Abdoumalig Simone, City Life from Jakarta to Dakar: Movements at the Crossroads, Routledge, 2010.

“City Life from Jakarta to Dakar is an important new book examining the potentials of urban life from unexpected places that has been consciously written for undergraduate urban courses, while not oversimplifying its subject.

Through powerful stories as well as an incisive theoretical point of view, the book puts cities in Africa and Southeast Asia as a cutting edge in thinking about the urban world of today. It shows how much of what is considered peripheral to urban life is actually critical to it and thereby opens up new ways for understanding what is possible to do in cities from now on.”

Abdoumaliq Simone is an urbanist and Professor of Sociology at Goldsmiths College, University of London. He has been visiting Jakarta and Indonesia at large since 1980’s, and especially intensely in the last five years. While in Jakarta he helps, among others, Urban Poor Consortium, with their research. He is visiting Jakarta again in later half of this year.

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.

Last week I went to one of the biggest housing and land development project in Serpong, trying to identify a potential house to buy. The result was depressing; it was way above my purchasing power — by far. Sadly, despite the splendid infrastructure and its impressive greenery, my dream house was out of reach.

This week, I went to check out several RUSUNAMI (high-rise and low cost apartment) in Eastern Jakarta. Surprisingly it was still beyond my reach. One question struck me, how on earth can low income and middle income earners in Jakarta afford a decent house if the price of the properties are way above their heads. Whilst Government interventions in affordable public housing through mass production of RUSUNAMI, which supposedly targeted the low-mid income groups with income less than 4.5 million per month, apparently is not affordable enough. The price of one RUSUNAMI unit is capped at IDR144 million maxima, which by whatever means would hardly be purchased by people in the low-income group.

Besides the price, another consecutive question struck me, one that relates to the compatibility of high-rise forms of low cost housing targeted for the low income. This question came from my earliest observation of 3 (three) Rumah Susun in Jakarta, one in Bendungan Hilir, one in Kebon Kacang and the other one in Tebet, regardless of the fact that Rumah Susun — which is also a low-cost housing introduced in 1990 — and RUSUNAMI is not an apples to apples comparison. Perhaps I am being very subjective here and made an over simplistic conclusion, but my lay mans observation is that the higher the Rumah Susun raises, the lower the maintenance.  That does tell me something:  the low-cost high-rise housing model in Indonesia is not working.

It should be noted that our beloved country has never had glimmering success stories in the provision of adequate shelter and secure tenure for the low income group. Despite the rosy programming, many low cost housing projects or Government’ funded programmes have failed to yield tangible results. The situation has worsened since developers became disinterested in low cost housing, simply because they could not milk a good profit out of it.

It’s been reported that many developers have terminated the development of RUSUNAMI and are no longer offering a subsidized low-cost apartment. Consequently, the price of RUSUNAMI has increased from the previously capped IDR 144 million maxima to a new ceiling capped at IDR 200 million — more that 25% increased in ballpark estimation — which now targets the mid-income group. The Deputy of Formal Housing for the Ministry of Housing confirms that many developers have terminated their commitment to develop subsidized apartments due to an increase of production cost (materials etc…). The Deputy pontificates that this could not be avoided as there is no legal binding clause between Government and Developers that says developers must develop subsidized housing. The Deputy also points out that it should be looked on from the bright side, in return; many apartments for mid-income earners are being developed and soon will supply the housing market (KOMPAS daily newspaper, February 27, 2010). Once again it shows a policy failure — low-income groups are left out in the cold.

In a nutshell, lack of political will to serve the low-income housing sector is one of the many causes, not to mention that a systematic, properly designed and well-targeted social housing program has never been considered as a top Government priority. What has happened is scattered and sporadic initiatives, poorly planned and managed interventions, and spread thinly on a piece meal approach.

In Indonesia, the market forces it-self plays quite a substantial role to limit the supply of low cost housing and manages to keep the housing price beyond low income’s earners purchasing power. Please don’t get me wrong, I am not against the free market I believe free market society is good. However, it somehow fails to address the needs of adequate shelter for the low income group.

To address this, a political will should be properly nurtured and intelligent Government interventions should be adopted. By learning from the past failures in dealing with low-cost housing provisions, by taking into account few facts: first, the landed property is overpriced; one could get an affordable landed property but it can be 2-3 hours driving to/from Jakarta; second, the current high-rise model for example RUSUNAMI (or probably the upcoming RUSUNAMI Version 2.0) is not affordable,  high-rises are not socio-culturally suitable for low income group and the maintenance cost is expensive and will increase incrementally over time; and third, a developer driven model has not been able to address the pressing needs of low-cost housing demand as most developers are bogged down supplying  houses to the niche market of middle income and high income groups.

***

To date, the Government is revising the regulation on subsidized housing. But I can’t see how any breakthrough will be made as it is still likely to play within the “old” context of the proven-failured-high-rise-apartment (RUSUNAMI). As highlighted in Kompas Daily in February 27, it seems the Government is merely aiming to enlarge the size of the of the unit, revising the amount of government’s subsidy and the funniest thing revising the income criteria for the targeted consumer from those earning IDR 4.5 million per month to IDR 6 million per month. This is completely misleading.

Hence, this might be a good time to challenge the Government to think outside the box and focus more on informal housing.

Construction costs are relatively small for low cost housing (landed house), whilst the land and infrastructure cost are relatively high. The Government, in this context Ministry of Housing, should play a more intelligent role in supporting other than developer driven modality such as self help modality to delivering a decent and affordable landed house or a duplex perhaps, and become a competitor in housing market — which so far has been monopolized by a developer driven approach for quite sometime.

There are various approaches which could be adopted, a possible solution could be attained through state interventions to provide matured land — either by giving a temporal right to use, providing land for free or selling it for an affordable price with reasonable repayment scheme –, and adequately equipped with basic infrastructure needs such as installed pipe-water, electricity connections and other vital basic services.

The housing delivery mechanism itself is not rocket science. It is simply utilizing a community development approach towards targeted groups by organizing and facilitating targeted low income groups to construct their own landed houses through self help modality — based on their individual needs and their financial capacity (core house or extended house). The planning and construction process could be assisted by professional/social architects, engineers and facilitators to ensure proper planning and design of the environment and that it meets the expected standard. The source of finance could vary, one possible way is to seek financing from community cooperative institutions or micro finance institutions which provides micro loans either for productive or consumptive purposes — so that the low income could avoid neck-chocking interest rates that are applied by mainstream Banks.

Thailand has successfully addressed the massive growth of slum areas in Bangkok by providing access to land to low income groups to build their own low-cost housing through participatory approach. The basic element of Thailand success story lies in the congruent approach, mutually agreed solution, high commitment coupled with strong synergy between stakeholders involved (i.e. Civil Society, Academic Institutions and the Government ultimately).

Another remarkable success was made by Enrique Peñalosa, a politician who served as mayor of Bogotá — Colombia’s capital city of 7 million — for three years (1998-2001). During his term, he bought undeveloped land on the outskirts of the city to prevent real estate speculation and ensured that it will be developed as affordable housing with electrical, sewage, and telephone service as well as space reserved for parks, schools, and greenways.

The question is now whether the Government of Indonesia is willing to give access to land for the poor and invest state funds to mature land by building the necessary infrastructure?

The Government has given access to state owned land to many developers to build RUSUNAMI, so why can’t they grant access to “well-organized low income groups”?

Singgih Susilo Kartono among the trees surrounding Magno wooden radio workshop (August 23, 2009@Marco Kusumawijaya)

Singgih Susilo Kartono, the maker of Magno wooden radios, thinks we should grow together with our resources. He wants to prove it in his village, Kandangan, in Temanggung, only 8 km from the house where Police thinks Noordin Top hid.  Will it materialise sustainably or become a bursting utopia? Only more elaboration and testing-out will answer that question. We discussed this issue while enjoying fresh air in his workshop on August 23, 2009.

He envisions his village to develop sustainably with production, consumption and resources growing together in the same locale. He wants to literally grow resources for his factory. He has already started growing seeds of sonokeling, mahoni, and other hardwood that he uses for his products, the famous awards winning Magno wooden radios, toys and stationery. He distributes the seeds for free to his neighbours to plant them on their own lands. One slide of his powerful powerpoint presentation shows how more trees emerge and grow bigger as his production grows as well.

With demand for his products growing (creating a current backlog of one month), it is very likely that he will have to expand his production facilities soon, although he does not wish to hurry on that. His neighbours will also enjoy the desentralised distribution of benefits soon. If things go well in the next couple of years, the village vill soon experience a densification process, having new wealth that willl materialise in the “rural” space

Singgih’s vision of production based on local resources, and a fair distribution of wealth in the locale, revives our imagination of “garden city” and other utopias in the history of urbanism. Resources and production are closely linked with relationships clearly tangible and within sight. It would certainly means very low ecological footprint. Fortunately, his “inputs” of the electrical parts in his radios also come from nearby factories in Semarang, two hours by car from Kandangan, Singgih’s base.

His products are sold so far mostly to consumers abroad. MOMA in New York just started to sell them in their stylish museum shop. Can we assume that the value he added to the woods justifies the emission of CO2 of transporting them?

Need for a plan

In anticipation of the spectre of  “growth” that is lurking from behind both the demand for his products, and the needs of the village, Singgih is already thinking of  creating a “masterplan” to guide the village development into the future. A serious mapping of available assets (natural and man made) is needed. A vision of how a future growth wil also grow and nurture (instead of deplete) the assets will be an intriquing exercise of intellect, creativity and technical skills of many disciplines.

Introduction

     For residents of cities, a simple question remains at the heart of their engagement with the city: what can people do together and under what circumstances? What is it that people do with each other when what they do isn’t quite competition, collaboration, conflict, possession or dispossession?  From this question stem the critical dimensions of urban policy in terms of who residents have to deal with, talk to, be intruded upon or intruding; who does space belong to, who has access to what kinds of space for what purposes?  As soon as these considerations are opened up then a wide range of political, administrative and technical consideration about how cities are run also become more contestable and specific. 

See complete article (50 pages) in:

On Provisional Publics and Intersections: Remaking District Life in North Jakarta.

Lihat editorial sebelumnya: http://rujak.org/2009/06/a-week-full-of-hope-disappointment-next/

Enam RW tersebut, menurut data yang Rujak terima dari UPT Pusat Informasi Perencanaan Pembangunan, Bappeda Provinsi DKI Jakarta, melalui N.Puji Siregar (Asisten Kepala Bappeda untuk Urusan Eksternal) adalah:

• RW 02, Kel. Cipete Utara, Kec. Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta Selatan
• RW 05, Kel. Tanjung Duren Selatan, Kec. Grogol, Petamburan, Jakarta Barat
• RW 05, Kel. Bambu Apus, Kec.Cipayung, Jakarta Timur
• RW 03, Kel. Tugu Selatan, Kec. Koja, Jakarta Utara
• RW 04, Kel. Karet Tengsin, Kec. Tanah Abang, Jakarta Pusat
• Kel. Pulau Tidung, Kabupaten Admin. Kep. Seribu

Wilayah ini masih dalam proses pengembangan, jadi  tingkat keberhasilannya masih harus dipantau dan dinilai.  Bila hendak melakukan kunjungan yang bersifat dari pemerintah daerah lain, diharapkan menghubungi Biro Kerjasama Daerah dan Kerjasama Luar Negeri (KDH dan KLN) di Sekretariat Daerah Provinsi DKI Jakarta.

Bila kunjungan sesama warga, tentu tidak diperlukan menghubungi biro tersebut. Rujak mengundang warga budiman Jakarta untuk mengunjungi salah satu atau semua RW dan kelurahan tersebut dan menuliskan ceritanya bagi Rujak. Sangat diharapkan juga foto-foto. Untuk cerita serta foto terbaik menurut pilihan editor Rujak, akan ada hadiah sebesar Rp. 300,000.

Green Map needs to persistently engage people residing in the areas being mapped in order to help generating intimate knowledge of places, and giving local voice a chance in the changing world. Green Map needs to ever amphasize its participatory method. Indonesian Green Map makers all over the country need to assemble together the total assets they have so far generated to be the basis for strengthening their capacity to achieve that goal.

The Green Map makers in different places differ in stages of their respective map making projects, in their social characteristics, and resources and assets.  There is a need to organise themselves in such a way as to make possible for them to help each other with their complementary skills and resources. A dynamic flow of those skills and resources need to be created. To effect more impact, the Indonesian Green Map makers can also act as a coherent entiti with their assets consolidated as a whole. 

Those are among the lessons learned during the national gathering of Indonesian Green Map makers in Borobudur, Cenral Java, on July 17-19, 2009.  

The gathering took place in a hamlet within the village of Borobudur, in the centre of which stands the famous Buddhist temple of Borobudur, the largest of its kind in the world. Participants, obviously lacking representatives from outside Java, stayed in village houses with the the residing families. The plenary meetings were accomodated in a larger village house. They were also entertained by, and participated in, the village’ local children mask-dance and Kuda Lumping (“jumping horse”) dance, as well as many other spontaneous interactions.

The Borobudur villagers have just completed their first edition of Borobudur Mandala Green Map, that maps not only the area immediately surrounding the magnificent temple but also the hamlets surrounding it. This is very much in time for the villagers to use it to show their own view of the area, and to voice their thoughts  for the re-planning of the area as a strategic tourist destination by the government.

As mainstreaming green issues is no longer a challenge today, as it was 10 years ago, the use of Borobudur Mandala Green Map is an important step in the history of Indonesian Green Map making, as it has a potential to be used by the local residents to effect changes in the planning practice.

Recognising, generating, and giving a voice to “intimate knwoledge” of long-time residents of places are never more important than today, when we so desperately need to change the current simplistic and often destructive planning practices. We need to respect this intimate kowledge not only because of their rights to voice it, but also because there are often so much benefits in it for all humanity. This intimate knwoledge is also often an important source of solution to many development problems that cannot otherwise be solved by uninformed public policies.

Jakarta Green Map will start its second residents-based Green Map in August 2009 (see www.rujak.org/event…) in Pondok Indah. (The first one being the unpublished Mangga Dua Neighbourhood Green Map made by 12 young residents n 2004). Hopefully lessons from Borobudur and Jogja Green Map makers will be informing Pondok Indah Green Map. Hopefully it will also leads to actions to positively change the neighbourhood and the residents.

More pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rujak/sets/72157621738298808/

Ekologi Jakarta terancam punah. Penduduk penghuni dalam kota Jakarta berkurang, menurun setidaknya dalam 10 tahun terakhir. Keragaman berkurang, bukan saja dalam arti fungsi (terutama dengan menghilangnya hunian di tengah kota), tetapi juga dalam arti keragaman strata ekonomi. Kelemahan terletak pada tidak adanya koherensi antara kebijakan perpajakan, pembangunan perkotaan, tata ruang/kota, dan konservasi. Bahkan kawasan perumahan berkualitas tinggi (setidaknya dulu) seperti Menteng pun sedang mengalami penurunan. 

(Lihat studi pada http://rujak.org/2009/07/loe-loe-gue-gue/ dan http://rujak.org/2009/07/visioning-the-future-of-jakarta-imagining-jakarta/; serta artikel di  http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/03/21/the-plight-and-plea-menteng.html, dan http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/04/envisaging-a-mutually-beneficial039-kind-jakarta.html )

Di beberapa tempat, misalnya di Jakarta Utara, keragaman itu bertahan.

Abdoumaliq Simone (Professor of Soscology, Goldsmith College, University of London), dengan kesegaran ”pandangan orang luar”, melihat Jakarta Utara memiliki percampuran (mixture) sosial sebagai satu dari sedikit saja ’harta’ yang kini masih dimiliki Jakarta, yang memiliki potensi sangat penting untuk meningkatkan vitalitas Jakarta, bila bukan hanya untuk survivalnya.

Struktur sosial berkait dengan struktur fisik kota. Bagian utara Jakarta memiliki jalan-jalan utama dengan kanal dan jembatan. Kaviling-kavling sepanjang jalan ditempati penduduk menengah-atas dan digunakan untuk fungsi komersil. Masuk ke jalan lingkungan, kavling-kavling dihuni oleh kelas menengah, dan masuk ke lorong ditemui kampung dengan penduduk miskin hingga menengah. Lingkungan permukiman di bagian utara Jakarta masih memberi tempat bagi satu rentang kelompok sosial: dari sangat-miskin hingga menengah-atas dalam satu lingkungan yang relatif kecil.

Keragaman, percampuran, dalam struktur sosio-ekonomi di bagian Utara Jakarta pada tingkat tertentu dilestarikan oleh rancangan kota kolonial zaman belanda. Boulevard berkanal, bangunan umum, jalan lingkungan, townhouse, dan kantung-kantung permukiman (kampung) menjadi batas teritorial bagi kelompok-kelompok sosial tadi. Kampung juga mendukung fungsi ekonomi di jalan besar yang menyediakan produk dan jasa.

Kampung kota menawarkan produk dan jasa yang sangat kompetitif. Misalnya, penyedia jasa dekorasi pameran, salah satu jenis usaha yang umum disana. Pemiliknya seorang berpendidikan arsitektur, dan memang masih memberikan jasa arsitektur. Saat menerima pesanan dekorasi pameran, dia akan mengurai, menjabarkan, dan membagi pekerjaan kepada mandor, lalu mandor mencari tukang untuk masing-masing pekerjaan yang ada. OPesanan ini bersifat sekali-sekali, musiman, tapi para tukang dapat terus berpenghasilan karena mereka pekerja berpindah. Pada saat lain mereka adalah pembuat meja-kursi. Demikianlah ini adalah ekonomi dengan kelenturan dan efisiensi tersendiri, ciri yang membuat mereka sangat kompetitif; dan ini ada, hidup di kampung-kampung kota Jakarta.

Kedekatan jarak memungkinkan kontak dan berkembangnya relasi-relasi ekonomi. Konstelasi urban ini belum tentu adil, seringkali manipulatif bahkan menindas, problematik. Tidak ada keraguan tentang hal itu. Namun, dinamika sosial ekonomi ini lah yang memberikan nafas dan kekuatan kepada sebuah kota.

Disitu juga ada skala, yang memungkinkan struktur ini berfungsi. Perlu dicatat, tatanan kota lama tercipta saat kota belum mengenal kendaraan bermotor sehingga segala sesuatu direncanakan berpedoman pada ukuran manusia, atau mungkin juga kuda? Saat itu kehidupan kota berjalan tanpa banyak bergantung pada kendaraan bermotor—suatu kondisi yang kembali dirindukan saat ini.

Dapat dibayangkan apabila arah pembangunan kota Jakarta, misalnya di bagian Utara dengan rencana reklamasi, akan menuju seperti Sudirman dan Thamrin yang padat modal namun meminggirkan penduduk miskin, wilayah Jakarta ini akan kehilangan kapasitas serta vitalitas yang selama ini ditunjukkan oleh ekologinya. Apa yang akan terjadi bila penduduk miskin kota digusur demi ilusi fatamorgana kemakmuran atau efek Dubai?

Salah satu soal kita, barangkali, adalah karena lebih mudah meyakinkan para pengambil keputusan tentang pertambahan nilai satu meter persegi lantai mall baru dan sekian unit tenaga kerja dan sekian nilai tambah dari tas louis vuitton yang dijual disana. Lebih sulit menjelaskan bahwa satu meter persegi lahan di Pademangan adalah sekian unit tenaga kerja, sekian relasi ekonomi dan relsasi sosial, dan ini semua mendukung sekian banyak relasi ekonomi di tingkatan seluruh kota, sehingga secara keseluruhan dan dalam jangka panjang mempunyai nilai lebih bagi metropolis Jakarta.

Apa yang kita, warga negara biasa, harus dan dapat lakukan?

Pemerintah tidak pernah punya alternatif yang masuk akal. Karena itu, inisiatif masyarakat adalah satu-satunya solusi . Di Surabaya ada suatu inisiatif pendekatan permukiman lestari oleh masyarakat yang dapat dicontoh Jakarta.

Kampung hijau dengan pupuk organik hasil kompos

Paguyuban Warga Stren Kali Surabaya (PWSKS) melawan ‘cap buruk’ yang selama ini ditujukan kepada mereka. Pada tahun 2002, berbekal semangat gotong royong dan kekuatan kebersamaan, warga mulai mengorganisasikan kampungnya, memperbaiki kualitas lingkungan kampungnya, melalui kearifan mereka sendiri, dan mengkampanyekannya ke media lokal dan nasional bahwa PWSKS adalah warga Kota yang baik dan peduli. Memang bukan pekerjaan mudah seperti menghapus  kesalahan tulis pada selembar kertas.

Melalui kelompok tabungan perempuan di masing-masing kampung, warga sepakat memilah sampah. Sampah plastik dan kertas dipilah dan dikumpulkan tiap hari Minggu. Sampah ditimbang dan dijual kepada pengumpul di sekitar kampung. Uang yang didapat dikumpulkan pada kelompok tabungan dan dijadikan dana cadangan renovasi kampung.

Kegiatan ini secara bergelombang menyebar ke seluruh kampung-kampung anggota PWSKS. Bahkan tak sedikit warga yang memungut sampah plastik yang mengapung di sungai dan mengumpulkannya melalui ibu-ibu. Ibu Kartika, warga Gunungsari mengatakan, ”Meskipun dana yang kami dapat dari penjualan sampah kertas dan plastik ini tidak besar, namun kami menjaga semangat yang sudah tumbuh agar tetap besar. Hanya dengan cara inilah pemerintah akan melihat, bahwa kami juga bisa berbuat untuk Kota Surabaya”.

Sampah organis yang berasal dari masing-masing rumah dicacah dan dimasukkan dalan sebuah keranjang ”ajaib” yang disebut Keranjang Takakura, dari nama pemciptanya, Prof. Takakura dari Jepang. Keranjang Takakura adalah salah satu cara pengomposan paling sederhana yang dilakukan pada lingkungan terkecil, yaitu rumah-tangga. Dengan paradigma baru ”memilah dan mengolah sendiri”, masing-masing rumah dan anggota keluarga akan sadar bahwa sampah bukan masalah.

Setiap 4-5 bulan sekali dilakukan panen bersama kompos, hasil dari Keranjang Takakura.

Sebagian hasilnya ditawarkan kepada Pemerintah Kota, yang saat ini sedang menggalakkan penghijauan kota. Sebagian lainnya digunakan untuk memupuk tanaman obat-obatan (TOGA, Tanaman Obat Keluarga) yang ditanam di lahan sempit di tepi jalan kampung masing-masing.

Akhirnya ’Sunan’ Jogokali bisa membuka mata para Anggota DPRD Propinsi Jawa Timur yang tergabung dalam Panitia Khusus (Pansus) Peraturan Daerah (Perda) Penataan Permukiman Stren Kali Surabaya. Pada 7 Oktober 2007, DPRD Propinsi Jawa Timur mengesahkan sebuah peraturan yang sangat partisipatif dan pro rakyat, yaitu Perda Nomor 9 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Permukiman Stren Kali Surabaya, yang intisarinya adalah warga diperbolehkan tetap tinggal di Permukiman Terbatas di Stren Kali, dengan melakukan penataan kampung.

Yuli Kusworo adalah Arsitek untuk Urban Poor Consortium (UPC) dan Paguyuban Warga Stren Kali Surabaya

Masalah kampung di Jakarta adalah sebenarnya masalah yang sudah kuno untuk dibicarakan. Isu ini sudah dibahas sejak beberapa dasawarsa yang lalu. Sudah berapa banyak studi yang dilakukan berkaitan dengan topik ini? Terlalu banyak mungkin. Tapi kenapa masalahnya tidak terpecahkan juga? Salah siapa? Semuanya akan saling tunjuk jari. Yah salah pemerintah, yah salah pendatangnya sendiri, yah salah kita semua. Apakah akan pernah ada diskusi membangun terhadap isu ini?

Daripada kita mencoba mencari kambing hitam (seperti halnya dengan masalah banjir), lebih baik kita mencoba membuka mata dan telinga, dan mencoba melihat isu kampung dari sudut yang berbeda. Masalah kampung rumit, tidak bisa dipecahkan dengan solusi jangka pendek saja dimana masalah sosial, ekonomi, spasial, politik dan budaya simpang siur disitu. Tapi jika kita mencoba melihatnya dari sisi yang berbeda, mungkin bisa menghasilkan ide-ide strategis. Hasil program seperti KIP memang bisa lebih “terlihat” dalam waktu yang relatif lebih singkat, tapi apakah bisa membawa perbaikan yang berkesinambungan?

Daripada sok populis dan menaruh posisi sejajar dengan penghuni kampung, ikut kerja bakti perbaikan kampung, tapi akhirnya jadi seperti katak dalam tempurung dalam melihat masalahnya. Tarik posisi kita sedikit ke atas dan lihat masalahnya dari segi perencanaan regional kota. Kenapa kota-kota besar seperti Jakarta, Bandung dan Surabaya selalu menjadi magnet utama? Yang tentu saja, karena kota-kota besar Indonesia selalu menjadi center of wealth. Tempat dimana uang berputar, tempat dimana kualitas hidup lebih baik, tempat dimana infrastrukturnya lebih bagus, tempat dimana orang lebih banyak menanam dana, tempat dimana orang-orang bisa mendapatkan pekerjaan yang lebih baik. Melihat fakta seperti ini, yah mana bisa kita menyalahkan para imigran. Kan hidup hanya sekali dan singkat pula, logis kalau orang-orang akan selalu berjuang untuk mendapatkan hidup yang lebih baik dengan cara yang cepat; pindah ke kota.

Posisi penting kota-kota ini sudah dibangun dari jaman dulunya, dan itu tidak terjadi begitu saja. Sejalan dengan waktu posisi itu semakin menguat. Lalu bagaimana dengan kota-kota lainnya, atau yang lebih dikenal dengan istilah kota-kota sekunder? Apakah kota-kota ini akan terus-terusan jadi pecundang apalagi dalam era kompetisi global dan regional yang sangat intens? Yah tidak harus kan?

Dengan berjalannya program desentralisasi, ada banyak sekali kesempatan ekonomi yang bisa dikembangkan. Kalau kota-kota ini maju kan, orang tidak harus pergi ke Jakarta? Wong, disitu juga hidup sudah enak kan? Jadi daripada terus menerus menyalahkan pemerintah kota besar kenapa mereka tidak bisa membangun program rumah murah yang lebih baik, atau memberikan pinjaman lunak yang lebih atraktif ke kaum miskin perkotaan, kan lebih baik kita membangun kota-kota sekunder kita, supaya pengembangan regional kita bisa lebih berimbang. Solusi gampang? Yah jelas tidak. Yang kuat harus bisa mendorong yang lemah. Kalau dua-duanya sudah kuat akhirnya mereka akan saling bisa membantu dan “berjalan” bersama dengan tempo yang lebih cepat, atau malah bisa berlari.

Teori-teori perencanaan regional kota seperti itu memang terdengar cukup menjanjikan, tapi tentu juga harus dilaksanakan dari level atas juga, melalui kebijakan-kebijakan pemerintahan. Lalu warga Jakarta bisa melakukan apa? Apakah kita harus pindah tinggal ke desa untuk membangun disana atau menanam dana supaya bisa menciptakan lapangan kerja disana? Yah kan tidak harus sedrastis itu. Praktisnya, untuk usaha-usaha yang memerlukan pendekatan top down seperti ini memang sulit dirasakan dan diimplementasikan oleh kita-kita warga kota biasa. Namun tidak ada salahnya kita bisa meningkatkan kesadaran kita akan isu ini.

Lalu apakah program-program perbaikan kampung perlu dihapus? Tentu saja tidak, karena program jangka panjang untuk menciptakan keseimbangan pengembangan regional juga harus disertai solusi jangka pendek. Yang salah adalah kalau kita hanya mengandalkan solusi jangka pendek saja tanpa memikirkan program yang berkesinambungan.

Banyak orang melihat kampung sebagai indikasi patologi urban; indikasi dari ketidak becusan pemerintah untuk mengelola kota dan indikasi segregasi sosial yang semakin meningkat. Tapi cobalah kita melihat kampung sebagai bagian integral dari kota itu sendiri. Kampung itu bukan hanya indikasi patologi urban, tapi banyak sekali hal-hal positif dan potensi yang bisa ditilik dari sana. Bagaimana penghuni kampung bisa bertahan menghadapi tantangan ekonomi, bagaimana dinamik kemampuan bertahan mereka dan kreativitas mereka untuk mencari penghasilan. Mungkin dari situ kita bisa belajar nilai-nilai kebersamaan dan solidaritas yang sudah lama hilang dari banyak komunitas modern Jakarta. Kampung bukan hanya menawarkan perumahan yang murah untuk kaum kelas bawah perkotaan tapi juga menawarkan kesempatan ekonomi dan dengan merubah tolak ukur kita, kita bisa menemukan potensi-potensi yang bisa dikembangkan dan digunakan untuk mencari solusi yang berkesinambungan.

Devisari Tunas
Peneliti urban dan penulis buku “The Spatial Economy of the Urban Informal Settlement” yang ditulis berdasarkan hasil riset PhD di fakultas arsitektur TU Delft, NL.