BANGUNAN PEKA

Arsitektur Tanggap Lingkungan

6 Juli 2011, 16:00 WIB

Tur pameran dan bincang-bincang bersama kurator Uwe Rieger (The University of Auckland)

Museum Nasional Indonesia
Jalan Merdeka Barat No. 12

Pameran “Bangunan Peka-Arsitektur Tanggap Lingkungan” di Museum Nasional 6-20 Juli 2011 diselenggarakan oleh Goethe-Institut Indonesien bekerja sama dengan Uwe Rieger, guru besar tamu untuk desain, ketua departemen arsitektur di School of Architecture and Planning The University of Auckland.

Pameran ini mengangkat tema arsitektur reaktif, yaitu arsitektur yang dapat menyesuaikan diri secara dinamis dengan iklim, cuaca, perencanaan atau pengguna. Tujuh instalasi akan dipamerkan. Lima di antaranya didatangkan dari Selandia Baru, sementara dua lainnya dari Indonesia: Ciliwung Recovery Programme (CRP) karya Indonesian Dream (Rezza Rahdian, Erwin Setiawan, Ayu Diah Shanti, Leonardus Chrisnantyo, Mario Lodeweik Lionar, Petrus Narwastu) dan Rumah Bambu Swapasang karya Arsitek Komunitas dari Yogyakarta.

Goethe-Institut Indonesien dengan Rujak Centre for Urban Studies (RCUS) mengundang Anda untuk tur keliling pameran dan bincang-bincang bersama Uwe Rieger pada:

Rabu, 6 Juli 2011 di Museum Nasional, mulai 16:00 WIB.

Acara akan dipandu oleh Marco Kusumawijaya dari RCUS.

Fakta-fakta menarik yang dapat didiskusikan antara lain adalah:
• Kebutuhan untuk mengembangkan arsitektur yang menghemat energi dan bahan dengan bereaksi positif atas alam
• Kebutuhan untuk mentransformasi pengetahuan dan kebijaksanaan dari bentuk-bentuk vernakular/tradisional arsitektur Indonesia ke konteks kontemporer dan perkotaan menggunakan metode ilmiah.

Kami mengharapkan pertukaran pikiran di antara kurator dan Anda semua!

Untuk mendaftarkan kehadiran pada acara ini Anda dapat menghubungi (selambatnya 5 Juli 2011):

Dinyah Latuconsina

Goethe-Institut Indonesien

Jl. Sam Ratulangi 9-15

Jakarta 10350

Tel. +62-21-23550208 – 147

Latuconsina@jakarta.goethe.org

Tulisan dan Foto oleh Robin Hartanto, Hangzhou.

Sejauh apa dapat bersepeda di sebuah kota? Baru seketika Jakarta membuat jalur sepeda pertamanya sepanjang Blok M-Taman Ayodya (1.5 m), katanya sudah tidak berfungsi.

Tapi, 28 Mei 2011, nun jauh dari Jakarta, saya berkesempatan mengunjungi Hangzhou, China, sekedar berjalan-jalan. Tak butuh waktu lama untuk jatuh cinta dengan kota ini, terutama bagi para penikmat sepeda. Selama 10 tahun ini, kota Hangzhou mendapatkan berjubel-jubel penghargaan, antara lain “The Best Tourism City of China” dari United Nations World Tourism Organization dan National Tourism Administration tahun 2006 serta “China’ s Most Beautiful Leisure City” dariChina Leisure Development International Forum tahun 2010. Salah satu winning factor-nya, adalah perihal sepeda ini. Lantas apa yang membuatnya menakjubkan?

Titik alfanya pada 1 Mei 2008. Program Public Bicycle Service yang disponsori pemerintah setempat memulai dengan 8.100 sepeda yang tesebar di 61 stasiun. Angka tersebut terus bertambah dari waktu ke waktu. 10.000 sepeda di 350 stasiun pada Maret 2009, 40.000 sepeda di 1600 stasiun pada awal Oktober 2009, dan sekarang telah menembus angka 50.000 sepeda dengan total 2050 titik servis. Tenang saja, angka tersebut masih akan terus bertambah seiring rencana pemerintah lokal mencapai angka 175.000 sepeda tahun 2020!

Bike Sharing sebenarnya bukan hal baru. Kota-kota besar di Eropa telah memulainya terlebih dahulu. Yang teranyar adalah Paris ‘Vélib’ program yang diluncurkan tahun 2007. Dengan total 20.000 sepeda dan 1450 stasiun, proyek ini pernah menjadi Bike Sharing terbesar sebelum akhirnya dibalap oleh Hangzhou. Jarak antar stasiun di kota Paris mencapai 300 meter, bandingkan dengan Hangzhou yang apabila rencana pemerintah Hangzhou tahun 2011 untuk mencapai 2711 stasiun berjalan lancar, maka jarak antar stasiun sepeda di Hangzhou akan mencapai 100 meter antar stasiun.

Sementara vandalisme dan pencurian menjadi salah satu masalah utama dari bike sharing, Hangzhou punya catatan superior. Pada tahun pertama beroperasi, HPTC (Hanzhou Public Transportation Corporation) mengklaim bahwa tidak ada satu pun sepeda yang dicuri dan hanya 0,5% sepeda yang rusak. Bandingkan dengan Paris, yang berdasarkan artikel Treehugger.com tahun 2009, telah kehilangan lebih dari 50% sepedanya, baik itu rusak maupun hilang (data dari Wikipedia.org malah mencapai 80%).

Hal lain yang menjadikan bike sharing Hangzhou brilian adalah anda dapat bersepeda gratis. Terdengar too good to be true, tapi nyatanya seperti itu. Untuk peminjaman satu jam pertama, kita tidak perlu membayar. Jika lebih, jam kedua akan dikenakan biaya 1 RMB (sekitar 1300 Rupiah/1 RMB), jam ketiga dikenakan biaya 2 RMB, dan jam keempat dan seterusnya biayanya menjadi 3 RMB/jam. Bagi yang ingin berhemat alias berpelit, cukup letakkan kembali sepeda di stasiun sebelum jam pertama, kemudian tinggal mengambilnya kembali, sehingga perhitungan waktu akan dimulai lagi dari awal.

Untuk mendapatkan kartu peminjamannya, hal yang pertama kali perlu dilakukan adalah ke konter pembuatan kartu yang tersebar di banyak titik, kemudian memberikan deposit senilai 300 RMB. Bagi para pelancong dari luar negeri, cukup tunjukkan paspor sebagai bukti identitas. Tidak sampai 5 menit mengisi formulir, kartu sudah di tangan.

Sistem pengambilan dan pengembalian sepeda pun sangat praktis. Letakkan kartu di atas mesin pengunci sepeda, beberapa detik kemudian akan terdengar bunyi ‘bip’ panjang dan sepeda sudah dapat digunakan. Prosesnya serupa ketika mengembalikan sepeda. Jika sudah tidak lagi ingin menggunakan fasilitas bike sharing, cukup kembali ke tempat pembuatan kartu untuk mengambil kembali deposit.

Tak sedikit stasiun peminjaman sepeda di Hangzhou yang terintegrasi dengan pusat informasi untuk turisme serta fasilitas publik lainnya seperti telepon umum. Di pusat informasi tersebut, kita dapat mengambil beragam brosur gratis dalam berbagai bahasa, yang di dalamnya terdapat peta dan informasi lengkap berbagai titik-titik terbaik di Hangzhou yang umumnya tersebar di sekitar pada Xi Hu (West Lake), obyek turisme utama di Hangzhou. Selain itu, di sana juga dijual berbagai minuman dan makanan ringan, layaknya warung-warung kecil di pinggir jalan Jakarta.

Tiga tahun berlalu sejak program Public Bicycle Service dijalankan di Hangzhou, sementara ribuan kilometer dari sana Jakarta baru memulai proyek jalur sepedanya. PBS Hangzhou bisa menjadi preseden yang sangat baik untuk pengembangan pemanfaatan jalur sepeda. Harapan saya, semoga proyek jalur sepeda Jakarta dapat menjadi katalis berbagai kebijakan dan program lain yang dapat membuat warga Jakarta lebih menikmati kotanya, semoga tulisan ini dapat menjadi sebuah ‘studi banding’ bagi pemerintah tanpa perlu mampir ke sana, dan semoga berbagai informasi ini dapat berguna bagi kita semua.

NB: untuk gambaran yang lebih jelas saya lampirkan video yang sangat komprehensif tentang bike sharing di Hangzhou, dipublikasikan oleh Elizabeth Press, berikut embed code dan alamat web nya.
http://www.streetfilms.org/the-biggest-baddest-bike-share-in-the-world-hangzhou-china/

Berbagai sumber referensi tentang bike sharing Hangzhou
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/biggest-bike-share-in-china.php
http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/2009/03/bike-sharing-in-hangzhou-china.html
http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/2009/10/hangzhou-on-go-and-wuhan-can.html
http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/2011/06/bike-sharing-world-first-week-of-june.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_sharing_system

5th Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU)

National University of Singapore (NUS)

24th to 26th February 2011, Singapore

Organised by International Forum on Urbanism

In collaboration with National University of Singapore, Centre for Sustainable Asian Cities (CSAC) and IFOU 2011 Singapore

http://globalvisions2011.ifou.org/

Dear Colleagues,

We cordially invite you to participate in the 5th Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU). The IFoU 2011 conference is entitled “Global Visions: Risks and Opportunities for the Urban Planet” and will be held at the National University of Singapore (NUS) in Singapore from 24th to 26th February, 2011.

The conference will provide an opportunity for architects, urban planners, students and researchers from various disciplines, policy makers, managers, and politicians–all of whom are involved in or interested in the design, planning, and management of the built environment–to engage in the issue of sustainability and to participate in an exchange of visions, concepts, and best practices for our shared planet.

Please visit the IFoU 2011 website at http://globalvisions2011.ifou.org/  for instructions on abstract submission and registration, as well as information on the program schedule and venue/accommodation details.

We anticipate IFoU 2011 to be both an intellectually stimulating forum and a memorable experience for all participants. We hope you can join us and we look forward to seeing you in Singapore.

Invited Keynote Speakers

* CHEONG Koon Hean, Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore

* Kees CHRISTIAANSE, ETH Zuerich

* Balkrishna Vithaldas DOSHI, Vastu-Shilpa Consultants, Ahmedabad

* Jaques FERRIER, Jaques Ferrier Architectures, Paris

* LIU Thai-Ker, RSP Architects, Planers & Engineers, Singapore

* MENG Yan, URBANUS, Shenzhen

* Edward SOJA, UCLA, Los Angeles

Important Dates

Conference Dates:                        February 24th-26th, 2011

Deadline for Abstract Submission:                 September 1st, 2010

Notification of Acceptance:                    October 1st, 2010

Deadline for Full Paper and Early Bird Registration:        December 1st, 2010

Deadline for Late Registration:                February 1st, 2011

Participation

Early bird fee (before December 1st, 2010)                    S$390

Last call fee  (before February 1st, 2011)                    S$690

Staff members of the participating institutes of the IFoU-network    S$190

Student fee (without proceedings and conference meals)            S$20

DAILY entrance fee (after February 1st, 2011)                S$250

Conference Topics

A. Urban visions of sustainability

This session will discuss urban visions, built and un-built cities and transformative ideas for the development of sustainable cities, including critiques of model cities and communities built on visions of sustainability.

B. The design of sustainable urban space

This session will discuss the planning and design of new urban space with regards to sustainable development, including the critique of such spaces as practiced.

C. Waterfronts and Coastal Developments

This session will discuss sustainable strategies for waterfront and coastal developments in the light of global warming, as well as future urban policies and projected development for flood defense, water-management and urban delta development.

D. Urban technologies and sustainability

This session will discuss both the hard and soft technologies that enable sustainable cities, including infrastructure, tools and innovations related to the design and evaluation of sustainable cities, as well as policies, regulations, economic instruments and strategies for management.

E. Sustainable mobility

This session will focus on sustainable solutions for the increasing mobility demand in cities. In this framework advanced systems for mass transportation will be discussed as well as alternatives for the individual mobility demand like hybrid and electric based transportation systems and smart traffic systems. On the other hand, also approaches to reduce the mobility demands by high density developments and smart location choices will be investigated.

F. Planning and new approaches to urban governance

This session will discuss the following questions: What new or enhanced forms of governance are needed to support sustainable development? With an ever expanding international environmental law and policy making regime, how can local institutional machinery be strengthened and better coordinated to achieve sustainability goals?

G. Creative cities and ‘green economies’

This session will discuss social sustainability and urban participation in the making of sustainable cities, the revitalization of urban districts through cultural regeneration and the infusion of creative precincts, as well as people-centred sustainability initiatives and public space. Also concepts and approaches for a new (green) economy will be elaborated.

H. Social justice and sustainable society

This session aims to discuss the rationales and local wisdoms, which enable the urban communities to retain and to sustain their distinctiveness and to survive many trials and tribulations, with special attention is directed towards the informal or community sectors, urban enclaves (which often mislabeled as slums or squatters), traditional/historic urban cores, and rural-urban exchanges.

I. The Asian City

This session provides space for empirical investigation of emergent urbanisms that may be deemed sustainable in the Asian city, but also takes regional urban diversity as a resource for wider theorization.

J. Design projects for the sustainable city

This session is different from the others. It will not focus on the presentation of scientific papers, but on the presentation and discussion of design proposals for sustainable urban projects. In this framework architects and urban designers, students and professionals are asked to submit design concepts that are able to contribute to a more sustainable urban environment, urban economy and urban society. The projects will be assessed and selected by a special jury.

For any queries, please contact: ifou2011@mymicenet.net

The conference will provide an opportunity for artists and those who support the arts in a myriad of ways – from scholars, critics, producers and designers to policy-makers, industry and government – to engage in interdisciplinary dialogue about issues associated with the creation of environmentally sustainable arts practice and performance.

The conference committee welcomes proposals for papers that consider the relationship between the cultural and ecological aspects of sustainability in the arts, and may encompass aspects of subjectivity with respect to community and identity.

Please forward a 250-word abstract of your proposal, including your name, affiliation, mailing and email address to:
Ina Agastra, Executive Assistant to the Dean
Faculty of Fine Arts, York University
ffadeanasst@yorku.ca

Submission deadline: September 1, 2010

Conference website: www.stagingsustainability.ca

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.

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.

Jika kita menilik arsitektur etnik yang ada di Indonesia maka jelas terlihat bahwa kekreatifitasan dan kekritisan tersebut telah ada pada mereka. Masyarakat yang masih membangun arsitektur etnik ini lebih jujur dan peka dalam menanggapi apa yang terjadi d sekitar mereka. Oleh karena itu apa pun teknologi yang mereka kembangkan selalu berkesinambungan (sustainable).

Kayu karet sejak tahun 70-an telah dikenal dan digunakan sebagai bahan baku berbagai industri, salah satunya adalah industri furniture. Kayu karet tergolong kayu kelas II setara dengan kayu hutan alam seperti kayu ramin, perupuk, akasia, mahoni, pinus, meranti, durian, ketapang, keruing, sungkai, gerunggang, dan nyatoh. Walau mempunyai potensi positif, Kayu Karet masih belum dimanfaatkan dan dikenal secara optimal dan meluas terutama dalam ranah arsitektur.

Melalui kegiatan ini kami ingin mencapai dan menggapai kedua hal tersebut. Kami ingin mencoba memperlihatkan potensi lain dari kayu karet melalui eksplorasi desain arsitektur. Dengan potensinya tersebut kami merasa kayu karet dapat juga menjadi komponen inti arsitektur yang berestetika baik.

Kerjasama peyelenggara :
- Pacific Place Mall
- Movement Architecture
- Archicentrum (www.archicentrum.com)

ACARA :

1. Instalasi Arsitektur untuk Hari Bumi 2010 @ Pacific Place
Arsitek : Adi Purnomo
Judul: Menanti Reinkarnasi Bumi
Tgl : 19 April-30 Mei 2010

Bumi memang sepertinya harus dilahirkan kembali. Dilahirkan dari kesadaran bersama umat manusia yang meninggalinya untuk kembali merawatnya. Merajut lembaran baru dari jejak sejarah yang telah merusaknya. Walau mungkin kesadaran itu sedikit terlambat dan jejak kerusakan akan tertanggungkan anak cucu.

Kayu karet yang merupakan kayu perkebunan adalah material yang tepat untuk instalasi ini karena menunjukkan upaya alternatif terhadap ketergantungan pada kayu hutan.

Gagasan kelahiran kembali membawa pada bentuk telur sebagai sumber kelahiran. Bentuk telur akhirnya dibiarkan lebih abstrak untuk diterjemahkan sebagai sarang, kepompong atau tempat berlindung. Tekstur yang terbentuk dari potongan-potongan modular kayu karet ini juga diharapkan memberi suatu rasa dalam spektrum yang luas.

Instalasi ini sama sekali tidak akan menjawab penantian itu. Mungkin hanya hendak sedikit mengusik. Masih selalu ada harapan yang tersisa. Untuk melakukan sesuatu. Untuk menjalani sesuatu lagi dengan kebaruan.

2. Instalasi Arsitektur untuk Hari Bumi 2010 @ Pacific Place
Arsitek : Eko Prawoto
Tgl : 19 April-30 Mei 2010

3. EXHIBITION
“Indonesian Architecture : Towards A Better Environment”
Tempat : Mall Pacific Place
Waktu : 10 April – 10 Mei 2010

Pameran Hasil Karya Arsitek
Menampilkan karya-karya 40 Arsitek ternama Indonesia & berisi panel foto serta gambar yang menjelaskan karya arsitektur yang
mengacu pada konsep ‘Green and Sustainable’. Pameran yang disertai
maket ini, diharapkan dapat membantu publik untuk lebih memahami karya
tersebut.

Acara terbuka untuk umum…….

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”