Eco-villages constructed in defiance of government

digunting dari:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/04/18/ecovillages-constructed-defiance-government.html

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Mon, 04/18/2005 1:45 PM

Nani Afrida, The Jakarta Post, Banda Aceh

""We don't want to live in the hills, Mr. Minister,"" Burhanuddin, a village chief, tells State Minister of Environment Rahmat Witoelar.

""Please allow us to return to our villages and rebuild them,"" he said on Monday. The minister and his entourage were visiting Lamtengoh village in Peukan Bada, a district in Aceh Besar.

The minister was here to put his stamp of approval on the ""eco-village"" -- the partially rebuilt area of Lamtengoh that is designed to be ecologically friendly and as safe as possible for coastal communities.

Here, the English terms ""escape routes"" and ""escape hills"" have suddenly become familiar to the residents. The new escape route has been tested: ""It works, it took only a few minutes"", a villager said, for locals to scamper to the hills on the day that nearby Nias and Simeuleu were rocked by an 8.7-magnitude quake two weeks ago.

Their homes are just 500 meters away from the sea, and 500 meters from the hills.

According to Jakarta's blueprint for Aceh, all coastal land between the ocean and two kilometers inland must be entirely free of buildings. But coastal communities, whose livelihoods depend on the ocean, are resisting that plan, and villagers from Lamtengoh seem to have found a way out. At least the minister was willing to officiate over its completion. He said the blueprint and its designated two-km buffer zone ""could be adjusted"".

The village is one of 23 villages in three districts covered by the eco-village program, facilitated by the Urban Poor Consortium (UPC) Uplink and led by Jakarta-based sociologist Wardah Hafidz, long known for her ""bottom up"" approach to development.

Burhanuddin said villagers chose the design -- with help from architects and engineers working with UPC -- after examining the potential impacts of earthquakes and tidal waves on their villages. In Peukan Bada district, there were only 1,000 survivors from a pre-tsunami population of 26,000.

Yet the survivors in these 22 villages across the three districts including Peukan Bada have returned to their flattened hamlets, building temporary shelters where their homes once were.

""We're fisherfolk, there is no way we can live in the hills,"" said Tarmizi of a neighboring village, summing up the feeling of he and his fellow villagers. The hills are where they will end up, if the government has its way.

Tarmizi, a village secretary, said villagers are adamant about returning, although there seems nothing to return to.

The residents of Meunasah Tuha have recently drawn up their design for a village that is eco-friendly, but with the addition of many mangrove plants to help protect the village.

And villagers are planning to immediately plant coconut trees and other plants (kecapi fruit, cemara laut) within 500 meters of the coastline.

Minister Rahmat said despite the government blueprint, the final say ""is up to the people"".

However, in the event of harmful substances found as a possible result of the tsunami, ""we will inform the people"", he said. So far studies including those coordinated by the ministry have not led to such findings.

A 'master plan' by the people, for the people

digunting dari:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/04/18/039master-plan039-people-people.html

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Mon, 04/18/2005 1:45 PM
The Jakarta Post, Banda Aceh

The initiatives taken by a number of villages that were badly hit by the tsunami is admirable. Needless to say, the homes where residents lived and worked are no more, but the remaining locals are intent on rebuilding their hamlets.

While others argue with the government about the new blueprint for rebuilding Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, the residents of 22 villages have designed their own blueprint. The residents have benefited from facilitation by the Urban Poor Consortium Uplink, a Jakarta-based network.

""The design is really based on the wishes of the people,"" said Yuli Kusworo, a volunteer. He is among five architects and civil engineers helping with the master plan. He said they went door to door around the villages, asking people what they wanted as regards the rebuilding of their communities.

She said the initial phase was difficult. In all, they had spent two months talking to the people of three districts in Aceh Besar regency.

""What they want now is not only to rebuild their homes, but they say they need to become closer socially and to be able to fulfill their economic needs,"" he said.

But the people's ""blueprint"" contradicts that of the government. The government does not want people to live on the coast again, supposedly for their own good.

The locals say that as fishing communities they have no choice. Together with the experts, they have designed ""escape routes"" leading straight for the nearby hills in the event of another disaster.

Their plans to plant coconut trees, pines and mangroves are not exactly to safeguard inland areas from another tsunami, as the government intends.

""The mangroves are to provide shelter from the wind breeze as this rusts our equipment in a short time. The mangroves wouldn't be able to hold back a tidal wave like the one we recently experienced,"" said Tarmizi, a village secretary.

The villages have different plans for the future of their settlements. ""For our village, Meunasah Tuha, we'll live 500 meters away from the sea,"" Tarmizi said. Houses would be located near the hills, while the rice fields would be near the sea.

The villagers here, mostly farmers and fishermen, plan to rebuild their homes soon so as to replace the current wooden buildings. In so far as possible, the houses will be designed to withstand earthquakes.

""Each home will cost around Rp 35 million,"" Yuli said.

Proper spatial and environmental planning, Yuli said, should be the focus of the rebuilding effort, instead of relocating communities.

Permukiman Kumuh Belum Tertangani

UN Habitat memperkirakan hampir satu miliar manusia tinggal di permukiman kumuh di kota-kota dunia. Sebagian besar permukiman kumuh tersebut berada di kota-kota negara berkembang.
Jika tidak tertangani dengan baik, jumlah penduduk yang tinggal di kawasan kumuh diperkirakan akan meningkat dua kali lipat di tahun 2030. Sementara itu, Indonesia sendiri hingga kini memiliki kawasan kumuh seluas 47.393 ha.
“Dari jumlah kawasan kumuh itu, sampai tahun 2004, dengan dana APBN dan APBD pemerintah baru mampu menangani permukiman kumuh seluas 2.875 hektare. Artinya, masih terdapat 44.250 hektare permukiman kumuh yang saat ini menunggu penanganan lebih lanjut,” urai Ismanto, Plt Direktur Pengembangan Permukinan Ditjen Cipta Karya, Departemen PU membuka Pelatihan Nasional Koordinasi Pelaksanaan NUSSP

Tanpa Menggusur
Sehubungan dengan program meningkatkan kualitas lingkungan permukiman dan perumahan kumuh yang dihuni para KBR, pemerintah melalui Departemen PU mengembangkan program NUSSP. Program ini menawarkan pendekatan baru dalam pembangunan permukiman dan perumahan kumuh, melibatkan partisipasi aktif pemerintah daerah, masyarakat, dan dunia usaha dalam implementasinya tanpa harus melakukan penggusuran.
Melalui NUSSP masalah kumuh perkotaan diselesaikan secara bertahap berbasis pada keberdayaan dengan model pemihakan terhadap keadilan, terutama pemihakan kepada KBR.
Menurut Dewi Chomistriana, Kepala Project Management Unit (PMU) NUSSP, kegiatan NUSSP diarahkan untuk memperbaiki permukiman kumuh di 32 kota di Indonesia, meliputi 796 kelurahan sasaran, dilaksanakan sejak tahun 2005-2009.
Berdasarkan verifikasi yang dilakukan tahun anggaran 2006, sasaran NUSSP sampai 2009 mencakup areal 3.761 hektare meliputi 8,3 juta penduduk, di mana 1,35 juta jiwa di antaranya berkategori miskin. Dana ini akan dibagikan kepada 32 kota di Indonesia. Setiap wilayah akan menerima bantuan sebesar Rp 9-13 miliar berupa pinjaman lunak.
Pemda yang mendapatkan kegiatan NUSSP wajib menyediakan dana pendamping dari APBD masing-masing, bervariasi antara 10,40 dan 70 persen terhadap nilai program NUSSP. “Dana pendamping pemda harus dicarikan terlebih dulu sebagai syarat untuk pencairan dana yang berasal dari pinjaman ADB,” ungkap Dewi.
Menurut Ismanto, setelah berjalan hampir dua tahun terdapat sejumlah kendala yang harus segera diatasi. Sasaran proyek ini adalah masyarakat miskin yang prioritas utamanya adalah pangan, disusul sandang, baru kemudian pendidikan dan perumahan. Artinya, kebutuhan akan perumahan bukanlah kebutuhan utama mereka.
“Sementara itu, untuk pinjaman ini dikenakan bunga sesuai bunga pasar. Ini memang agak memberatkan mereka, yang tidak merasakan kepentingan memiliki rumah sebagai hal utama. Oleh karena itu sekarang sedang dipikirkan langkah untuk memberikan subsidi bunga kepada mereka, sehingga kesulitan akan tingginya suku bunga dapat diatasi,'' sambungnya.

digunting dari milist tetangga
oleh;yk

A glittering ceremony for Dubai award winners

http://www.unhabita t.org/content. asp?cid=6668&catid=5&typeid=6&subMenuId=0

Dubai, 13 May 09 Twelve lucky winners from around the world were this week each handed a USD 30,000 cash prize, a gilted wind tower and a certificate for their work in promoting a better urban future in a glittering ceremony marking the seventh Dubai International Award for Best Practices.

The award ceremony was attended by Shaikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Deputy Ruler of Dubai, UAE Minister of Finance and Chairman of Dubai Municipality, who personally conferred the prizes. These went to 10 winners from Burundi, China, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia*, Mexico, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, and the United States in the Best Practices category, and to two winners from Palestine and Pakistan in the Best Practice Transfers category.

The award programme is jointly managed by UN-HABITAT and Dubai Municipality.

“These awards are a very valuable means of recognizing excellence, promoting learning and sharing best practices,” said Inga Bjork-Klevby, Deputy Executive Director of UN-HABITAT. “This year, the award ceremony is held at a time the world is going through the worst economic crisis in living memory. If we do not manage it better while we still can, especially the urban part of it in which most of us live, we will lose the battle against climate disruption as well. This is why we so value Dubai’s continued commitment to the cause of sustainable human settlements.”

Engineer Hussain Nasser Lootah, Director General of Dubai Municipality, said: “This is part of the continuing pursuit of the UAE to contribute to a descent life and seamless access to better living conditions for all humanity regardless of gender, religion or nation.” He said seventh Dubai International Award for Best Practices was marked by an exceptional competition of 500 submissions from 65 countries covering three fields.

The technical advisory committee made a great effort to shortlist the best 112 practices out of them, from which the international jury selected the 12 winning practices. Since 1995 the award has attracted over 4000 practice from 140 countries.”

This Dubai awards were started by the late Sheikh Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum in 1995 to recognize and enhance awareness of outstanding and sustainable achievements in improving the living environment as per the criteria established by the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) in Istanbul in 1996, and the Dubai Declaration.

*Note: Urban Poor Linkage, a community-based coalition in Indonesia is improving the lives of the urban poor, especially survivors of the Tsunami of 2004. The initiative helps people reconstruct their homes and rehabilitate the environment.

Kado Hari Habitat dan Idul Fitri untuk Warga Taman BMW

Di saat kita memperingati hari habitat internasional, dengan tema Kota yang Harmonis seperti yang beberapa hari lalu kita lihat di televisi presiden RI dalam sambutannya mengatakan:

"...pembangunan perkotaan harus mengupayakan keseimbangan dan pemerataan sosial ekonomi. Pembangunan perkotaan harus dapat memberdayakan semua kelompok masyarakat, semua penghuni dalam mengarungi kehidupannya, khususnya kesempatan untuk menikmati hunian yang layak..."

Di salah satu ruang di ibukota Jakarta, 8 oktober kemaren 500 kk warga Taman BMW kembali harus menelan pil pahit PENGGUSURAN dan PEMBAKARAN rumah2 sementara yang sebelumnya mereka coba pertahankan. Ini hanya salah satu contoh dari sekian kdzoliman, ketidak adilan pemerintah yang dibungkus kata keharmonisan..

Pemerintah benar-benar sudah buta mata dan buta hati, di saat warga mencoba membuka ruang dialog, berpikir jalan terbaik, semua dengan tiba2 (kembali) dihajar menggunakan robot2 trantib yang hanya mendengar perintah atasan. Beberapa warga diinjak-injak, dipukuli dan digebuki hanya karena ingin mempertahankan gubug reotnya. Apakah tidak ada cara yang lebih beradab, memausiakan rakyatnya, di saat kita semua mengatakan:
"...Kemanusiaan Yang Adil dan Beradab,
Keadilan Sosial Bagi Rakyat Indonesia..."

Jawabnya hanya: Astagfirullahaladzim..

Suasana lebaran dan saling memaafkan, fitrah seakan tak berarti sama sekali. Warga yang hanya bisa meikmati hari kemenangan dengan kesederhanaan berubah menjadi sebuah tangis, ketika kepulan awan hitam meutupi langit taman BMW. Pemandangan yang memprihatinkan ketika para trantib mentertawakan tangisan warga dan hangusnya gubug2 hunian warga.

Lalu pemerintah pun berkata:
"minal aidin wal faidzin..ini kado lebaran untuk kalian, wahai rakyatku.."

Salam keprihatinan,
yulikusworo

dokumentasi penggusuran taman BMW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBWfH5pUXTw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgRbtOV4Tqw

Penggusuran Taman BMW, hadiah Ultah RI ke-63 untuk Warga Miskin Jakarta

Minggu pagi, tanggal 24 Agustus 2008 benar-benar menjadi pagi yang menjadikan pilu warga miskin yang tinggal di eks Taman BMW (Bersih Manusiawi dan Wibawa) Papanggo, Jakarta Utara. Betapa tidak, masih dalam suasana memperingati kemerdekaan RI ke-63, ratusan bendera merah putih masih berkibar diterpa angin di sela-sela rumah warga, terpaksa suasana itupun berbalik seakan bencana alam datang begitu mendadak. Tatkala ribuan Satpol PP bersama Brimob dan 7 kendaraan Back Hoo-nya mulai masuk ke area kampung untuk menggusur lebih dari 1000 rumah warga yang berdiri di lahan 26,5 Hektar milik Dinas Pertamanan DKI tersebut. Warga berusah menyelamatkan barang-barang dan perabotnya sebelum dihajar alat berat yang tak berperasaan itu. Ibu-ibu dan anak-anak hanya bisa menangis,karena seminggu ke depan mereka tak tahu harus bagaimana untuk menghadapi Ramadhan ketika rumahnya hanya tinggal puing berserakan.

“Saya sudah menduga kami akan digusur. Tapi kok sepagi ini,” kata Suharti dilokasi penggusuran pemukiman liarnya, Taman BMW (Bersih, Manusiawi dan Berwibawa), Jl RE Marthadinata, Jakarta Utara, Minggu (24/8/2008).

Bagi Suharti, menghentikan derap sepatu boot itu hanya mimpi. Tubuhnya yang kecil dan tenaganya yang tidak seberapa, memaksa Suharti hanya mampu menangisi rumahnya yang mulai digusur.

“Seminggu lalu, warga masih sempat merayakan tujuhbelasan (HUT RI ke-63) dengan ramai. Ada lomba-lomba. Lomba makan kerupuk dan sebagainya. Pokoknya semua senang,” kenang Suharti membandingkan suasana kontras hari ini dengan seminggu lalu.

Sungguh cerita tragis yang memilukan, di saat pemerintah DKI dengan Guberur barunya selalu meneriakkan Jakarta Untuk Semua, Membangun Jakarta yang Partisipatif ternyata hanya omong kosong alias bullshit..Bicara menambah RTH (Ruang terbuka Hijau) dengan cara menggusur yang miskin bukan jalan keluar terbaik. Apakah pemerintah tidak tau atau memang bodoh, seakan penggusuran satu-satunya solusi untuk menambah RTH di Jakarta.



Kita melihat masih ada 26 SPBU yang masih tetap beroperasi, padahal mereka sudah diketahui mengkooptasi RTH. Kita juga tahu persis kawasan Senayan sebagai Hutan Kota dikooptasi pemodal untuk membangun hotel, atau kawasan Kelapa Gading yang dulu adalah daerah rsapan air kini berubah fungsi menjadi maal dan apartment mewah. Kalau pemerintah mau adil, gusur juga mereka, bawa bendera RTH yang besar dan berteriaklah di semua media bahwa demi Jakarta RTH harus dikembalikan fungsinya. Tetapi bila kasus Taman BMW selalu berulang, penggusuran rakyat miskin, apapun alasannya tetap saja pelanggaran hak-hak dasar tetap terjadi. Pemda telah melakukan pendholiman kepada warganya.

Solusi alternatif tetap diperjuangkan di pinggiran, karena tembok tebal Pemda DKI masih menjadi tameng. Sampai kapan negeri ini akan tetap seperti ini, bila pemerintahnya tidak mau membuka ruang dialog, mencari alternatif solusi bersama semua pihak? Atau iklim seperti ini sengaja dipertahankan untuk melanggengkan proyek-proyek yang hanya akan menggelembungkan perut para pejabatnya?

Perluasan RTH Ancam Warga Miskin Jakarta

VHRmedia.com, Jakarta - Rencana Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta memperluas ruang terbuka hijau mengancam penduduk miskin. Pemprov Jakarta dituntut menata permukiman warga miskin melalui penghijauan tanpa melakukan penggusuran.

Hal itu diusulkan Urban Poor Consortium dalam diskusi di gedung DPRD DKI Jakarta, Senin (16/6). Wardiah, anggota UPC, mengatakan, dalam Konferensi Bumi di Rio De Janeiro Brasil tahun 1992, setiap kota harus menyediakan 30% dari luas keseluruhan wilayah untuk lahan RTH.

Pemprov Jakarta menargetkan pada tahun 2010 sekitar 14% luas wilayahnya menjadi lahan RTH. Wardiah menghitung, jumlah itu setara dengan 32 kali lipat luas Taman Monumen Nasional. "Itu tidak realistis," ujarnya.

Padahal, proyek RTH tahun 2010 seharusnya tidak berhubungan dengan permukiman warga miskin. Sebab, sejak tahun 1965, RTH di wilayah Jakarta selalu berkurang hingga tahun 2007 tinggal 9%. "Ada beberapa wilayah yang berubah fungsi menjadi milik pemodal," katanya.

Menurut Wardiah, saat ini di Jakarta terdapat 218.000 hektare permukiman miskin yang rawan digusur akibat ambisi Pemprov memperluas RTH. Di antaranya Kampung Kebon Bayem (bekas Taman BMW, Jakarta Utara).

Arsitek UPC, Yuli Kusworo, menyebutkan proyek RTH akan menggusur 1.295 rumah di wilayah Kebon Bayem. Penggusuran juga mengancam kelangsungan hidup ekonomi masyarakat setempat. Di kampung itu, misalnya, penggusuran akan mematikan usaha warga yang diperkirakan beromzet Rp 20 juta per hari. "Padahal wilayah itu hanya 5 persen dari keseluruhan Taman BMW," katanya.

UPC mengusulkan penataan permukiman miskin berbasis penghijauan. Anggota UPC Edi Saedi mengatakan, penghijauan dapat mengubah permukiman warga miskin menjadi daerah resapan air. "Misalnya setiap keluarga menanam pohon. Penduduk kemudian mengolah sampah padat menjadi pupuk. Masyarakat juga dapat mengorganisasikan diri di permukiman itu."

Edi Saidi meminta Pemprov Jakarta melakukan jeda penggusuran selama 5 tahun. Selain itu harus membuat daerah percontohan proyek tata ulang permukiman warga miskin.

Wakil Ketua DPRD Jakarta Ilal Ferhard menyambut baik usulan UPC. Inovasi yang diajukan UPC harus dicoba untuk melihat hasilnya. "Tidak ada salahnya dicoba," katanya. (E1)

dikutip dari:
Prakarsa Rakyat online,
17 Juni 2008 - 12:20 WIB

Jaime Lerner: Cities Present Solutions, Not Problems, for Quality of Life, Climate Change

'Urban acupuncture' highlights Jaime Lerner's recommendations for sustainable city planning.

Few former planners and architects can claim more caché than Jaime Lerner, who, as mayor of Curitiba and governor of the state of Parana in Brazil, implemented groundbreaking and widely imitated improvements to infrastructure and the built environment. The Planning Report is pleased to present excerpts from an event in Los Angeles in which Mr. Lerner described strategies to implement sustainability and elegant design into cities, which he sees as the solution to the problems of global warming.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to share with you some thoughts about the city and sustainability in such a wonderful place...I don’t want to focus this speech just on the city. I want to speak about life in a city and how it’s possible to change it.

Recently I became a filmmaker. I am doing two movies: one short movie, which will help teach children about sustainability....The second movie is a story about dreams. These dreams are not related only to planning or architecture; they are related to the best lesson I have had in my life. I can’t tell you about the movie, not yet, but I can tell you about the end. The movie ends with, “If sometimes you cannot make your dreams happen, don’t be frustrated. Be sure, if you dedicate deeply to your dream, this dream will come around again, hit you, and say, ‘Do you remember me? I’m your dream. It’s your second chance. Don’t throw it away.’”

This is a story about many, many dreams. I had my personal dreams, my professional dreams as a politician—mostly as mayor. My time as mayor was the best time in my life, the three terms I spent as mayor of my city and as Governor. First of all, speaking about cities, you probably ask, “Is it possible to make a city better—to improve its quality of life?” I would say, definitely yes. Every city in the world can improve its quality of life in less than three years. No matter the scale of the cities, no matter the financial conditions or resources you have, all you need is to have a shared dream.

I’ve met many mayors all over the world, some of them try to say: “My city is so difficult; we have 15 million people.” Other mayors say, “My city doesn’t have financial resources, it’s very hard.” It’s not a question of scale; it’s not a question of money; it’s how you can build a good equation of co-responsibility.

If you want to change, of course, you have to have political will. You have to have a strategy. You have to have solidarity. But most important, you have to build an equation of co-responsibility.

I’ll give you an example. We didn’t have the money to build a system of public transport. We needed $250 million. We couldn’t get the money. So, what was the solution, the equation of co-responsibility? We proposed to the private initiative, we told them, “We’re going to design the system, and you’ll make the investments in the itinerary. You’re going to provide the fleet, and we’ll pay you by kilometer.” That was the whole equation. For a long time, it’s been a great public transport system, and there are no subsidies—it pays for itself. When you understand the problems in our countries, where investments in social programs are so important, you cannot afford to provide transport—it would take all the money you have, which you need for schools, for a healthcare system, and care for children. So for this problem we needed to build a really good equation.

The city is not the problem. The city is the solution. I want to speak about strategy—a strategic vision for the city. But first of all, I want to introduce some friends—some characters I have designed for a book for children and teenagers, trying to explain the city to them. The title is the best example of quality of life: Living and Working Together...One character is “Otto”—the automobile. He’s very egotistical, because he carries only two or three people. This is the type of guy that you invite to a party, and he never leaves. He drinks a lot, and he coughs a lot. He’s a very demanding person—always a new freeway and more public works—he always wants more and more. The car is like a mother-in-law. We have to have good relationships with her, but we cannot let her conduct our life. In other words, if the only woman you have in your life is mother-in-law, you have a problem. Another character is the friendly bus. He can carry 300 people, which shows solidarity...

...When you start to understand the city, you like it better. But to make it happen—many times I am asked, “What makes it happen?” My feeling is that if you want to make it happen, you have to have a scenario, an idea, a project that the large majority will understand is desirable. It’s a desirable design. It’s a shared dream.

I’ve watched many discussions for mayors, presidents, and in the many debates I watched, I expected to see a discussion about a design, scenario, an idea. It’s always the same. The politicians say, “I’m going to provide 10 million jobs...” Nice story, but there is no scenario. They don’t say “How.”

In one of the last elections in my country I was asked by one of the candidates to present an idea about urban problems in my country. So my team worked together. We asked, “In a country with 5,000 municipalities, it should be easier to solve. Why?” We started to think and we realized, we have 100 cities with more than 200,000 people. So, there is no problem with municipalities; with 200,000 people it’s not difficult to deal with the city’s problems. After we realized we have seven cities with more than 500,000. At the end we realized that it’s difficult in those seven metropolitan regions. And we started to figure out how much we had to invest in all the municipalities—in schools, in healthcare, in public transit in cities with more than 500,000.

So we came to an incredible conclusion: the amount needed to fix all of our cities was nothing compared to the amount we were losing in the world’s “casino” of investments. If it doesn’t pay a percentage, why should we do it? Policy makers in countries don’t give importance to cities. To them, a city is an externality of the economic problem. It’s not. The city is a solution for a country. When we were trying to discuss the main political issues for a country—globalization, solidarity—don’t forget that the city is the last refuge of solidarity. It’s where we can take care of children, have a better environment, and so on. This century is going to be the century of cities. I’m not speaking about the past—cities like Venice or Barcelona. I’m talking about all the cities.

Now I would like to speak about sustainability. The former vice president of the United States, Al Gore, made an incredible, remarkable work, in which he tried to generate concern about the problem of climate change. So, we are more concerned. He deserves the Nobel Prize. There is more concern, but the people don’t know how to change it. They know it’s a terrible problem, but it is possible to change.

When we realized that 75 percent of carbon emissions are related to cities, we started to understand—it’s on the cities that we have to work. Okay, new materials are important, green buildings are important, new sources of energy are important, reusing and recycling are important. But it’s not enough.

The most important thing is working on the concept of the city. I would suggest five commandments for a sustainable city, which is why I am making the movie for children: 1) Use your car less. I’m not saying to not use the car. I’m saying that every city will have to provide a good public transport system. In less than ten years, every important city would have to do it. At least for your routine itinerary, you can handle it with public transport. 2) Separate your garbage. 3) Live closer to work or work closer to home. 4) Understand that there is a multi-use space in a city. Downtown is the best place in a city, and it’s empty for sixteen hours—that’s not possible anymore. Big arenas are being used ten times a year...An arena could make an incredibly good market in the morning. It could be a university. Use it for more cultural and sporting events. 5) Understand that sustainability is an equation of what you save and what you waste. If you waste zero, your sustainability goes to infinity. If you have a good city, a good quality of life, you have a sustainable city...

...Let’s go back to design—land use and density. We cannot be afraid of density—it depends on way you organize it. We have public transit where we have more density and everyone can have their choice—living in high-rise buildings closer to public transit or a few meters more and you have other buildings, but it has a very clear design. It’s a structure of growth...

...Let me talk about what I’m doing now. I’m doing urban acupuncture. Planning takes time, but sometimes there are ideas, focal points, that you can help the normal process of planning with a new energy. That’s what I call urban acupuncture. You can have this in every city very fast. It’s not instead of the normal process of planning; it’s to help the process of planning...

Belajar dari Curitiba Brazil (1)

Jaime Lerner (Architect): “The city is not a problem, rather it contains a solution for everything”

The Dialogue “Cities and Citizenships in the 21st Century” this morning analyzed the relationship between urban living and the authorities

The city planner and Brazilian architect, Jaime Lerner, explained that projects are carried out "when there is political will, a common vision and most importantly when a shared responsibility equation is organized". For Lerner "the city is a structure that functions between human settlement areas and economic activity". Lerner thinks that the problem lies in the fact that "most countries have assigned more importance to economic activity than to the people". For that reason, Lerner said "that the city is not a problem but a solution because in the city are the answers to everything: to work, the house, the transport".

Lerner was optimistic, saying that "any city can make great advances in city planning matters in less than two years". For Lerner the speed of projects is important.

In relation to the transport, Lerner said that "you can’t have everything: metro, cars, buses, especially when they fight for the same space". "The car is like our mechanical mother-in-law: we must have a good relationship with it but we cannot allow it to rule our lives", added Lerner. The Brazilian declared ironically "that I am not against cars, in fact, my best friend has one".

In order to be able to carry out a project quickly, Lerner explained that "it is important to propose a scenario, an idea that the majority understand as desirable, and understanding it as desirable will help its accomplishment". "It is necessary to propose a scenario or else priorities will not exist in the city".

Lerner made reference to the former president of Portugal, Mario Soares, who said that, "it is necessary to globalize solidarity". For Lerner "it is necessary to see the cities as refuges of solidarity".

With respect to costs and economic policies, Lerner said that, "to take care of people and their needs costs nothing in comparison with what it means to the worldwide casino of financial speculation". Lerner added that, "the informal sector must be integrated into the formal one".

Lerner concluded by affirming that, "people do not know their cities, something that does not happen in Barcelona". "With its beauty this city can make great contributions for everyone in the world", was Lerner’s opinion.

The Italian architect, Maurizio Marcelloni, explained in his talk that, "the crisis of urban planning is a crisis of the political powers". Marcelloni said that, "there is a direct correlation between the physical city and the political city".

Marcelloni said that, "just as before, when the city was organized and was dynamic, nowadays both concepts are superimposed and they do not enter into the traditional dynamics of government". The Italian architect said in this respect that, "there is a fragmentation of power and a long time is needed to be able to modify these dynamics". Marcelloni thinks that this causes uncertainty and instability in the institutions.

The professor of the University of Sapienza has spoken of an urban plan that is being carried out in the city of Rome and that is based on "an overall plan and different projects that are being adapted to it". Marcelloni said that "in Rome there is a strong link between neighboring municipalities: it has not been possible to engage in a dialogue to create a higher government authority, but there is the political tendency to take on this issue".

For Marcelloni the problem is that "the formal political apparatus is in crisis, and the city has to incorporate innovative bodies in the decision-making process". In addition, "this new need is raised at the micro and macro levels of urban government”.

For Marcelloni "there is a new informal policy that is emerging and that will be the base of this micro dimension". For him, "the present policy does not assume the city to be a place of conflict and tries to avoid it".

Marcelloni thinks that "the power of the city planner is important because mayors have preferred to deal directly in architecture". For Marcelloni "there is certain resistance to innovation on the part of the state and the bureaucracy".

(mewujudkan) kota HIJAU untuk semua

Kebutuhan paru-paru kota untuk mengurangi efek rumah kaca, menyaring polusi dan memaksimalkan fungsi tanah sebagai resapan yang dapat mendukung dan meningkatkan kenyamanan sebuah kot, tentunya menjadi pertimbangan utama seorang perencana kota atau arsitek dalam membuat desain bangunan dan kawasan kota. Semakin sesak dan menjamurnya bangunan-bangunan tinggi yang tidak mempertimbangkan aspek lingkungan menyumang pemanasan global yang tidak sedikit. Dengan dalih optimalisasi lahan kota, dengan adanya bangunan pencakar langit (yang asal jadi dan hanya aspek ekonomis saja yang menjadi pertimbangan desain) membuat kota semakin tidak bisa bernafas.

Menurut saya, arsitek merupakan salah satu pihak yang menyumbang cukup signifikan terhadap pemaasan global. Pemakaian AC yang berlebih, desain yang didomonasi fasad kaca serta koefisien dasar bangunan yang berlebih adalah sumber utama kenapa kota cenderung bertambah suhunya. Di samping pihak pemerintah yang patut dipersalahkan atas pemberian ijin dan selalu berubahnya peruntukan lahan dari tahun ke tahun. Jakarta misalnya, tahun 1960 yang sudah ditetapkan 37% areanya ditetapkan sebagai RTH, saat ini area-area tersebut berubah fungsinya menjadi kompleks komersial elit dan hanya tersisa 9% saja. Sungguh menyedihkan, di mana otak pemerintah sehingga kita akan berpikir, akan menjadi apa Jakarta 20 tahun lagi. Yang lebih kurang ajar, perubahan fungsi lahan tersebut dilegitimasi dengan diterbitkannya RTRW baru, terakhir ini dilakukan oleh Sutiyoso. Tapi licik juga otak birokrat ini, setelah 'membabat' RTH Jakarta mereka mengeluarkan kebijakan bahwa untuk mengembalikan RTH Jakarta hingga 30%, ditetapkan RTH Privat, yang ditaksir adalah 20% dan didapat dari lahan-lahan pekarangan warga, yang sebelumnya tidak pernah diperhitungkan. Sedangkan RTH Publik ditargetkan naik 4% , namun didapat dari penggusuran kampung-kampung miskin di Jakarta yang sebenarnya luasnya tidak signifikan (kurang dari 1%) tetapi menggunakan budget APBD sampai 900 miliar.
Lalu, bagaimana dengan bangunan-bangunan komersial (mall, real estate) yang luasnya sangat signifikan yaitu 1980 Ha? Apakah pemerintah juga akan menggusur mereka? Sangat tidak mungkin jawabnya.

Apa yang bisa kita lakukan? Tentu saja belajar dari banyak kota di dunia seperti Bangkok, Fukuoka, Vancouver, Curitiba atau kota-kota Eropa, banyak yang bisa dilakukan oleh warga, arsitek dan perencana kota atau pemerintah. Mulai dari menanam jenis-jenis tanaman tertentu di lahan sempit yang berfungsi sebagai penyerap CO2, menghasil oksigen banyak sampai menanam pepohoan rimbun di ruang-ruang terbuka publik di lingkungan kampung misalnya. Tradisi ini harus ditanamkan kepada warga kota melalui pendidikan dini anak-anak. Warga kota harus memulai ini semua dengan melakukan hal-hal kecil untuk menunjukkan kepedulian terhadap kota sebagai wujud partisipasi. Sebagai perencana, membuat roof garden atau mengurangi penggunaan AC dan mengoptimalkan penghawaan alami masih bisa dilakukan selama si arsitek masih punya sense of environtment. Pemerintah sebagai pengelola kota, harus tegas terhadap pemodal, menyeimbangkan aspek kepentingan investasi ekonomi dengan kepentingan sustainability kota.

JAKARTA KOLAPS..!!

Kepadatan Jakarta saat ini ternyata tidak menjadikan para pengambil kebijakan di kota ini menghentikan penambahan pusat belanja baru. Bahkan, dalam dua tahun ke depan, telah direncanakan akan ada 13 proyek pusat belanja baru lagi. Hal itu terungkap dari hasil riset Procon Indah yang dipublikasikan pada 28 April 2008. Menurut riset tersebut, 40 persen penambahan pusat belanja akan berada di Jakarta Utara, 20 persen berada di Jakarta Selatan, dan 18 persen di Central Business District Jakarta. Sementara itu, sisanya akan tersebar di berbagai daerah di Jakarta lainnya. Luas pusat belanja di Jakarta pun diperkirakan akan mencapai 3,33 juta meter persegi.

Beberapa pusat belanja yang direncanakan akan beroperasi pada tahun ini antara lain Sudirman Place, Grand Paragon, Mall of Indonesia, Plaza Indonesia Extension, Emporium Pluit Mall, Epicentrum Walk, Pluit Village, dan Pulo Mas Ex-Venture. Dampak nyata dari meningkatnya jumlah dan luasan pusat belanja di Jakarta adalah makin hilangnya daerah resapan air di kota ini. Pengalihfungsian kawasan ruang terbuka hijau (RTH) dan daerah resapan air menjadi pusat belanja dan kawasan komersial lainnya adalah fakta yang tidak bisa dilepaskan dari sejarah gelap pembangunan Kota Jakarta.

Hutan kota di kawasan Senayan, misalnya. Rencana Induk Jakarta 1965-1985 memperuntukkan kawasan seluas 279 hektare ini sebagai ruang terbuka hijau. Di atasnya hanya boleh berdiri bangunan publik dengan luas maksimal sebesar 16 persen dari luas total. Namun, di kawasan itu kini telah muncul Senayan City (pusat belanja yang dibuka pada 23 Juni 2006), Plaza Senayan (pusat belanja dan perkantoran, dibuka 1996), Senayan Trade Center, Ratu Plaza (apartemen 54 unit dan pusat belanja, dibangun pada 1974), serta bangunan megah lainnya.

Hal yang sama terjadi pada hutan kota Tomang. Rencana Induk 1965 dan 1985 memperuntukkan lahan di Simpang Tomang ini sebagai sabuk hijau Jakarta. Kini hutan itu berubah menjadi Mediterranean Garden Residence I (apartemen, dibangun pada 2002 dan selesai 2004), Mediterranean Garden Residence II (apartemen, dijual pada 2005), serta Mal Taman Anggrek (apartemen dan pusat belanja, dibuka pada 2006).

Pengalihfungsian RTH secara besar-besaran menjadi kawasan komersial oleh para pemilik modal besar juga terjadi di kawasan Pantai Kapuk, Kelapa Gading, dan Sunter. Tapi sejauh ini Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta tidak mengambil tindakan terhadap para pemilik modal besar tersebut. Celakanya, sejarah gelap pembangunan Kota Jakarta terus-menerus diulang hingga kini oleh Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta.

Padahal data dari Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup Daerah (BPLHD) DKI Jakarta menyebutkan bahwa menyusutnya daerah resapan air, baik berupa situ maupun ruang terbuka hijau, oleh aktivitas pembangunan telah menyebabkan dari 2.000 juta per meter kubik air hujan yang turun di Jakarta tiap tahun hanya 26,6 persen yang terserap dalam tanah. Sementara itu, sisanya, 73,4 persen, menjadi air larian (run off) yang berpotensi menimbulkan banjir di perkotaan (BPLHD DKI Jakarta, 2007). Bukan hanya itu, pengambilan air tanah secara besar-besaran ditambah beban bangunan di atas Kota Jakarta telah menyebabkan penurunan permukaan tanah di kota ini beberapa sentimeter setiap tahun. Artinya, potensi banjir di Jakarta akan semakin besar dengan penambahan 13 pusat belanja baru itu.

Sementara itu, biaya sosial dan lingkungan yang ditimbulkan oleh banjir di kota ini tidaklah kecil. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas), misalnya, memperkirakan kerugian akibat bencana banjir yang melanda wilayah Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, dan Bekasi pada 2007 mencapai Rp 8 triliun. Dari jumlah itu, Bappenas memerinci kerugian dari rumah penduduk yang rusak sebesar Rp 1,7 triliun dan infrastruktur Rp 600 miliar. Sementara itu, kerugian dari sektor industri, perbankan, serta usaha kecil dan menengah diperkirakan mencapai Rp 2 triliun.

Secara sosial, rencana penambahan pusat belanja itu juga sangat menyakitkan hati warga miskin kota yang menjadi korban penggusuran dengan dalih penambahan RTH oleh Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta beberapa waktu lalu. Penggusuran itu, menurut Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta, disebabkan oleh semakin sempitnya luas tanah di kota ini sehingga sangat sulit untuk menambah RTH tanpa mengusir warga miskin kota yang kebetulan menempati secuil kawasan yang direncanakan sebagai RTH. Untuk menambah RTH, pemerintah DKI selalu mengaku kekurangan tanah, tapi tidak untuk membangun pusat belanja baru dan kawasan komersial lainnya.

Selain itu, penambahan kawasan komersial baru akan menambah kemacetan lalu lintas di Jakarta. Hal itu disebabkan oleh pengunjung dari pusat belanja tersebut sebagian besar adalah konsumen berkendaraan pribadi. Meningkatnya kemacetan lalu lintas ini tidak hanya akan mengurangi waktu produktif warga kota, tapi juga meningkatkan biaya kesehatan akibat polusi udara yang ditimbulkannya.

Terkait dengan kemacetan lalu lintas di Jakarta, sebuah studi menyebutkan bahwa kemacetan lalu lintas di Jakartapolusi udara di Jakarta sebesar Rp 1,8 triliun.

Dapat dibayangkan betapa berat beban yang harus dipikul oleh warga Jakarta pada dua tahun yang akan datang. Paradigma pembangunan usang yang dipakai oleh para pengambil kebijakan di Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta benar-benar telah membuat kota ini mengalami kolaps. Paradigma itu adalah pengarusutamaan pencapaian target pertumbuhan ekonomi dengan mengesampingkan biaya-biaya sosial dan lingkungan yang timbul akibat kebijakan pembangunan.

Untuk menyelamatkan warga kota dari bencana ekologi yang akan semakin sering terjadi dalam skala masif, tidak bisa tidak paradigma pembangunan usang tersebut harus dibongkar. Pembangunan pusat belanja baru di kota ini harus dihentikan. Setelah itu, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah dan Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta harus segera duduk bersama untuk membahas ulang tata ruang kota yang telah karut-marut ini. Para pengambil kebijakan di Jakarta harus kembali ke mandatnya semula, yaitu menempatkan kepentingan warga kota jauh di atas kepentingan para pemilik modal yang ingin menghancurkan kota ini melalui penambahan kawasan komersial baru. telah menimbulkan kerugian ekonomi sebesar Rp 5,5 triliun (SITRAMP, 2004). Bahkan, dengan metode yang berbeda, hasil penelitian Yayasan Pelangi pada 2003 menyebutkan bahwa kemacetan lalu lintas di DKI telah menyebabkan kerugian akibat kehilangan waktu produktif yang jika dinominalkan akan mencapai Rp 7,1 triliun. Adapun polusi udara yang diakibatkan oleh meningkatnya kemacetan lalu lintas juga telah menimbulkan peningkatan biaya kesehatan yang sangat tinggi. Hasil kajian Bank Dunia menemukan dampak ekonomi akibat polusi udara di Jakarta sebesar Rp 1,8 triliun.

Dapat dibayangkan betapa berat beban yang harus dipikul oleh warga Jakarta pada dua tahun yang akan datang. Paradigma pembangunan usang yang dipakai oleh para pengambil kebijakan di Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta benar-benar telah membuat kota ini mengalami kolaps. Paradigma itu adalah pengarusutamaan pencapaian target pertumbuhan ekonomi dengan mengesampingkan biaya-biaya sosial dan lingkungan yang timbul akibat kebijakan pembangunan.

Untuk menyelamatkan warga kota dari bencana ekologi yang akan semakin sering terjadi dalam skala masif, tidak bisa tidak paradigma pembangunan usang tersebut harus dibongkar. Pembangunan pusat belanja baru di kota ini harus dihentikan. Setelah itu, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah dan Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta harus segera duduk bersama untuk membahas ulang tata ruang kota yang telah karut-marut ini. Para pengambil kebijakan di Jakarta harus kembali ke mandatnya semula, yaitu menempatkan kepentingan warga kota jauh di atas kepentingan para pemilik modal yang ingin menghancurkan kota ini melalui penambahan kawasan komersial baru.

------------ --------- --------- --------

disadur dari:
Koran TEMPO / Selasa, 06 Mei 2008
Opini: Jakarta Kolaps!

Tulisan: Firdaus Cahyadi
(Knowledge Sharing Officer for Sustainable Development, OneWorld-Indonesia)

Gusuran Taman BMW Tunggu Payung Hukum – UPC Minta RTH Tidak Dijadikan Dalih

RENCANA Pemerintah Kota Jakarta Utara melakukan penertiban Taman BMW di Sunter, Jakarta Utara, hingga kemarin belum terwujud. Rumah dan bangunan warga-sebagian digunakan warga masih kokoh berdiri. Bahkan, di lahan yang terletak dekat pinggir jalan, ada sebuah bangunan baru yang akan didirikan.

Kasudin Tramtib Jakarta Utara Sulistiarto saat dihubungi, mengaku belum tahu kapan kawasan itu akan ditertibkan. "Kapan waktunya saya belum tahu, masih menunggu payung hukumnya. Kalau payung hukumnya sudah turun, (penertiban) baru bisa dilaksanakan," ujarnya kemarin. Sayangnya Sulistriarto pun tidak tahu pasti kapan payung hukum itu bakal turun.

Sebelumnya, Wali Kota Jakarta, Utara Effendi Anas mengungkapkan, penertiban terganjal sengketa pada lahan seluas 26,53 hektare itu. Lahan yang disengketakan warga tersebut merupakan fasilitas sosial dan fasilitas umum yang diserahkan tujuh pengembang di kawasan tersebut.Yakni, PT Agung Podomoro, PT Astra, PT Prospek Motor, PT Indofika Housing, PT Sumber Sukur Brother, PT Ream Pembangunan Jaya serta PT Yakin Gloria. Di lahan tersebut terdapat 1.112 bangunan tersebut, 912 bangunan berada di sisi timur taman. Sedangkan 200 lainnya berada di sisi barat. Kawasan itu kini sudah padat bangunan permanen, semi permanen serta gubuk.

Setelah ditertibkan, diatas lahan tersebut rencananya dibangun stadion bertaraf internasional. Taman BMW sendiri, dibangun pada saat Gubernur DKI dijabat Wiyogo Atmodarminto. Kawasan Ruang Terbuka Hijau itu memiliki luas lahan 66,5 hektar. Terdiri dari 26,5 hektar berupa taman, 31,8 hektar berbentuk air atau danau dan 8,2 hektar sisanya berupa hutan kota.

Sementara itu, para aktivis Urban Poor Consortium mengusulkan jika penertiban benar-benar dilakukan, Pemkot harus memperhatikan aspek keberlanjutan hidup warga. Minimal, relokasi warga tak boleh jauh dari kawasan itu. "Selama ini relokasi selalu menyebabkan warga tak hanya kehilangan tempat tinggal. Warga miskin juga harus kehilangan semua akses kehidupannya," ujar Dian Tri Irawaty dari Divisi Jaringan Urban Poor Consortium (UPC).

Hal senada diungkapkan Yuli Kusworo anggota Urban Poor Lingkage Indonesia. Menurutnya, Pemkot mengajukan dalih penertiban kawasan Taman BMW untuk penambahan Ruang Terbuka Hijau (RTH) berupa stadion bagi Persitara. Yuli menyebut bangunan stadion pada lahan itu akan menutup lahan terbuka sebesar21,8 persen. Bandingkan dengan kondisi saat ini. Bangunan milik warga di kawasan itu hanya menutup 16,3 persen ruang terbuka hijau. Itu masih dengan catatan bangunan milik warga berbentuk landed. Artinya, pemerintah bisa saja melakukan pembangunan rumah susun di kawasan itu agar warga tak kehilangan akses-akses kehidupannya. Jika pemukiman dibangun vertikal, tak perlu butuh lahan luas dan ruang terbuka hijau semakin lebar," jelasnya. Dalam catatan UPC, jumlah bangunan yang ada di Taman BMW mencapai 1.200 unit. Jika warga dipertahankan tetap menghuni kawasan itu, akses kehidupan mereka juga akan lebih terbuka. Warga bisa diberdayakan menjadi elemen sosial pendukung stadion. (dai).

disadur dari:

INDOPOS
Tanggal, 08 April 2008 – Halaman / Kolom : 18 / 03

Lesson learn from CODI, Thailand (2)

LAND for housing :

The city-wide community upgrading process has become a kind of “back door” urban land reform.

Too many poor people stay in their same old insecure communities, locked for years in an unending pattern of
fear, insecurity and squalor, never being able to improve their living conditions because their tenure status is so
precarious, never being able to plan for the future because the future is so uncertain. Life can go on like that
forever. But when people decide to move out and chose other land, finally the pattern changes! This is their land! Nobody can evict them! The whole sense changes. This is what is important!

Land tenure is always an important factor in determining the success or failure of any slum upgrading program. Poor communities struggle with the land issue in Thailand also, where they still experience serious problems accessing secure land for their housing: problems of control over public land use being too centralized, of the commercialization and commodification of land, ofskyrocketing land values, of changing land uses and of eviction and displacement. Land is no easy factor, and all the economic, commercial and political pressures on land make it all that more difficult. But here in Thailand, the flexible finance which the Baan Mankong Program offers is allowing people the power to search for alternative land themselves. Under the program, it is the responsibility of each community to negotiate themselves for secure land, by buying or renting the land they already occupy, or else buying or renting land they find elsewhere.

As a result, a great deal of land searching is going on around the country and hundreds of communities are in the thick of land lease and purchase negotiations with all kinds of public and private land-owners. Even in cities where local authorities have long insisted there is no room for the poor, communities are managing to find pieces of secure land to buy cheaply or lease.

All this wheeling and dealing to get secure land could be called a new kind of urban land reform for poor people’s housing. But it is a type of land reform that is highly decentralized, highly informal and highly unconventional, and it’s being imlemented by the people who are themselves in the greatest need of secure land. What is extraordinary is that even in a context where the laws are clearly stacked against the poor, and where the country’s legal system and land politics continue to work in favor of haves over the have-nots, these land negotiations are still happening on a very large scale.

Instead of taking on a struggle against inequities in the legal system, or pushing for this act or that
legislation, the tools the Baan Mankong Program offers poor communities allows people to sidestep that whole battle, in which the poor would probably be the losers anyway. Instead, they can undertake landreform right away, in practical ways, by quietly finding land, using their knowledge of their cities and the modest tool of this flexible finance at their disposal. In this form of land reform, people work it out, they empower themselves and they believe they can do it because they see all their peers doing it. When communities take the initiative in negotiating for secure land, it pushes them once and for all out of the passive victim mode and gives them the upper hand. Why? Because all of the sudden they’re exploring options, they’re the ones doing the searching, the selecting, the negotiating, the deal-making. Instead of waiting around passively for the eviction to happen, or the relocation to be announced to whoknows-what-godforsaken land, poor communities around Thailand are exploring their own territory and drawing up their own lists of land options. In these ways, communities are changing the game to be on their own terms.

They search for land that is possible and that works for them, they choose the land and they negotiate the terms on which they get that land, and then they develop their housing and community plans on that land - all because they know they have the flexible financial resource at their disposal and they have their togetherness as a community.

Finding secure land :
it’s something like an “ARMY OF ANTS”

When you have flexible and reachable finance, and when people are confident it is available and
open to them to deal with their insecure land and housing needs, there is room for all kinds of variety in how those needs can be met. If people can negotiate to buy or lease the land they already occupy, great. And if they can’t, then they can find land elsewhere that is available and suitable and cheap and not too far from their existing settlement. There are so many kinds of land in Thai cities: temple land, municipal government land, central government land and many types of private land. Because people don’t have a lot of money, and because the Baan Mankong program sets rather low ceilings on how much communities can borrow for land and housing, people need to be very, very creative. But once they come together as a community and as networks of communities within cities, the possibilities for finding alternative land multiply fast and the resourcefulness and energy starts pouring out.

Some staff in CODI have described this process as being something like a very large army of ants being let loose across the country. These thousands and thousands of ants are very busy scanning their local territory, searching for available land and coming up with some very interesting pieces of vacant private and public land that have been “hiding” in the cracks of some 250 towns and cities - land that no government agency or NGO or researcher might ever have found or thought of as possible.This army of ants, with its colonies in all the different cities and provinces, is very well connected. There is a good grapevine of ideas and knowledge about land which is constantly being shared and transferred, and this means possibilities increase exponentially.

Some communities may feel more secure if theycan get cooperative title to a piece of land and so
will negotiate with private land owners to buy various kinds of land. There are many categories of private land rights in Thailand, running along a spectrum from full freehold land title (which is the most secure) to user rights (which can be converted later to full title, after a certain number of years of occupation). The more secure the title, the more expensive the price for the land, so many poor communities are opting to buy cheap land with rights that can be upgraded to full title later.But many communities are also negotiating some very interesting land solutions on public land, under a variety of public land owning agencies. In many of the smaller towns and cities, communities prefer to negotiate lease contracts on public land, where it is possible for them to negotiate very cheap land lease rates, cheaper even than the cost of purchasing cheap private land in those towns and cities.

When poor communities negotiate with public land owning agencies and are able to build some initial housing projects or upgrade some existing communities, it is a powerful way of showing these public agencies new possibilities. In the third and fourth years of the Baan Mankong Program, we are seeing increasing numbers of examples of good cooperation with government land-owning departments, after gradually proving to these agencies that commercial exploitation is not the only reasonable use for public land assets, but that decent new housing for the poor, which allows them to develop themselves and improve their lives in every way, is a reasonable and socially equitable way to use public land resources. And these communities are not asking for free land. Through the upgrading program, public land upon which hundreds of informal settlements have been squatting, can be transformed into “developed land” which generates a modest rental income, without that agency having to spend a penny! Many of these public land-owning agencies are seeing now that by giving longterm leases to poor communities, they can help provide housing for a good group of people who can transform their vulnerable and dilapidated living conditions into proper decent communities. And for this, these public

landlords have every reason to be proud. Here are a few details about cooperation to provide secure landtenure to communities on land belonging to some of the key public land-owning agencies in Thailand.

Lesson Learn fom CODI, Thailand (1)

Using PUBLIC LAND for housing the poor :

TREASURY DEPARTMENT : The greatest majority of public land in Thailand is under the control of the Treasury Department, so this is an extremely important public land-owning agency for urban poor communities. Cooperation with the Treasury Department on Baan Mankong has been very good. In the early years of the upgrading program, CODI signed an MOU with the Treasury Department to cut land rental rates in half and give longer-term lease contracts to many communities on Treasury Department land. Then in 2006, the process spread out to include all of the Treasury Department’s provincial public land offices, which are now routinely granting 30-year renewable leases to poor community cooperatives upgrading or building new communities on their land, at fairly uniform, nominal rates. There is still some negotiating going on, but it keeps getting better and easier for communities on Treasury Department land to get favorable and long-term leases.

Many of these provincial land offices are now even approaching the community networks and CODI with offers of un-used parcels of public land under their control for developing relocation projects, in cases where other communities or scattered renters and squatters cannot upgrade on site, according to the city-wide surveys of people with housing problems. Also, in In many old communities on Treasury Department land, where some people have individual land leases and others don’t, the communities are linking together through the Baan Mankong program, forming a cooperative and renegotiating a new, long-term lease as a community cooperative and then upgrading or reblocking their settlements in situ.

CROWN PROPERTY BUREAU : The Crown Property Bureau (CPB) is another very big landlord of slum communities in Bangkok and other cities. CODI has just signed a new MOU with CPB to provide long-term collective lease contracts to 30 informal communities around the country, in which the bureau asked CODI to help organize on-site upgrading projects. The Baan Mankong budget for five of these communities has already been approved and work is starting. Three of these projects will be land sharing projects.

STATE RAILWAY OF THAILAND : The State Railway of Thailand (SRT) has always been one of the most difficult public landlords. In 2006, CODI signed an MOU with SRT to allow 14 squatter communities on railway land to upgrade on-site, with a long-term (15-30 year) cooperative lease to the land. Now CODI has signed a new MOU with SRT to allow another 100 squatter communities on SRT land around the country to upgrade on-site with a long-term (15-30 year) cooperative land leases. Because the SRT has so far felt uncomfortable leasing the land directly to these communities, like the other public land owning agencies, they have asked CODI to act as an intermediary. So the land for all these projects is being leased to CODI, which then sub-leases to the community cooperatives.This is not an ideal solution, but it allows these important precedent-settingupgrading projects to go ahead, and hopefully, the next batch of leases on SRT land can be direct.

BUDDHIST TEMPLES : Control over the enormous land assets ofThailand’s thousands of Buddhist temples has recently been partially centralized. When communities on temple-owned land negotiate directly with their temple, they can get a lease of no more than three years. If they want a longer lease than that, they have to negotiate with the central government’s National Buddhist Department. The Wat Potee Wararam Community, in Udon Thani, was the first community to successfully negotiate with this agency to get a 30-year cooperative lease for the land they occupy and have upgraded. Now that there is a precedent, it has been easier for other communities on temple land to negotiate similar long-term land leases.

WATERWAY BANKS DEPARTMENT : Many of Thailand’s thousands of canal and river-side communities have squatted on the narrow strips of leftover land between the canals (controlled by the Irrigation Department) and the internal land (controlled by various public and private land-owners). The central government’s Waterways Banks Department, which controls these swampy margins, has in the past been a notoriously difficult agency to deal with, and the answer to requests for secure tenure has always been no. But now, in an increasing number of precedent-setting cases, these settlements have been successful in negotiating long-term leases. The more cases get the leases, the easier it is for the next ones to negotiate.

An example worth following :

Now don’t be thinking things were always so rosy in Thailand! These public landlords in Thailand, with whom longterm community lease contracts are being negotiated, were not allways so cooperative or so friendly towards the poor, but had to be convinced along the way, through a long effort which combined creativity, diplomacy and negotiation by the communities, the networks, CODI and local governments and NGOs. But there are two main conditions necessary for breakthroughs with these public landlords : you have to work on a huge scale, and you have to have the financeya available to achieve this scale of upgrading. Many Asian countries have similar problems of overly “stiff” public land-owning agencies, which are forever reluctant to allow their land to be used for poor people’s housing, even though in so many Asian cities, most slums are already on public land. This attitude makes it extremely difficult to negotiate upgrading and secure tenure arrangements on any significant scale. That is why the Baan Mankong Program is such an important example for other Asian governments, to show them that using public land assets for poor people’s housing is right and is possible.

Kampung Miskin = RTH

INI dia nasib ruang terbuka hijau ibu kota. Ganti gubernur, ganti masterplan. Luasnya kian ciut: pada mulanya direncanakan bakal memakan sepertiga luas Jakarta, kini wilayah itu ditaksir tinggal seperlimabelasnya. Padahal, ruang terbuka hijau merupakan saka guru sebuah kota. Di sinilah oksigen diproduksi, karbon dioksida didaur ulang serta udara disaring dari debu. Bukan hanya itu, wilayah ini juga menjadi mesin pendingin kota, daerah resapan air, habitat satwa, dan tempat rekreasi. Karena fungsi ruang terbuka yang vital, pada Konferensi Bumi 1992 di Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, luasnya dibakukan: tak boleh kurang dari 30 persen. Bagi Jakarta, itu berarti luas area terbuka harus setara dengan 20 ribu lapangan sepak bola.

Rencana Induk Jakarta (1965-1985), mengamanatka 37,2% Runag Terbuka Hijau di Jakarta. Setidaknya ada 5 kawasan yang ditetapkan sebagai daerah resapan air, hutan kota dan kawasan lindung. Hutan Tomang, Senayan, Kawasan Sunter, Kelapa Gading dan Kapuk.

Kita tengok ke belakang bagaimana perubahan dan nasib Ruang Terbuka Hijau (RTH) tersebut dari tahun ke tahun:

1971. Gubernur Ali Sadikin melepaskan 13 hektare RTH Senayan untuk pembangunan hotel dalam rangka Konferensi Pariwisata Asia Pasifik. Belakangan, hotel itu ternyata menjadi properti perusahaan keluarga Ibnu Sutowo.

1984. Luas ruang terbuka hijau 28,8%.

1990. Dua pertiga kawasan lindung Pantai Kapuk direklamasi menjadi perumahan Pantai Indah Kapuk

1994. Hutan kota Tomang di Jakarta Barat dikonversi menjadi Mal Taman Anggrek

1995. Luas ruang terbuka hijau 24,9%

1996. Konversi besar-besaran RTH Senayan dimulai, ditandai dengan pembangunan Hotel Atlet Century dan Plaza Senayan

1997. Hotel Mulia dibangun di atas RTH Senayan menggunakan memo Presiden Soeharto

1998. Luas ruang terbuka hijau 9,6%.

1999. Gubernur Sutiyoso “memutihkan” pelanggaran ruang terbuka hijau dengan menerbitkan Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Jakarta 2010.

2000. Luas ruang terbuka hijau 9,4% (kritis)

2003. Luas ruang terbuka hijau 9,12%

2005. Pemerintah Daerah membangun apartemen di atas ruang terbuka Polumas. Pembangunan ini digagas sejak masa Gubernur Soerjadi Soedirdja (1992-1997)

2005. Kantor Wali Kota Jakarta Selatan dibangun di bekas pemakaman Blok P. Konversi ini digagas sejak zaman Gubernur Soerjadi Soedirdja (1992-1997)

2007. Luas RTH ditaksir tinggal 6,2 %

Pemerintah di Tahun 2008 ini sudah mulai melakukan penggusuran kampung miskin di Jakrta dengan dalih ’mengembalikan RTH’ untuk mencapai target 13,94% di Tahun 2010 (RTRW Jakarta 2000-2010). Setidaknya lebih dari 135 kapung miskin saat ini terancam. Tidak hana itu, kehidupan sosial ekonomi dan budaya warganya yang sudah melekat dengan lingkungannya akan kembali tercerai berai.

Paradigma pemerintah dengan melakukan penggusuran dan memberikan ganti rugi adalah tindakan yang tidak menyelesaikan masalah perkotaan. Yang muncul adalah bumerang dan bom waktu nuntuk kota Jakarta, karena warga yang digusur akan berpindah tempat dan mencari lokasi tempat tinggal lagi. Ini berarti akan akan ada permukiman ilegal (squatters) yang lain. Ibaratnya: ”Gusur satu, tumbuh seribu..”

Saya coba hitung berapa luas kampung-kampung miskin yang saat ini terancam penggusuran (lebih dari 135 kampung) yang sebarannya berada di 5 kotamadya, berada di tepi waduk, pinggir rel, bantaran sungai, tanah-tanah sengketa, lahan kosong, kolong Tol dan pinggir laut utara Jakarta. Ternyata luasnya tidak lebih dari 2% luas Jakarta (luas Jakarta 650 km2). Sehingga sungguh naif dan tidak adil bila pemerintah gembar gembor akan menambah RTH dengan cara menggusur kampung-kampung miskin. Di samping luasnya tidak signifikan, biaya yang dikeluarkan sangat besar dan dampaknya pun sangat luar biasa bagi warganya (fisik, psikologis, sosial, ekonomi dan budaya). Padahal pemerintah mentarget peningkatan lebih dari 4% RTH sampai Tahun 2010. Sangat tidak realistis..!!

Pemerintah saat ini membuang APBD, untuk penggusuran (bahasa pemerintah: penertiban) Tahun 2008 mencapai Rp. 900 miliar lebih. Sungguh nilai yang sangat besar untuk program yang tidak menyelesaikan masalah kota, dan justru menimbulkan maslah baru yang kompleks bagi warga dan pemerintah. Apabila pemerintah lebih arif, sebenarnya dana sebesar ini bisa dialokasikan untuk program perbaikan kampung-kampung miskin yang melibatkan warganya.

Pemecahan alternatif yang realistis, adalah menata kampung-kampung miskin Jakarta menjadi kampung yang hijau yang bisa memberi kontribusi signifikan terhadap kota Jakarta. RTH yang lebih menekankan fungsi lingkungan yaitu sebagai daerah yang secara optimal dapat menghasikan oksigen, menyerap polusi dan resapan air, serta RTH yang memiliki fungsi sosial yaitu dikelola dan dijaga oleh warganya, karena berfungsi juga sebagai sarana sosialisasi warganya (pasal 31, Perda No.6 Tahun 1999 tentang RTRW DKI Jakrarta). RTH yang realistis adalah RTH yang lebih menekankan fungsi, bukan luasnya. Tidak ada gunanya bila ada ruang terbuka, yang dikatakan hijau tetapi lebih banyak permukaan tanah yang diperkeras sehingga fungsi-fungsi lingkunganya menjadi minim. Contoh: Taman Menteng (ex Lapangan Persija).

Kampung-kampung miskin yang selama ini selalu dianggap sebagai masalah kota, sebenarnya mempunyai potensi, apabila mereka dilibatkan dan diberi kepercayaan dan tanggung jawab. Untuk mewujudkan penataan kampung dan meningkatkan RTH, warga dapat mengorganisir diri, melakukan kegiatan menabung secara klektif, mengelola dan memilah sampah untuk didaur ulang, penataan sistem sanitasi dan air limbah, penghijauan kampung bisa dilakukan secara swadaya dengan menanam jenis tanaman obat dan perindang. Lingkungan fisik juga bisa dirancang bersama untuk memenuhi Koefisien Dasar Bangunan (KDB) 75%, Koefisien Lantai Bangunan (KLB) 1,5-2,2 dan Koefisien Daerah Hijau (KDH) 25%. Solusi yang akan muncul di tiap kampung miskin past juga akan beda, sesuai dengan kondisi fisik dan masyarakatnya.

Konkretnya, akan ada banyak solusi alternatif untuk mengatasi masalah permukiman miskin di Jakarta. Re-blocking, Low Rise Housing, Rumah Maisonete (tumpuk), Upgrading, Urban Renewal atau Rumah susun (angsur-milik komunitas). Selama ada good political will dari pemerintah untuk melibatkan warganya, masalah ini akan dapat dipecahkan secara komprehensif.

Pemerintah perlu belajar dari Surabaya (penataan permukiman Stren Kali), Aceh (pasca tsunami warga 23 kampung membangun kembali kampungnya setelah tsunami, 18 bulan menyelesaikan 3500 unit rumah permanent, infrastruktur kampong dan kehidupannya) dan Thailand (baan mankong, program penataan kampong miskin yang melibatkan warganya, lebih dari 400 kota sudah diselesaikan).