPMM)", as an
"umbrella policy" to create synergy amongst the
various community empowerment programs and initiatives within
the GOI, which have begun in 2007 and will run through 2015.
The PNPMM provides a basic framework for all central government
poverty reduction programs and uses as a basis two existing poverty
reduction models—community empowerment in urban and in rural
areas through the Urban Poverty Project (UPP) and Kecamatan
Development Project (KDP). Linked to these projects are an increasing
number of sectoral programs that provide specialized inputs to
improve the delivery of poverty services. Over time, local governments
will be expected to integrate education, health, and agricultural
service provision into PNPMM.
The PNPMM overall objective is to reduce poverty by promoting
community participation in development planning and management.
The specific objective of PNPMM-Urban are:
(a) Achieve an "Empowered and Independent" community
that is capable of overcoming local poverty problems through the
application of the government policy of National (Independent)
Community Empowerment Program (CNEP);
(b) Increase the capacity of the local governments to incorporate
the participative development model as a basis of partnership
with the community and local interest groups;
(c) Promote harmonization and synergy amongst the various
community empowerment programs to optimize poverty alleviation;
(d) Increase the benefits towards the poverty affected communities
towards increasing IPM and achieving the MDGs;
The PNPMM-Urban in 2007 has covered implementation of
the program in 7,273 kelurahans in all 33 provinces
in Indonesia. While the PNPMM-Urban in 2008 would expand
to 8,813 kelurahans in 955 urban kecamatan
in 245 cities/districts through the 33 provinces. This
assistance is expected to increase to 11,039 kelurahan by
2009.
Table 2.2
TOTAL FINANCIAL COVERAGE OF PNPMM AND COMMUNITY GRANTS
|
| Category | PNPMM-Urban Coverage (Number of kelurahans)
| Community Grants Allocation/Village (IDR)
|
| 2007
| 2008 | 2009
| |
|
Total
Kelurahan | 7,273
| 8,813 | 11,039
| 150 million-350 million
|
|
| Source: Ministry of Public Works, 2009.
|
PNPMM-Urban design builds on the existing portfolio of CDD
(UPP) operations. The executing agency is the Ministry of Public
Works. A summary of the three components is given below;
(a) Community and Local Government Capacity Building
This component would support the facilitators to carry out social
intermediation activities, training, workshops, press releases/conferences,
and other mass communication activities, meetings and focus group
discussions, and production of socialization materials and publications.
This component would also support the training and socialization
of local government staff on the PNPMM and leverage support from
local governments to share costs of subprojects.
(b) Kelurahan/Community Grants loans
This component would support block grants for kelurahans to execute
the sub-projects identified in the community planning. These sub-projects
cover an open menu of poverty alleviation activities with a short
negative list. Typical activities for this component fall into
three categories: infrastructure, revolving loan funds, and social
assistance.
(c) Implementation and Technical Assistance
This component includes the monitoring and evaluation of the project.
It will also support of the consultants, and others technical
assistance.
The PNPMM-Urban in 2007 has shown the impact to proverty
reduction. The number of poor people in the year of 2007 as
23,6 milllion compare with the year of 2000 as 26,4 million
(BPS 2008). Thus, the potential impacts of the PNPMM are projected
to be significant. A preliminary economic assessment of the program
showed that by 2009, when the program would cover all kecamatans
at the proposed benefit level of IDR 3 billion per kecamatan,
it could benefit nearly 14 million families and increase
their income by 11 percent on average by providing about
60 days of work. Some 7-9 million households would be
pulled out of poverty.
The additional income would benefit workers by raising the
wages of all unskilled workers by reducing the competition from
desperate workers who drive wages down. By developing economically
productive roads, irrigation and drainage works, and water supply
and sanitation works, the PNPMM will permanently increase employment
and income; this increased purchasing power would help to activate
village economies.
2.3 Water and Wastemater (MDGs)
MDG for water and wastewater (Target 10) recommends to half
the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking
water and basic sanitation by 2015. The primary indicator for
measuring Target 10 is the proportion of populations who
have access to safe water and sanitation.
The MDG target for access to safe water in Indonesia is 80%
in year 2015. This access to safe water hopefully will be achieved
as targeted in year 2015 with 48% piped water system and
32% non-piped water system.
Efforts to achieve MDGs target for water and wastewater in
Indonesia has been conducted through improvement of water and
wastewater quality, financial, institutional and legal support.
Particularly for institutional and legal support, Indonesia has
enacted laws and regulations (in term of presidential and minister
regulations) to guide water and wastewater management and technical
standards.
Figure 2.1
SCENARIO TO MEET NMDP AND MDG TARGET
Source: Ministry of Public Works, 2009.
The MDG target for access to basic sanitation facilities
in year 2015 is 65.5%. Meanwhile, access to basic sanitation
facilities in Indonesia in year 2007 have already achieved
69.3%. But, still there is 20% open defecation in urban and 40%
in rural area. As consequently, 76.3% of 53 rivers in Java,
Sumatera, Bali and Sulawesi island contaminated by organic pollutant,
and 11 main rivers heavily contaminated by ammonium. There
is still room for improvement from basic sanitation to adequate
sanitation.
Access to adequate sanitation can be further improved by
developing policy and institutional frameworks, promoting health
seeking behavior, increasing capacities, building sanitation facilities
in urban areas, and setting up a database and information system
on basic sanitation. As targeted in National Mid-term Development
Planning, in the end of 2009 should be free from open defecation.
Figure 2.2
POPULATION ACCES TO BASIC SANITATION FACILITIES ACCRODING
TO RURAL, URBAN, AND TOTAL RURAL AND URBAN AREAS (IN PER CENT)
Source: Ministry of Public Works, 2009.
2.4 Financing Affordable Housing
(a) Subsidized Home Mortgage Program
Table 2.3
TARGET AND ACHIEVEMENT OF HOUSING FINANCE IN MEDIUM-TERM
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2004-09
|
| Main activities | Target
| Achievement | Difference
|
|
| — Subsidy/Financial Assistance for Formal Housing
| 640.000 unit | End of status 2008
341.835 unit
Prognosis up to end of 2009
478.235 unit
| End of status 2008
298.165 unit
Prognosis up to end of 2009 161.765 unit
|
| — Subsidy/Financial Assistance for Vertical Housing
| 25.000 unit | End of status 2008
—unit
Prognosa up to end of 2009
25.000 unit
| End of status 2008
—unit
Prognosis up to end of 2009
—unit
|
| — Subsidy/Financial Assistance for Self-Help Housing
| 36.000 unit | End of status 2008
62.364 unit
Prognosis up to end of 2009
95.964 unit
| End of status 2008
—unit
Prognosis up to end of 2009
—unit
|
|
| Source: State Ministry of Public Housing, 2009.
|
(b) Stimulants for Self-Help Housing Development
During the period 2006—2008 the stimulant program
has been implemented in 26 provinces throughout Indonesia
with total funding from the National Budget of Rp. 73 billion
(1 USD = Rp. 11.000) for 2009 (9000 units) A total
number of 18.280 housing units were improved/constructed
during the period of 2006-08 as shown in the following table.
Table 2.4
REALIZATION OF SELF-HELP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 2006-08
|
| No | Province
| Number of Housing Unit
|
| | Year 2006
| Year 2007 | Year 2008
|
| | BSP2S
| BSP2S | BSP2S
| PKP |
|
| 1 | North Sumatera | -
| - | -
| 200 |
| 2 | Riau | -
| - | -
| 400 |
| 3 | Riau Archipelago | -
| - | 200
| - |
| 4 | Jambi | -
| - | -
| 200 |
| 5 | West Sumatera | -
| 90 | 200
| - |
| 6 | South Sumatera | -
| - | -
| 200 |
| 7 | Bangka Belitung | -
| - | -
| 100 |
| 8 | Bengkulu | -
| - | -
| 100 |
| 9 | Banten | -
| - | 200
| 100 |
| 10 | West Java | 338
| 686 | 600
| 1,250 |
| 11 | Central Java | 1,708
| 834 | 550
| 1,150 |
| 12 | DI Yogyakarta | -
| 81 | 300
| - |
| 13 | East Java | 1,130
| 867 | 600
| 600 |
| 14 | Bali | 205
| 180 | 300
| - |
| 15 | West Nusa Tenggara | 581
| 240 | 150
| 100 |
| 16 | East Nusa Tenggara | -
| 201 | 150
| - |
| 17 | East Kalimantan | -
| 60 | 100
| - |
| 18 | West Kalimantan | -
| - | 100
| - |
| 19 | Central Kalimantan | -
| - | 150
| - |
| 20 | North Sulawesi | -
| - | 250
| - |
| 21 | Central Sulawesi | -
| - | 100
| - |
| 22 | South Sulawesi | 400
| 425 | 200
| 300 |
| 23 | South-East Sulawesi |
- | 70
| 200 | 100
|
| 24 | West Sulawesi | -
| - | 150
| - |
| 25 | Gorontalo | -
| 214 | 150
| - |
| 26 | Maluku | -
| 120 | 200
| - |
| Total National | 4,362
| 4,068 | 4,850
| 5,000 |
|
| Source: State Ministry of Public Housing, 2009.
|
Other advantages gained from this program are:
1. The allocation of provincial and local government local
budget for housing sector;
2. The restructuring of provincial/local government administrative
organization to take responsibility of housing development;
3. The participation of other stakeholders in low-income housing
development such as the private sector (through corporate social
responsibility funds), NGOs, local universities and cooperatives.
Formal land rights were not a prerequisite in the above programs
under the condition that the Local Government provides a Letter
of Recommendation.
In Pekalongan (Central Java), the housing improvement program
had a significant impact on poverty reduction. In two years since
the house improvement program was launched, the poverty level
was reduced by 27%. Better housing conditions lead to higher productivity.
2.5 Post-reconstruction Disaster
Two years after the earthquake housing reconstruction has
been completed. Housing reconstruction received highest priority,
because many people use their house not only for shelter, but
also to make a living, for instance by having a shop or a workshop,
or by renting out rooms. Therefore, reconstruction of houses was
essential for recovery of peoples" livelihoods. Now that
houses have been rebuilt and people are resuming their economic
activities, the communities are eager to create a safer and healthier
living environment and to make sure they are better prepared for
future disasters.
Central Java is a disaster-prone area. Many villages are
not only exposed to earthquakes and tsunamis but to a wide range
of other possible hazards such as volcanic eruptions, draughts
and flooding, landslides and large-scale erosion. In the past,
people have more or less accepted these hazardous natural conditions
as inevitable. The JRF initiated community-based planning process
has increased awareness that advance planning and investment in
mitigation and preparedness activities can reduce loss of life
and economic impact of disasters.
Because of the limited resources in terms of available funding
for preparation and project implementation, the ongoing JRF CSRRP
disaster risk reduction component had to be limited to 101 villages
in total. The actual need is much higher; so far a total of 243 villages
in seven districts (Kabupaten) have been proposed for this program
component. The Central-Java Province has expressed its desire
to include even more Kabupaten in the program, not only to achieve
a larger impact in terms of disaster risk reduction, but also
to engage and train more district governments in preparing for
future disasters.
The ongoing preparation of community settlement plans has
increased the awareness of communities on disaster risks and options
to mitigate these risks. People make no distinction between exposure
to natural disasters and exposure to public health hazards related
to poor water supply, sanitation and solid waste management. This
type of health hazards would not cause instantaneous large-scale
destruction associated with natural disasters, but nevertheless
the communities are aware that the risks are severe because of
continuous exposure, which would potentially cause many victims
over the years, especially amongst the poorest. In many of the
villages where community settlement plans are being prepared it
was found that water supply, sanitation, and solid waste management
problems are strongly related to previous disasters. Therefore
it is proposed to expand the scope of the JRF CSRRP to include
improvement of water supply, sanitation and solid waste management.
(a) Water Supply
The latest earthquake and the eruption of Mount Merapi have
caused considerable changes in ground water tables resulting in
prolonged periods of water shortages. Most people in the villages
in the project area rely on dug-wells for drinking water supply.
Since the latest earthquake many wells fall dry during the dry
season, even though they may be as deep as 20 meters, meaning
that people have to walk long distances to collect water from
natural springs in the vicinity. Many households have to supplement
the available water during the dry season with water supplied
by tanker trucks, which is very costly.
Normally, during the dry season, water from dug wells is
also used for agriculture. The dry season may last 4-6 months.
During this period people can grow and harvest corn and groundnuts.
Farmers manually water their plants one by one, using water from
dug-wells in their fields. The drop in groundwater table means
that also these wells fall dry. As a result the fields of these
farmers now lay idle during the dry season, resulting in a considerable
loss of income and often pushing the farmers back below the poverty
line.
Most communities would greatly benefit from small-scale sub-village
level (dusun) drinking water supply systems serving a few hundred
households at most. Such systems would consist for instance of
a single borehole (deep well) or a captured natural spring, a
pumping station, a reservoir on high ground and some transmission
pipes to supply water under gravity to clusters of houses. Additionally,
construction of communal reservoirs to harvest rainwater would
in some villages serve as an appropriate and sustainable technology
to supplement water from other sources, especially for agricultural
purposes during the dry season.
(b) Sanitation
The JRF housing program has supported 15,153 households
constructing an earthquake resistant house. Although the JRF housing
program was completed in July 2008, many houses are not yet equipped
with sanitary facilities. The amount of assistance provided (IDR20 million
per house) is sufficient to construct an earthquake resistant
structure for a core house of 36m2. However, beneficiaries are
expected to complete the house by using their own funds. Not all
beneficiaries have been able yet to finance construction of a
toilet and septic tank and many have expressed the need to provide
communal facilities.
Lack of proper sanitation is a potential health threat, especially
to the poor. In the communities that have already prepared their
community settlement plans it appears that many people (in some
villages up to 30% of the population) still utilize rivers and
canals for defecation, bathing and washing. The majority of the
population uses simple private pit-latrines. Because of high soil
permeability these latrines may cause pollution of nearby dug-wells.
A specific sanitation issue in many villages is related to
husbandry. Many people have one or two cows, goats and a few chickens
in a stall next to their house. The earthquake has not only destroyed
houses, but also stalls and many people have not yet been able
to rebuild proper stalls for their cattle. Some villages have
proposed to build communal stalls. This would reduce environmental
health problems and create opportunities for production of organic
fertilizer and biogas because of scale advantages. These initiatives
deserve to be supported and linked with JRF livelihood program
components.
(c) Solid Waste Management
Many communities have identified flooding and stagnant water
as serious disaster risks. Drainage networks often don't function
properly because of general lack of tertiary drainage and because
of dumping of solid wastes in open drains and channels. As a result
stagnant water frequently occurs, raising concerns over mosquito
breeding. Solid waste piling up in riverbeds reduces discharge
capacity and is one of the causes of flooding.
The JRF disaster risk reduction program will address stagnant
water and flooding as major disaster risks, including (re-) construction
of tertiary drainage as necessary. However, without proper solid
waste management this problem cannot be fully resolved. In many
rural villages with low residential densities burying of waste
is an appropriate solution. In such cases increased community
awareness and education would be sufficient to improve conditions.
Closer to the urban centres, in villages with higher residential
densities, solid waste management systems should be organised
using the existing collection and disposal facilities of nearby
towns.
In some villages women groups have taken the initiative to
collect waste in separate buckets for organic material, paper
and plastics. These women groups also process waste by making
compost out of organic material, and by selling paper and plastics.
In one village (Argorejo) women groups even recycle plastics by
making plastic bags and sandals. Dry organic materials, especially
leaves, are recycled as burning material for stoves. These encouraging
small-scale initiatives for solid waste management and recycling
improve the living environment, reduce health hazards, and provide
income for the women engaged in these activities. Such existing
initiatives should serve as examples for other villages. Linkages
with the JRF livelihood program component will be intensified
to maximise the benefits for the communities.
(d) Community Education and Quality Assurance
Community capacity building is crucial to ensure sustainability
of assets created under this project. The scope of work of the
community development facilitators should be expanded to cover
all issues related to water supply, sanitation and solid waste
management, ie:
— Educate the communities on public health issues
— Build community capacity to operate and maintain the
assets created under the project
— Ensure that all infrastructure and facilities adhere
to adequate quality standards
— Ensure that user contributions are collected and are
sufficiently large to cover operation and maintenance expenses
Raising awareness on public health issues and the need to
change old habits on sanitation and waste disposal is essential
to reduce public health risks. The community development facilitators
should assist in educating the communities accordingly.
The community capacity building effort should be expanded
to enable the beneficiary communities to operate and maintain
the assets created under the project. This would include establishment
and training of community-based organisations (CBO) for operation
and maintenance of water supply infrastructure and facilities,
public sanitation facilities (MCK), and solid waste management.
Best practise initiatives in the project area, such as separate
collection of organic waste, plastics and paper, and waste recycling,
should serve as examples to build capacity in other communities.
Community-based organisations would operate and maintain the water
supply facilities on behalf of the beneficiaries. The facilitators
should educate and train these CBOs to ensure that water consumers
will pay a user fee sufficiently large to cover all operational
and maintenance costs, including depreciation costs of pumping
equipment.
Quality assurance would first of all include high quality
standards for construction of infrastructure and facilities. In
many villages current practise is to save investment cost by utilising
inferior materials such as pvc for water pipes and low capacity
pumps. This results in high maintenance costs because of frequent
pipe bursts and breakdown of pumping equipment. JRF CSRRP should
only support construction of high quality works and procurement
of good quality equipment. It is suggested to promote the use
of solar panels to generate power for pumping equipment in order
to reduce operational costs and increase overall environmental
sustainability.
(e) Local Government Capacity Building
The community-driven approach is a leading principle of JRF-CSRRP
aiming to empower communities to help themselves. However, for
sustainability of project achievements it is of paramount importance
that local government is fully engaged during the entire project
cycle and committed to sustain the project outputs, to maintain
assets created through the project and to ensure funding for operation
and maintenance as necessary. Local government capacity building
should ensure that local government takes all necessary precautionary
measures to mitigate disaster risks in anticipation of future
disasters and is well prepared to handle disasters whenever they
occur. This is achieved through regular consultation, training
and workshops involving all levels of government. Local government
staff participates in project activities enabling transfer of
knowledge in the field on community-based approaches and disaster
risk reduction. Infrastructure deficiencies as identified by the
communities and possible improvements are discussed with relevant
government agencies as necessary. Local government is also closely
involved in devising emergency evacuation plans, including regular
simulation exercises.
The community settlement plans include an integrated five-year
investment program with physical and non-physical components,
only part of which is supported by JRF. Other projects should
be financed and implemented through regular government budgets
(APBN, APBD, etc) by the responsible government agencies. Therefore,
community settlement plans must be approved by local government
(Bappeda Kabupaten), which ensures appropriate ownership and follow-up.
In consultations with local government special attention is given
to spatial planning and building control measures in hazard zones
(landslides, riverbank erosion, tsunamis, etc.), to be implemented
through local planning policies and decrees, including enforcement
measures as necessary. During design and construction stage regular
consultation meetings are held with relevant local government
agencies, especially Public Works and Pengairan, to make certain
that designs and construction works adhere to government specifications
and requirements, which is essential to ensure both an adequate
sense of ownership and appropriate maintenance.
2.6 Security of Tenure
There is still no consensus on the translation of security
of tenure in Bahasa Indonesia. For some institutions, security
of tenure is considered as legal rights to land, leading to programs
that support land certificates for the urban poor. The PRONA (Program
Nasional) and LARASITA (Services for Land Certification) are programs
delivered by the National Land Agency to reduce administration
fees and speed up the process for the low-income communities.
These programs are mostly targeted for communities in rural areas.
In urban areas, land issues are more complex. Slums and squatters
along riverbanks and railways are most common in large cities
of Indonesia. In some cities, these squatters are evicted with
no alternative shelter and little or no compensation. In some
cases such as in Ketelan, Solo (Central Java), the National Land
Agency issues land certificates (leasehold certificates or HGB)
for squatters along riverbanks. However, there are some reports
that there have been "under the table" ownership transfers.
Forced evictions still occur in major cities such as Jakarta.
The Local Regulation no 8/2007 on Public Order justifies
these evictions. There is no shelter alternative for the evictees,
and they often return to the previous location due to job opportunities
in locations nearby. According to Wardah Hafidz (Urban Poor Consortium)
and Azas Tigor Nainggolan (Forum Warga Kota), security of tenure
for squatters is not the issue of owning land certificates, but
more an issue of legal identity. Squatters are usually considered
as illegal citizens and are denied access to legal IDs. Without
legal ID, squatters cannot gain access to education, health services
and job opportunities. Several squatter communities along the
riverbanks in Jakarta and Surabaya with the assistance of local
NGOs were able to gain administrative status as Rukun Tetangga/RT
or neighborhood unit. This has enabled the residents to get local
ID cards, access to urban services as well as charity programs.
123
Data Statistic Indonesia, 2005 census, Badan Pusat Statistik
(BPS), Statistics Indonesia. Back
124
Idem. Back
| 
