Teks dan Foto Oleh Yuli Kusworo.

Bebas dari tabung gas yang beresiko meledak, Pak Hartoyo bikin gas sendiri. Pemilik warung kecil di Kampung Rawamalang, Cilincing, Jakarta Utara, ini mendapat ilham dari berita televisi bahwa gas untuk kebutuhan dapur bisa didapat dari kotoran hewan ternak. Dia sudah 25 tahun menjadi peternak ulet. Pria asal Grobogan, Jawa Tengah, ini memelihara delapan sapi, sertus kambing dan seratus lima puluh bebek. Lahan yang tak begitu lebar di tepi sungai dimanfaatkan sebagai kandang ternak.

Dari kelompok tabungan perempuan kampungnya, Pak Hartoyo juga mendapat keterangan bahwa warga Kampung Papanggo juga baru mencoba memanfaatkan kotoran manusia menghasilkan gas untuk memasak. Dia pun lalu bertanya kepada Urban Poor Concortium (UPC) tentang kemungkinan membuat hal yang sama untuk keluarganya, tapi dengan memanfaatkan kotoran ternak (bebek, kambing dan sapi) yang banyak dipelihara di Kampung Rawamalang.

Sebagai pendamping Kampung Rawamalang, UPC pun langsung menanggapi ide Pak Hartoyo sebagai hal yang baik dan perlu dicoba sebagai percontohan, mengingat pada saat itu sedang dilakukan program bersama penataan kampung-kampung miskin di Jakarta Utara. Pembuatan biogas individu bersamaan dengan kegiatan penataan kampung merupakan contoh untuk memperbaiki kualitas lingkungan. Dengan memanfaatkan lahan sempit 2×4 meter persegi, reaktor biogas sederhana dibuat dengan plastik dan ditanam di dalam tanah. Reaktor biogas dan instalasinya hanya menghabiskan uang swadaya Pak Hartoyo sebesar 1,7 juta rupiah.

Sedikit harus bersusah payah–karena lokasi kandang ternak berada di seberang jalan–Pak Hartoyo setiap dua hari sekali harus memasukkan sejumlah  empat ember besar kotoran sapi ke dalam reaktor biogas. Melalui bak kontrol dari ember bekas, kotoran dimasukkan ke reaktor secara perlahan dengan cara mengaduk dan dicampur air. Ini adalah kegiatan baru Pak Hartoyo. Menyenangkan katanya, karena sore dimasukkan kotoran, pagi berikutnya api sudah bisa menyala sangat besar. Indikator keluarnya gas dilihat dari tabung plastik ukuran 1 meter yang digantung di belakang rumah. Bila plastik itu mengembung, berarti gasnya penuh.

Para Penggerak Komunitas Hijau Pondok Indah (KHPI) bersama Kimberly Meyer, Direktur MAK Center for Art and Architecture, Los Angeles

Teks oleh Ricky Lestari. Foto oleh Rujak.

Usai peluncuran “Peta Hijau Pondok Indah 2010” yang dibarengi  acara Green Exhibition & Green Fair di Pondok Indah  yang diselenggarakan oleh Komunitas Hijau Pondok Indah (KHPI) pada bulan Maret 2010 lalu, kembali KHPI memulai aktivitas hijaunya yang memang mutlak menjadi agenda program, yaitu salah satunya adalah Program Pendidikan Lingkungan (bagi warga PI) yang sepakat disebut “Eco Neighborhood”. Program yang dimaksud adalah program Pemilahan sampah yang idealnya akan diterapkan ke seluruh lingkungan perumahan Pondok Indah, secara bertahap.

Karena kawasan ini sangat spesifik, unik dan perlu pola pendekatan yang berbeda dengan berbagai karakteristik yang mungkin agak sedikit berbeda  dibandingkan di beberapa kawasan lainnya.

Untuk mewujudkan program ini, KHPI mengajak Greeneration (Bandung) untuk bekerjasama membuat program yang terbaik yang bisa diterapkan di Pondok Indah. Dan didalam penerapannya KHPI akan melakukan secara langsung onsite di lapangan bersama dengan warga (PI).

Greeneration adalah kelompok social enterpreneurship yang bergerak khusus di bidang lingkungan.

Greeneration merupakan salah satu peserta yang ikut berpartisipasi dalam acara Green Exhibition dan Green Fair pada bulan Maret lalu. Kesamaan visi dalam program ini yang membuat KHPI berinisiatif  menjalin kerjasama dengan mereka.

Dalam kenyataan sehari-hari masalah sampah memang masih menjadi masalah utama, khususnya di kawasan PI dan  sangat dibutuhkan kesadaran perilaku dari para individunya.

Management sampah adalah persoalan sosial, dan merupakan bagian dari gaya hidup hijau (green lifestyle). Mengelola sampah dapat menjadi bagian dari green lifestyle.

Partisipasi dan peran serta masyarakat merupakan syarat mutlak dan sebagai langkah awal dalam mewujudkan program ini.

Pada hari ini, 25 April 2010 KHPI memulai program ini dengan mengadakan pertemuan dengan para ketua RW Pondok Indah di salah satu resto  di kawasan Pondok Indah Plaza I. Sayangnya, hanya satu Ketua RW yang hadir karena beberapa ketua lainnya berhalangan hadir. Sosialisasi tetap berjalan dengan baik, dan KHPI banyak mendapatkan masukan dari Bapak Ketua RW ( Bapak Ir. Indra Roespandji/ Ketua RW 013) yang memang menjadi  aspek-aspek permasalahan sampah yang ada di sebagian kawasan Pondok Indah.

Masih banyak dibutuhkan berbagai masukan, aspirasi dan feed back dari masyarakat  untuk dapat menentukan formula program yang terbaik yang bisa diterapkan di kawasan ini.

KHPI masih banyak memerlukan lagi masukan dari masyarakat melalui para ketua-ketua RT dan RW di Pondok Indah, dan oleh karena itu masih banyak hal yg harus dipersiapkan  dan berencana untuk bersosialisasi kembali dengan seluruh ketua RW di Pondok Indah.

Pertemuan ini sangat penting, karena  izin RW merupakan syarat mutlak bagi kelancaran program ini.

Saat ini KHPI sudah semakin berkembang dengan semakin bertambahnya anggota muda baru warga Pondok Indah yang sangat tertarik dengan program-program KHPI. Idea-idea briliant yang bersifat spontanitas sangat disambut baik KHPI dan menjadi agenda tambahan dalam mensukseskan program KHPI  lainnya, seperti program Revitalisasi Ruang-ruang terbuka Hijau  based on aspirasi warga, membuat bike lane, pedestrian walk, mendorong pihak management mal (Pondok Indah Mal) utk segera mewujudkan program bike parking (parkir sepeda) yang memang rencananya tahun ini akan segera direalisasikan, serta masih banyak berderet program-program hijau lainnya yang masih menunggu untuk segera diwujudkan.

Text and Pictures by Anggriani Arifin.

Fostering a communal sense of home amongst Community of RW 09, Kelurahan Pondok Kelapa, Jakarta Timur:  What was the background of the initiative?

It begins when the community of RW 09, Kelurahan Pondok Kelapa felt the demand to have a secretariat’s office for daily administrative matters. Having located in a state-owned housing complex, the neighbourhood was in luck as there was a vacant land that was already allocated for social facility. With an area of over 500 square meters, the previous idea took a turn and elaborated into having a multi-function assembly hall. A series of lobbying process took place and finally the PD. Sarana Jaya approved the proposal with construction stage kick-started in 2003.

When Balai Warga comes into place…

The hall evoked community’s enthusiasms and became the manifestation of the RW officials’ humble intention, which is to ensure that every resident has a genuine sense of ownership toward their neighbourhood with a commonly-used public place. The effort to create a functioning public place was reflected in the name the community reffered to the assembly hall, which is “Balai Warga” in the hoped that in the truest sense belongs to every residents of the neighbourhood. The place could be utilize not only for community meetings, but the place was also open to be reserved for badminton games, weddings, private function, Karang Taruna and PKK agenda and any other social activities.

In light of such spirit, every phase in the construction process was self-organized and self-funded by the community. The building was 371 square meters, well-designed and facing the neighbourhood’s basketball field. The initiative had invited a relatively large attention and able to gain supports from the  local government. In 2007, Balai Warga had reached its final completion and the community of RW 09 began to enjoy the presence of a representable, comfortable and usable social facility  that is at the same time, informative on the neighbourhood’s activity.

Making neighborhood a home…

Balai Warga’s construction had fueled RW officials’ motivation to continue making betterment to the neighborhood.

Community-based Solid-Waste Management and Biopori Holes. In 2005, the buzz of community-based solid waste management reached the area, a site visit to pioneering Kelurahan Rawajati, South Jakarta was made. To make the neighbourhood environmentally-conscious by managing their solid waste was in response to the area’s vulnerability to flood and the lacking capacity of the surrounded transit disposal sites. The idea was very simple. Residents separate the waste, following the well-known organic, non-organic and toxic waste typology although for practicality, the residents were only expected to separate based on waste that was compost-material, recyclable to be given to scavengers and kinds that could not be utilize for either purpose, should be put in the waste residue category.  The seemingly easy task has proven to be quite difficult to be followed by the residents. Up to now, only a minority group in RW 09 who separated their waste. A short-term solution was proposed. The waste would be separated in a solid management post near the Balai Warga, cooperating with surrounding scavengers who were hired as staff. Although behavior changes was still encouraged, but the method had kept the composting production on-going and motivates the community to start separating waste.

For the composting process, the community of RW 09 opted for a simple method after a series of consultation and visit, The process of turning the organic waste into compost take within a 6-7 week period, with phases comprising of waste separation, aging, turning, sprinkling, and riping. The high points of this method is that it does not require incenerator, without using bio activator, does not produce odour and does not invite flies. Using this method, the compost production can now reach up to 200 bags per week, with selling price of Rp. 3000,- per bag.

In addition to the initiative, the RW officials also utilized biopori methods to reduce waste production and reducing flood risk (the neighbourhood occasionally suffered from flood risk, although a river embankment and dredging initiative of nearby Jati Kramat river in 2007-2008 had significantly overcome the threat). Up to 300 biopori holes were made around parks and main roads in the neighbourhood.

Kebun Wisata Tanaman Obat  (Agritourism Herbal Garden) and Green Spaces. The idea was to create an icon for the community that they can be proud of and would like to take part in its success. Located next to Balai Warga, the herbal garden was open for site visits, an information centre on herbs, its benefits and usage, increase awareness on natural health remedies, and as a functioning green space which can be enjoyed by the community.

The garden was built on a 5000 square metre land, and was self funded by the residents. It possessed up to ninety (90) types of herbal plants that was grown there. This effort was assisted by the ASPETRI (associaton of traditional herbs producers of Indonesia). A bamboo-made saung was also constructed with the idea that the residents can reserve the place for lunch, meetings or simply to have family moments overlooking the gardens and the balai warga. The overall idea was to ensure that the garden could really be utilized by the community.

To further creating livability, community were encouraged to have green plants in front of their home and on almost every streets within the neighbourhood. To add tidiness, the trotoirs were repainted and pots of plants were also put on the main streets, as well as making green spaces in idle lands.

Creating  Livability

The message that was continuously buzzed in the neighbourhood management is that a clean is the key to a healthy and comfortable living environment, in which community’s participation in maintaining the condition is pivotal. To keep the neighbourhood alive, community activities were highly encouraged, with routines like RW siaga (to combat dengue fever), kerja bakti (voluntary community work), independence day’s events trail, aerobics, and others, as well as incidentals such as Kampung Anti Narkoba (anti-drugs kampung) movement by building Anti-Narkoba posts accross the area. A monthly newsletter, Warta 09¸ were also circulated to keep every resident informed and acknowledged as part of the community.

Initiatives like one that RW 09 have, certainly would not take place without the work of a rigorous and dedicated RW officials as well as a supportive community. However, it would also never take place if there was no intention to nurture partnership amongst residents and the Rukun Warga (RW) official in making the neighbourhood becomes a home, instead of mere space, to be shared together. The community of RW 09, as well as many communities in DKI Jakarta, had proven that this simple intention is enough to ignite significant changes in any neighborhood.

Ball room, Universitas Tarumanagara, Grogol

Merombak Praktik Perencanaan Ruang[1]

Oleh Marco Kusumawijaya[2]

Selama 40 tahun, tidak satu pun kota di Indonesia yang dapat menyatakan dirinya telah menjadi lebih baik berkat perencanaan ruang yang baik. Apa artinya ini?

Tentu saja kita dapat menumpahkan semua kesalahan pada hal-hal besar yang biasa: hegemoni ekonomi dan politik. Tetapi, apakah masuk akal menyalahkan “mereka”, sementara kita tahu bahwa tiap perencanaan ruang memang harus bekerja dengan politik ekonomi dan ekonomi politik?

Saya cenderung menduga ada yang salah secara mendasar pada praktik perencanaan ruang itu sendiri. Di dalam “praktik perencanaan ruang”, selain hal-hal yang biasa dibayangkan, saya mencakup hal yang dalam konteks kekinian menurut saya harus menjadi pusat perhatian, ialah epistemologi yang mendasarinya, serta hubungan-hubungan kepentingan-kepentingan yang melingkupinya.

Kasus Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) Jakarta 2010-2030 mengagetkan warga dan para profesional generasi terkini dengan berbagai latar belakang berbeda seperti arsitektur, perencanaan kota, ilmu-ilmu lingkungan, sosial politik, ekonomi dan hukum, serta para pejuang kaum miskin kota dan hak-hak ekonomi, sosial dan budaya.

Yang terutama mengagetkan bukanlah sikap pemerintah yang menganggap “semua sudah dilakukan dengan baik sesuai dengan prosedur” dan BAU (Business as Usual), yang dapat diduga sejak awal dan sangat lazim diharapkan. Yang terutama mengagetkan adalah prosesnya yang tidak partisipatif dan kualitas sangat rendah dari Naskah Akademik dan Rancangan Peraturan Daerah (RAPERDA) RTRW tersebut. Yang terakhir ini mau tidak mau menunjuk kepada para konsultan dan profesor universitas yang terlibat di dalamnya. Kalau kita beranggapan bahwa seharusnya para konsultan dan profesor itu memiliki kompetensi dan integritas akademik yang baik, maka patut diduga ada sistem operasional yang menyebabkan hasil kerjanya tidak bermutu.

Pada saat bersamaan, penting pula mencatat bahwa perjuangan Koalisi Warga untuk Jakarta 2030 sama sekali tidak (atau belum?) mendapat dukungan eksplisit dari Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia (IAI) dan Ikatan Ahli Perencanaan Indonesia (IAP), dua organisasi profesi yang paling berkepentingan tetapi—justru mungkin karena itu—paling tidak mau mendukung perjuangan koalisi tersebut. Sebagian pelaku dalam dunia perencanaan ruang Indonesia memiliki kompetensi yang didapatkan tanpa fondasi disiplin ilmu tertentu. Hal ini terjadi karena sekolah tinggi di Indonesia memperlakukan “perencanaan kota dan wilayah” sebagai jenjang S1, suatu jenjang yang seharusnya diberikan kepada “disiplin ilmu”, bukan pada “praktik” profesional tertentu seperti profesi perencanaan ruang itu.

Seorang wartawan asing berkata kepada saya, “Saya bingung bagaimana angle untuk menulis hasil wawancara dengan Anda, karena semuanya nampak begitu gamblang, jadi mengapa tidak ada perubahan, setelah 40 tahun, setelah 12 tahun reformasi?”

Hanya beberapa kemungkinan yang tersisa.

Pertama, adalah “wajar” terjadi peremehan terhadap peran perencanaan itu sendiri.  Sebab, selama 40 tahun perencanaan menjadi tidak ada gunanya. Pelanggaran-pelanggaran yang terus menerus dibiarkan atau dikecualikan dengan kekuasaan khusus (discretion) telah efektif menghapuskan kredibilitas perencanaan ruang.  Ini menimbulkan sinisme dan apatisme di kalangan masyarakat luas, dan sikap instrumentalis di kalangan birokrasi. Perencanaan ruang dianggap tidak perlu dibuat serius dan justru harus kabur dan umum sehingga mudah diubah oleh birokrasi berdasarkan keperluan pembangunan, menurut tafsir elit.

Ada epistemologi untuk membenarkan status quo di atas. Discretion yang besar  harus tetap ada pada birokrasi, yang bersama para ahli, memiliki monopoli atas pengetahuan yang benar untuk membuat keputusan-keputusan yang dianggap serba teknis, makro, dan mengabdi kepentingan lebih besar. Keputusan harus  diserahkan kepada “yang ahli”, bukan kepada “yang berkepentingan”. Kata “yang ahlinya” telah menjadi olokan yang sering digunakan untuk menyerang pencetusnya, Gubernur Fauzi Bowo. Saya tidak menggunakannya untuk itu, karena hal itu tidak penting. Saya menggunakannya sebagai suatu aikon dari suatu jaman, ketika tata ruang dianggap sepenuhnya otoritas mereka yang kompeten,  para “ahli” itu. Mereka lebih tahu gambar besar, kepentingan lebih besar, dan bagaimana rincian teknis segala sesuatu. Rakyat cukup menerima keputusan mereka yang dianggap dengan sendirinya akan adil dan benar. Tidak perlu dirinci kiranya, bahwa pemikiran yang naif ini memang berpura-pura dengan dua hal. Pertama bahwa segala hal dapat di-obyektif-kan secara teknis. Dan, kedua, para ahli dengan sendirinya obyektif, tidak punya bias dan kepentingannya sendiri. Kini, rupanya belum dimengerti benar, atau sengaja diabaikan, bahwa desentralisasi produksi ilmu pengetahuan sudah menjadi kenyataan. Selain itu, mungkin sekali ada ketakutan akan terbukanya kotak pandora, karena menyangkut kepentingan berbagai pihak, belum mampunya pemerintah melayani dan menyalurkan aspirasi serta kemampuan masyarakat membangun bersama. Hal ini terang benderang dan gamblang, tetapi untuk mengubahnya diperlukan kepemimpinan yang berani merombak.

Bahkan “yang berkepentingan” belumlah suatu konsep yang dikenal sebagai “rakyat”. Yang bekepentingan adalah pihak-pihak yang “berpengaruh”, ialah para elit, bukan rakyat kebanyakan. “Serahkan kepada yang ahlinya” adalah epistemologi khas orde baru dalam perencanaan ruang—dan mungkin dalam banyak hal lainnya—yang  dianggap sebagai masalah teknis semata, bukan masalah pilihan demokratis,  sebagai masalah “para ahli”, bukan masalah “warga yang berhak dan berkepentingan”.

Langkah awal yang merupakan kunci untuk melakukan reformasi adalah proses partisipasi warga secara penuh dan menentukan. Sebab, melalui ini, transparansi terjamin. Di bawah cahaya transparansi inilah kita bisa mengetahui persoalan lebih jelas, mana-mana yang perlu diubah, dan kita akan ubah. Untuk melaksanakan suatu perencanaan jangka panjang yang melewati masa jabatan politik, seperti RTRW Jakarta 2010-2030 ini, seharusnya dibentuk suatu Komisi dengan tugas khusus dan terbatas tetapi dengan wewenang yang luas untuk memmanfaatkan sumber daya kelembagaan yang ada. Komisi seperti ini lazim di banyak negara lain.

Berkat beberapa peraturan perundangan baru yang makin eksplisit memuat hak dan proses partisipatif, sebenarnya perencanaan ruang yang partisipatif bukan lagi sekedar aspirasi untuk masa depan, tapi sudah merupakan keharusan masa kini. Undang-undang itu antara lain adalah Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum No. 15 Tahun 2009 tentang Pedoman Penyusunan Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Propinsi, Undang-Undang No 14 Tahun 2008 tentang Kebebasan Informasi Publik, Undang-undang No 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang, dan Undang-undang No. 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Pengelolaan dan Perlindungan Lingkungan Hidup.

Kita hanya perlu terus mendesakkannya sebagai hak dan kebutuhan bagi masa depan yang lestari.

Kalau kita, termasuk para arsitek, hanya bertujuan produk “RTRW yang baik”, maka kita akan terjebak pada “yang baik menurut kita, arsitek”. Malah saya dengar ada arsitek yang mengharapkan suatu RTRW yang fleksibel, sehingga nanti para arsitek punya peluang besar membuatnya lebih baik (menurut arsitek). Ini kesalahan berpikir yang patut di hindari, karena akan mengembalikan kita kepada elitisme.

Itulah sebabnya kami menganggap peran kita sebagai “warga”  lebih mendasar daripada peran kita sebagai arsitek, dalam memperjuangkan proses yang baik ini. Tentu dalam hal lain, peran kita sebagai arsitek akan menonjol dalam kesempatan yang tepat.

Kalau kita semua kompeten sebagai arsitek, sudah pasti pertama-tama kita kompeten sebagai “warga”.

Ke-arsitek-an kita adalah plus point untuk membantu warga semua mencapai tujuan bersama. Kalau kita merasa “lebih”, maka kita harus memimpin dengan mengajak dan mengangkat warga lain, bukan dengan meminta privilese dan discretion power yang lebih besar.

Kalau tujuannya hanya “rtrw yang baik menurut kompetensi arsitek”, maka memang mudah mencapainya dengan lobby di balai kota.
Tetapi, itu akan berarti kita mengkhianati rakyat kita, rakyat Jakarta, yang sama sekali tidak mendapat peluang yang sama dengan kita (karena kita sarjana) untuk juga didengar di balai kota.

Karena itu, tujuan Koalisi Warga untuk Jakarta 2030 bukanlah sekedar hasil akhir RTRW 2030 yang baik, melainkan (proses) tata cara penyusunan RTRW 2030 yang baik. Visi Koalisi Warga untuk Jakarta 2030 adalah: Warga terlibat aktif  dan sepenuhnya sebagai pemangku-kepentingan utama dalam penyusunan RTRW Jakarta 2010-2030.

Kami percaya bahwa proses yang baik akan menghindarkan hasil yang buruk. Selain itu, proses yang baik, yang intinya mengandung proses partisipatif, punya peluang besar menghasilkan kota yang baik, karena proses yang partisipatif dapat menggerakkan rasa memiliki dan tindakan bersama.

Untuk itu tiga hal perlu dilakukan (misi Koalisi Warga untuk Jakarta 2030):

1. Memberdayakan dan meningkatkan kemampuan semua pihak untuk terlibat dalam proses partisipatif  dengan baik.
2. Merombak praktik perencanaan ruang
3. Meningkatkan kesadaran semua pihak tentang pentingnya pendekatan partisipatif.

Jakarta, 15 Mei 2010.

Marco Kusumawijaya

Direktur, Rujak Center for Urban Studies (RCUS)

editor www.rujak.org

mkusumawijaya@rujak.org

www.mkusumawijaya.wordpress.com

[2] Direktur, Rujak Center for Urban Studies (RCUS); editor www.rujak.org; mkusumawijaya@rujak.org; www.mkusumawijaya.wordpress.com

Sesudah melakukan reklamasi masif demi meremediaasi sungai, pantai dan laut serta hasil laut yang tercemar, mereka pun berhasil menurunkan mata rantai pencemaran merkuri. Dan dengan bangganya, hasil laut di Minamata memiliki kandungan merkuri terendah diseluruh kota Jepang. Namun tak berhenti sampai disitu, kesadaran lingkungan mereka pun tertanam pada masing-masing warga dan pemerintah lokal Minamata. Minamata menjadi terdepan dalam upaya pengelolaan dan daur ulang sampah. Keteguhan dan ketekunan warganya pun luar biasa, terutama dalam upaya memilah sampah. Jika kota-kota Indonesia masih mengalami kesulitan untuk memilah sampahnya menjadi 3, maka warga Minamata memilahnya menjadi 23 macam sampah. Dan pada hari-hari yang ditentukan, mereka bersama-sama datang ke pool lokal sambil membawa sampah, saling membantu dan gotong royong dalam pemilahan sampah.

Hujan rintik tak menghalangi kegiatan pemilahan sampah komunitas di Minamata

Upaya tersebut tak hanya berhenti di masyarakat saja. Kalau warga Jakarta mungkin bertanya-tanya, apakah setelah sampah di Jakarta dipilah, bagaimana nasibnya di TPA? Jika di Minamata maka sampah-sampah tersebut mengalami pemilahan lagi, dari 23 macam sampah tersebut dipilah lagi hingga menjadi 78 macam sampah!

Tak ubahnya kota-kota juwara di Indonesia, maka Minamata pun menjadi tujuan studi banding bagi berbagai macam pengunjung, mulai dari pegawai pemerintah kota lain hingga anak-anak sekolah. Semuanya ingin melihat keberhasilan Minamata mengatasi polusi merkuri tersebut atau belajar pemilahan dan pengolahan sampah. Bahkan kini Minamata pun menerima pengolahan sampah dari kota-kota lain.

Sudut pengolahan sampah di TPA Minamata

Sektor bisnis pun juga mengeluarkan kebijakan yang sama. Salah satu hotel di Minamata bahkan menerapkan pemilahan sampah dalam kamar hotelnya. Tamu hotel diharapkan untuk memasukkan jenis sampah yang tepat kedalam 3 tong sampah didalam kamarnya. Supermarket berusaha ‘memaksa’ para konsumennya untuk membawa kantungnya sendiri, dengan cara menghargai kantung plastik mereka sebesar 50 yen (kurang lebih 5000 rupiah).

Budaya pemilahan sampah sudah merupakan pemandangan biasa di kota-kota Jepang. Namun dari budaya dan keharusan pemilahan tersebut, ada kontradiksi menarik di kota-kota Jepang, yaitu budaya vending machine. Vending maching yang menjual berbagai macam produk instan, dari minuman kaleng, minuman plastik, minuman panas dingin, makanan kemasan, rokok, hingga nasi kepal/onigiri begitu mudah ditemukan di berbagai sudut kota. Bahkan di pulau tak berpenghuni, masih dapat ditemukan vending machine. Tak jarang dalam satu sudut terdapat tiga-empat vending machine sekaligus dari merek minuman kemasan yang berbeda. Bahkan pernah ada 10 mesin dalam 1 lokasi.

Entah itu karena tuntutan gaya hidup serba cepat dan efisien, keterbatasan dan mahalnya tempat hingga mahalnya biaya tenaga kerja, menyuburkan keberadaan vending machine. Jumlah vending machine di Jepang demikian besar, terbesar per kapita di dunia tepatnya, dengan 1 vending machine melayani 23 orang, sehingga jumlah vending machine di Jepang mencapai sekitar 5,6 juta mesin di tahun 1999.  Barang-barang yang dijual dalam 5.6 juta mesin tersebut kebanyakan berupa minuman kemasan, jadi sekiranya kita dapat berandai-andai ada berapa ratus juta kemasan terbuang.

Akhirnya isu terkini bukanlah bagaimana mendaur ulang sampah, tetapi bagaimana mengurangi konsumsi yang akhirnya mengurangi sampah. Jika kota-kota Jepang tidak mampu menekan konsumsi produk kemasan, maka masalah manajemen sampah tetap menghantui, berkejaran dengan teknologi pengolahan dan pemilahan sampah. Pada akhirnya, di Kyoto Ecological Center – sebuah pusat edukasi yang didirikan paska Kyoto COP 3 di tahun 1997 , pemandu disana berkata,” Sebetulnya fokusnya bukan bagaimana melakukan daur ulang, tetapi bagaimana mengurangi konsumsi dan sampah.”

Kesadaran untuk mengurangi konsumsi dan ketergantungan terhadap kemasan serta perangkat makan instan digalakkan juga oleh Yayasan Budha Tzu Chi, di Taiwan. Gerakan tersebut dengan cepat menular ke China dan Jepang, dan penerapannya pun dimulai dari sesuatu yang sederhana, yaitu dengan membawa sumpit pribadi kemanapun kita pergi. Gerakan tersebut terasa relevan dan mudah dilakukan, mengingat negara-negara tersebut menggunakan sumpit sebagai alat makan, dan disaat bersamaan sumpit sekali pakai merambah dimana-mana, dan menimbulkan permasalahan sampah.

Tentu kita tetap harus memulai melakukan budaya memilah dan daur ulang, namun upaya tersebut tak ada artinya jika tidak dibarengi dengan pola produksi dan distribusi, serta pola konsumsi kita sendiri.

Lahir pada 1 Mei 2010, RCUS dimaksudkan untuk mengisi kesenjangan dalam proses peralihan masuk ke dalam abad ekologi. Semboyannya adalah “Menuju kelestarian kota dan wilayah”.

Namun, perlu ditegaskan bahwa menjadi lestari bukan hanya berarti selamat dari perubahan iklim dan bencana ekologis lainnya, tetapi juga menyelesaikan berbagai masalah perkotaan lainnya yang telah mendahului kesadaran kita tentang tentang masalah-masalah ekologis. Tetapi, kami percaya bahwa kesadaran akan ekologi, dan produksi pengetahuan yang dipercikkannya, telah memberikan perspektif dan kesempatan untuk merumuskan tindakan secara berbeda dalam rangka menyelesaikan masalah-masalah perkotaan yang telah lama menunggu kita seperti misalnya kemiskinan, keadilan, pluralisme dan keberagaman, dan lain-lain. Sesungguhnyalah, semua itu telah memungkinkan suatu cara baru dalam membangun kota.

RCUS bermaksud memusatkan kerjanya pada kota-kota sebagai wilayah manusia yang merangkum kebanyakan, kalau bukan semua, persoalan masa kini dan masa depan manusia. Pada tahun 2007 dunia telah mencapai tingkat urbanisasi 50% karena terutama tingkat-tingkat urbanisasi tertinggi di kota-kota negeri sedang berkembang.
RCUS memandang keluar ke seluruh Asia Tenggara dan Timor Leste sebagai wilayah kerjanya, sementara mulai dengan berpijak kuat di Indonesia.

RCUS dibangun di atas pengalaman dan latar-belakang berbeda dari para pendirinya yang telah melakukan berbagai kegiatan penelitian, pembangunan kapasitas dan advokasi kebijakan secara tersebar di dalam dua dasawarsa terakhir, seringkali tanpa dukungan organisasi apa pun, karena mereka melakukannya sebagai “individu yang tidak terlembaga”, sebagai sukarelawan warga. Dalam perjalanannya, kami juga perlahan mengumpulkan dukungan yang tidak teratur, kadang dari orang perorang, kadang dari lembaga-lembaga. Para pendiri juga memiliki beberapa pengalaman profesional yang berhasil dalam bidang kepemerintahan yang baik, seni dan budaya, pusaka budaya, strategi pembangunanj, dan pembangunan kemabli pasca bencana (di Aceh).

Ketika kami belajar sambil berbuat, akhirnya kami sadar bahwa perubahan memerlukan rancangan langkah-langkah, skala dan kerjasama yang lebih besar, komitmen jangka panjang, daya tahan, dan karena itu peng-organisasi-an yang sungguh-sungguh. Kami berharap menggabungkan penelitian, pembangunan kapasitas dan advokasi kebijakan di bawah satu atap RCUS untuk membuat upaya kami lebih efektif.

Orientasi tetap kami adalah terus menerus memperluas kepemilikan perubahan lestari oleh warga, melalui prakarsa dan partisipasi aktifnya dalam membangun kota dan wilayah. Optimisme kami didasarkan pada pengalaman bertahun-tahun bertemu dan bekerja dengan makin banyak prakarsa bebas dan otonom warga di tingkat akar-rumput. Dalam semua kerja kami, kami ingin selalu membangun prasarana, ruang dan kebiasaan bagi prakarsa dan partisipasi warga, bukan sebagai produk-sampingan, tetapi sebagai tujuan itu sendiri. Kami mendudukan diri kami sebagai fasilitator agar beragam pemangku-kepentingan dapat melanjutkan pekerjaan yang dimulai bersama-sama.

Born on May 1, 2010, RCUS is founded to fill the gaps in the necessary process of transition into the ecological age. Our tag-line is “Towards sustainability of cities and regions”.

However, it must emphasised that by sustainability we mean not only surviving climate change and other ecological disasters, but also solving other urban problems that have predated our awareness about ecological problems. Nevertheless, we do believe that the awareness about ecology, and new production of knowledge that it sparked, have created a new perspective and opportunities for conceptualising our actions differently to solve those other outstanding urban problems such as poverty, justice, pluralism and diversity, etc. Indeed, they make possible a new way of building cities.

RCUS wishes to focus on cities as human territories that amalgamate most, if not all, of contemporary and future human problems. In 2007 the world has passed the irreversible 50% urbanisation rate, due mostly to the highest rates in cities of developing countries.
RCUS is looking out to the whole South East Asia and Timor Leste as it area of works, while starting firmly in Indonesia.

We are building on different experiences and backgrounds of RCUS’s co-founders who have been doing a multitude of research, capacity building and policy advocacy sporadically in the past two decades or so, often without any organisational support, as they did so as “non-institutionalised individuals”, as voluntary citizens. In the process we have gathered a lot of sporadic supports, too, sometime from individuals, sometime from institutions. They have successful proffesional working experiences in the fields of good governance, arts and culture, heritage, development strategy, and post-disaster reconstruction (in Aceh).

As we learned by doing, however, we realised that changes require designed steps, bigger magnitude and collaboration, long-term commitments, perseverence, and hence serious organising. We wish to combine research, capacity building and policy advocacy under one roof of RCUS to make our efforts more effective.

Our persistent orientation is towards ever expanding ownership of sustained changes by citizens, through their initiatives and active participation in city- and region-building. Our optimism is based on many years of encountering and working, at grass root levels, with growing number of citizens’s independent and autonomous initiatives. In all our works we wish to always build infrastructures, spaces, and habits for citizens’ initiatives and participation, not as by-products, but as the very goal itself. We envision ourselves as facilitators for multi-stakeholders to carry on works that we start together.

By: Marco Kusumawijaya

Abstract

This paper discusses experiences of participatory practices and citizens’ initiatives in city-region building in a context of recently and rapidly democratising country, Indonesia. While these experiences are rooted in specific post-authoritarian Indonesia, they nevertheless indicate some ideas that might be important for our our transition towards sustainability. The paper argues that participation and citizens’ initiatives are more than just a fulfilment of a political right, but a new way of building sustainable city-region.

Keywords: Participation, Spatial Planning, Citizens’ Initiatives, Aceh, Jakarta.

Introduction: Context and Connviction

After the Reform Movement in 1998, Indonesia has been seeing an unstoppable and unprecedented decentralising process in its history. Public participation in processing public policy has been increasingly demanded, and also relatively accomodated in new laws and regulations. But, cases of true participation in spatial planning are rare. Standards, models, skills, are just emerging. Some guidelines have been very recently formulated, but acceptance among bureaucracy, as well as understanding among society at large about detailed mechanics of participatory process, is still low.

Since 1998 I have been involved in participatory processes for different purposes: conflict resolutions[2], NGO’s strategic planning, City Development Strategy[3] and post-tsunami reconstruction of Aceh[4]. I am currently a member of Citizens Coalition for Jakarta 2030 that advocates a true partisipatory process for the spatial masterplanning of Jakarta 2010-2030[5].

My basic assumption is that to be sustainable, a city-region needs to be whole in its relationship to the environment and its intercultural society. Diversity should be encouraged for its intrinsic goodness, and to counter globalized standardisation and homogenisation. A city should grow together with its region of local resources and context, so that it would be rooted in its environment, and become a place with identity. It is actually possible for us to really imagine sustainable city-region creatively as a new way of life, a different world. It is an unlimited project beyond surviving the climate change. In effect, a new idealism. And to make it possible, space for participation needs to be created, recreated and expanded; and citizen initiatives must be encouraged, facilitated and catalysed.

Because, to achieve sustainability, changes will have to take place at multiple levels simultaneously, at practical behavioural pattern as well as at values, and at everything else in between them, including our systemic supports such as urban infrastructure, industrial complex, and democratic institutions. We need to recreate appropriate values, consensus and trust, as well as re-invent our daily life. There is a whole set of nitty-gritty works that needs our creative capacity and personal commitment to change individually and collectively.

Both our political and economic spaces have not been always successful. We must continuously and diligently feed values and will to direct both the state and the market. We cannot just relinquish too much power to both and become passive afterwards. We have to keep on working as civil society to reclaim the state to be more responsive and the economy to be more substantive, to primarily fulfil our needs, not to make maximum profits of any resource by a few.[6]

Given the inevitable frequent market failures and often inert political stalemates vested with power webs, the third sector, civil society, both as public space and as associations of active, self-organised individual citizens or groups, will have to take up those challenges. In rapidly densifying cities with diversifying diversity, those challenges could be either easier or more difficult, depending on how well civil society is re-organising, vis-à-vis the political and economic spaces.

Aspiration for sustainability of cities may make politics more complex, but also potentially more focused with a sense of urgency. It re-asserts the very basic of democratic processes, transparency and accountability, in almost scientific sense. With recent progress in technology and collaborative institutions, humankind is actually well equipped to face the challenge successfully. We can undo global warming while develop new ways of living better. However it requires that the challenge be responded collectively actively. Participation and citizens’ initiatives are key factors to successful transition.

Arguments for Participation in Decision Making Process

Broadly I would simplify “participatory ladder”[7] into three major steps:

1. Mobilisation: decisions are made by authorities and people are asked to “participate” in executing the decisions.
2. Consultation: options and decisions are drafted or made by authorities but inputs and/or consents are asked from the people.
3. Decision Making: people formulate and draft options and decisions together with or without relevant authorities.

I assume it is obvious that I mean participation by the third kind/step above. Although in certain cases and contexts this third kind can be seen as something to gradually aspire to, I would argue that it is this third kind that needs to be promoted as the ideal and useful in our transition towards sustainable city-regions.

There are much more reasons for participatory demoracy than just fulfilling a basic political right.

1. Participation of the third kind can be seen as a needed radicalisation of democracy to strengthen locales and communities vis-à-vis the radicalisation of globalisation and privatisation. Participation in daily management of urban governance is a way to give voices to the 80 % majority of  ordinary people.
2. Democratisation of knowledge production has intensely been decentralising and deconcentrating knowledge and know-how away from any center and many traditional knowledge centers such as conventional universities and/or government bodies. Think for example of the use of Internet.
3. The required changes towards sustainability call for ownership (of our common future) and personal commitments. Unless we are thinking of a revival of authoritarian regimes, a prerequisite for popular commitment is participation in decision making process as the only way to produce an ownership of any consensus. Participation is a necessity to change habitat and habitus towards sustainability. In a way, we can see this as “mobilisation” based on a true, internalised ownership and volunteerism.
4. The growth in DIY (Do It Yourself) in citizens’ initiatives and practices should also be seen as constructive and needs to be included in decision making process, as they provide invaluable experiences, lessons, and good practices, to enrich decision making process. Citizens’ initiatives are now going to even deeper levels, beyond doing actual things, such as in building catalysing infrastructure. (www.rujak.or is an example). Their organising capacity is also increasing to go beyond ad-hoc coalition, to as far as voluntary multistakeholders forum, for example.
5. The growth of knowledge on, of and by minority groups (due to growth of democratic means of sharing and communication), the previously marginalised, unseen, suppressed, oppressed, or hidden in any other way, calls for inclusive approach in decision making process made possible in certain participatory methods.
6. In newly democratising societies that have gone thorugh periods of authoritarian, elitist regimes,  participatory process is of utmost important vehicle to narrow the knowledge gaps between the political elites and the ordinary citizens, between bureaucracy and the citizens, and among different segments of society. However, we canot be naïve to believe that this would be a sufficient motivation among long-standing technocrats remaining in bureaucracy. There must be a clear political will in advance as a prerequisite.

Given the context of rapidly democratising Indonesia, the political significance of participatory democracy is that it might be perceived as a competition or alternative to parliamentary democracy. Three arguments can be forwarded to counter this misperception:

-       Participatory democratic procedure is a necessary step before entering law-making process. This way, it can be argued that parliaments are returned to its basic function as “law-making body” (legislature).

-       Many daily practices in communities do not need “laws” that wll have to go through a long and slow law-making process to draft and pass, but just “the magic of concensus”.

-       Many long term plans and commitments outlive any political term. For these, a larger, direct mandates must be obtained afresh from population at large.

On another front, the executive branch of the governments, especially at local levels, often sees participation as nuissance and threathening their discretionary power.  This negative attitude stems from a very long period (35 years) of working in isolation or in partnership only with elitist consultants with their authoritarian previlege and habitual corruption. There is apparently also a big ignorance about details of participatory approach, resulting in suspicion and disbelief in its practical benefits.

Case 1: People Driven Reconstruction of  23 Villages in Post-Tsunami Aceh

On December 26, 2004, an earthquake and tsunami hit Aceh and parts of North Sumatera. More than 150,000 houses need to be (re)built, and more than 500,000 people became homeless. After a brief voluntary work in the west coast of Aceh, helping designing a few houses and participatory mapping and planning, I worked profesionally with UPLINK, an Indonesian NGO, to reconstruct 23 villages in the  west part of north coast of the City of Banda Aceh and its western adjoining district, Aceh Besar. The 23 villages are spread next to each others along some 7 kilometers coastal line. Half of them are really urban with original high density of plots and families, others are semi-urban and a few are really rural with agricultural as dominant economy. There are 3,300 families to be rehoused on their original plots. All villages are completely destroyed. That means we had to build also all related infrastructures and community facilities: roads, sanitation, drainage, water supply, electricity, 3 mosques, 23 community centers, etc.

Actually our organisation also helps in economic recovery programmes as well as trauma healing, and  organic rehabilitation of damaged and salted farmlands. We were responsible for 30 millions USD funding.

From the very beginning, we advocated a total community participatory approach. My colleagues worked together with the survivors (a term we insist in using, instead of “victims”) to build temporary shelters on their original plots already since early February 2005, and then very quickly engaged them in re-organising themselves to revitalise their communities. A thorough and accurate digital survey was done participatorily even before the government and the World Bank came with their land-survey (and certification) programme, which was later cancelled anyway. We were the first organisation to have two complete sets of digital Total Station Survey instruments, as well as a large scale plotter machine.

The NGO’s social team had done an amazing job or community organising when I started in May 2005 to organise and lead a technical team to start planning, designing, and started the construction of the first batch of houses and village infrastructures.

The types of participation where the survivors are engaged can be listed as follows (while the inter-relation between these different types are as important):

-       Lands/plots survey

-       Village mapping (covering not just physical, but also social, economical and cultural features)

-       Village planning

-       Area planning (integrating the 23 villages and their surrounding)

-       Designing Houses

-       Construction of the houses, including tendering, execution and supervision

-       Manufacturing of building materials (iron frame, timber works, compacted soil cement blocks,…

-       Budgeting.

Modes of participation differ for different types of decisions to bemade, involving countless meetings, small and large, and with helps of many specialist experts or resource persons. There also have been special meetings for women. It was painful in the beginning, and very difficult to convince people, including many levels of authorities, of our approach.

However, in February 2007, after 18 months of constrcution, we are the first to officially deliver 3300 houses (plus most of the village infrstructures) to the survivors, outpacing all other organisations, including the World Bank, ADB, UN-Habitat and international NGO’s such as the Red Crosses. All success factors lead to one key succes factor: the participatory approach managed to channel the full potentials of the survivors themselves in different roles, making them the most efficient owners, quality assurance agents, builders, and project managers in different capacities.

The project won 2009’s Dubai International Award for Best Practices in Improving Human Settlements and Indonesian Institute of Architects’s Award for best social project.

UN-HABITAT survey ranked our villages as the best in two categories: technical quality and beneficiary satisfaction.

Case 2: Advocacy for a Participatory Process for Jakarta Spatial Plan 2010-2030

Jakarta’s Masterplan of 1985-2005 was hastily revised in 1999, one year after the reform movement, to accommodate legal and illegal changes to the plan. A new plan called Jakarta 2010 was produced.

There was a limited campaigns and protest against it, but nothing much can be saved. I was personally very much in the forefront and pioneering for this limited, very unorganised and unsuccessful campaign.

The reasons for failure of this campaign are obvious: civil society was not really aware of their rights on these seemingly technical issues of spatial masterplanning, given the recent shock of new-found freedom; and the bureaucracy had still a very strong hand to conduct this revision exercise behind closed doors.

Nevertheless, this case managed to bring the importance of the spatial masterplanning to the public knowledge, and hence it really launched spatial planning to become a popular subject for the press and general public.

In 2008, the review process of Jakarta 2010 was started. The goal is to produce a new, long-term (20 years) spatial masterplan called Jakarta 2010-2030. Not much is known about its process. Despite the claim by the government that several consultative meetings have been organised, there is very little coverage in the press and it was almost unknown among the population.

www.rujak.org received  and posted an “unauthorised” copy of the presentation by the masterplan consultant in January 2010. Soon it attracted attention among activists. The first attempt to get a copy of its Academic (background) Paper was turned down by city official. After we downloaded a draft bylaw on the spatial masterplan, and give on-line critiques, it was revised more than 5 times in 10 days, with the first three revisions were not properly dated.

A coalition (www.koalisijakarta2030.wordpress.com) was founded with a demand that the process be repeated in a participatory way.[8] The coalition then organised series of discussions on several topics (habitat, water, arts, mobility, particiatory methodologies,…). The government responded with organising also series of thematic discussions. The coalition sent letters to each and every discussion, stating that it is not the participatory process that the coalition advocates, and it is not that the coalition promotes itself to be invited to those unstructured “consultative” meetings with uncertain future as what to do with their results.

The Coalition discovered many formal/legal requirements are not satisfied with regards to the process. At the same time, we also discovered many silly, indeed embarassing mistakes with regards to the content of the draft bylaw.  A few examples can be mentioned.

-       The vision statement for the spatial masterplan (which is. nota bene, a long-term plan) was adopted in raw form from the Governor’s vision statement for his current term (which is, note bene a medium-term action-plan): “Jakarta is a service city that is prosperous, convenient and sustainable.” There is no reasoning about its factual and aspirational basis.

-       The Neufert standard for calculating floor space requirement is used to calculate land requirement (in effect assuming that all Jakarta buildings are to consist of one floor…?!).

-       Population projection is based on aggregated trend, while natural growth rate and migration growth rate are moving significantly in different slopes.

The coalition is now preparing a law-suit against Jakarta Government on the basis that the draft bylaw on the Jakarta 2010-2030 Spatial Masterplan has not satisfied a number of laws and regulations issued by the central governments, among others:

-       The law No. 32/2009 on Management and Protection of the Environment that requires first a Strategic Environmental Assessment be made before a spatial planning process is initiated.

-       The law No.14/2008 on Freedom to Public Information that guarantees public access to public information (in this case the Academic (Background) paper)

-       The law No. 25/2005 on Minimum Standard of Public Services.

-       The Public Works Ministrial Regulation on Guidelines for Provincial Spatial Plannning Process (no. 15/2009) that stipulates in detail public communication required to make spatial planning process a public knowledge and engagement

The coalition is currently conducting Opinion Survey (on-line and off-line) with five questions:

1. What do you think are three most important potentials or encouraging advantages of Jakarta?
2. What do you find as three most important problems of Jakarta?
3. What changes would you like to see 20 years from now?
4. How do you think we should have the changes?
5. What would you personally do to help making the changes?
6. Have you ever asked your opinions for Jakarta 2010-2030 spatial masterplan before?

The coalition will in early next month conduct a workshop to draft vision and mission statements based on the above survey. Answers to the first two questions will provide material basis for vision statement; while those to the rest will provide material basis for mission statement.

More than 1,500 questionaires have been returned. Almost all  of them mention public trasportation as number one problem. For number two and three, the most mentioned problems are waste disposal, flood, lack of green open spaces, and safety. Diversity, abundance, centrality, job opportunities, are mostly mentioned as the three most important potentials of Jakarta. It is easy to draft a responsive and measurable alternative vision for Jakarta: “Jakarta in 2030 is a city free of flood, with a sustainable management of waste disposal, and a convenient public transport for most of its inhabitants, while promoting its diversity and job creation in the process.” Sounding mundane, it is already much better than the current raft vision which is based solely on the Governor’s political mid-term vision.

Conclusion

A need for an Urban Studies Center

Participation and citizens’ initiative, while themselves are a process of knowledge generation, require continuous inputs from policy and other policy researches, as the world is changing rapidly and in abundance. Many and much urban dynamics are rapidly taking place at all levels of societies and built and natural environments, in close ties with national and global economic dynamics. Because of this, there is a huge gaps in knowledge capacity among city and regional actors. Even when there are data and knowledges, it is not always easy to identify their locations. There is a need to develop analytical capacities and frameworks that could maximize interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral exchanges that can be employed to facilitated participatory process. In the long run, there is also an apparent need to restructure urban governance in Jakarta and possibly also many other metropoles in Asia, to better serve the decentralised population and to adapt in time to global waves of changes. Local political dynamics need to reconceptualise its ties with the national and the global, especially in dealing with economic issues. Jakarta, as well as other Asian metropoles, are experiencing restructuring process of both their urban centers and peripeheries, as consequences of both internal and external pressures. At ground level, urban managers have to acquire new kills in dealing with permits, building sustainable infrastructures, in working much more with citizens, etc. to maintain consistent transition towards sustainability.

An urban studies center could serve to fulfil such knowledge gaps above, through research and training. Otherwise, participatory and citizens’ initiatives will be sufficiently informed and might be misguided.

Sustained Change

In our quest to change towards sustainability, we inevitably find that we need a sustainable change, which is possible only if there is a popular ownership and personal commitment from every one on this only planet. Mobilising sustainable change is possible only when people feel that they are not moved by any outside agent, but by their own will.   They must become the agents for change themselves. They must be the change they wish to see in this world.[9]

Participation is not without problems, and it is not a rosy road to development. It is simply a necessity for people to become the agents for changes themselves, to own and sustain changes that they want for themselves. Hence we must see difficulties and problems of participation as chalennges to be dealt with, instead of using them as arguments against them. We have experienced resitance against participation comes from either ignorance or fear of the collective energy, or a combination of both.

Given the current context of Indonesia, I see the way to advocate for participation is to nurture, facilitate and catalyse citizens initiatives as show cases of positive energy of the will to change, while at the same time influence legal framework, develop methdological practices as tools to convince authorities.

Last December, the Directorate General of Spatial Planning at Indonesian Ministry of Public Works awarded 6 grants for citizens’ initiatives which were selected competitively based on a call for proposals. The programme is called “Citizens’ Initiatives for Sustainable Cities”. The whole process is co-organised with editors of www.rujak.org as yet another citizens’ initiative.  I put this last example of citizens’ initiatives in this conclusion as an optimistic afternote, that change might be happening. But, nothing should be taken for granted, and there is no stop in doing the nitty-gritty to make democracy work in this imperfect world.

[2] In 2000 I worked with The British Council in Indonesia to conduct participatory workshops for conflicting parties in the Mollucas.

[3] I was Team Leader for City Development Strategy programme in 9 cities in Indonesia in 2001-2003. It was funded by Cities Alliance, through the World Bank and UN-HABITAT offices in Jakarta.

[4] In 2005-2007 I was involved in a number of assignments in post-tsunami Aceh. The longest one, reconstrcution of 23 villages in Aceh, is presented as a case in this paper.

[5] See Coalition’s website: www.koalisijakarta2030.wordpress.com and an article published in the Jakarta Post: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/06/why-do-we-need-redo-jakarta-spatial-masterplan.html

[6] Karl Polanyi’s substantive economy: people acquiring material means by having an impact on the natural environment and/or through relationships of mutual interdependence in order to satisfy their various needs that arise as they engage in their day-to-day lives; and economy in formal sense: the process of obtaining the maximum effect by making the best use of a scarce means, in Makoto Maruyama, Sustainable Economy and Urban Sustainability, in Hidenori Tamagawa, ed., Sustainable Cities, United Nations University Press, 2006, p. 771-72.

[7] Referring to Sherry R. Arnstein’s 8 steps of participation (in A Ladder of Citizen Participation, 1969)

[8] See article in the Jakarta Post: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/06/why-do-we-need-redo-jakarta-spatial-masterplan.html

[9] Mahatma Gandhi: “You ought to be the change you wish to see in this world”

Dalam rangka menyambut Hari Lahan Basah Sedunia, Jakarta Green Monster kembali mengadakan acara Bersih Sampah Angke

Mari-mari gulung lengan bajumu untuk membersihkan sampah bersama
Jakarta Green Monster dan masyarakat lainnya,,,

Minggu, 7 Februari 2010
Lokasi: Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke (SMMA)
pukul 08.00 – 12.00 WIB.

Apa saja yang harus dibawa??
1. Pakaian ganti
2. Botol Minuman (Panitia hanya menyediakan air minum isi ulang)
3. Sepatu/sepatu boot)
4. Makanan ringan

Untuk informasi dan pendaftaran peserta, hubungi:
Yulia Es Campur : 081314366870
Hendra ‘Kobe’ Aquan : 08157988053
Putri Ayusha : 085648177747

salam,
Putri Ayusha

Mengapa bersih sampah?

sampah-sampah yang mengalir masuk ke SMMA bisa menutupi akar mangroove
dan menyebabkan pohon2 tersebut mati,,,
SMMA merupakan rumah bagi 7 spesies mangroove, 91 spesies burung
seperti Bangau Bluwok, Kareo Padi, Pecuk Ular Asia, dsb, serta monyet
ekor panjang, dan lain sebagainya.

Kawasan ini juga menjadi tempat perlindungan bagi burung Bubut Jawa
(Centropus nigroforus) yang merupakan burung endemik Pulau Jawa. Saat
ini bubut Jawa berjumlah tidak lebih dari 10 ekor.

Jakarta yang merupakan hutan beton ternyata masih memiliki lahan basah
yang dihuni oleh berbagai jenis burung,,,tanpa lahan basah ini Jakarta
bisa lebih kebanjiran dan tenggelam air pasang

kosongkan jadwal mari-mari selamatkan lahan basah tersisa di Jakarta
dari tumpukan sampah

Bagaimana Menuju Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke?

Menggunakan Kendaraan Umum

1. Busway
Naik busway Harmoni – Kalideres, turun di Halte Jelambar (samping
Citraland). Cari angkot berwarna merah nomer B 01 jurusan Grogol -
Angke. Turun di pintu gerbang Pantai Indah Kapuk. tepat di ujung Jl.
Muara Karang, ditandai dengan Pizza Hut dan apartemen. Jalan kaki
masuk ke Pantai Indah Kapuk, setelah menyeberang jembatan (sekitar 50
meter dari gerbang, di sebelah kanan Anda adalah Suaka Margasatwa
Muara Angke. Ikuti jalan setapak di seberang kompleks ruko Meditarania
Niaga, pintu masuk Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke sekitar 300 meter dari
jembatan.

2. Bus dari Terminal Grogol
Naik kendaraan apa saja yang berhenti di Terminal Grogol. Cari angkot
berwarna merah nomer B 01 jurusan Grogol – Angke. Turun di pintu
gerbang Pantai Indah Kapuk. tepat di ujung Jl. Muara Karang, ditandai
dengan Pizza Hut dan apartemen. Jalan kaki masuk ke Pantai Indah
Kapuk, setelah menyeberang jembatan (sekitar 50 meter dari gerbang, di
sebelah kanan Anda adalah Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke. Ikuti jalan
setapak di seberang kompleks ruko Meditarania Niaga, pintu masuk Suaka
Margasatwa Muara Angke sekitar 300 meter dari jembatan.

3. Bus dari Terminal Blok M
Naik bus Steady Safe Non AC No 37 Jurusan BLOK M – Muara Angke,
ongkosnya cukup Rp. 2000. Bus ini umumnya gak sampai Muara Angke
(sesuai info dari keneknya), tapi cuman sampai Megamall Pluit.
Dari Megamall Pluit dilanjutkan naik angkot dua kali, nomornya 11
warna merah, dengan ongkos Rp. 2000 turun di Jl Mandara. Dari situ
naik lagi angkot warna merah yang melewati kawasan Pantai Indah Kapuk
dengan ongkos Rp. 1000 turun di depan ruko Mediterania yang langsung
berseberangan dengan pintu masuk Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke.

Menggunakan Kendaraan Pribadi Roda Empat atau Lebih

1. Melalui Tol Dalam Kota
Ambil pintu keluar Pluit. Ikuti jalan melintasi Mega Mall Pluit. Lurus
hingga masuk Jl. Muara Karang yang ditandai dengan perempatan dengan
jembatan. Ikuti terus sampai ujung Jl. Muara Karang, ditandai dengan
Pizza Hut dan apartemen. Belok ke kiri, masuk ke Pantai Indah Kapuk,
setelah menyeberang jembatan (sekitar 50 meter dari gerbang, di
sebelah kanan Anda adalah Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke. Anda bisa
parkir di kompleks ruko Meditarania Niaga, persis di seberang pintu
masuk Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke.

2. Melalui Tol Bandara
Ambil pintu keluar Pantai Indah Kapuk. Masuk dalam kompleks Pantai
Indah Kapuk. Ikuti jalan yang menuju Mediterania. Anda bisa parkir di
kompleks ruko Meditarania Niaga, persis di seberang pintu masuk Suaka
Margasatwa Muara Angke.

Menggunakan Motor atau Sepeda
Dari arah Grogol, masuk ke Jl. Jembatan Tiga, ikuti hingga Jl.
Jembatan Lima. Ikuti terus jalan utama sampai melewati Mega Mall
Pluit. Lurus hingga masuk Jl. Muara Karang yang ditandai dengan
perempatan dengan jembatan. Ikuti terus sampai ujung Jl. Muara Karang,
ditandai dengan Pizza Hut dan apartemen. Belok ke kiri, masuk ke
Pantai Indah Kapuk, setelah menyeberang jembatan (sekitar 50 meter
dari gerbang, di sebelah kanan Anda adalah Suaka Margasatwa Muara
Angke. Anda bisa parkir di kompleks ruko Meditarania Niaga, persis di
seberang pintu masuk Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke.

Catatan:
Warga sekitar Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke mengenalnya dengan nama
Cagar Alam. Jadi, jika Anda hendak bertanya, tanyakan di mana lokasi
cagar alam.