The challenges to sustainable development in Jakarta metropolitan region

HABITAT

Pergamon

INTL.

Vol. IX. No. 3. pp. 79-94. lYY4 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. 0107-397S/Y4 $7.00 + O.oll

01973975(94)00025-5

The Challenges to Sustainable Development in Jakarta Metropolitan Region TOMMY FIRMAN and IDA AYU INDIRA DHARMAPATNI Department of Regional and City Planning Institute of Technology, Bandung

ABSTRACT

The physical development of Jakarta Metropolitan Region, which is also known as Jabotabek, has recently been engineered by the growth of domestic and direct foreign investment, especially in the manufacturing sectors. This in turn has caused high population growth and induced the development of industrial areas, residential areas, commercial activities and infrastructure. However, this admirable development has created many negative externalities, notably environmental problems, such as conversion of prime agricultural land to industrial and residential uses and a worsening of the quality of water resources in the area. There have been many regulations, plans and programs at different levels, i.e. national, metropolitan, and local levels, launched to deal with the negative impacts of development in Jabotabek but as yet without great success. With this context in mind, Jabotabek Region should be developed within the framework of environmental management at metropolitan scale otherwise this region might soon collapse environmentally. There should also be a metropolitan authority working above the provinces or a central agency whose function is to coordinate the sectoral planning in Jakarta and the province of West Java, in which the Jabotabek Metropolitan Region is located.

INTRODUCTION

The Jakarta Metropolitan Region, which is also called Jabotabek, is the largest concentration of urban population in Indonesia. It covers an area of 6,900 sq. km, and according to the 1990 Census had a total population of about 17.1 million, consisting of a 13.1 million (76.5%) urban population and 4 million (23.5%) rural population. This region, which is located in the northern part of the Province of West Java (Fig. l), comprises seven administrative units at different levels: firstly, the Jakarta Special Region (DKI Jakarta) having status Daerah Tingkat Satu (Provincial Level); and secondly, seven municipalities and districts (Daerah Tingkat Dua) under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government of West Java, i.e. the Municipalities (Kotamadya and Kota Administratif) of Bogor, Tangerang and Bekasi, and the Districts (Kabupaten) of Bogor, Tangerang and Bekasi. In fact, the name Jabotabek itself is an acronym which stands for Jakarta-Bogor-Tangerang-Bekasi. The annual population growth of Jabotabek during the period 1980-1990 was 3.7%, much higher than the 2.0% national annual population growth rate, whereas urban population in the region was growing considerably faster, at 79

..-..-a

0 . .

0

_“___

4 _ -, _ .

.

FlWRL

. t

BOUNDARY

JABOTABEK REGION

ADMINISTRATIVE

The Challenges to Sustainable Development

81

5.9% per year. An estimate shows that by the year 2010 the population of Jabotabek will reach as much as 30 million.’ The economic activities in the region have grown very rapidly, especially in industry, trade, transportation, real-estate, and many other sectors. In fact, Jabotabek has functioned as the main centre of national economic activity, in which most of the domestic and foreign investment in Indonesia, except for oil and gas, have been located. However, this unprecedented growth, in turn, has created many problems, especially in the city of Jakarta, such as lack of urban infrastructure, housing, transportation, employment opportunities and environmental degradation. With this background in mind, this paper will examine the physical and socioeconomic factors contributing to development in the Jabotabek, the environmental problems resulting from this development, and policy implementation in the light of the concept of sustainable development, that is, the ability to ensure the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.2 Accordingly, apart from the introduction, the paper will be divided into four parts. Part 1 will analyse physical and socio-economic factors of urban development in Jabotabek. Part 2 will critically discuss the environmental problems resulting from this development. The policies and implementation of plans for Jabotabek development will be extensively examined in Part 3. and Part 4 will conclude the discussion.

ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

IN JABOTABEK

Foreign and domestic investment

The city of Jakarta has been the most attractive area in Indonesia for domestic and direct foreign investment because of its better infrastructure, high concentration and access to mass markets, pool of skilled labour and entrepreneurs and high access to the decision makers. The growth of economic activities in Jakarta has spilled over into the adjacent areas, especially Bogor, Tangerang and Bekasi (Fig. l), that is the Botabek (Bogor-Tangerang-Bekasi) portion of Jabotabek. In fact, around 50% of local and foreign investment in the West Java province is concentrated in the Botabek region. 3 An estimate also shows that the Jabotabek region produced as much as 31% of Indonesia’s industrial output among large and medium firms in 1985, totalling about 2,592 billion rupiah.4 The foreign investment is highly dominated by Asian industrialized countries, notably Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore, reflecting their recent strategy to relocate labor-intensive industries in lower wage areas due to the rising labour costs in those countries. Major industries in Jabotabek include textiles, electrical equipment, cement, plastics, metal and glass products, transport equipment, printing, publishing and other chemical industries.5 However, a more recent observation6 indicates that most of the investment in Jakarta city, notably the core of Jabotabek, has been shifted to peripheral areas and the centre is now dominated by the construction and services sector, while manufacturing activities have expanded into Botabek. In response to the rising demand for industrial land, the Provincial Government of West Java has allocated 18,000 ha of land for industrial estate development distributed in nine districts (Kabupaten), of which about 70% will be located in Jabotabek and the Bandung Metropolitan Area. However, due to the recent recession in the global economy this industrial land allocation has not yet been fully utilized. This sizeable area is to be added to the 15,181 ha of existing land zoned for industry in the Jabotabek Area in 1991, consisting of 10,662 ha (70%) in Botabek and 4,492 ha (30%) in Jakarta.7 Jakarta, as the core of Jabotabek, also plays a dominant role in the international

82

Tommy Firman and Ida Ayu Indira Dharmapatni

trade of Indonesia. Soegijoko8 argues that the share of Jakarta’s total import value reached more than one-half the total national value of imports in 1989. This role is even more striking when it is realised that according to the 1986 Economic Census around one-twelfth of the total national wholesale trade enterprises was located in Jakarta, while one-fifth of the national employment in this economic activity was also in Jakarta.” The important role of Jabotabek in the national economy is also clearly shown by the fact that about 29.6 billion rupiahs out of 196.9 billion rupiahs (1.5%) of Indonesia’s Gross Domestic Products (GDP) was produced in this region in 1990, while its share of the national population was only 9.5%. The GDP per capita in Jabotabek was 1.728 million rupiahs, whereas that of Indonesia was 1.097 million rupiahs. The GDP in Jabotabek was increasing at an average rate of 10.5% per year through the 197Os, slowing to 9.7% per year in the early 1980s and for the five-year period to 1990 it was expanding at an average of 8% per year.“’ Furthermore, the JMDPR (Jabotabek Metropolitan Development Plan Review) study projected that the economy of Jabotabek will grow at a rate of 8% per year, compared to a national economy growth of 6% per year. In short, the foreign and domestic investment as well as international trade have been the main determinants of Jabotabek growth. This also largely reflects the integration of Jabotabek into the global economy, and to an even greater extent, the Asian economy. Having examined this major determinant in Jabotabek development, the discussion will now be focused on the extent to which the development has affected the urban settlements, condition of infrastructure, population growth and employment structure in Jabotabek. Urban settlements, commercial area and infrastructure development in Jabotabek has involved large-scale In recent years, housing development subdivision and ‘new towns” developed by private developers as well as the government. The extent of these activities is shown for instance in Kabupaten Bekasi, where as many as 238 private developers applied for housing development permits up to 1991, covering areas of about 8,100 ha where more than 487,000 housing units were to be built.11 Bumi Serpong Damai and Tigaraksa, both in Kabupaten Tangerang; Bekasi 2000 in Kabupaten Bekasi; and Cariu in Kabupaten Bogor (Fig. l), are among the new towns being built by the private developers. In addition, the state-owned National Housing Corporation (Perum Perumnas), in cooperation with three private developers, is currently developing a new town located in Kabupaten Bekasi which is called “Bekasi Terpadu”. These new towns (Table 1) are planned to be “self-contained” settlements for middle to high income groups, some of which even have a modern golf course. Some of the new towns, i.e. Cikarang Baru and Lippo City in Bekasi, are especially designed as satellite

Table I. Selected new :own development in Jabotubek New town

Area

(ha.)

Location

Developer

(Kabupaten) Bumi Serpong Damai Tigaraksa Cariu Bekasi 2000 Cikarang Baru Lippo City Depok

6,000 3 .OOo n.a. 2.000 SO&2 .ooo 450 n.a.

Source: Firmatt tmd Dhurmctpatni. 1993. op.cit

Tangerang Tangerang Bogor Bekasi Bekasi Bekasi Bogor

Private Private Private Private and government Private Private Government

The Challenges fo Susiainable Developmenr Table 2. Approved land requested development in Bogor, Tangerang, I983-1992 (in hectares)

housing and Bekasi, for

Kabupaten Bogor Bogor City Kabupaten Bekasi Kahupaten Tangeran~

2.825.39 223.39 3.66422 54,196.X)

Botabek

60,909.39

Source: Agem?

West-.iava Ofice

83

of The Nationai Land

towns of the nearby industrial estates and are mostly being developed by the concerned industrial estate compames. While these new towns are targeted for middle and upper income families, at present the government promotes the low cost housing program RSS for lower income households. RSS stands for ~u~~~ Sangat ~~e~er~ana which literally means very simple core house (22 sq. m). These are being developed across Jabotabek. In total, the amount of land requested for housing development in Botabek over the last 10 years has reached 60,000 ha, by and large located in Kabupaten Tangerang (Table 2). This involves areas for low-cost housing development implemented by the state-owned Housing Development Corporation (Perum Perumnas) and private developers through loans from the stateowned Saving Bank (Credit ~e~iiikan ~~~a~ Bank ~ab~ngan Negara) and luxury housing development by private reai-estate developers. Besides housing and industriai estate development, office development is increasing rapidly in Jabotabek, especially in Jakarta. The total supply of office space in the city in 1992 had already reached 1.9 million sq. m, representing 19 times the 1978 level. However, the investment in office development during the period 1990-1992 was estimated as representing an oversupply of IO-12%.12 Recently the government of DKI Jakarta announced plans for the Superblock Sudirman CBD (Central Business District) development, consisting of approximately 2 million sq. m of commercial, hotel, office, retail and residential floorspace. Another main office development is also being planned in Pantai Kapuk close to the Sukarno-Hatta Jakarta International Airport, which includes 20 ha of office area, a retail mall, hotels, golf-courses and high-income residential areas. i3 It can be observed that retailing activities, notably department stores, have been growing faster recently in Jabotabek, particularly in Jakarta. It is estimated that the cumulative shopping floorspace amounted to 733,000 sq. m at the end of 1992, and another 200,000 - 300,000 sq. m is to be added during 1993-1994.14 The present toll roads connecting Jakarta-Tangerang, Jaka~a-Bekasi-Cik~pek~ and Jakarta-Bogor (Fig. 1) have a great impact on the physical growth of the surrounding areas of Jakarta, in which the large-scale housing development, newtowns, and industrial estates are located. In fact, the east-west and north-south physical growth of Jabotabek have been accelerated by the operations of these toll roads. A study shows that the toll roads in Jabotabek have even intensified housing development in the areas located farther away from Jakarta, the core city, especially in those nearby industrial estates. Js As a result of the development of economic activities the daily volume of traffic has increased signi~~antly in Jabotabek, reflecting high interaction

Tommy Firtnan and ida Ayu Indira Dharmapatni

84

Table 3. Average daily rraffic vohme in Jabotabek. (in ~~~~e~~er car units) Link Merak-Cilegon Cilegon-Wang Serang-Tangerang Tangerang-Jakarta Jakarta-Bogor Bogor-Ciawi

1989

1991

X.319

14.273 18,132 36,894 S4.563 33,984 29,496

13,809 21,954 37.206 29.389 31,607

Source: Directorate

General

1989-1991

of Highway

(Rina

Marga).

between centres of economic activities in the region (Table 3) as between Jabotabek and the adjacent regions, notably West Java, Java, and Southern Sumatera. The Tangerang and Jakarta corridor has the highest density of traffic links in Jabotabek, with daily traffic of about 54,000 passenger car units.

well as Central (Fig. 1) volume

Urban population growth During the period 1980-1990 urban population in Jabotabek increased at an annual growth rate of 5.9%, which was higher than the national urban population growth rate of 5.4% per year. During this time, the urban population almost doubled, while its share of the national urban population increased from 22.4% to 23.6% (Table 4). Both the rate of total and urban population growth in District (Kabu~~te~) Bogor, Tangerang, and Bekasi (Botabek Area) was considerably higher than that of Jakarta (Table 4), which indicated high in-migration to these Kabupaten. To a large extent, it also reflects the rapid spill-over of Jakarta to its adjacent Botabek region. An estimate shows that between 1971 and 1980 the average annual migration into Jakarta was 73,000, but then gradually declined.16 The JMDPR Study]’ even finds that: This point . . . is already being reflected in one of the most striking aspects of spatial and demographic change in the 1980s particularly in the latter part of the 1980s. namely the marked upsurge in out-migration from DKI {Capital Special Region] Jakarta to areas on the urban fringe . . The rapid upsurge in overatl out-migration from DKI Jakarta, from about 80,000 per year . . during the late 1970s to about 200,000 per year during the late 198Os, was largely accounted for by increased movement to West Java and to urban areas in West Java in particular (p. 35).

Table 4. Urban Popularion Growth in Jahotabek,

f980-i990

Total

Urhan City/ district Jakarta Bogor City Bogor District Tangerang District Bekasi District Botabek Jahotabek Sortrre:

Central

Bureau

1980

IYYO

AniNa growth rate

6071.7 246.‘) 638.0 228.2 1X8.7 1.301.X 7.3735

X222.5 271.3 1.9235

3.1 I.0 11.7 20.9 19.X 14.1 5.‘)

of Statistics.

(in million)

1,520.X 1.152.9 4,X68.5 13.091.0 1991.

1980 6.4X0.6 246.9 2,493.X I ,529 .o 1,143.5 5.413.3 11 XY3.Y

I990

Annual growth rate

X.222.5 271.3 3.736.2 2.765.0 2.104.4 8,876.Y 17.OYY.4

2.4

I .o 4.1 6.1 6.3 5.1 3.7

The Challenges to Sustainable Development

8.5

The most striking growth was on the immediate urban fringe of DKI Jakarta with many local areas showing intercensal growth rates close to or even in excess of 10 % annually. It is clear that net in-migration would have had to account for two-thirds or more of growth in many of these areas (p. 36). Overall, this resulted in a decline of the share of population of Jakarta in Jabotabek from 54.6% in 1980 to 43.2% in 199O.ls It has also been reported that for the last 15 years permanent population movement from West Java, including the Botabek Area, as well as from other parts of Indonesia, to Jakarta tended to decline and changed with a reversal of flows towards the Botabek region. l9 If circular migrants - those who moved quite frequently between cities and their village of origin, but have no intention of becoming permanent residents in the cities - are taken into consideration, the number could even be considerably higher. In addition to receiving migrants from Jakarta, Botabek Area has been increasingly chosen as the preferable destination area by those from many parts of Indonesia, especially from West, Central and East Java, probably due to cheaper living costs and land prices, but yet still accessible to Jakarta as a working place. *OA study shows that during the period 1983-1988 the Jabotabek Region received almost 600,000 permanent migrants from West Java alone.21 Another component of population mobility in Jabotabek is commuting (Pen&z&). A large number of people living the Botabek Region are still working and going to school in Jakarta city but returning to the Botabek area each day. In fact there were about 310,000 daily commuting trips from Botabek to Jakarta in 1986, about four-fifths of which (261,700) commuted by bus and private cars, whereas the rest (48,300) travelled by train.22 A recent study*” estimates that the number of commuters from Botabek to Jakarta will reach as much as 500,000 by the year 2010. The spatial pattern of urban population growth in Jabotabek and the Bandung Metropolitan Area2j indicates that these two metropolitan areas are being integrared by the growing giant corridors of urban region stretching about 120 km from Serang to Cikampek (west-east corridor), and approximately 200 km from Jakarta to Bandung (north-south corridor). Another study*” shows that the urban corridors have geographically extended from Jakarta to Semarang (Fig. 1: Inset). The rapid urban population increase and development of economic activities in Jabotabek significantly affect the employment structure in the region. A recent study shows that in total there will be an employment increase of 6.8 million in Jabotabek during the period 1990-2010,*” to which the manufacturing and service sectors are expected to contribute 4.8 million (71%).

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

Having discussed several aspects of socioeconomic and physical development in Jabotabek the discussion now turns to the extent to which this development has affected environmental conditions in the area. It will particularly be focused on land-use conversion and quality of water resources. Large amounts of prime agricultural land have been converted into housing and industrial areas due to high demand for land for these activities. Based on permits issued by the National Land Agency as much as 60,000 ha of land have been requested for large-scale housing development in Jabotabek Region (Table 2), although in reality much of this has not been fully used yet. In addition there have been many illegal land developments in the region.

t!AB 18:3-G

Even more striking, the industrial estate development in Bekasi has not only led to changes in land use in the area, but has also led to removal of 16,500 local people who previously made a living from the land, including not only agriculture but also from the construction of bricks and roof tiles.27 Likewise, in Bekasi recently as many as 12,000 farm labourers had to move out from their own land which had been converted into industrial areas. Commercial agriculture activities, notably horticulture, have been growing rapidly in the southern part of Jabotabek, that is the upland region which functions as a water catchment area for Jabotabek. Steep slopes, high annual rainfall and intensive land cultivation of seasonal crops have substantially intensified soil erosion and surface run-off and at the same time, have decreased the water infiltration. The high surface runoff in this upland area has caused higher erosion rates in the area and led to a higher frequency of flooding in the the downstream areas, that is, the city of Jakarta. In fact, the soil erosion rate which had reached as much as 193 tons/ha/year was considerably higher than the tolerable rate of 14 tons/ha/year. In total, these agricultural activities have annually resulted in more than SOO,OOOtons of sedimentation being transported by the Ciliwung River, the main river in Jabotabek.2” It can also be observed that the rapid urban development in Jabotabek has tremendously increased the demand for building materials, such as sand, bricks and stones. As a result, sand quarrying has been greatly intensilicd in the region. The new town development has created several environmental problems. Both Serpong and Depok new towns are located within the Jakarta-Bogor-PuncakCianjur (Jabopunjur: Fig. 1) areas which function as water recharge areas for Jakarta, so that these new town developments might affect this important function. It has also been identified that some of the new towns are located in unsuitable areas because the expansion of the built-up areas will affect the rechargeability of withdrawn ground water in Jakarta, which could result in salt water intrusion .?‘, Water resources, including surface and ground water, have been a crucial problem over the past 2 decades. while the demand for water continues to increase in parallel with the increase of domestic need due to population growth and the development of economic activities, notably industry and agriculture, in the region. At present the automotive industry uses about 680,000 rn3 of water per year. whereas the pulp and paper industry needs 868,000 m3 per year. Textile and the food and beverage industries demand 468,000 and 320.000 rn3 of water per year, respectively.30 It is reported that the deep groundwater extraction in Jabotabek is simply not economically or environmentally sustainable in the long run. At present the extraction is on the order of 9 cu.m/s, while the recharge rate is only about one-third of this.31 Furthermore the JMDPR study shows that over-extraction, especially in the coastal area has in many places caused land subsidence of more than 5 cm/year and pollution of the water resource because of leaching from saline layers. The study also indicates that the shallow aquifer, which is a more sustainable resource in terms of recharge, is polluted by uncontrolled discharge of both industrial wastes and domestic wastewater. The Jakarta local government-owned Water Supply Corporation (PDAM DKI Jakarta) reports that the ground water extraction in Jakarta city reached as much as 2X.1 million cu. m in 1990/1991, doubling that of 13.9 million cu. m in 1976H977.3’ In general, most of the rivers flowing through Jabotabek have a high concentration of BOD and COD, and even have a heavy metal content higher than the ambient standard? The most highly polluted rivers are Ciliwung, Sunter. Cipinang, Mookervart. and Banjir Kanal (Fig. 2) which flows through Jakarta, Bekasi and Cileungsi in the east and Cisadane in the

C--J

l.CGEN __-_

F,O”RE 1 2

0:

JABOPUNJUR

CORRlDOR

JdgORH,NR CDRRlDOR

C,L,W”W WI\TLRSHEDnRm

THE

west. Due to this increasing water pollution, the PDAM DKI Jakarta now uses more chemical materials to treat the water from the Ciliwung river, which is one of the principal sources of water supply in Jakarta. to produce standardized drinking water. As a consequence of the rivers flowing through Jabotabek, Jakarta Bay has been highly polluted by heavy metals and solid wastes (Fig. 2). In addition, the coral reefs in this area have been destroyed by a high concentration of these pollutants. The problems of solid waste in Jabotabek is now felt to be even more serious than before: Jakarta, for instance, produces almost 2,000 tons of solid waste every day.- ?J With many limitations in personnel and facilities, the local government of Bekasi and Tangerang are only able to collect about 70% of the solid waste in their respective areas, while the rest ends up in the river bddizs. The problem of solid waste involves not only uncollected wastes, but also the increasing non-biodegradable wastes. notably plastics, which need to be recycled. These problems are now exacerbated by the difficulty of finding suitable land for final disposal sites. Air pollution is a problem in the cities of Jakarta. Tangerang, Bekasi, and Rogor, particularly in industrial and commercial areas, and areas near busstations. It is estimated that Jakarta produces 10X tons of lead emission annually, most of which comes from private motor vehicles. In fact. air pollution in Jakarta has reached a critical point. reflected in more evident acid rain. The acidity (PH) of the rainfall in Jakarta reached 5.7 in 1091, whereas in 1986 it was only S.4.35 In concl!lsion. the socio-economic development in Jabotabek has caused serious environmental problems in the region. Land use conversion from agricultural to nonagricultural uses has occurred at an accelerating rate. which has had a negative impact on water rcsourccs and air quality and to some extent on erosion. Overall, these negative impacts have seriously threatened the sustainability of development in the region. With this in mind, the discussion will now focus on the extent to which government intervention has tried to enhance regional development and especially to mitigate the environmental problems in Jabotabek.

POLICIES

AND PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

There have been many regulations, plans, and programs at different levels - national, and city/district level, to enhance Jabotabek Regional regional, Development in general and to cope with the problems of the environment in the region in particular.- ;fi However, thev seem to have had little effect due to several factors. A major factor is that polccies and regulations designed to accelerate national economic growth, notably deregulation and dc-bureaucratization of investment procedures. have been more cffcctive than those intended to regulate land-use and to preserve the environment. The high economic growth in the Jabotabek during the last decade has essentially been driven by deregulation introduced by the government to attract foreign as well as domestic investors to expand their businesses in Indonesia. The main objectives of inviting foreign investors to Indonesia are to maintain the momentum of development at a desirable level, to promote export and transfer of technology, and to help strengthen the Indonesian industrial structure. To this end. the government has currently offered some incentives, which include simplification of licensing procedures. reduction of processing time to obtain investment licences, provision of various fiscal incentives (e.g. tax exemptions, deferment of value-added tax. and others) and supporting policies in banking.

infrastructure and protection of intellectual property development of foreign investment policy in Indonesia Pangestu38 as follows:

rights.37 More recent is well summarized by

Since 1982 declining oil prices have resulted

in drastically reduced export and government revenues while the appreciation of non-US dollar currencies (especially the yen) since 1985 has increased debt service payments markedly side, one-stop service was . . On the DFI (Direct Foreign Investment) extended to the Regional Board of Investment in 1984 and investment licensing procedures were simplified in 1985. Tariff reforms and a drastic overhaul of the customs system were undertaken in 1985 and an improved duty drawback scheme for foreign investors was announced in May 1986. Further deregulation came in December 1987 when joint ventures were allowed to export their own products of other companies. In addition, the export-production ratio that was required of export oriented investors was reduced from 85% to 65%. In October 1938, the entry of more foreign banks in the form of joint ventures with a maximum foreign ownership share of 85% was allowed. In November 1988, foreign investors were allowed to engage in domestic distribution of their products through joint ventures. In May 1989, a relatively simple list of sectors closed to foreign investment replaced the previous priority list which had become quite complex and restrictive.

In May 1989, the Government reduced the minimum requirement amount of foreign investment from US$ 1 million to US$250,000. This policy has resulted in an increased in-flow of direct investment into Jabotabek Region by Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese small and medium-scale industries.39 The Government has also launched Keputusan Presiden (Presidential Decree) 5311989 which allows the private investor to operate and manage their own industrial estates. The most recent deregulation, announced on 23 October 1993, allows wholly foreign-owned ventures with paid capital of only two million U.S. dollars. It also includes the simplification of procedures to obtain building permits (Zjin Mendirikan Z3angunan), easier requirements regarding environmental impact analysis and public nuisances (hazards). These packages of incentives have attracted foreign as well as domestic investors to invest their capital in Jabotabek, which in turn has tremendously increased demand for industrial land. During the period 1989-1992 throughout Indonesia there were 119 private companies which applied for permits to develop industrial estates, covering areas of 33,250 ha, about 20,800 ha of which (62%) was located in West Java, notably in Jabotabek. In fact, the corridor Tangerang - Bekasi (Fig. l), that is the east-west corridor of the Jabotabek Region, is now considered to be the densest industrial area in Indonesia. These recent national economic growth-oriented policies in turn have significantly affected the spatial growth of Jabotabek and often undermine the regional land use plan of this region. As Pribadi and Sofhani4() observe:

In the Jabotabek area, the planning of the ‘Jabotabek Metropolitan Development Plan’ (1980), is not in accordance with the realized developments. The east-west growth is in reality much faster than planned. . . On top of that, the development of large scale housing, new towns and industrial estates, are not anticipated as such in the plan . These unplanned developments might be due to inadequate control of the government towards the rapid growth, especially the influential role of the private sector for developments in the Jakarta-Bandung Mega-Urban region.

Frequently reported in newspapers there have been many violations by private investors and the local government of land use plans simply due to interests and political pressures in locating what are considered to the profitable economic

YO

Tommy Firman and Ida Ayu Indira Dharmaparni

activities in tile Jabotabek Region. One example is a multi-million-dollar new town project in Kapuk Area in Tangerang (Fig. 1) for high-income housing, hotels and commercial areas which is being developed through land reclamation in what is supposed to be preserved swampy areas for maintaining the ecological balance in the area. Another example of this violation is the recent development of villas, bungalows, restaurants, hotels, housing estates and tourist resorts in Jufur Puncak (Puncak Strip) in the southern Bogor area (Fig. 1) which have been obviously designated as a preservation area due to its function as a water recharge area for the city of Jakarta. Although the Presidential Decree 53/1989 states that industrial estate development should not reduce the prime agricultural land and should not take place in the conservation and preservation areas, in reality there have been many violations because there are no specific regulations that spell out this decree in technical detail. Another factor causing these violations, as discussed earlier, is high demand for industrial land in Jabotabek, so that from the land owners’ point of view selling the land is much more profitable than utilizing it for paddy fields or gardens. Even in some areas in Bekasi and Tangerang (Fig. 1) it was found that the farmers who owned the irrigated agricultural land destroyed the tertiary irrigation channels by themselves, and then reported to the authority that their land was abandoned so that they had good reason to sell the land to the investors who subsequently converted this prime agricultural land into industrial estates or housing areas. In short, the Presidential Decree 53/1989 seems to be failing to stop the conversion of prime agricultural land into nonagricultural uses if it is not spelled out in technical detail. This situation leads to a recommendation that although at present the high priority is being given to policies and programs that can spur national economic growth, the Government should consider impacts of such policies and programs on the environment and land use in the Jabotabek Region. Secondly. there is neither a metropolitan authority working above the provinces nor a central agency to plan for the whole metropolitan area and to coordinate sectoral planning in Jakarta and the Province of West Java. According to DouglassJl this is the classical problem of coordinating the bureaucratically separated functional activities of environmental management of various government agencies, at different levels, but it reflects the absence of clear political will to institute its self-proclaiming modest land use planning efforts. As a result, the Jabotabek Development Plan basically failed to serve its function as a tool to coordinate development activities and land-use planning by various government agencies. At present, however. there is a coordinating forum between the Special Capital Government of Jakarta with the Provincial Government of West Java, that is BKSP Jabotabek established in 1976 whose task is to integrate, synchronize and simplify all aspects of development programs and to consult with the Central Government regarding development of the Jabotabek Metropolitan Region, but this agency has little authority as far as plan implementation is concerned. There should be a mechanism for inter-regional coordination and intersectoral integration. as well as bottom-up and top-down program coordination, and consequently there has to be an agency performing this function and responsibility. At present BKSP Jabotabek has some constraints on their ability to nor enforcement basis available do so+ (1) there are almost no resources for BKSP; (2) some agencies, notably the Jakarta and West Java Provincial Planning Agency (Buppeda Tingkat Sutu) overlap and duplicate the BKSP’s responsibilities; (3) the role of BKSP in the planning, programing, and budgeting for Jabotabek development is not specifically defined; and (4) there is a lack of operational guidelines for Jabotabek plan implementation. In short, BKSP has

The ChaNenges to Sustainable Development

91

no tools to coordinate and integrate interregional and intersectoral development programs for the Jabotabek region. Having identified the BKSP’s weaknesses, it is obvious that the function and role of BKSP Jabotabek needs to be strengthened by giving them clear status, political and financial supports from both the central government and local government concerned, i.e. the Special Capital Government of Jakarta (DKI Jakarta) and the Provincial Government of West Java. At present it seems that this option is the best way to proceed. However, the JMDPR Study43 has also outlined three different alternatives to this option: (1) enhancing the present condition and providing more power to the BKSP; (2) granting full decentralization authority to the second level government, that is district and municipal governments, in the Jabotabek Region [this is in line with Douglass’44 argument, that in order to heighten the effectiveness of the implementation of environmental management at a regional scale, like Jabotabek, decentralization of plan implementation to district (K&up&en) level is essential]; and (3) absorbing BKSP into either the Ministry of Home Affairs or the National Planning Agency (Bappenas), or establishing the Jabotabek Region as the capital metropolitan city of the Republic of Indonesia. These alternatives should be taken into consideration in formulating Jabotabek development policy in the future but at present more studies on this complex issue need to be done. Thirdly, the development programs in Jabotabek are mostly central governmentoriented in implementation, whereas involvement of the community and localgovernment (K&up&en) have been very limited. The importance of community participation is clearly shown for instance in the successful program of Prokasih (Clean River Program) in Jakarta in which the Government of DKI Jakarta asked the communities living in an area and the managers or owners of manufacturing establishments whose operations were in the adjacent area of the Ciliwung river to participate in this program. Within only 3 years time, (1989-1992), the pollution level of the Ciliwung river had been dramatically reduced. There have also been many programs for small-scale community and housing development initiated and organized by the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) alid community-based organization (CBOs) in the Jabotabek Region which seem to be successful but lack of coordination with other community programs and especially the government programs. This essentially indicates that the community actually has potential to develop their own built environments, but has no links with the government programs. Therefore, the government should be able to organize and mobilize such potential to help the developing Jabotabek Region in the future. Another problem in the program formulation for Jabotabek Regional Development is the lack of communication between the Central Government and Provincial Government on the one hand, and the Local Government on the other hand. JMDPR45 reported that many development plans which had been initiated and financed by the Central or Provincial Government Agencies had often not been well communicated to the planning agencies and planners at the local level and this resulted in difficulties for the local government to prepare a systematic and integrated development program. Interestingly enough, there have also been many complaints expressed by officials of the local government in Jabotabek Region as they were frequently not involved in and even not properly informed about such Central and Provincial Government development programs despite the fact that the programs take place in their jurisdictions. This problem often results in little participation and support from the local government to the central and provincial government development programs in the area concerned.

CONCLUSION

This study has extensively discussed the socioeconomic development in Jabotabek Metropolitan Region, and its impacts on the environment. although it has not been intended as an exhaustive discussion on the environmental conditions in the area, and the policies and programmes that have been taken to develop this region. The Jabotabek development has recently been triggered by domestic and direct foreign investment, especially in the manufacturing sectors, which in turn have caused high population growth and induced the development of industrial areas, new towns and large-scale housing areas, commercial activities and infrastructure. To a large extent, this reflects the integration of Jabotabek into the world economic system, which in turn restructures the internal systems of the metropolitan region itself. However, this admirable development has created many negative externalities, especially environmental problems. First, prime agricultural land has been converted into residential and industrial areas, due to high land demand for housing and industrial activities. Second. the main ecological function of the upland of Jabotabek as a water recharge area for Jakarta city has been affected. Third, development of industrial activities and the high population increase has significantly increased water demand, which in turn intensified the groundwater extraction in Jabotabek causing Iand subsidence and salt water intrusion, especially in the coastal areas. Fourth, most of the rivers flowing through the Jabotabek area have BOD and COD in high concentrations and even have metal contents higher than ambient standard as a result of domestic, agricultural. and industrial waste disposal. Fifth, solid waste disposal is now felt as a pressing problem. Sixth. the air pollution in Jakarta city has reached a critical point. reflected in more evident acid rain. There have been many rc~ulati~~ns, plans and progr~ims at different levels, i.c. national, metropohtan and district. launched to cope with the negative impacts of development in the Jabotabek area. However they do not work well due to many factors. Firstly, economic growth policies work more effectively that do the land use and environmental development programs. Secondly, there is neither a metropolitan authority working above the provinces nor a central agency to coordinate plan implementation in the region. Thirdly. there is a lack of community and private sector involvement in Jahotabek development programs. Having identified the environmental problems in Jabotabek, it should be underlined that Jabotabek development should be implemented within the context of ellvironment~~l management at mctr~~politan scale, that is, to place en~~ironment as a basic consideration for dc~~el[)~~~nentof socio~c~~nomic activities and land use in this metropolitan area, not the other way around as it is now being perceived, Otherwise the Jabotabek area might soon suffer environmental collapse. If that happens, a plausible scenario suggests that both the very mobile domestic and foreign capital might abandon Jabotabek to more favourable areas, leaving the coltapsed Jabotabek with high social costs to cure it which will have to be shouldered by the public. As Douglass’(~ argues: There is now little doubt that if decisive measures art! not taken in the very near future. the late-blooming mcgacity of Jakarta and its surrounding watershed region will have passed a point beyond which even innovative planning responses will be unabie to respond successfully to either the pace or the magnitude of the en~/ir~nment~ll deteri~r~~tit~~l.

However, this is not meant to slow down the economic development in the region but to make the development itself sustainable, in which ecological diversity and productivity in the region is maintained to enable future generations to have

The Chullenges

to Sustuinable

Development

93

at least

as much wealth as the present generation receives47 As Bartone maintains that a new dimension to the concept of sustainable development is the requirement that environmental as well as economic resources be adequate to meet present and future demands. To this end, there should be a metropolitan authority working above the provinces or a central agency whose primary function is to coordinate the sectoral planning in Jakarta and the province of West Java. It is not an easy task because such an agency should be established within the complexity of the existing systems of local government in Indonesia. However, for the time being at least, the existing BKSP Jabotabek should be enhanced from a coordinating forum between the provincial government of West Java and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta to an agency with more authorities and responsibilities in coordinating the planning, implementation, and control of metropolitan development.@ As MacNeillsO argues: Our political, locked in the our economic to sustainable

economic and ecological systems have become totally interreal world. But they remain almost completely divorced in and political institutions. This is one of the greatest barriers development . .

Acknow~ledgemenrss - The authors are grateful to Professor Charles L. Choguill of the University Sheffield and two anonymous referees for comments and helpful suggestions on an earlier draft.

of

NOTES JMDPR (Jahotabek Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Second Planning Report’. Culpin Planning Ltd. PT Lenggogeni, Huzar Bramah and Associate Ltd.. Lembaga Penelitian Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota (LPP) ITB, Jakarta, 1993. has been used by the World Commission on Environment and Development. see 2. This definition R. White and J. Whitney, ‘Cities and Environment, ’ in R. Stern, R. White, and J. Whitney (eds), Sustuinubk Cirie.y: Urbanizution and Environment in International Perspectives (Westview Press. 1YY2), pp. 8-51. ‘Jabotabek as Part of the Indonesian and Asia-Pacific Urban Systems’. Paper 3. B.T.S. Soegijoko, Presented to a Workshop on The Asian Pacific Urban System Towards the 21st Century. Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1992. Industrial Transformation: Part I‘. Bulletin of Indonesicrn Economic Studies 26(Z) 4. H. Hill, ‘Indonesia’s (1990). p. 106. In 1000, US$l = 1.800 rupiahs. 5. H. Hill. ibid. p. 11Y. op.cit.. p. 22. 6. B.T.S. Soegijoko, (Jabotahek Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Preliminary Planning Report’. Culpin 7. JMDPR. Planning Ltd.. PT Lcnggogeni. Huzar Bramah and Associate Ltd, Lembaga Penelitian Pcrencanaan Wilayah dan Kota (LPP) ITB, Jakarta, 1992. op.&.. p. 21. x. B.T.S. Soegijoko, Y. L. Castles. ‘Jakarta: The Growing Centrc’, in H. Hill (ed.). Unity trnd Dtversity: Regiond Economic Development in Indonesia Since 1970 (Oxford University Press. 1089). p. 239. (Jabotabek Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Third Planning Report’. Culpin 10. JMDPR. Planning Ltd., PT Lenggogeni, Huzar Bramah and Associate Ltd.. Lembaga Penelitian Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota (LPP) ITB. Jakarta. pp. 4647. 1993. Dharmapatni. ‘Trends of Mega-Urban Regions in Indone&: The Case of 11. T. Firman and I.A.I. Jabotabek and Bandung Metropolitan Area’, Department of Regional and City Planning, Institute of Technology, Bandung. lYY3. (Jabotabek Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Second Planning Report’, op.cit.. 12. JMDPR p. 111.1. Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Second Planning Report’. op.c,it. 13. JMDPR (Jabotabek (Jabotabek Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Second Planning Report’, op.cit. 14. JMDPR p. 111.4. ‘Penelitian Manfaat Jalan Tol Ditinjau 15. Center for Urban and Regional Planning Studies (LPP-ITB), dari Aspek Sosial Ekonomi Pada Russ-Ruas Jakart-Tangerang dan Jakarta-Cikampek (A Study of Socio-economic Advantages of Toll Road in the Links of Jakarta-Tangerang _ - and Jakarta-Cikampek. Institute of Technology. Bandung, 1992. ‘Pooulation Growth and Policies in Meaacities Jakarta’. PoDulation PolicvI PaDer 16. United Nations. . No. 18. New York, 148Y. Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Preliminary Planning Report’. op.cit. 17. JMDPR. (Jabotabek Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Second Planning Report’. op.cit. 18. JMDPR (Jabotabek 1.

94

Tommy

Firmarl

and Ida Ayu

Indira

Dharmapatni

31.

B.T.S. Soegijoko, op.cir. B.T.S. Soegijoko. op.ci/. See also I.A.I. Dharmapatni, ‘Jakarta Metropolitan Area: Issues, Problems and Policies for Population Distribution and Environmental Management’. Paper presented to the Twenty-Second Summer Seminar on Population, East-West Center, Honolulu. Hawaii. 1991. A. Sinulingga. ‘Pola Migrasi AnrarWiluyah di Jawa Barar’ (The Intra-Regional Migration Pattern in West Java). Undergraduate Thesis. Department of Regional and City Planning, Institute of Technology. Bandung. 1989. I.A.I. Dharmapatni, op.cir. JMDPR, (Jabotabck Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Preliminary Planning Report’. op.cit. T. Firman and I.A.1. Dharmapatni. op.cit. T. Firman. ‘The Spatial Pattern of Urban Population Growth in Java. 198&lYYO’, Bufferin of frtdotlesian Ecorlomic Studies 28(2) (1992). p. YS-1OY. JMDPR. ‘JMDPR (Jahotabek Metropolitan Dcvelopmcnt Plan Review) ‘Preliminary Planning Report’. op.cir.. p. 44. I.A.I. Dharmapatni. op.c,ir. I.A.I. Dharmapatni, op.c,ir. S. Afriansyah. ‘Penggurm~!~ Sistirn It~formcrvi Geogrufis Dulum fden/ifikrr.sl Luhutl Bagi Lokasi Korcz-Dora Bnrtr dr Wilrrycrh Jaho/uhek’ (An Application of GIS in Analysis of Land Suitability for New Town Development in Jabotabek Region), Undergraduate Thesis. Department of Regional and City Planning. Institute of Technology. Bandung. IYYO. Kompas Newspaper, X October 1993. ‘Stwtrkirz Larlgka. Sumhrr Air di Jahotcrhrk’ (Sources of water supply in Jahotabek are getting scarce). JMDPR (Jabotabek Metropolitan Development Plan Review) ‘Second Planning Report‘. op.cir..

37.

p, 1X-l’. S. Tanusaputra,

1Y. 20.

21.

32. 23. 2-1. 25. 26. 37. 2h. 2Y.

30.

et. ~1.. ‘Id~vrtifikusi

f’ermcrstrlnhrm

S/rtrregie.c

Wllayah

Mqcr

Urhon

Jakrrrtrr-BNndurlg

(Identification of Strategic Issuca ot Dcvelopmcnt in Jakarta-Bandung Mcga Urban Region), Ilndcrgraduatc ‘Thesis. Department of Regional and City Planning. Institute of Technology, Bandung. lYY3. 5 November lY90, ‘f’r,~~,~gg~rltrrrgtr,r l’em.ern(~rtainable (IYY?). pp. I I I-121. ‘Environmental Challenge In Third World (‘itie\‘. .Jortrtrtr/ o/ r/w Attwriurtl /‘/utrtlitzg 3X. C. Bartone. Atvoc~itrriotr 57(4) (IYY I ), pp. 41 l--11.5. 4Y. See also K.N. Pribadi and T.F. Sofhani. op.r’r/. . p. _I?. p. 3-l. 50. In R. White and J. Whitney. opcit..