Urban Governance and Informal Settlements: Lessons from the City of Jayapura, Indonesia [1st ed.] 978-3-030-06093-0, 978-3-030-06094-7

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xx
Front Matter ....Pages 1-1
Introduction (Ninik Suhartini, Paul Jones)....Pages 3-12
Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries (Ninik Suhartini, Paul Jones)....Pages 13-40
Front Matter ....Pages 41-41
An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia (Ninik Suhartini, Paul Jones)....Pages 43-73
Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance in Jayapura (Ninik Suhartini, Paul Jones)....Pages 75-114
Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban Governance for Basic Urban Services (Ninik Suhartini, Paul Jones)....Pages 115-161
Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements in Informal Settlements (Ninik Suhartini, Paul Jones)....Pages 163-215
Front Matter ....Pages 217-217
Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance (Ninik Suhartini, Paul Jones)....Pages 219-235

Citation preview

The Urban Book Series

Ninik Suhartini Paul Jones

Urban Governance and Informal Settlements Lessons from the City of Jayapura, Indonesia

The Urban Book Series Series Advisory Editors Fatemeh Farnaz Arefian, University College London, London, UK Michael Batty, University College London, London, UK Simin Davoudi, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK Geoffrey DeVerteuil, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Andrew Kirby, Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA Karl Kropf, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Karen Lucas, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Marco Maretto, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Fabian Neuhaus, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Vítor Oliveira, Porto University, Porto, Portugal Christopher Silver, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA Giuseppe Strappa, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Igor Vojnovic, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA Jeremy Whitehand, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Aims and Scope The Urban Book Series is a resource for urban studies and geography research worldwide. It provides a unique and innovative resource for the latest developments in the field, nurturing a comprehensive and encompassing publication venue for urban studies, urban geography, planning and regional development. The series publishes peer-reviewed volumes related to urbanization, sustainability, urban environments, sustainable urbanism, governance, globalization, urban and sustainable development, spatial and area studies, urban management, urban infrastructure, urban dynamics, green cities and urban landscapes. It also invites research which documents urbanization processes and urban dynamics on a national, regional and local level, welcoming case studies, as well as comparative and applied research. The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects, policy makers, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview of contemporary urban studies and innovations in the field. It accepts monographs, edited volumes and textbooks.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14773

Ninik Suhartini Paul Jones •

Urban Governance and Informal Settlements Lessons from the City of Jayapura, Indonesia

123

Ninik Suhartini School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development Institut Teknologi Bandung Bandung, Indonesia

Paul Jones School of Architecture, Design and Planning The University of Sydney Sydney, NSW, Australia

ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic) The Urban Book Series ISBN 978-3-030-06093-0 ISBN 978-3-030-06094-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06094-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018964677 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

I was delighted to accept the invitation to foreword this new book, authored by Ninik Suhartini and Paul Jones—Urban Governance and Informal Settlements: Lessons from the City of Jayapura, Indonesia. I met both authors in the Informal Urbanism Hub convened at the UN-Habitat conference in Cairo, November 2014. Ninik Suhartini was by then presenting her early research findings on informality and governance arrangements in Jayapura, her hometown in Indonesia. Paul Jones was introducing us to urban informality in a not so well-known context of the Pacific Ocean islands, while I was reflecting on how the ‘old continent’ of Europe had dealt with formalization of informal settlements in regional contexts. The latter included the Portuguese setting during the last quarter of the twentieth century. The above represented three perspectives on informality cutting across emergent features, different points of view and past experiences. The well-known world statistics on urban informality show how, despite planning institutions try to deal with the issue, they continue growing. Later, we became close colleagues, sharing our experiences and research achievements, introducing new concepts to the discussion of informality and inevitably relating it to complexity since simple approaches and solutions implemented during decades proved to fail or to generate even more informality. The exciting experience of being invited in 2017 and 2018 to be part of the joint ongoing studio organized by Paul Jones and Ninik Suhartini from the University of Sydney and academics from the Institut Teknologi Bandung with a strong focus on kampungs—the most well-known brand of informal settlements in Indonesia—was a crucial landmark to consolidate this shared awareness for the need of new complexity approaches. This cross-collaborative studio immersed in students experiencing notions of ‘bottom-up’ urbanism makes it possible to aim for new planning frameworks and, in a way, to break the path dependency on top-down designed rules. Patterns and pattern analysis are, therefore, part of the work developed by Paul Jones and with Ninik Suhartini, a way to understand complex random developments. Patterns of interfaces between private and public places, but also patterns of blocks and of public spaces as the result of what is left from private occupations reveal the urge that the authors put in understanding informality. v

vi

Foreword

The focus of the research that embodies this book is fascinating by itself: a city, Jayapura, capital of the peripheral province of Papua, part of a rampantly growing country, Indonesia, one of several nations with a pace of change and development hardly achieved by other parts of the world—namely, by the Global North where (still) most of the knowledge on informality is produced. The dominant position of developed countries on discourses related with urbanization in the developing world has been a trend that in a way this book counterbalances. Also, for this reason, it is particularly positive and inspiring to see such relevant topic as the one of informalities being addressed by a researcher like Ninik Suhartini, who deals daily with the challenges of governance arrangements regarding formal and informal settlements in the Planning Board of Jayapura Municipality and who brings into this book her perspective on the subject, in such a brilliant way. There are other reasons for finding inspiration in this book, now to be published. One of them is the fact that the authors address the less-explored relation between spatial analysis and urban governance. These two topics of research have rarely been interconnected, since spatial analysis became a quite autonomous field of research within urban design, while urban governance has remained as related with social and political sciences—thank you Ninik and Paul for intersecting them. If spatial analysis of block and form patterns is by itself a rich source of information, the challenge of going beyond that and bridging the disciplinary boundary with urban governance gives an additional quality to this book. The combination of spatial arrangements with governance emerges in this book in a clear and novel perspective, as part of the same process. Additionally, in this book, we can envision a ‘feedback loop’ from previous research involving spatial analysis from the context of the kampungs in Bandung (authored by Paul Jones, Sri Maryati and Ninik Suhartini and published this year by the Institut Teknologi Bandung press) to the context of Jayapura’s informal settlements. Another aspect that deserves to be underlined is the fact that the authors chose the basic urban services to demonstrate the emergence of governance arrangements in informal settlements. Basic urban services are, globally, the most critical aspect of urban informality given their strong impacts on public health and on settlements’ livelihood, and with other concerns of land readjustment, collective facilities or public spaces, contribute to a stronger sense of community. The context of basic urban services is probably one in which the actors involved are more subjected to pressure—therefore, governance arrangements designed to deal with these very basic needs can be an excellent ground for other governance arrangements to provide diverse urban services. Despite the novelty of combining spatial patterns and governance arrangements, the structure of the book allows the reader to follow, in a very easy and clear way, the authors’ reasoning on urban governance arrangements regarding informal settlements. While doing that, this book is also a very good source to understand urbanization and urban governance in relation with the case of Jayapura. It also gives the reader a perspective on urbanization and urban governance arrangements in developing countries (positively refusing the comparison with the developed world). Instead of looking for ‘best practices’, the focus of this book sits on a

Foreword

vii

double periphery condition. Informality is on one hand in spatial and institutional terms devoted to inaccessible places, and Jayapura in Papua is also remote regarding the Indonesian nation. By addressing types, processes and outputs of formal urban governance in Jayapura the authors are also opening the way to explore another kind of ‘interface’, the one so neglected between formality and informality. The in-between balance of winners and losers with the outcomes of formal urban governance on basic urban services reveals an interest on understanding what the effects of governance arrangements are. By doing this, a stable and coherent setting one can to understand the value of not so visible features of community governance arrangements in informal settlements. The authors express the potential of these processes while they also show their awareness with the fact that the focus of their research is unrepeatable as social processes are. This wise awareness enhances the value of this research, drawing the reader’s attention beyond just a focus on outcomes and once again looking at qualities of the processes that were analysed. If there was something that the academic and professional planning communities have learned during these years of research is that good, long-last solutions to formalize informality are much more than interventions to fix malfunctions. I more than hope, I truly believe, based on other researches, that institutions although they tend to be and present themselves as highly formalized bodies, they learn with informality. And therefore, I found this book so valuable to deal with informality and in the long term to contribute to a better management of urban settlements in general, both formal and informal. Aveiro, Portugal

Professor Paulo Silva Department of Social Political and Territorial Sciences University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago

Preface

It has been acknowledged that urbanization in developing countries has generated a complexity of challenges, including the need to address rapid population growth and the consequences and impacts of unequal physical development and economic growth. With rising urban poverty, it is increasingly clear that the benefits of urbanization have not been distributed evenly, with many groups and individuals excluded from access to services such as affordable land and housing, water, sanitation, accessible jobs and public transport. Within this setting, mid-sized towns and cities play an increasingly important role in dealing with the management of their urbanization processes and outcomes as they are at the ‘cutting edge’ of addressing decentralized governance arrangements to address their urban issues. Within the context of achieving sustainable urbanization, there has been an increasing research focus on governance and the pivotal role it can play in producing more effective and equitable urban development and management outcomes. This includes the important role of facilitating and enabling a range of tools, instruments and processes to deal with the many urban issues and problems central to improved human development outcomes in mid-sized towns and cities. Within the above setting, the objective of this research is to better understand the nature of urban governance regarding the provision of basic urban services in developing countries, primarily in the domains of housing, water and sanitation. The research is aimed at identifying and understanding the implications of various forms of governance that facilitate the provision of basic urban services, albeit unequally in terms of spatial distribution, quality and quantity, and how this understanding may assist in improving systems of urban planning and management. Using the case study of the mid-sized city of Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia, the research explores (i) the types, processes and stakeholders that constitute formal urban governance in the provision of basic urban services; (ii) an understanding of how stakeholders gain and benefit ‘on the ground’ from formal urban governance arrangements in providing basic urban services, and why; (iii) for those who do not directly benefit from formal urban governance arrangements, how individuals, groups and communities organize and access governance to meet their basic urban

ix

x

Preface

service needs; and (iv) clarifying the contributions of the research findings to a better understanding of the nature of urban governance and its relationship to the often unequal provision of basic urban services. This research builds on methodological approaches utilized in understanding the nature of urban governance in developing countries context. First, it does this by deconstructing a case study, thus appreciating the value and importance of contextual differences and similarities and their implications for planning and development. Second, the research provides an empirical basis for testing and quantifying the different outcomes arising from formal and informal governance. The methods employed are extensive and comprised securing primary (that is, face-to-face household surveys interviewing 448 respondents, ground mapping in four informal settlements and semi-structured interviews with 12 stakeholders) and secondary data regarding urban governance, planning and management. In respect of the household surveys, they were undertaken to determine the perception of residents in formal and informal settlements regarding who gains and benefits from urban governance outcomes for the basic urban services of housing, water and sanitation. The spatial analysis undertaken at a municipal scale examined the configuration of formal and informal settlements in the city, while ground mapping was conducted to analyse the block patterns, building and service types at a settlement level. The interviews undertaken were aimed at obtaining information about the ‘life experiences’ and perceptions of stakeholders who have been involved in the process of urban governance, particularly in the provision of basic urban services. A typology survey was utilized to identify the physical outcomes and the quality of basic urban services in informal settlements as well as to understand the types, structures and networks of urban governance. In addition, an analysis of published data was undertaken in order to obtain trends on demographic, social, economic and cultural development as well as formal urban governance systems and structures in Jayapura. This research reveals that emerging mid-sized cities such as Jayapura have experienced rapid urbanization and have been forced to confront and acknowledge the fast-growing demands of basic urban service provision for a diverse population. Urban governance arrangements have emerged both formally and informally to cope with addressing gaps in basic urban service provision across a range of settlement types. At a broader level, the research enriches suggestions in the literature that planning, design and governance need to recognize and address via more effective means the complexity of the city. The challenge for planning generally is to question ‘one size fits all’ approaches and seeks a deeper understanding as to what constitutes city complexity as highlighted in the Jayapura case study. The research uncovers that the outcomes of formal governance arrangements in basic urban service provision vary in terms of beneficiaries, types of benefits and levels of benefits. Spatial planning outcomes are restricted to those who reside in the planned areas—that is, they are spatially exclusive—while development and sectoral planning outcomes are targeted at beneficiaries in both planned and informal settlements. The nature of spatial planning has its genesis in colonial approaches based on territoriality and zoning to segregate space for different urban

Preface

xi

populations and uses. Spatial and sectoral planning outcomes, such as roads, electricity, formal drainage and domestic waste collection benefit stakeholders who are directly involved in the planning process, which in the case of Jayapura are the residents who live in the planned settlements as mandated by legislation. Residents living in informal settlements are excluded from involvement in legal spatial planning processes and deemed not to be important and relevant in the spatial planning process. On the other hand, development planning activities benefit groups in both planned and informal settlements. The use of both development and sectoral planning provides the flexibility to address a more inclusive range of basic urban service needs across a wider population cohort, which includes residents excluded from the spatial planning process. Hence, development and sectoral planning benefit a greater range of stakeholders in terms of housing, water and sanitation provision, regardless of their spatial location. Despite the evolving formal and informal governance arrangements in basic urban service provision, issues of the financial and technical capabilities of stakeholders plus the ‘skewed’ overarching planning framework which supports residents who could be termed middle or upper class in terms of income, employment and location have strongly influenced outcomes. The latter have contributed to insufficient gaps in the provision of formal and informal basic urban services while at the same time increasing the emergence of community-organized basic urban services in both planned and informal settlements. The major modes of governance arrangements in the informal settlements in Jayapura consist of what can be termed traditional governance, formal and informal governance, and hybrid governance. Traditional governance is an arrangement based on local social–cultural values and norms and is tied to specific kin and ethnic groups and embedded in a land tenure type. Formal governance comprises development interventions conducted by the Municipal Government and other bodies via legally endorsed planning processes, while informal governance comprises varying ‘bottom-up’ self, group and community arrangements that provide basic urban services based on mutual understanding and or agreement. Hybrid governance in Jayapura involves three main stakeholders centered on ‘the governance of three pillars’ (the government, the church and the native Papuan community), and comprises arrangements that combine and utilize traditional, formal and informal governance. All these governance types co-evolve as their boundaries overlap and intersect through time at the local settlement, municipal and to a lesser degree, national level. They work together at varying levels of coherency and ‘equilibrium’ in the development process to provide basic urban services in formal and informal settlements. The ‘governance equilibrium’ represents a ‘balance’ at a specific point and place in time in how stakeholders utilize and share resources, and access various contributions in various ways to obtain basic urban services. This ‘balance’ is shaped by two main elements: (1) ‘fixed’ elements of governance that apply generally to all settlements, such as land tenure and the leadership of local leaders, and (2) ‘variable’ governance elements comprising contextual- and location-specific elements

xii

Preface

embedded in the settlements, such as the types, scales and ongoing organization of basic urban service arrangements. With over a billion people living in slums and informal settlements, it is paramount that policy and decision-makers better understand the implications of their governance processes and outcomes in striving towards sustainable urbanization as contained in recent global urban mandates such as Habitat 3 and Sustainable Development Goal 11. Jayapura, Indonesia Sydney, Australia

Ninik Suhartini Paul Jones

Acknowledgements

This book is developed from Ninik Suhartini’s Ph.D. thesis as completed during June 2012–January 2017 in the Sydney School of Architecture, Design, and Planning, the University of Sydney, and awarded September 2017. The Ph.D. was a consequence of Ninik’s life-long curiosity to understand the ‘signs’ of what Allah has written as rules in the Al-Quran. In this context, Ninik’s thesis was as an opportunity to understand the processes and dynamics shaping everyday life, their placement and governance, and how they contribute to the good and ‘not so good’ of humanity. This desire for deeper knowledge and learning arose when Ninik was working as an urban planner for 12 years at the Jayapura Municipality, Papua, Indonesia. For the Indonesian Government, Jayapura has been a priority centre of economic, infrastructure and social development at a national level for the last two decades, and now functions as a strategic growth centre in the eastern part of Indonesia. However, like many planning systems in the global world, urban planning and development at the local level has not delivered outputs and outcomes as expected due to the myriad interplay of national, regional and local factors. This situation spurned Ninik onto gaining a deeper understanding on how cities really work to hopefully make a greater contribution to the urban planning profession, thus dealing more effectively with the issues and problems as emerging in the ongoing urbanization process. As cities in developing countries are seen by many as messy, chaotic and highly influenced by politics, Ninik pursued her initial Ph.D. research in an academic world where she sought to combine her insights as a practitioner with academic rigour and scholarship. This work and rationale forms the basis of this book for both co-authors. In terms of contributions to this book, Ninik would like to acknowledge Ibu who provided inspiration via love, wisdom and strength. Ninik would also like to thank her husband Mas Jon, children Farhan and Dianti, only sister Retno, Bapak and Yudi for their trust and endless prayers. In terms of my co-author, I have been fortunate in working with Associate Professor Paul Jones, a global expert on Asia Pacific urbanization and informal urbanism. Paul has expanded my capacity and

xiii

xiv

Acknowledgements

widened my perspectives on how to understand the workings of the city and especially its multiple levels of inequalities. I thank Paul as both a co-author and supervisor, teacher and mentor for his total dedication, time, and patience in fostering my academic and professional pathways during both my Ph.D. and in the development of this book. There is not enough space to mention Paul’s contributions in this research and beyond in advocating better outcomes for those living their lives in informal settlements and slums, whilst seeking a deeper understanding of the city ‘as it is’ and ‘as it might be’. We would like to thank Amy Wan and the Australia Awards team for facilitating Ninik’s academic and professional development while at the University of Sydney; Dr. Alun Pope, Prof. John Landis and Dr. Delik Hudalah for their constructive advice in strengthening the research analysis in the Ph.D.; Prof. Nicole Gurran, Prof. Peter Phibbs and Dr. Adrienne Keane for sharing their academic guidance at the University of Sydney; Lisa Agnesari, Basuki Argo Utomo, Mery Clara Youwe, Niko Waromi, Edison Bab, Ronald Thesia and all surveyors from the University of Cenderawasih, Jayapura, who assisted in conducting face-to-face household surveys, ground mapping and rechecking data. Also thank you to Rebecca Bradford and Sara Birks for their initial editorial assistance. We would also like to thank the Sydney School of Architecture, Design and Planning of the University of Sydney for their support in pursuing this critical research publication as an important aspect of better understanding and managing the urbanization process. As well, the findings of research work undertaken in the kampungs of Bandung by both co-authors with Associate Professor Sri Maryati from the Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia, permeate this work. We thank her sincerely for her insights and dedication to improving urban service outcomes in kampungs. Finally, we thank Professor Paulo Silva from the University of Aveiro, Portugal, for his insightful comments in the Foreword. January 2019

Ninik Suhartini Paul Jones

Contents

Part I

Situating Urbanization and Urban Governance . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

3 4 5 5 6 6 8 8 12

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Urbanization in Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 An Overview of Urbanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 The Rise of Informal Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Urban Governance Arrangements in Developing Countries . . 2.3.1 An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Concepts of Urban Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Governing Basic Urban Services in Developing Countries: The Complexity of Formal, Informal and Hybrid Governance Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Assessing ‘Good’ Urban Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Summary and Implications for the Research Framework . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

13 14 15 15 19 23 23 25

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

28 30 33 37

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Purpose and Research Questions . . . . . . 1.2.1 Research Purpose and Questions . 1.3 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Key Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Case Study Design . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Structure and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

xv

xvi

Part II

Contents

A Case Study of the Mid-Sized City of Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Methods Used During the Fieldwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Jayapura: Geography and Administrative Status . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Administrative Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Total Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Population Density and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Social Facilities and Human Development Index (HDI) 3.5 Socio-cultural Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Ethnic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Customary Landownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 The Urban Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Urbanization in Jayapura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance in Jayapura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Types, Processes and Outputs of Spatial Planning . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Types and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Key Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Types, Processes and Outputs of Development Planning . . . . . 4.3.1 The Long-Term Development Plan (LTDP) of Jayapura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP) of Jayapura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 The Annual Development Plan (ADP) of Jayapura . . . 4.4 Sectoral Planning Types, Processes and Outputs for Housing, Water and Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Housing Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Water Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 44 50 51 51 54 54 57 59 60 60 61 62 64 67 69 72

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

75 76 76 77 82 88

...

88

... ...

89 91

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

97 99 100 107 111 114

Contents

xvii

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban Governance for Basic Urban Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Spatial Planning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Resource Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Who Gains and Benefits from Spatial Planning . . . . . 5.2.3 Issues Regarding Spatial Planning Outcomes in Jayapura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Development Planning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Resource Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Who Gains and Benefits from Development Planning 5.3.3 Issues Characterizing Development Planning Outcomes in Jayapura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Who Benefits from Sectoral Planning: Housing, Water and Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

115 116 117 117 119

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

127 131 131 132

. . . . 139 . . . . . .

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements in Informal Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 An Overview of the Types of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements: A Case Study of Four Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Case Study 1: Argapura Bawah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Case Study 2: Batu Putih . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Case Study 3: Dok IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Case Study 4: Kampung Kayu Pulo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part III

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

143 143 145 152 156 161

. . . 163 . . . 164 . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

165 165 166 172 175

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

180 181 188 196 204 210 215

Conclusion

7 Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 7.2 Revisiting the Key Research Questions and Findings . . . . . . . . . . 221

xviii

7.2.1 Question 1: What Are the Types and Processes, and Who Are the Stakeholders that Constitute Formal Urban Governance in the Provision of Basic Urban Services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Question 2: Who and How Do the Stakeholders Gain and Benefit ‘on the Ground’ from Formal Governance in Providing Basic Urban Services? . . . . . . 7.2.3 Question 3: How Do Individuals, Groups and Communities Who Do not Directly Benefit from Formal Urban Governance, Organize and Access Governance to Meet Their Basic Urban Service Needs? . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Contribution to the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 The Nature of Urban Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 The Complexity of Urban Governance Arrangements . . 7.3.3 The Importance of Understanding Context and the Need for Nuanced Urban Governance Arrangements at Varying Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4 Typology Analysis as the Main Tool in Classifying Informal Settlements and Identifying Types of Arrangements, Stakeholders and Processes of Basic Urban Service Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.5 A Better Understanding of the Concepts ‘Informal Settlements’, ‘Good Urban Governance’, ‘Self-Organization’ and ‘Self-Governance’ . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Policy and Practice Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Further Research Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

. . 221

. . 222

. . . .

. . . .

223 226 227 229

. . 230

. . 231

. . . . .

. . . . .

231 232 233 234 235

Abbreviations

ADP AUSAID Bappeda BPS DKP HDI ILO LPPM-UNHAS

OECD PDAM PDRB PLN PNPM RIPPDA RPJM RPJPD RT RTRW RTRWN

Annual Development Planning Australian Agency for International Development Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Daerah (Regional Planning Board) Biro Pusat Statistik (Central Bureau of Statistics) Dinas Kebersihan dan Pemakaman (Department of Waste Management and Funerals) Human Development Index International Labour Organization Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Universitas Hasanuddin (the Research and Community Service Centre of the University of Hasanuddin) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (Regional Enterprise for Drinking Water) Produk Domestik Regional Bruto (Gross Domestic Regional Product) Perusahaan Listrik Negara (State-Enterprise for Electricity) Program Nasional Pengentasan Kemiskinan (National Poverty Alleviation Program) Rencana Induk Pengembangan Pariwisata Daerah (General Plans for Regional Tourism Development) Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah (Mid-Term Development Plan) Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Daerah (Long-Term Development Plan) Rukun Tetangga Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (the General Spatial Plan) Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Nasional (the National Spatial Plans)

xix

xx

RW UN-DESA UNDP UNECE UNESCAP UN-Habitat UNICEF UN-WWAP USAID WHO

Abbreviations

Rukun Warga United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs United Nations Development Programme United Nations Economic Commission for Europe United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific United Nations Human Settlements Programme United Nations Children’s Fund United Nations World Water Assessment Programme United States Agency for International Development World Health Organization

Part I

Situating Urbanization and Urban Governance

Chapter 1

Introduction

Dawn in Yos Sudarso (Humboldt) bay, Jayapura

Abstract This chapter sets the scene for the main narrative of the book which is to explore the arrangement and effectiveness of urban governance in small to medium and mid-sized towns in providing basic infrastructure and services such as housing, clean water, and sanitation. Set against a background of rapid urbanization in developing countries, a range of mechanisms to meet basic urban service provision are recognized and accommodated by formal systems. However, many informal settlements remain neglected in formal service provision as they are considered illegal, unplanned and or do not accord with the ‘modern’ vision for city development. On the other hand, in some contexts, local government does not have adequate capacity © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Suhartini and P. Jones, Urban Governance and Informal Settlements, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06094-7_1

3

4

1 Introduction

to provide services. In this setting, the chapter sets out four research questions which are based around assessing the implications of various forms of governance in providing basic urban services and their contribution towards improving systems of urban planning, management and their outcomes. The core focus of the research centers on how basic urban services are provided to the population, especially those living their lives in settlements designated as informal settlements. The case study is Jayapura, the capital of Papua Province, Indonesia, a growing mid-sized city experiencing rapid growth, especially in informal settlements. The research methods, including examining primary and secondary data on urban governance as well as the case study design, are summarized in this chapter. Keywords Urbanization · Urban governance · Research questions · Methods Case study

1.1 The Setting Developing countries have experienced a rapid increase in population over the last 50 years, with Asia being the most populated region in the world. In terms of urbanization, Asia has the largest proportion of urban growth and it is predicted this trend will continue to increase over the next 30 years with countries such as Indonesia, India and China being major contributors (UN-Habitat 2016). In Indonesia, for instance, the urban population increased significantly during the period 1980–2010, from 22.4% of the total Indonesian population in 1980 to approximately 49% in 2010, with most of this growth occurring in the main cities of Java Island (Firman 2012). The largest population and the largest urbanized areas are still concentrated in Java Island, with other islands such as Kalimantan and Papua having the least development growth, including urbanization.1 Consequently, Indonesia must deal with many issues arising because of urbanization including the inadequacy of basic urban service provision and the uneven distribution of development benefits across the country. Papua Province, for example, is the least developed locality in Indonesia. In terms of the Human Development Index (HDI), this province remains on the lowest rank in the country from 60.20 in 1996 to 64.94 in 2010 (BPS 2012a). Regarding poverty, Papua Province is the poorest part of the country, slipping from 40.78% in 2007 to 31.98% in 2011 in regards to the proportion of the provincial population living in poverty (BPS 2012b). 1 To

accelerate the development process in Papua, the Indonesian government enacted several policies such as Law 21 of 2001 about Special Autonomy for Papua, which includes Papua Province and West Papua Province. According to the Law, Papuan people are prioritized to access special rights such as priority in education, health, access to infrastructure, gender equality and community empowerment. Furthermore, many territorial proliferations have been conducted during the last decade, which has divided the province from 11 counties and 2 cities in 2001 to 28 counties and 1 city in 2011. This policy has accelerated the urbanization process in the province as more cities are developing in the area.

1.1 The Setting

5

The capital of Papua Province, Jayapura, reflects the symptoms occurring in many urban areas in mid-sized cities in Asia as indicated by UNESCAP (2015). The population growth in Jayapura is 4.4% and above the national average (BPS 2012a, b), with 43.9% of in-migration per year. Furthermore, Jayapura is experiencing a rapid growth of informal settlements which has reached 25% of the total city area and encroaches onto planned settlements, hazard-prone land and conservation areas (Jones and Suhartini 2014a). On the other hand, Jayapura local government is facing under-capacity in dealing with unmanageable urban growth, such as the mismatch of water demand and supply (PDAM 2010), lack of formal housing (Paruntung 2004) and low level of sanitation provision (EHRA 2012; DKP 2012). Concurrent with its function as a national activity centre, urban development in Jayapura remains focused in the initial urban areas designated to the west of the city and has not expanded to the eastern parts as identified for urban expansion (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014). In response to these circumstances, different mechanisms of governance have evolved and operate alongside the formal arrangements conducted by the government (Jones and Suhartini 2014b). Groups and individuals that have been excluded from formal development for example, have developed several adaptive arrangements by utilizing their own resources and capacities in providing for their individual and collective daily needs (Suhartini 2015). Furthermore, they have established informal activities in terms of increasing their income as well as providing basic infrastructure and services, such as housing, clean water and sanitation. Several mechanisms in meeting basic urban service provision are recognized and accommodated by the formal system, while many settlements remain neglected in formal service provision as they are considered illegal, informal and unplanned (Suhartini 2016). In this context, questions regarding the effectiveness of urban governance, including processes and procedures in urban management have been raised particularly those that are conducted by the government. Such questions include inquiry into how different basic urban services have been delivered by various processes and activities to address the needs of urban residents. Furthermore, a broader discussion is timely to address the ways in which cities and urban residents in developing countries manage to adapt to city complexity, including the various conditions under which residents live their daily lives. Urban governance, therefore, is more than just the government, but also includes a broader scale of management and arrangements with multiple stakeholders which may be termed formal, informal or other (Stoker 1998).

1.2 Purpose and Research Questions 1.2.1 Research Purpose and Questions The purpose of this research is to better understand the nature of urban governance in developing countries and its relationship to basic urban services, especially in

6

1 Introduction

fast-growing mid-sized cities. Hence, this research explores the implications of various governance forms and their contribution towards improving systems of urban planning, management and their outcomes. Using a case study of the mid-sized city of Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia, the research questions explored in this study are as follows: a. What are the types, processes and range of stakeholders which constitute formal urban governance in the provision of basic urban services? b. Who and how do stakeholders gain and benefit ‘on the ground’ from formal urban governance arrangements in the context of providing basic urban services? c. For those who do not directly benefit from formal urban governance arrangements, how do individuals, groups and communities organize and access governance to meet their basic urban service needs? d. How can we better understand the evolving nature of urban governance and its relationship to the provision of basic urban services? Table 1.1 sets out the research purpose, research questions and sub-questions.

1.3 Research Methodology The methodological approaches for this research were designed to explore the nature of urban governance at a local and city scale so as to understand the types and processes of governance arrangements as well as the complexity of urban development. The research, therefore, utilizes multiple methods to secure and examine primary and secondary data framed in a case study approach to achieve the research purpose. At an international level, a case study approach has been widely used to better understand urban governance in developing countries, particularly where formal and informal urbanism is at play (see for example, Devas 2004, in case studies of South Asia, and the study by Bakker et al. 2008, in Indonesia).

1.3.1 Key Methods Several methods are utilized in this research, including examining primary and secondary data and information on urban governance. Secondary data analysis is undertaken to obtain general trends in demographic, social, economic and cultural development in the study area. On the other hand, primary data analysis including spatial analysis, interpretation of interviews and household surveys are also carried out. The spatial analysis using aerial imageries and city plans is conducted to acquire the spatial configuration of the formal and informal settlements in the city. Such analysis identifies the distribution and total area of both settlements types as well as measuring the consistency of spatial plan implementation. The interviews are aimed

1.3 Research Methodology

7

Table 1.1 Research purpose, questions and sub-questions Purpose To better understand the nature of the types, processes and range of stakeholders involved in urban governance and the provision of basic urban services Questions

Sub-questions

1. What are the types, processes and range Regarding basic urban services in housing, water of stakeholders that constitute formal and sanitation: urban governance in the provision of basic • What are the mainstream types of urban urban services? governance? • What are the processes of formal urban governance? • What types of involvement do stakeholders undertake in formal urban governance? • What are the rules and regulations? (How is control and order achieved by formal urban governance?) • Where are such arrangements applied within the city and why? 2. Who and how do the stakeholders gain and benefit from formal governance in providing basic urban services?

Regarding basic urban services in housing, water and sanitation: • Who are the individuals and groups impacted and involved? • How are these groups/individuals impacted and involved by formal planning? • How is this expressed at the implementation stage (i.e. resource allocation and spatial patterns)? • How is this expressed at the development on the ground?

3. For those who do not directly benefit from formal urban governance, how do individuals, groups and communities organize and access governance to meet their basic urban service needs?

Regarding basic urban services in housing, water and sanitation: • How do groups and individuals in informal settlements organize and access governance to meet their basic needs? (Processes, structures, relationship, why and for what needs?) • What are the outcomes of these arrangements/developments on the ground? (Urban forms and structures in the settlements, and governance processes and structures vis a vis specific basic urban services)

4. How can we better understand the evolving nature of urban governance and its relationship to the provision of basic urban services?

• In what areas of basic urban services are formal governance, informal governance and hybrid governance applied effectively? • What are the issues arising from applying formal, informal, and hybrid governance to basic urban services arrangements? • What are the implications for improving urban planning and policy and what are the practical queries? • What are the contributions of the study for enriching the theory of urban governance?

8

1 Introduction

at information about the life experiences and perceptions of stakeholders who are involved in the process of urban governance, particularly in the provision of basic urban services. Household surveys are undertaken to gain a general profile of informal settlements based on the research purpose. A typology survey is also utilized to identify the range of physical structures, forms, connectivity and the quality of basic urban services that characterize informal settlements. This analysis provides baseline information regarding informal settlements given the absence of such data is a common trait of formal institutions in neglecting informal settlements (Jones and Suhartini 2014a). Furthermore, block patterns and typologies of informal settlements express implied governance arrangements in the areas observed in terms of service types, structures and processes of siting, building, maintenance and funding. This research methodology is elaborated in Chap. 3. As a result of the above, the outputs of this research comprise data and information about the nature of urban governance in mid-sized cities in developing countries as follows: a. b. c. d.

The nature of urban governance in providing basic urban services. The complexity of urban governance arrangements. The modes of urban governance. The contribution of research findings to theory development, policy and practice implications and further research (Table 1.2).

1.3.2 Case Study Design The main purpose of this research is to understand the types, processes and range of stakeholders involved in urban governance regarding basic urban service provision. This research uses a case study approach to address both the research purpose and questions and focuses on Jayapura, a mid-sized city in Papuan Province, Indonesia. As widely recognized, a case study approach provides amongst other advantages insights into ‘successful’ cases so as to add more knowledge to a less known topic (Flyvbjerg 2006). In this setting, Jayapura represents a rapid-growing urban area in the eastern part of Indonesia contributing to national and regional growth in the region. Details regarding the case study design are elaborated in Chap. 3.

1.4 Structure and Scope This study is structured into three main parts. Part One provides the theoretical and methodological framework for the research. Chapter 2 reviews the literature regarding urbanization and urban governance in the context of developing countries. This chapter discusses the processes and drivers of rapid urbanization and its consequences

1.4 Structure and Scope

9

Table 1.2 Research questions, methods and outputs Questions and sub-questions

Methods

Outputs

Question 1 What are the types, processes, and range of stakeholders that constitute formal urban governance in the provision of basic urban services? Sub-questions Regarding the basic urban services of housing, water and sanitation: • What are the types of urban governance? • What are the processes of urban governance? • What types of involvement do stakeholders undertake in urban governance? • What are the rules and regulations? (How is control and order achieved?) • Where are such arrangements applied within the city?

• Review on literature discussing urban governance and management in developing countries to understand myriad of arrangements as well as key actors involved in urban governance and management regarding basic urban services: housing, water and sanitation. The review focuses on mid-sized cities • Content analysis on the spatial and development planning legislation related to city-level planning and development provisions • Content analysis on the annual development programs and projects at city level • Interviews with stakeholders in relation to urban planning and development processes

The nature of urban governance in developing countries, particularly in mid-sized cities comprising: • Types of governance played out in providing basic urban services: housing, water, and sanitation • The actors and stakeholders involved • The process of planning, budgeting, implementing as well as evaluating basic urban services

Question 2 Who and how do the stakeholders gain and benefit ‘on the ground’ from governance in providing basic urban services? Sub-questions Regarding the basic urban • Interviews with stakeholders • Gainers and beneficiaries from services of housing, water and from government and basic urban services in sanitation: nongovernment as well as housing, water and sanitation • Who are the individuals and community leaders, in relation • Impacts and consequences of groups impacted and to the spatial development spatial plans and policies in involved? process, their role in the terms of spatial, formal spatial planning • How are these socio-economic and process, as well as to identify groups/individuals impacted socio-cultural development those who are less impacted in • Development results and and involved in terms of these formal processes spatial, socio-economic and resource allocations on the socio-cultural development? • Household survey with ground residents of informal • How is this expressed at the settlements exploring: implementation stage (i.e. demographic and resource allocation and spatial socio-cultural baseline data, patterns)? access to spatial and • How is this expressed in the development planning and development on the ground? implementation, urban governance on basic urban services examined • Reviews on the annual planning and development programs and projects as well as the annual evaluation reports (continued)

10

1 Introduction

Table 1.2 (continued) Questions and sub-questions

Methods

Outputs

Question 3 For those who do not directly benefit from formal urban governance, how do individuals, groups and communities organize and access their governance to meet their basic urban service needs? Sub-questions • How do groups and individuals in informal settlements organize and access governance to meet their basic needs for housing, water and sanitation? (Processes, structures, networks, relationships), why, and for what needs? • What are the outcomes of these arrangements/developments on the ground? (Urban forms and structures in the settlements, informal economy and governance processes and structures)

• Spatial analysis regarding • Typology of basic urban spatial plans in comparison services of housing, water and with actual urban growth as sanitation and public facilities, described in aerial images of including types of the case study areas. This arrangements, materials, includes delineating design, scale of service, uses, boundaries of planned and land status, methods of unplanned areas by overlaying payment maps • Governance processes, • Typology survey on informal structures, networks, and settlements in the case study relationships among area to identify the physical individuals, groups and structures of informal communities in informal settlements and how they settlements physically differ from formal • Perception and feedback from settlements residents living in informal • Household survey with settlements regarding urban residents in informal governance arrangements on settlements and housing, water and sanitation semi-structured interviews with community leaders to obtain information regarding governance processes, structures, and relationships among individuals, groups and communities in informal settlements regarding basic urban services

Question 4 How can we better understand the nature of urban governance and its relationship to the provision of basic urban services? Sub-questions • In what areas of basic urban services are formal governance, informal governance and hybrid governance applied effectively? • What are the issues arising from applying formal, informal, and hybrid governance to basic urban services arrangements? • What are the implications for improving urban planning and policy and what are the practical queries? • What are the contributions of the study for enriching the theory of urban governance?

Comparative analysis between research findings/results and the review of literature. This includes confirmation, argumentation, as well as elaboration on issues related to urban governance and management in mid-sized cities in developing countries

• Research findings • Research contributions to literature • Research and policy implications • Future research opportunities

1.4 Structure and Scope

11

and impacts. This includes the rise of informal urbanism which contributes to the complexity and diversity of urban governance in providing basic urban services. The chapter elaborates on urban governance by providing insights regarding the scope, dimensions and criteria of good urban governance as suggested by the literature, thus providing a theoretical framework for the research to explore the nature of urban governance at a mid-sized city scale. Part Two of the research focuses on the case study analysis of the mid-sized city of Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia. The research methodology is explained in Chap. 3 and is constructed on a case study approach so as to analyse (1) primary data (faceto-face household surveys with 448 respondents, semi-structured interviews with 12 stakeholders, ground mapping in 4 informal settlements and individual observations on planning processes during the period of 2012–2016) and (2) planning laws, regulations, policy and plan documents and map overlays. Chapter 3 also examines Jayapura’s geographical and administrative status, land use, population, socio-cultural aspects, urban economy and state of urbanization. Chapter 4 addresses research question one regarding types, processes and the outputs of formal urban governance in providing basic urban services. This includes understanding spatial, development and sectoral planning which is embedded in the overlap of laws, regulations and planning documents in basic urban service provision at the municipal level. The research question two regarding who gains and benefits from formal urban governance in basic urban service provision is explored in Chap. 5 by focusing on the range of stakeholders and their roles in housing, water and sanitation provision. Resident perceptions regarding the usefulness and effectiveness of formal governance arrangements and resident preference for desirable governance in basic urban service provision is discussed in this chapter. Chapter 5 highlights that spatial planning benefits a certain group of stakeholders who by law are granted the right to be involved in the process, while excluding other urban residents particularly those who live in informal settlements. On the other hand, the processes of development and sectoral planning are more inclusive in addressing resident’s needs in the wider urban area. Thus, to acquire a deeper understanding of how residents in informal settlements access their basic urban services as reflected in research question 3, the range of types, processes and outcomes of urban governance outside of government-led arrangements in four informal settlements namely, Argapura Bawah, Batu Putih, Dok IX and Kampung Kayu Pulo, are presented in Chap. 6. This analysis is achieved by identifying block patterns, types of basic urban services and local public facilities, their functions and utility, plus the accompanying governance arrangements. Furthermore, Chap. 6 explores various governance mechanisms that secure land and other resources related to basic urban service provision at the settlement scale where government intervention is minimal. Part Three addresses via Chap. 7 research question 4 which concludes the research findings regarding the nature of urban governance in the context of a mid-sized city in a developing country context. This includes the diversity and complexity of governance mechanisms used to secure basic urban service provision. As outlined in Chap. 7, the research identifies multiple types of governance at play in contributing to the

12

1 Introduction

improvement of ‘better’ development outcomes for urban residents. This includes identifying the fixed and variable elements that influence particular types of governance arrangements and their outcomes. The chapter outlines the contributions of the research to the literature, including discussion regarding self-organization and selfgovernance in the context of basic urban services in informal settlements. Research and policy implications are also elaborated in this chapter, as well as the key priority areas for future research to better understand the complexity and nuanced urban governance arrangements at work in making and shaping the city.

References Bakker K, Kooy M, Shofiani NE, Martijn E-J (2008) Governance failure: rethinking the institutional dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. World Dev 36(10):1891–1915 BPS (2012a) Human Development Index (HDI) by Province and National, 1996–2010. From http:// www.bps.go.id/eng/menutab.php?tabel=1&kat=1&id_subyek=26 BPS (2012b) Number and percentage of poor people, poverty line, poverty gap index, poverty severity index by province 2007–2009 (March), 2010–2011. Retrieved 25 Sept 2012, from http:// www.bps.go.id/eng/menutab.php?tabel=1&kat=1&id_subyek=23 BPS Kota Jayapura (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) Kota Jayapura Dalam Angka Devas N (2004) Urban governance, voice and poverty in the developing world. Earthscan Publications, Sterling, VA; London DKP Kota Jayapura (2012) Laporan Kinerja Dinas Kebersihan dan Pemakaman Kota Jayapura EHRA (2012) Laporan Survei EHRA Kota Jayapura 2012 Firman T (2012) Urbanization and urban development patterns. The Jakarta Post. From http:// www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/12/urbanization-and-urban-development-patterns.html, 12 May 2012 Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12(2):219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 Jones P, Suhartini N (2014a) Reframing approaches to conceptualising urban governance in Melanesia: insights from Jayapura and Port Moresby. J City Reg Plann 25(2):96–114 Jones P, Suhartini N (2014b) Governance and its complexities: insights from formal and informal urban governance approaches in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia. Paper presented at the 11th UPE international conference, La Plata Paruntung M (2004) Faktor-faktor yang Memperngaruhi Pemilihan Lokasi Perumahan Perumnas IV Padang Bulan Kota Jayapura. Tesis, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang PDAM Kabupaten Jayapura (2010) Corporate plan PDAM Kabupaten Jayapura 2011–2014 Peraturan Daerah Kota Jayapura Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Jayapura Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Int Soc Sci J 50(1):17 Suhartini N (2015) Exploring typologies of informal settlements as a reflection of adaptive and responsive urban development. Paper presented at the 3rd Planocosmo conference, Bandung Suhartini N (2016) Governing informality: urban basic service provision in informal settlements. Paper presented at the 9th IFOU international conference, Buenos Aires UNESCAP (2015) Urban transformations: shifting from quantity to quality. The State of Asian and Pacific Cities 2015 UN-Habitat (2016) Urbanization and development: emerging futures. World Cities Report. Nairobi, Africa. Available online https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/WCR-% 20Full-Report-2016.pdf

Chapter 2

Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Dok IX Settlement, North Jayapura

Abstract This chapter focuses on providing the theoretical and contextual framework regarding urbanization, the complexity of urban development and the importance of urban governance in addressing urban issues and challenges. The concept of rapid urbanization with its impacts and consequences such as informal settlements is explored with a focus on developing countries and mid-sized cities, especially in Asia. The related concept of urban governance including its technical, political, cultural and institutional dimensions are disentangled, argued as a necessary component of urban management given urban governance is a wider and more encompassing concept than ‘government’. The chapter argues that the role of urban governance © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Suhartini and P. Jones, Urban Governance and Informal Settlements, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06094-7_2

13

14

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

in providing basic urban services in developing countries is complex and multidimensional, cutting across key planning and management constructs such as formal, informal and hybrid governance arrangements. In many contexts, urban governance has co-evolved from formal arrangements led by the government, with local nuanced urban governance emerging from local stakeholders devising and using their own innovative planning, development, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Keywords Formal · Informal · Hybrid · Governance · Processes · Mechanisms Institutions of governance

2.1 Introduction Urbanization is now considered a global transformative force in the twenty-first century with urban populations having reached 54% of the world’s population sometime in 2014 (United Nations 2017; UN-DESA 2014). Cities have flourished rapidly in developed countries such as the UK, France and the US in the 1900s and are now expanding at unprecedented rates in developing countries which have the largest urban populations (United Nations 2017; Jouve 2008). Importantly, urbanization is occurring at its fastest pace in small and mid-sized cities with populations of less than 1 million. The latter comprise 70% of the world’s total urban population (UN-Habitat 2016) and are primarily located in Asia and Africa (UN-DESA 2014). As cities grow rapidly and address their urban management needs, developing countries struggle to deal with the consequences of urbanization, including the increasing demands of the growing population for basic urban services (Firman et al. 2007). Urbanization has occurred in parallel with the rise of urban poverty and economic disparity between urban residents, as reflected in the continuous growth of informal settlements and slums in towns and cities. Furthermore, the increase in urban population, especially for those who live in informal settlements, has been argued to contributing to the high demand for basic urban services and the uncontrolled development of housing (Jones 2012, 2017). On the other hand, basic urban services provided by government has been considered ineffective in meeting an adequate demand for services for the overall urban population (United Nations 2017; Watson 2009). Despite concerted efforts to eradicate poverty, international aid is acknowledged to have failed in supporting developing countries in achieving such objectives due to different and often contrasting priorities set by government and international development agencies at a national level (Jouve 2008). The concept of urban governance has been argued as providing an opportunity for a broader collective inclusion of the urban population as well as to broaden the participation of urban stakeholders in development processes (Jouve 2008). Key development agencies such as the World Bank strongly support such notions by encouraging processes of decentralization and democratization at a local level (UN-Habitat 2016). However, in developing countries, these global and ‘top-down’ intervention schemes

2.1 Introduction

15

struggle to fit with the persistence of strong cultural and political in-country dynamics and local circumstances (Jouve 2008). Importantly, governance has been highlighted as the main issue in providing basic urban services as formal institutions struggle to accommodate demands using traditional top-down approaches (Bakker et al. 2008). Government in developing countries mainly apply formal approaches in dealing with the above by establishing rules, regulations and institutions to address these functions (Watson 2009). Such approaches are argued to be ineffective as they have little focus on development processes and mechanisms at local levels where urgent urban issues and challenges have been continuously experienced by local government and communities (Jouve 2008). Furthermore, such approaches are argued to be unsuitable when implemented in informal settlements since their residents utilize different development methods and ways of collaboration (Dovey and King 2011). In the new millennium, urban development in informal settlements is increasingly recognized as self-organized and conducted without any or little compliance with formal rules and regulations (Silva and Farrall 2016). These latter situations have contributed to the complexity of urban issues and challenges now being experienced by government and residents in developing countries (Jones 2016a). Cities in developing countries appear as chaotic and disordered spaces, as formal and informal settlements flourish side by side. Both the government and urban residents seem to be competing to govern cities at different scales using their own intuitive ways and strategies, instead of harmoniously working together to maximize outcomes (Suhartini 2016). This situation is likely to continue in the next decade, and if not managed carefully, will add to urban inequities, including growth of slums and a decrease in quality of life. Within the setting above, this chapter provides the theoretical and contextual framework regarding urbanization, urban development complexity and the importance of urban governance in addressing urban issues and challenges.

2.2 Urbanization in Developing Countries 2.2.1 An Overview of Urbanization Urbanization has been considered for some time to be the main driver in achieving urbanity and accompanying patterns of urbanism (Wirth 1938). Urbanization clusters population and generates urban economies so as to achieve highly productive and efficient economic growth (Firman et al. 2007). Urbanization also results in rapid land conversion from agricultural to industrial, commercial and residential use. Urbanization has become a means to provide populations designated as ‘urban’ with better access to basic and secondary services such as water, electricity, roads and jobs (Bertinelli and Strobl 2007). Urbanization is also attributed as supporting

16

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

the development of technologically advanced cities where being a ‘smart city’ and knowledge creation is valued as a driver of change (UN-Habitat 2011).1 Urbanization in the modern planning era was triggered by the industrial revolution in Britain in the mid to late 1800s which spread rapidly to most European regions and other ‘western’ countries such as the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Technological innovations in rural production, the advent of machinery and mass production were claimed as the main contributor to urbanization. Such innovations changed people preferences for jobs from agricultural to the industrial and service sectors, as well as their preference for proximity to work, home and suburbia (Beall et al. 2010). Urbanization in developed countries has produced cities with a high quality of life, modern infrastructure and productive economies.2 Highly urbanized cities such as those in North America, Western Europe and Australia are claimed to be the most liveable cities in the world. Urban residents in developed countries also benefit from modern infrastructure and urban services, which are supported using advanced technology.3 In terms of economy, urbanization has led these countries to be among those with the highest income and per capita growth in the world (World Bank Data on Country and Lending Group 2016). Developed countries have also achieved high levels of social services such as education, health, as well as strong sociocultural political participation shown by high ratings in the Human Development Index (UNDP 2015). The norms and values produced by the urbanization process in developed countries have been seen as ‘standardized values’ to measure global urbanization including the degree of urbanity in urban areas. The level of urbanization has been measured by examining levels of education, health, access to urban services as well as residents’ contribution to political decision-making and urban social life (UN-DESA 2014). Data and information used for analysing urbanization outcomes and processes requires resources to be organized and allocated from government and other formal bodies (Ibid, p. 4). Developing countries show different projections compared to developed countries in terms of urban population increase in the next 30 years (UN-Habitat 2009). 1 Urbanization

is defined as ‘growth in the proportion of persons living in urban areas’, which includes urban area expansion (Stilwell 1995), population increase and increasing economic and social activities (Firman et al. 2007). Other literature suggests seeing urbanization as ‘a force that has changed ways of thinking and acting, ways of using space, lifestyles, governing, and solving disputes, social and economic relations, and consumption and production patterns’ (New UN Urban Agenda 2014, p. 3). 2 Developed countries experienced urbanization in several ways: by economic growth, increasing population in urban areas and social development in and surrounding the cities (McGee 1991). Cities have replaced agricultural regions as a centre of economic production and attracted more population to move into the cities for jobs and better incomes. An increasing number of migrants reside in the growing cities, especially in city centres. Urbanization has also detached the social life of urban residents from farmland and the embedded values which emphasize communal arrangements. Urbanization has prioritized the importance of housing proximity to the centres of production and has highly valued competitiveness and individualism (Ibid). 3 The Economist: A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview August 2016.

2.2 Urbanization in Developing Countries

17

While the urban population in developed countries is predicted to reach 86% of their total population, the proportion is approximately 67% in developing countries (UNHabitat 2012). However, developing countries will share the largest proportion of the total urban population as it reaches 5.2 billion persons by 2050 (DESA 2012; UN-WWAP 2012). Mid-sized cities with populations between 100,000 and 1,000,000 persons have become a major focus of discussion in relation to global urbanization as they gain prominence in terms of strategic, locational and distributional functions and accommodate the largest proportion of the total urban population (UN-Habitat 2016; Habitat III 2016).4 Mid-sized cities function as a hub for ‘…different scales that incorporated settlements because of the presence of basic infrastructure…’ (Ibid, p. 4). Mid-sized cities will continue to experience rapid urbanization in the next decades due to their key role in transferring economic and social capital between larger and smaller urban and rural areas (McCarney and Stern 2003). As such, interventions in managing such cities should be taken with extra care and diligence so that they do not replicate the problems occurring in larger cities. In developing countries, urbanization has not fully complied with the ‘standardized’ urbanization models, norms and values as seen in developed countries. As suggested by the literature, urbanization in developing countries has been driven by different forces as a major impetus for urban change. For many countries, urbanization commenced during the period of colonial occupation and has continued to grow after independence within the context of the enduring legacies of colonialization (Scargill 1979). Such change has occurred concurrently with globalization and modernization including the emergence of informal urbanism (McGee and Robinson 1996; UN-Habitat 2016). As more and more urban residents struggle to obtain equitable access to basic urban services including health and education services, the urbanization process has produced what has been termed an ‘urban divide’ (UN-Habitat 2011). This concept seeks to highlight urban residents that comprise groups of the ‘advantaged’ who have wider access and opportunities to improve their quality of life, and the ‘disadvantaged’ who must deal with the difficulties accessing basic urban services such as land, housing, water and sanitation. A widening gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ has concentrated GNP per capita into the groups comprising the ‘advantaged’ while neglecting ‘pro-poor’ strategies to reduce poverty and spatial inequities characterizing the ‘disadvantaged’ (UN-Habitat 2016). Rapid urbanization and the increase in urban poverty in many developing countries has compounded the growing number of slum dwellers, including the emergence of new forms of vulnerability, marginalization and social exclusion. These have exacerbated the ‘urban divide’ in income, social, political, legal, spatial, cultural and environmental disparities (Ibid, p. 77). In 2018, the Asia-Pacific region entered a new phase of development challenges as the urban population rose to approximately 50% (UN-Habitat 2016). The region 4A

mid-sized city, often called an intermediate city, is an urban area which is rapidly progressing in terms of developing urban structures.

18

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Fig. 2.1 Bandung, the third largest city in Indonesia, has experienced rapid urbanization since the last decade

accommodates the highest numbers of urban residents in the world as it shares 55% of the total urban global population (Ibid, p. 10). Urbanization in Asia reflects ongoing spatial changes as well as the socio-economic and dynamic political shifts within the cities and among urban residents (Firman 2009). Unlike urbanization in developed countries which is driven primarily by economic growth in services and other non-primary sectors (Firman et al. 2007), urbanization in Asia-Pacific has grown concurrently with rapid globalization (Firman et al. 2007; UN-Habitat 2016).5 For example, foreign and domestic investment in major cities has been the major driver of urbanization and urban development in Indonesia since the 1970s (Firman 2002). On the other hand, infrastructure and extractive industries play a dominant role in small- and medium-sized cities (Firman 2009, 2012). Indonesia, an Asian country with the fourth largest population in the world, has experienced rapid urbanization during the last 50 years. The urban population in Indonesia has increased significantly during the period 1980–2010, from 22.4% of the total Indonesian population in 1980 to approximately 49% in 2010 (Firman 2012). Megacities in Indonesia, such as Jakarta, Bandung and Surabaya have maintained a large proportion of urbanized areas. However, small and medium urban areas outside Java Island such as Batam, Jayapura, Sorong, Denpasar, Tarakan and Pekanbaru have also contributed to high urbanization rates (Firman 2012) (Fig. 2.1). Urban expansion in Asian countries such as Indonesia includes changes in the physical and economic structures of urban areas as reflected by land conversion 5 Globalization

is defined as ‘the process of expansion and deepening of the global market for commodities and goods, finance and services, which was greatly facilitated by the rapid development of transportation and communication technology and later by trade liberalisation’ (see Willis 2005 in Firman et al. 2007).

2.2 Urbanization in Developing Countries

19

for accommodating secondary and tertiary economic activities (Firman et al. 2007). Approximately 30–35% of urbanization in Indonesia takes place through the ‘transformation of rural settlements into urban places’ (Kundu 2010, p. 19). In some cities, housing for the middle to higher income residents has been growing in locations further from the city centre, while strategic inner city localities have become increasingly occupied by people living in poorer conditions (Firman et al. 2007). Urban sprawl and rural land conversion for urban activities in many countries in the region is difficult to control within the context of formal policies applied by government. In Indonesia, for example, centralized and hierarchical government policies have been attributed as accelerating rapid agglomeration and ‘polarization’ in cities on Java Island (Jones and Visaria 1997). This situation has added to the widening disparity between urban areas including the inadequacy of urban service provision concurrent with the uneven distribution of development benefits at local, city and regional levels. Since the economic crises hit Asian countries in the late 1990s, urban growth has slowed significantly causing sharp increases in unemployment and uncertain political situations. Alongside this change, new regulation schemes and neo-liberal policies have been applied by government to assist recovery from the crises. The Indonesian government, for instance, applied ‘stimulus’ policies on regional autonomy and decentralization which has contributed to a shift in urban development patterns from the megacities on Java Island to smaller and less populated regions in Indonesia (Firman 2004). These policies have allowed local government in small to mid-sized towns and cities to expand investment in urban public services and infrastructure, which previously was highly controlled by the central government.

2.2.2 The Rise of Informal Urbanism A major consequence of urbanization in developing countries has been the rise and growth of urban informality and more specifically informal urbanism. The concept of informal urbanism can be considered as part of the wider notion of urban informality which initially focused on unregulated activities in the informal economy (Altrock 2012; Hart 1973). The informal sector possesses several characteristics, including ‘…ease of entry, reliance on indigenous resources, family ownership and resources, skills acquired outside the formal education system, labour intensive, easily adapted technology, unregulated and outside fully competitive markets’ (ILO 1972, in Anyamba 2011, p. 57). The informal economy can be defined as activities created by people working outside the formal economy (Hart 1973), and has been argued as a by-product and consequence of the processes of formal economic production (Anyamba 2011). The informal economy is seen as ‘a collection of a very small-scale enterprises composed of self-employed individuals or self-employed individuals with their family as workers… engage in unregulated, disordered, and uncontrolled activities and could cause urban blight (degeneration)’ (Porter et al. 2011). The informal economy commonly takes place in ‘marginal locations’ such as

20

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

public space and informal settlements where the rent is absent, and on the ‘blurred’ boundaries between public and private domains (Ibid, p. 140). Studies regarding urban informality have expanded over time to include the drivers of ‘low quality’ urban settlements, including the processes and power sharing involved among stakeholders in the production of urban space often conducted by people both inside and outside the formal sector (Stoker 1998). Urban informality in the context of informal settlements has been identified as proceeding in three main ways: expression through physical forms and structures, economic flows and urban governance (Jones 2016a). Informal urbanism has been defined as ‘processes, activities, and outcomes falling outside the bounds of modern formal “top-down” planning processes and regulatory frameworks’ (Op cit) and ‘outside the mainstream’ urbanism (Hernandez-Garcia 2013; Suhartini 2015). Informal urbanism invariably reflects the urban development processes and arrangements with the least intervention from formal government (Anyamba 2011; Dovey and King 2011; Porter et al. 2011; Roy 2009; Bunnell and Harris 2012). It is an expression of urban intervention both from ‘above’ in that the State demarcates the lines between formal and informal systems (see Bunnell and Harris 2012; Roy 2009), and from ‘below’ as generated by people who utilize their own norms, values, structures, networks and governance to contribute to the urban fabric (Jones and Suhartini 2014). The reality is that urban governance and planning arrangements are not a simple model as reflected in the dichotomy—formal versus informal—but as a continuum of toleration, negotiation and contestation between formal and informal arrangements (Dovey 2012; Bunnell and Harris 2012; Jones 2017; Roy 2009). In the above context, this research defines informal urbanism as a recurring pattern of urbanism produced outside the realms of the formally planned city, with a strong focus on informal and squatter settlements as a major mode of production in shaping and defining the contemporary city. Informal settlements have different key features from those that characterize formal settlements, and they have been evolving as stated by Jones (2016a, p. 116): …as (a) meaningful places and communities where inhabitants seek varying level(s) of order, structure, and familiarity based on mutual interdependence and support founded on attachment to kin, tradition, and underlying socio-cultural orders….

Informal settlements are commonly seen as urban settlements which have acquired the following characteristics: a lack of basic services, inadequate building structures, overcrowding, unhealthy and hazardous environmental conditions, insecure land and housing tenure, poverty and exclusion at many levels (UN-Habitat 2016). However, recent research concludes that being informal does not necessarily reflect low affordability levels of residents to build quality housing (Bunnell and Harris 2012; Dovey 2012; Anyamba 2011; Suhartini 2015). Similarly, an informal settlement is not necessarily a slum and vice versa (Jones 2017). The criteria traditionally used to categorize informal settlements include physical features, legal land status (see Payne 1997 regarding land status in African cities), socio-economic quality of settlements (Bunnell and Harris 2012) and the processes of establishment (Dovey and King 2011; Jones 2017). Physical features of informal

2.2 Urbanization in Developing Countries

21

Table 2.1 Typologies used to understand informal settlements Typologies Features Housing

Number of storeys, size (area), materials, uses, layout inside the house, set back or set forward

Alleyways

Uses, width, design, structures

Set back or set forward

Design, materials, uses, patterns

Patterns

Result of the combination of uses, alleyway/street width, housing design and structures

Drainage

Materials, design, alignment, uses, serviced area coverage

Water connection

Materials, serviced area coverage, alignment, design

Economic activity

Types, placement, permanent/temporary, connectivity

Governance

‘Formal/informal’, modes, stakeholders

Electricity

Types (formal/informal), area of coverage, placement, prepaid or regular, individual/shared connection

Sanitation (septic tank and waste Types, formal/informal, uses, quality, container) individually/communally owned Public space

Uses, area, location characteristics, open/shaded, design, structure, permanent/temporary

Source Adapted from Suhartini (2015), Jones (2016a)

settlements comprise ‘repetitive, non-geometric and non-linear patterns of urban forms and structure’ (Jones 2016a, p. 19).6 The typologies of the urban forms and structures as seen in informal settlements are an expression of resilient, sustainable, economical and ‘do it yourself’ building methods in the provision of housing and infrastructure (Suhartini 2015) (see Table 2.1). The typologies of urban forms and structures in informal settlements, therefore, express the nature, drivers and social and physical processes that develop on-site over time and transform informal settlements (Jones 2016a). Like slums, the terms informal and squatter settlements have been used interchangeably even though they may have subtle or marked differences. For example, squatter settlements are built by occupying or invading state or private land without consent. On the other hand, informal settlements are not necessarily illegal since the residents may obtain the consent from the customary landowners and thus under customary law are allowable (Jones 2016b). The limited provision of affordable land in urban areas and messy land tenure status, especially in the designated plan areas are claimed to contribute to the rise of informal and similar settlements (Wekesa et al. 2011). 6 Physical elements within informal settlements express the nature, drivers and processes that develop

on-site over time in specific contexts. These include: houses types/styles, access ways/connectivity, building materials/fabric, public/private interface and the role of setbacks, service and infrastructure and ‘order’ which includes governance, rules and regulations.

22

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Table 2.2 Delineation of informal settlements Aspect Types Physical features

Cluster/class/terms

Legal land status

Distinctive typologies of repetitive, Informal settlements non-geometric and non-linear patterns at different scales; resilient, sustainable, economical and ‘do it yourself’ building methods in housing and infrastructure Illegal/without any consent Squatter settlement Extra legal/customary consent

Informal settlement

Quality of settlement

Low quality

Slum

Not so low quality

Informal settlement

Compliance with formal spatial plan

Formally unplanned area

Informal settlement

Establishment

Colonial constructed settlement

Urban village

Native constructed settlement

Village in the city

Source Adapted from Jones (2012), UNECE (2009), Payne (1997), UN-Habitat (2016), Tyrell (2008), Wekesa et al. (2011), McGee (1991), Jones (2016a, 2017), Nagendra et al. (2013), Suhartini (2015)

In their studies on urban morphology in Southeast Asian cities, Dovey and King (2011) classify informal settlements into three major development phases including ‘settling, inserting and attaching’. The process commences by the formation of villages and towns on ‘no-man’s’ land followed by the encroachment of buildings on vacant urban space including buildings attached to formal urban structures (see Table 2.2). In the context of Melanesian and broader Pacific cities, Jones (2016b) argues that the establishment process of informal settlements occurs in two main forms. First, there are informal settlements that comprise ‘unplanned forms of village like settlements’ or ‘urban villages’ (Jones 2016b).7 Second, there are ‘villages in the city’ which comprise settlements that initially were native customary villages, and despite urbanization occurring in and around these areas, the settlements retain some traditional values and norms that are acknowledged and recognized by the state (Jones 2016b; Nagendra et al. 2013). In summary, rapid urbanization in developing countries has resulted in an increased complexity of urban issues and problems including a range of challenges 7 The word village in this context emerged from the British colonial period as it embedded European

values, norms and perceptions on indigenous residents often forced to live in ‘colonial’ settlements. The definition of a village implies an imperative and coercive effort to control and maintain order upon the colonies and their defined contained settlements. These include resettlement of native people to places so called a ‘village’ constructed by colonial authorities, as well as imposing negative perceptions on the socio-cultural and economic matters carried out by local people, to suppress the idea of independency and self-esteem.

2.2 Urbanization in Developing Countries

23

that need to be addressed by the stakeholders involved in urban development (Firman 2012). To better address the issues and challenges of urban development, it is important to understand their complexity.

2.3 Urban Governance Arrangements in Developing Countries This section provides a theoretical framework regarding urban governance in the context of developing countries with a focus on the concepts, dimensions, modes and criteria of good governance as suggested in the literature. A review of the complexity of urban governance arrangements for basic urban service provision outside government interventions has been poorly researched and generally not considered important, (Suhartini 2015), and as such, provides a strong rationale to structure the research design used in this book. This section also highlights the key research areas to be explored in urban governance arrangements for the basic urban services of housing, water and sanitation which generally have the lowest levels of service in informal settlements.

2.3.1 An Overview As urbanization occurs through interplay of formal and informal modes, formal government failures in managing urban development have become a major issue in developing countries. Types of governance termed ‘authoritarian’ and ‘hierarchical’ are claimed to have failed in delivering welfare and other basic services (Chan and Hu 2004). Furthermore, as globalization takes place, there has been increasing need for innovation in dealing with the complexity and range of urban problems in developing countries (Harvey 1990). As noted, rapid urbanization has contributed to the widening ‘urban divide’ since various urban groups have been continually neglected in the sharing of resources as contained in spatial and development plans and policies (UN-Habitat 2011). Government intervention in urban management using spatial and development plans and policies remains prominent (Friedmann 1987). Government are the main stakeholder in the distribution of resources in the management of urban matters including the delivery of basic urban services for all residents (UN-Habitat 2016). Thus, government need to anticipate the socio-cultural and political dynamics including the needs of residents to improve the adequacy and quality of public service delivery. However, it has also been argued that public policy implementation when selective widens the gap between services delivered to urban residents (Harloe and Fainstein 1992; Watson 2009). In this context, the pressure on planning and develop-

24

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

ment to adequately respond has evolved concurrently with the growing complexity of the breadth and depth of urban issues and challenges (Silva 2016). In a global context, there has been growing discussion regarding the need for policy reform in public administration and management, including mechanisms that involve a broader range of stakeholders that collectively anticipate the diversity of urban issues and challenges (Jouve 2008). In response to this, research on public policy has shifted the focus from examining arrangements between government and private sectors to more fluid and flexible policy arrangements conducted by government with a range of stakeholders (UN-Habitat 2016). The evolution of government arrangements in public service delivery has been identified as occurring in three main phases, namely, ‘public administration, new public management and new public governance’ (Osborne 2010, p. 413). As a general rule, government carry out highly bureaucratic administrative systems which emphasize rigid and hierarchical orders. On the other hand, the concept of governance is broader and focuses on ‘the government and the governed’ (Harpham and Boateng 1997, p. 66).8 This research considers governance as ‘societal, institutional and administrative processes that constrain, enable and prescribe the provision of public goods and the determination of public interest’ (Pestoff et al. 2012, p. 249). Governance reflects processes (Healey et al. 2004), power (Stoker 1998) and networks (Healey et al. 2004) which are built by various institutional actors and societal groups along with the formal arrangements conducted by government (Stoker 1998). Governance has been identified as a common characteristic observed in politics, polity and policy (Treib 2007). In terms of politics, governance reflects the power structure and flow of decision-making between stakeholders. Governance is seen as a key medium to develop and expand the network among state and private institutions as they trade-off different resources in preparing public policies (Pierre 1999). In terms of polity or the institutional dimension, governance can be classified as arrangements which are derived by ‘market’, ‘hierarchy’, ‘community’, ‘association’ and ‘networks’ (Treib 2007). This dimension includes forms of hybrid governance which are described as an interdependency of various governance exercised in achieving policy implementation (Streeck and Schmitter 1985, p. 7). In this setting, governance in terms of policy making reflects institutional arrangements on policy outputs, approaches, sanctions, regulation standards and norms which are conducted by the government and the community (Op cit). Figure 2.2 summarizes the dimensions of governance. 8 Government

provides several functions in terms of governance (Stoker 1998, p. 24), including: ‘(de)composition and coordination; calibration and steering; integration and regulation’. However, Stoker (1998) emphasizes the difference between government and governance in terms of the imposition of rules and regulation as well as mechanisms deployed in the system. Government has more rigid, decisive, and coercive approaches in its system. While governance as a ‘governing mechanism’ is ‘… not imposed and resulted from interactions of multiplicity of governing and each other influencing actors’ (Kooiman 2003). Governance also allows the development self-governing networks as a self-organized system that comprises different actors, which is more informal compared to the government structure.

2.3 Urban Governance Arrangements in Developing Countries

25

Fig. 2.2 The dimensions of governance. Source Adapted from Treib (2007)

2.3.2 Concepts of Urban Governance Within the scope of this research, urban governance includes both formal and informal arrangements for resource allocation so as to enable the accessing of opportunities for conducting development at a city level which involves different urban interest groups (Devas 2004; Hendriks 2014; UN-Habitat 2002).9 Urban governance aims at increasing the productivity and ‘corrective capacities’ of diverse urban arrangements (Hendriks 2014), achieving ‘equity of access’ to complex systems of urban dynamics, while aiming for more inclusive processes of decision-making (UN-Habitat 2002). Urban governance amalgamates arrangements as expressed by government and their urban management arrangements by expanding the level of participation and types of arrangements as practiced in the urban setting (Le Gales 1995 in McCarney and Stern 2003). Figure 2.3 shows the conceptual differences between urban government, urban management and urban governance. 9 The actors and organizations include:‘… local councils, neighbourhood councils, mayor and alder-

men, urban district coordinators, higher level co-government, civil service departments, ombudspersons, audit committees, housing corporations, welfare organizations, community work agencies, municipal advisory councils, chambers of commerce, residents’ organizations, neighbourhood management companies, individual citizens…’ (Hendriks 2014, p. 557).

26

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Fig. 2.3 Urban government, management and governance. Source Adapted from McCarney and Stern (2003)

Boeninger et al. (1991) suggest that urban governance can be classified into four dimensions, namely, technical, political, cultural and institutional (Boeninger et al. 1991). The technical dimensions of urban governance include the use of economic resources, such as raw materials, skills and levels of technology. The political dimension of urban governance reflects the power exercised among stakeholders and institutions in myriad forms, notwithstanding power is not equally shared and applied. Urban governance in its polity/institutional dimension includes the organization and delivery of urban services.10 In developing countries, institutions established to provide public services are often those which have been developed and realigned over time since the colonial era (Boeninger et al. 1991). The cultural dimension of urban governance is important as it focuses on the importance of a ‘meaningful life’ where

10 Aspects

of institutional dimension including (World Bank 1991): public sector management, the legal framework, expenditure on defence, institutions, participatory approaches and human rights. The emphasis is on the effectiveness of public service delivery, whether it cover all elements of the society. Healey (2004) states that the institutional dimensions of urban governance are not those structured in formal organizations, hence are the ‘…values, norms and ways of acting which shape the realm of collective action—the relations between citizens, the regulation of individual behaviour in relation to wider social norms and the organization of projects of collective endeavour’ (p. 92).

2.3 Urban Governance Arrangements in Developing Countries

27

Fig. 2.4 Dimensions of urban governance. Source Adapted from Treib (2007)

society develops norms and values which impact on the freedom of speech, political rights and public participation. Based on local socio-cultural orders, local culture provides the flexibility and utility for urban residents and their groups to interact with each other (See Fig. 2.4). Modes of urban governance have been described as including decentralization, entrepreneurialism and democratization at a city scale (Obeng-Odoom 2012). Decentralized urban governance reflects urban governance as a medium of ‘partnership’ and ‘collaboration’ among different actors at the local level. Urban governance as entrepreneurialism occurs when local government delegates its service functions to the market to achieve higher efficiency as determined by the market and corporate imperatives. Democratic urban governance relates to how the decision-making process is taken by stakeholders citywide, and which may or may not encourage broader participation in urban civil society. See Fig. 2.5.

28

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Fig. 2.5 Modes of urban governance. Source Adapted from Obeng-Odoom (2012)

2.3.3 Governing Basic Urban Services in Developing Countries: The Complexity of Formal, Informal and Hybrid Governance Arrangements It has been argued that a key indicator of successful urbanization is reflected in the performance of urban service delivery (Jones et al. 2014). At a global level, improving urbanization outcomes in developing countries in the new millennium have been imposed by the United Nations via the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 and more recently the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, specifically the city goal SDG 11, and the New Urban Agenda (NUA) in order to accelerate the improvement of urban service delivery (UN-Habitat 2016). Different levels of performance in urban service delivery have influenced different development outcomes between cities (Jones et al. 2014). Recent research suggests that urban areas continue to experience significant issues and challenges including high consumption of energy, waste production and general demand for access to basic urban services (UN-Habitat 2016). In the context of mid-sized cities, the challenges of urban governance also include the capacity to generate income to fund urban service provision (UN-Habitat 2016). Furthermore, the literature advocates extending notions of urban governance in managing basic urban services, as well as highlighting the importance of research regarding lagging service delivery in developing countries (Osborne 2010; UN-Habitat 2016). The increasing complexity of urban issues and problems generated by growing and diverse urban populations requires a stronger capacity of local government as the main stakeholder in managing and facilitating urban governance arrangements (Osborne 2010). Urban governance in developing countries is recognized as needing to broaden urban service arrange-

2.3 Urban Governance Arrangements in Developing Countries

29

ments as conducted by government as well as those which are organized by other stakeholders at a city level, both formal and informal (Devas 2004). There are two major components of urban governance in terms of public service provision, namely, the production and provision of services (Harpham and Boateng 1997). The production of services focuses on resource management and how stakeholders are involved in the production of resources, while service provision explains the organization, budgeting and implementation stages of public service delivery. Governance of basic urban services in developing countries includes a range of arrangements by different stakeholders which can be termed formal, informal and hybrid governance (Suhartini 2016). Formal urban governance comprises bureaucratic and administrative systems conducted by the government in providing public services. This includes the organization of planning, development and managing public interests. Formal urban governance utilizes government institutions to run and oversee its mandated functions (Stoker 1998). Informal urban governance on the other hand reflects governance which is established and carried out outside and often overlapping the formal system, mainly by urban residents, individually and/or in groups (Jones and Suhartini 2014). Informal governance has its roots in local norms, values and structures, often associated with indigenous ethnic groups, local or migratory, using customary practices as adapted over time with modernization and globalization. Informal governance within this research is defined as ‘…urban governance based on traditional, informal, and nonformal system(s), (which) gain their validity from socio-cultural orders and strength of linkage to indigenous kin and ethnic groups, and their adaptation in the urban settings’ (Jones 2016b, p. 111). Informal governance strongly colours not only informal urbanism, but also formal urban politics (Stoker 1998) as it has been attributed to unpacking the ‘black and white’ boundaries that demarcate the processes of decisionmaking and inter-organizational consultation (Stone 1989 in Stoker 1998). Within this setting, a self-governing network is argued to be more effective in broadening information among stakeholders, improving the use of budgets, and is seen to be more effective compared to the implementation of formal government (Stoker 1998).11 Self-governance is based on theories that emphasize the importance of individual authority in decision-making and regulating well-being. Selfgovernance is influenced by internal and external factors (Ostrom 2010, p. 319): (1) Internal factors include selfish motives for self-reflection, self-restraint, innovation and artisanship, which in turn are influenced by (2) external factors such as education, social norms, (and) the tendencies of interactions within particular types of institutions. Self-interest is driven by economic and political factors. In terms of the economy, this leads to dominance (economic monopoly), while in politics it relates to the balancing of the authoritarian power regime.

Self-governance differs from self-organization. Self-organization acquires the values of spontaneity, adaptivity and synergy of autonomous agents which continuously 11 There are several issues regarding informal governance, including the low level of internal accountability (Stoker 1998). As the networks consist of members of various interests and backgrounds, they will aim at achieving their particular objectives rather than overall networks.

30

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

develop adaptive complex systems by mutually adapting and co-evolving (Heylighen 2010).12 In this setting, ‘collective intelligence’ is fostered through self-organization as the primary agents working as a group share and exchange their resources (Ibid, p. 3). In an urban planning context, self-organization is a ‘do-it-yourself’ development activity carried out by urban residents which reflect their spontaneous responses to the increasing complexity of urban issues (Rauws 2016, p. 341). Self-organized development activities reflect the capacity of urban residents to adapt and respond to diverse urban issues, including the need for pragmatic action on the ground (Silva 2016). Self-organization can be defined as self-governance at the point where there is a collective understanding of the group members to achieve mutual goals (Rauws 2016). Hybrid governance results from the interaction of formal and informal governance. This process occurs when formal governance aligns with informal governance whose systems are well established and are seen as working efficiently to achieve specific goals (Osborne 2010). Hybrid governance is common in the provision of basic urban services in developing countries where various stakeholders from formal and informal institutions and spheres of authority contribute to the processes of planning, budgeting and development (Devas 2004). Table 2.3 summarizes the types of urban governance in developing countries.

2.3.4 Assessing ‘Good’ Urban Governance In terms of measuring the effectiveness of urban governance, UN-Habitat (2002) employs several principles. These include sustainability, subsidiarity, equity, efficiency, transparency and accountability, civic engagement and citizenship and security. These principles measure formal urban arrangements conducted mainly by government. Furthermore, good urban governance is reflected in the level of community engagement in urban service provision and how it benefits urban residents in terms of delivering secure job opportunities, accessibility and connectivity of urban areas, and good quality public service and infrastructure provision (Harpham and Boateng 1997; Obeng-Odoom 2012). Another suggestion is to consider the contribution of the formal and informal provision of urban arrangements in supporting residents to achieve their welfare (Devas 2004). Hendriks (2014) proposes a number of values to be used in measuring good urban governance: responsiveness and effectiveness, procedural justice and resilience and counterbalance. Responsiveness is reflected in the level of ‘representation, participation, accessibility and openness’, while effectiveness is shown by how ‘smoothly’

12 Heylighen

(2010) defines the term ‘agents’ to represent molecules, cells, organism, individuals, organizations or society at large.

2.3 Urban Governance Arrangements in Developing Countries

31

Table 2.3 Concepts of formal, informal and hybrid urban governance in developing countries Features Formal Informal Hybrid Definition

Governance based heavily on bureaucratic and administrative systems conducted by the government in providing public services. This includes the organization of planning, development and managing public interests. Formal governance utilizes structural government institutions to run its functions

Governance that is established and run outside the formal system, mainly by the members of civil society. Being different from formal governance, informal governance has its roots in the local norms, values and structures that flourished prior to the colonial period

Processes

One way, mainly vertical, ordered and hierarchical Rigid, coercive, decisive, government led

Two way, multiple ways, mainly horizontal Fluid and flexible, persuasive, adaptive, community led

Nature

Governance resulting from the interaction of formal and informal governance. This occurs when formal governance may have the least impact and informal governance is well established and works efficiently. Hybrid governance is common for developing countries, where they share both systems in terms of planning, budgeting, implementation as well as stakeholder contribution Multiple way, vertical and horizontal Acquires some values and characteristics of formal and informal governance, allow more actors and stakeholders to contribute to the process

Source Adapted from Stoker (1998), Jones (2016a), Suhartini (2016)

the arrangements are executed. The procedural justice values include the principles of fairness, ‘equality, and proportionality’ of urban governance in meeting urban expectations, especially at the point where both formal and locally based values and norms play out. Where urban dynamics are subject to rapid change such as those that take place in fast-growing developing countries, the assessment of good governance needs to consider the qualities of governance arrangements as suggested by Healey (2004, p. 97): Diverse and mutually aware networks and coalitions; loosely-coupled; fluid; Open, transparent and fluid stakeholder selection processes; Open-minded, inclusive, informative and inventive discourses; Facilitative and experimental practices, supporting self-regulating processes; Laws, formal competences and resource flow principles which value local initiative and encourage experiment.

32

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Table 2.4 Criteria of good urban governance No. Criteria

Emphasis

Key references

1.

Sustainability, subsidiarity, equity, efficiency, transparency and accountability, civic engagement and citizenship and security

Formal urban arrangements

UN-Habitat (2002)

2.

Benefits delivered by the process in terms of social economic aspects, shown by secure job opportunities, accessibility and connectivity of urban areas and good quality of public service and infrastructure provision

Community engagement and level of participation

Obeng-Odoom (2012)

3.

The processes of public service delivery

The importance of Devas (2004) formal and informal arrangements

4.

Responsiveness and effectiveness, procedural justice and resilience and counterbalance Diverse and mutually aware networks and coalitions; loosely coupled; fluid; open, transparent and fluid stakeholder selection processes; open-minded, inclusive, informative and inventive discourses; facilitative and experimental practices, supporting self-regulating processes; laws, formal competences and resource flow principles which value local initiative and encourage experiment.

Values developed in Hendriks (2014) the processes

5.

Qualities produced in the processes

Healey (2004)

Source Derived from UN-Habitat (2002), Obeng-Odoom (2012), Devas (2004), Hendriks (2014), Healey (2004)

Table 2.4 summarizes the key criteria in measuring good urban governance. When measuring good urban governance in basic urban services delivery, several assessment approaches have been proposed by Boex et al. (2015). This includes the analysis of five key features, namely, the functions of local government, political leadership and administration of basic urban services, local budget and community participation in relation to basic urban service governance. However, the assessment criteria strongly emphasizes the role of local government in managing basic urban services, with less attention placed on contributions made by the broader urban stakeholders.

2.4 Summary and Implications for the Research Framework

33

2.4 Summary and Implications for the Research Framework Urbanization continues to be acknowledged as a major driving force in global development (United Nation 2017). As noted, the world has more than half of its population living in urban areas since 2008 and this trajectory continues upward. Importantly, many of these urban populations live in developing countries which are in a process of transition and adaptation at many levels. Mid-sized cities are experiencing the fastest pace of urbanization and comprise some 70% of the world’s population (UN-Habitat 2016). In many developing countries, urbanization can be viewed as driven by three forces of territorialization, namely, the legacy of colonialization, globalization and national self-determination in the post-colonial era. These forces produce unique forms of urbanization, which are deployed via formal, informal and hybrid processes. ‘Formal’ urbanization creates patterns of urbanism that comply with the standards and values as applied to measure levels of urbanization in developed countries which are strongly led and shaped by government based on modern planning theory. On the other hand, ‘informal’ urbanization produces patterns of urbanism which reflect urbanization which is mainly conducted by urban residents, individually and in groups, and is in parallel, concurrent and sometimes overlapping with ‘formal’ urbanization processes (Jones 2016a). The emergence of an amalgam of urbanization processes and their outcomes, namely, hybrid urbanism, is one way to conceptualize the myriad processes and adaptations at work as they influence at varying scales the shaping of many towns and cities in the developing world (Jones and Suhartini 2014b). The emergence of informality including informal urbanism in developing countries has become an inseparable part of the urbanization process. Working side by side with mainstream systems and processes, the latter comprise varying drivers, forces and influences, including formal and informal stakeholders and the varying institutions and groups that interact and contribute to the state and the condition of urban dynamics. Urban informality is deployed in three main ways, namely, the development of informal settlements, the growth of the informal economy and emergence of informal governance as the latter adjusts and responds to the circumstances at hand. Compared to the systems that underpin formal urbanization, urban informality emphasizes the utility and usefulness of various urban arrangements, many of which can be termed ‘bottom-up’ and ‘tactical urbanism’ rather than ordered, topdown and hierarchical formal procedures and administrative processes (Silva 2016). Urban informality functions and not only supports, augments and acknowledges the formal arrangements conducted by the government and its agents, but has become a major mode of production whose importance in the urbanization process can no longer be underplayed (see Fig. 2.6). Urbanization in developing countries has generated a complexity of challenges, the most common being the need to address the rapidity of population growth and the consequences of unequal physical development and economic growth. In many developing countries, it has been acknowledged that the benefits of urbanization have

34

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Fig. 2.6 A conceptual framework to understand urbanization and urban governance in developing countries

not been distributed evenly, with many groups and individuals excluded from access to services, such as affordable land and housing, water, sanitation, accessible jobs and public transport (UN-Habitat 2016). As many towns and cities struggle to deal with the existing consequences of urbanization (let alone plan in advance of development), there has been an increasing focus on governance and the role it plays in producing ‘better’ urban development and management outcomes. This includes the important role of facilitating and enabling a range of tools, instruments and processes to deal with the many urban issues and problems central to human development. In many contexts, urban governance has evolved from formal arrangements that are mainly conducted and led by the government, while on the other hand, urban governance has emerged from local stakeholders devising and using their own planning, development, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Terms such as self-governance (Ostrom 2010) and co-evolution have been created to assist our understanding of how ‘bottom-up’ processes really work given individuals and communities are the ‘building blocks of town and city life (Silva 2016). Within the setting of formal, informal and hybrid governance, urban governance in developing countries must be acknowledged as a complex arrangement of approaches that determine varying responses to planning, development and control. The nature of this complexity includes the range of stakeholders involved (homogenous and heterogeneous groups), access to financial, human and technical resources, political jurisdictions, and the resulting types of arrangements, institutions, scales and spans of authority transcend the above. The reality is that many layers of governance are at work, namely, formal, informal and hybrid with many manifestations. Not surprisingly, it is argued that these varying approaches to governance overlap, intersect, and importantly, realign and co-evolve to create processes and arrangements to fill the ‘gaps’ in meeting basic urban service needs (Suhartini 2016). Studies regarding urban governance still place strong emphasis on theories and lines of inquiry which are developed based on formal systems and their attributes.

2.4 Summary and Implications for the Research Framework

35

As a general observation, discourse regarding urban governance is still preoccupied with those systems which comply and obtain their authority from formal values and norms. Concepts on urban governance such as those promulgated by UN-Habitat, for example (see New Urban Agenda 2016, for example), still consider urban governance as hierarchical structures of different political interests, with the government and formal institutions leading and invariably being dominant in the process. This top-down notion of urban governance is most visible in the format, structure and content of national urban policies (UN-Habitat 2016). In many of these national plan contexts, members of urban societies are portrayed as recipients rather than actors, and the contribution of residents is considered as complementary to the dynamics of urban governance, rather than as a key determinant. Policy tools and guidelines for improving and developing towns and cities as contained in these plans are also limiting for local practitioners to apply as they are invariably imported from EuroAmerican settings, and or have been acquired from a colonial era with few or ‘no questions’ asked (Jones 2016b). In situations of rapid urbanization where disparities in human development levels and limited human, technical and resource capacity in local government dominate, the result is ‘business as usual’ in the machinery of formal governance. Hence, inquiry into how contributions are made by different individuals and/or groups to urban governance, and especially governance that can be termed ‘bottom-up’ and adaptive in the context of rapid urbanization and burgeoning informal settlements remains limited. It can be argued, therefore, that there are strong arguments to analyse urban governance at the local level in developing countries, and especially in mid-sized cities given their complexity and often contrasting social, political and spatial features. To understand the breadth and depth of the complexities of urban governance, one needs to understand and acknowledge first and foremost what these complexities are. This includes the role and significance of how informal arrangements conform and or differ from existing mainstream formal governance systems. This interrelationship of stakeholders and institutions is important as some formal systems enforce and highly regulate informal activities, while other systems tolerate and support existing informal arrangements concurrent with highly regulated formal systems. A key in developing this understanding is to source and secure adequate data and information regarding urban governance and the wider urbanization processes to provide a more insightful analysis of how and why decisions are made regarding the provision of basic urban services. The literature indicates that as formal systems are mainly preoccupied with developing formal arrangements to deliver services, and as such collect data to meet and evaluate such ends, there is little or no systematic data on what is happening ‘on the ground’ outside of the formal systems, and or working with the formal systems (Suhartini 2015). Obtaining a greater breadth and depth of information, such as basic baseline data and conducting a typology analysis on the consequences and impacts of urbanization including how housing, land and other basic urban services are accessed and maintained by all the urban population, is vital. This is especially so where towns, cities and their formal governance spatially exclude certain segments of their population from accessing ‘normal’ standards of basic urban services. This includes the access of such residents to resources to facil-

36

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Fig. 2.7 Exploring the nature of urban governance—key themes underpinning the research

itate physical, social and economic development, and importantly, their degree of inclusion or exclusion in the planning and development processes. Invariably, residents who are not included in formal planning and development processes increasingly reside in a plethora of informal settlement types where notions of self-help, self-governance and community governance resonate and are nuanced in varying contexts. As such, understanding the nature of the governance at play in shaping and making the ‘full city’ is paramount in terms of (1) understanding the existing realities of the multiple governance regimes that are in operation at a certain place and time, and (2) understanding the types of governance arrangements already in operation which could be supported, enhanced and ‘built upon’ in the future. Thus, governance is not just government, but all-encompassing phenomena operating at multiple levels, scales and with varying stakeholders. Within the above setting, this book seeks to address several overlapping themes which revolve around seeking a deeper understanding of the nature of urban governance including its overlapping nature. Figure 2.7 summarizes the key cross-cutting themes that underpin the research framework that has emerged from the literature. The research uses as its starting point the concepts of formal, informal and hybrid systems to understand urbanization, and subsequently focuses on the respective stakeholders, processes, mechanisms and institutions of governance which they create and participate in. The research is clearly situated within the sphere of urban governance in mid-sized cities in developing countries, with a focus on exploring how basic urban services are provided to the population, especially those living their lives in settlements designated as informal settlements. By unpacking these areas of inquiry, key research questions begin to arise as given below:

2.4 Summary and Implications for the Research Framework

37

• Do all of the urban population gain and benefit from formal plans and policies, and if so, how and why? • Who in the urban population is excluded from the formal planning process, how and why? • For those not directly gaining from formal plans and policies such as those living in informal settlements, what sort of governance arrangements are used to secure and manage the demand for basic urban services of housing, water and sanitation? • Collectively and individually, what is the nature of governance at play and what continues to emerge in mid-sized developing cities in providing basic urban services? The above lines of inquiry form the basis of the research objectives and are central to the research questions around which this book is developed. Chapter 3 introduces the case study of this research, namely, Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia and also explains the methodology used to explore the above inquiry.

References Altrock U (2012) Conceptualising informality: some thoughts on the way towards generalisation. In: McFarlane C, Waibel M (eds) Urban informalities: reflections on the formal and informal. Ashgate, Farham, England Anyamba T (2011) Informal urbanism in Nairobi. Built Environ 37(1):57–77. https://doi.org/10. 2148/benv.37.1.57 Bakker K, Kooy M, Shofiani NE, & Martijn EJ (2008) Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. World Development, 36(10): 1891–1915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.09.015 Beall J, Basudeb G-K, Ravi K (2010) Urbanization and development: multidisciplinary perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590148.001.0001, https://doi.org/10. 1093/acprof:oso/9780199590148.003.0001 Bertinelli L, Strobl E (2007) Urbanization, Urban concentration and economic development. Urban Stud 44(13):2499–2510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701558442 Boeninger E, Nelson JM, Lateef KS (1991) Governance and development: issues and constraints; comments; floor discussion. The World Bank Res Observer 267 Bunnell T, Harris A (2012) Re-viewing informality: perspectives from urban Asia. Int Dev Plan Rev 34(4):339–347 Chan RCK, Hu Y (2004) Urban governance: a theoretical review and an empirical study. Asian Geogr 23(1–2):5–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10225706.2004.9684109 DESA, U D. o. E. a. S. A (2012) World urbanization prospects, the 2011 revision. Retrieved 23 Sept 2012, from http://esa.un.org/unup/ Dovey K (2012) Informal urbanism and complex adaptive assemblage. Int Dev Plan Rev 34(4):349–367 Dovey K, King R (2011) Forms of informality: morphology and visibility of informal settlements. Built Environ 37(1):11–29. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.37.1.11 Boex J, Edwards B, Yilmaz S (2015) Decentralization as a post-conflict strategy: local government discretion and accountability in Sierra Leone. Public Adm Dev 35(1):46–60. https://doi.org/10. 1002/pad.1707

38

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Firman T (2002) Urban development in Indonesia, 1990–2001: from the boom to the early reform era through the crisis. Habitat Int 26(2):229–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-3975(01)000455 Firman T (2004) Major issues in Indonesia’s urban land development. Land Use Policy 21(4):347–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.04.002 Firman T (2009) Decentralization reform and local-government proliferation in Indonesia: towards a fragmentation of regional development. Rev Urban Reg Dev Stud 21(2/3):143–157. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-940x.2010.00165.x Firman T (2012) Urbanization and urban development patterns. The Jakarta Post. Sat, 12 May 2012, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/12/urbanization-and-urbandevelopment-patterns.html Firman T, Kombaitan B, Pradono P (2007) The Dynamics of Indonesia’s urbanization, 1980–2006. Urban Policy Res 25(4):433–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140701540752 Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton University Press, New Jersey Harloe M, Fainstein SS (1992) Conclusion: the divided cities. In: Harloe M, Ian G, Fainstein SS (eds) divided cities. Blackwell Publishers, Cambrigde, p 293 Harpham T, Boateng KA (1997) Urban governance in relation to the operation of urban services in developing countries. Habitat Int 21(1):65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(96)00046-X Hart K (1973) Informal income opportunities and urban employment in Ghana. J Mod Afr Stud 11(01):61–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022278x00008089 Harvey D (1990) The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford [England], Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Healey P (2004) Creativity and urban governance. Policy Stud 25(2):87–102. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0144287042000262189 Hendriks F (2014) Understanding good urban governance: essentials, shifts, and values. Urban Aff Rev 50(4):553–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087413511782 Heylighen F (2010) Self-organization of complex, intelligent systems: an action ontology for transdisciplinary integration. Integr Rev. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ECCO-paradigm.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017 https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-andlending-groups https://habitat3.org/ Jones P (2012) Pacific urbanization and the rise of informal settlements: trends and implications from Port Moresby. Urban Policy Res 30(2):145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2012. 664930 Jones P (2016a) Unpacking informal urbanism. Penerbit ITB, Bandung Jones P (2016b) The emergence of Pacific urban villages: urbanization trends in the Pacific Islands. Asian Development Bank Jones P (2017) Formalizing the informal: understanding the position of informal settlements and slums in sustainable urbanization policies and strategies in Bandung, Indonesia. J Sustain 9(1436):1–27 Jones P, Suhartini N (2014) Governance and its complexities: insights from formal and informal urban governance approaches in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia. Paper presented at the 11th UPE international conference, La Plata Jones GW, Visaria P, Gujarat Institute of Development Research (1997) Urbanization in large developing countries: China, Indonesia, Brazil, and India. Clarendon Press, Oxford, New York Jones H, Clench B, Harris D (2014) The governance of urban service delivery in developing countries: literature review. ODI Report Jouve B (2008) Urban governance: towards the emergence of a new policy instrument? Int Soc Sci J 59(193–194):343–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2009.01671.x Kooiman J (2003) Governing as governance. SAGE, London

References

39

Kundu R (2010) Examining the role of formal-informal nexuses in the contested production of peri-urban Kolkata. 3431195 Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago, United States, Illinois. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.usyd.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/ docview/845255136?accountid=14757. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database McCarney PL, Stren RE (2003) Governance on the ground: innovations and discontinuities in cities of the developing world. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Baltimore, Washington, D.C. McGee TG (1991) Asia’s growing urban rings, University World in Progress (UN) 13(3): 9 McGee TG, Robinson IM (1996) The mega-urban regions of southeast Asia//Review. Environments 24(2):72–73 Nagendra H, Unnikrishnan H, Sen S (2013) Villages in the city: spatial and temporal heterogeneity in rurality and urbanity in Bangalore, India. Land 3(1):1–18 Obeng-Odoom F (2012) On the origin, meaning, and evaluation of urban governance. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift—Norw J Geogr 66(4):204–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2012. 707989 Osborne SP (2010) The new public governance?: emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. Taylor & Francis, Routledge, New York, London Ostrom E (2010) The challenge of self-governance in complex contemporary environment. J Speculative Philoshophy 24(4):316–332 Payne GK, Great Britain. Overseas Development Administration (1997). Urban land tenure and property rights in developing countries: a review. London, Eng: IT Publications/ODA Pestoff VA, Brandsen T, Verschuere B (2012) New public governance, the third sector and coproduction, vol 7. Routledge, New York Pierre J (1999) Models of governance: the institutional dimensions of urban politics. Urban Aff Rev 34(3):372–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780879922183988 Porter L, Lombard M, Huxley M, Ingin AK, Islam T, Briggs J, Watson V (2011) Informality, the commons and the paradoxes for planning: concepts and debates for informality and planning self-made cities: ordinary informality? The reordering of a Romany neighbourhood the land formalisation process and the Peri-Urban Zone of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Street vendors and planning in indonesian cities informal urbanism in the USA: new challenges for theory and practice engaging with citizenship and urban struggle through an informality lens. Plan Theor Pract 12(1):115–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2011.545626 Rauws W (2016) Civic initiatives in urban development: self-governance versus self-organization in planning practice. Town Plan Rev 87(3):339–361. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2016.23 Roy A (2009) Why India cannot plan its cities: informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Plan Theor 8(1):76–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099299 Scargill DI (1979) The form of cities, 1st edn. St. Martin’s Press Inc., New York Silva P (2016) Tactical urbanism: towards an evolutionary cities’ approach? Environ Plan 43(6):1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516657340 Silva P, Farrall H (2016) Lessons from informal settlements: a peripheral problem with selforganising solutions. Town Plan Rev 87(3):297–319. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2016.21 Stilwell F (1995) Understanding cities and regions: Spatial political economy (2nd edn). Leichhardt, NSW 2040: Pluto Press Australia Limited Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Int Soc Sci J 50(1):17 Streeck W, Schmitter PC (1985) Community, market, state—and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. In: Streeck W, Schmitter PC (eds) Private interest government: beyond market and state. Sage, London, pp 1–29 Suhartini N (2015) Exploring typologies of informal settlements as a reflection of adaptive and responsive urban development. Paper presented at the 3rd planocosmo conference, Bandung Suhartini N (2016) Governing informality: urban basic service provision in informal settlements. Paper presented at the 9th IFOU international conference Buenos Aires Treib HBGF (2007) Modes of governance: towards a conceptual clarification. J Eur Public Policy 14(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017606061071406

40

2 Urbanization and Urban Governance in Developing Countries

Tyrrell ML (2008) Urban design for capacity development in informal settlements. Case study: Diepsloot, Johannesburg, South Africa, Public space and environmental infrastructure UN-DESA (2014) World urbanization prospects. http://esa.un.org/undp/wup/ UNDP (2015) Human development report 2015: work for human development. The United Nations Development Programme, New York UNECE (2009) Self-made cities: In search for sustainable solutions for informal settlements in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe region. Geneva: UNECE Information Service UN-Habitat (2002) Global campaign on urban governance: concept paper (trans: T. G. C. o. U. Governance & C. Secretariat), 2nd edn. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, UNHABITAT, Nairobi UN-Habitat (2012) State of the World’s cities 2012/2013: prosperity of cities. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Nairobi UN-Habitat (2016) World cities report 2016: urbanization and development emerging futures. UNHabitat, Nairobi UN-Habitat, UN-ESCAP (2009) Urban safety and poverty in Asia and the Pacific: key findings from subregional studies on South Asia, South-East Asia and the Pacific. In: Storey DO, Tom (eds). UN-HABITAT & UN-ESCAP, Nairobi UN-Habitat, U. N. H. S. P (2011) State of the World’s cities 2010/2011. Sterling, USA United Nations (2017) The new urban agenda. Habitat 111 Secretraiat, New York. Accessed http:// habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf Watson V (2009) Seeing from the South: refocusing Urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Stud 46(11):2259–2275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342598 Wekesa BW, Steyn GS, Otieno FAO (2011) A review of physical and socio-economic characteristics and intervention approaches of informal settlements. Habitat Int 35(2):238–245. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.09.006 Wirth L (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. Am J Sociol 44(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/217913 World Bank (1991) Managing development: The Governance Dimensions. Discussion paper

Part II

A Case Study of the Mid-Sized City of Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Chapter 3

An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Jayapura Urban Areas: Dok V- Dok IX (above), Abepura (middle), Entrop (below)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Suhartini and P. Jones, Urban Governance and Informal Settlements, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06094-7_3

43

44

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Abstract The methodology used to obtain data and information to explore the research questions and themes of inquiry is elaborated. The rationale for using a case study approach is outlined as is the importance of Indonesia, a fast-growing country with the fourth largest population in the world. Indonesia is one of the economic ‘powerhouses’ of Asia, predicted to be among the world’s leading countries in the next decade in terms of economic growth, development and international affairs. The geography and history of administration in Jayapura is reviewed, shifting from Dutch colonial occupation to a strongly controlled province under Indonesia’s hierarchical system of government administration. Population, land use, land tenure, socio-cultural and ethnic aspects and the urban economy are assessed, noting much growth has occurred since Papua was designated an autonomous administrative region in 1993, and Jayapura now being an important strategic border city. The chapter concludes by focusing on the unique characteristics of urbanization as emerging in Jayapura, including informal settlements continuing to flourish alongside formal development. Keywords Jayapura · Dutch · Autonomous region · Informal settlements Law 21 of 2001

3.1 Methods Used During the Fieldwork Considering the nature of urban governance to be explored as outlined in Chap. 2, this research utilizes a case study approach. As documented by Creswell and Clark (2011) and Yin (2014), the use of a case study provides a comprehensive framework by which to analyze the ‘complex’ nature of the social phenomenon, such as urban governance arrangements. A case study approach potentially allows a better understanding of the aspects being observed, including their relationships with broader contexts and timeframes (de Vaus 2002). A case study approach provides an opportunity to observe the holistic and detailed urban governance features of the area under investigation, namely, Jayapura, over time. Furthermore, the use of a case study provides the flexibility to utilize a range of data sources and information which are considered necessary to explore urban governance as mentioned in Chap. 2. The research was undertaken in Indonesia considering the country has shown strong growth and progress in terms of the urbanization process and accompanying urban governance arrangements. Indonesia is a fast-growing country with the fourth largest population in the world (Firman 2012) and is predicted to be among the world’s leading countries in the next decade in terms of economic growth, development and international affairs (UNDP 2015). Indonesia has been reforming governance systems from a centralized to decentralized systems (Bunnell and Goh 2013) which has included delegating governance resources and responsibilities from the main cities in Java to cities and their local government outside Java (Hudalah et al. 2014).

3.1 Methods Used During the Fieldwork

45

In the above context, Indonesia has experienced a rapid growth of mid-sized cities. To date, megacities such as Jakarta, Surabaya and Bandung have driven rapid urbanization and urban growth on Java Island and skewed Indonesia’s spatial pattern of urbanization (Firman 2012). On the other hand, mid-sized cities have been leading the urbanization process in locations outside of Java Island, playing an increasing role in terms of economic transformation and spatial development compared to the dominant cities on Java (Firman et al. 2007). Given this trend, this research addresses suggestions made by Firman et al. (2007), Bunnell and Goh (2013) and UN-Habitat in The State of Asia and Pacific Cites 2016 report to explore the nature of emerging urban governance in mid-sized cities. Based on the above, the case study is Jayapura, the capital of Papua Province, a mid-sized city in the eastern part of Indonesia with an urban population growth above the national average during the last decade (BPS 2012b). As a growth centre on the eastern boundary of Indonesia, Jayapura possesses strategic national and regional significance in terms of economy, socio-cultural assets and national defence (Government Regulation of Indonesia 26 of 2008). The selection of the case study of Jayapura is based on the alignment of the city with the issues and concerns raised in the literature concerning the planning and management of growing mid-sized cities. Jayapura was also chosen because of local research knowledge of the city by the authors, a desirable feature recognized in case study selection (Yin 2014). Several methods of data collection were used in the fieldwork comprising primary and secondary data via statistics, spatial imageries, photos, recordings, published documents and archives. These are summarized by the respective three main research questions as follows: a. Question 1: The types, processes and stakeholders involved in urban governance for basic urban service provision The methods utilized to answer research Question 1 included: a. Delineating the locations of basic urban services in formal and informal settlements as based on the criteria for defining formal and informal settlements as developed in Chap. 2. Data and information utilized in this analysis included household surveys plus secondary data sourced from government publications regarding city spatial plans. Types of settlements were delineated according to their compliance with local spatial plans, which divide settlements into formal and informal settlements. The formal settlements were residential areas as enacted and included in the spatial plans while the informal settlements were ‘unplanned’ residential areas deemed as such in the spatial plans, underlying legislation and other criteria (see Table 3.1). b. Identification of the types of urban services provided by urban governance arrangements (in terms of housing, water and sanitation):

46

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Table 3.1 Criteria used to identify settlements types in Jayapura Criteria used Comment Cluster/class/terms Legal land status

Illegal/without any consent

Squatter settlement

Extra-legal/customary consent

Informal settlement

Quality of building construction

Low quality buildings

slum

‘Not so low’ quality buildings

Informal settlement

Location

Non-urban

village

Urban-‘marginal lands’

Urban village/informal settlement/desakota Formal settlement

Compliance with spatial plans

Establishment

Formally planned as a residential area Formally recognized as ‘unplanned’ residential area

Informal settlement

Colonial constructed settlement

Urban village

Native constructed settlement

Village in the city

Source Adapted from Jones (2012), UNECE (2009), Payne (1997), UN Habitat (2016), Tyrell (2008), Wekesa et al. (2011), McGee (1991), Suhartini (2016), Nagendra (2013)

The data inputs for this area of inquiry were from secondary data sources published by the Municipal Government such as the annual development plans and household surveys regarding housing and access to water and sanitation. c. Understanding how basic urban services were accessed. This included the following inquiries: • Identifying the range of stakeholders: Information was utilized from stakeholder interviews, planning and annual development policies, laws and government regulations and household surveys. • Identifying processes and procedures: Information sourced from laws and government regulations, interviews with stakeholders and household surveys. This included formal, hybrid and informal processes and procedures used to access basic urban service provision. • Categorizing types of rules and regulations: This focused on values and norms enshrined in formal governance as well as those that are generated informally and ‘bottom-up’. Information utilized in this analysis related to formal laws and regulations where possible, interview results, as well as household surveys. • Classifying the scale of urban service: This identified identifying the scales of service provided (citywide/major infrastructure to a household scale). • Classifying types of resources: This included budget, land type, materials, manpower, equipment and technical assistance used to plan, develop and organize basic urban services. The data was sourced from related laws and government regulations, interviews with stakeholders, annual development plans and budgets and typology surveys on materials, forms and structures.

3.1 Methods Used During the Fieldwork

47

• Timing: This included the duration of planning and development of urban services in the locations observed. b. Question 2: Who and how do the stakeholders gain and benefit ‘on the ground’ from formal governance in providing basic urban services? The main method to address the above question was to examine primary data and information regarding urban governance which consisted of the following sequential steps: a. Identifying the range of stakeholders involved in urban governance processes for the basic urban service provision of housing, sanitation, roads, electricity, drainage, health and education. Data sourced included the laws and regulations regarding spatial and development planning, planning documents, interview results and household surveys, plus information relating to spatial plans and policies, development plans and policies, the organization/structure of governance within the community, including their perspectives on governance. b. Identifying the level of involvement in urban governance for the basic urban services examined. This analysis examined the stages of the planning process relevant to preparing spatial and development plans at a city level based on related laws and regulations, interview results and household surveys. c. Examining the allocation of resources especially how resources such as land, budget and manpower were distributed over time and location at the level of development projects. The main source of data for the above was from primary household surveys in formal and informal settlements. Surveys obtained included information on access to housing, water and sanitation, and access to spatial, development and sectoral plans, and issues arising in implementation. The latter included other types of governance arrangements beside the formal system including their organization and structure within the community. Interviews with key stakeholders from government and non-government as well as community leaders were also conducted to obtain additional information regarding the planning and development processes for the basic urban services as examined and the role of stakeholders in the processes. As well, this information was used to identify the groups and individuals who were impacted and gain most from the processes. Also, a descriptive analysis on time series data regarding the annual planning and development programs and projects as well as the annual evaluation reports was compiled to confirm the results with the existing planning and development activities conducted by the government. This analysis provided information regarding the planning institutions and the beneficiaries as per the formal rules and regulation as well as the realization of planning and development programs and projects. c. Question 3: For those who do not directly benefit from formal urban governance, how do individuals, groups and communities organize and access their governance to meet their basic urban service needs?

48

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

The methods utilized in addressing Question 3 included developing and analysing typologies of basic urban services, the conformity of such services to spatial plan provisions, and the results of implementation (secondary data analysis), and household surveys. The analysis of spatial plans in comparison with actual urban growth was compared to aerial images of the case study areas. The research uses typologies as a tool to identify the types of urban governance that generate varying basic urban services. Gauthier (2005) argued that types should be viewed as all-embracing notions that ‘do not surface suddenly but emerge at the end of a cycle’ (Gauthier 2005, p. 86). Types as expressed in their physical and outward appearance are both a reflection and formation of new and emerging social constructs and ideas. Thus, a type is more than just physical outcomes. It is the embodiment of ‘the rules governing the spatial configurations and material arrangement of concrete objects’ (Op cit). In other words, governance is implied in the physical and spatial features of objects including those of basic urban services. In the formal planning system, for example, spatial and development planning documents explain the types, range of stakeholders involved and the designated outcomes of particular planning interventions. Development outcomes such as physical structures (formal settlements, roads, water and other infrastructure), economic activities, and urban socio-cultural dynamics reflect the arrangements that result based on planning interventions applied to differing spatial areas. The development outcomes of formal arrangements are measured using criteria and parameters developed by formal governing institutions, such as the city planning board. On the other hand, informal settlements reflect both the processes and outcomes of planning approaches, which may not be recorded or documented. However, the process has produced urban structures and forms, including basic urban services to varying standards and has accommodated economic growth and provided a range of employment. Since there were limited evidence/written records on the planning and design process in informal settlements, the analysis sought to uncover governance arrangements and outcomes regarding basic urban services by tracking ‘back’ through the development sequences that created the basic urban services. In this setting, the typology survey of basic urban services in informal settlements aimed to identify and capture their physical features, forms and structures and align them with the governance arrangements by which they were produced. The surveys identified the types and usability of housing and local water and sanitation infrastructure, connectivity, alleyway patterns, setbacks, the economy and public–private interface and commonality on the governance driving their forms and types. The typologies of basic urban services in the settlements observed provide information regarding the diversity of development output and outcomes. Since there was limited written information recorded by the government regarding the development activities conducted by the residents in informal settlements, the identification of development outcomes ‘on the ground’ would provide a detailed description regarding the types of urban basic services, their scales and usefulness/utility. This analysis combined with the results of the household survey would provide further insights into how urban governance works.

3.1 Methods Used During the Fieldwork

49

In terms of measuring the benefits of urban governance in informal settlements, the criteria of ‘good urban governance’ were based on the information regarding developments that ‘work’ and ‘do not work’ in informal settlements for each type of basic urban service. This was sourced from the household survey results. Household surveys collected information regarding the socio-cultural and household perspectives on governance arrangements. Within this setting, the outputs of this analysis in informal settlements included: • area and distribution of informal settlements; • typologies, as described in the following sections; • information on processes, structures, networks and relationships among individuals, groups and communities; • the drivers, causes and scope of urban governance; and • perceptions and feedback of residents regarding the nature of urban governance, both formal and informal. The process used to explore the scope of urban governance practiced outside of formal government mechanisms was divided into two parts: Part A a. Identifying individuals and/or groups in informal settlements which used and accessed formal governance. Data and information were obtained from household surveys regarding access to planning policies, access to other types of arrangements, organization of governance in the community, housing, access to basic urban services, socio-cultural aspects and perceptions on governance. b. Exploring how groups and individuals organized themselves in accessing governance to meet their basic urban needs. This comprised of understanding the processes, structures, networks, and relationships, the reasons/drivers, as well as the purposes. The sequence to achieve this as adopted in this research was as follows: • Identifying types of basic urban services seen as important by groups or/and individuals, as based on the results of household surveys and interviews. This would assist in understanding the following: i. Processes, such as egalitarian, bottom-up and simpler procedures, were applied. ii. Governance structures, either hierarchical or non-hierarchical. iii. Networks of stakeholders, including to what extent was their involvement and based on what criteria (clan/job/religion/education/gender). iv. Relationships among stakeholders, thus reflecting the level and potential degree of interaction, such as among individuals/groups, formal/informal. • Identifying the reasons, drivers, and backgrounds of the self-governance arrangements as based on household results for identifying levels, scale and relevance of governance.

50

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Part B Identifying the outcomes of community and/or self-governance. This was reflected in: • Basic urban services in the settlements. This consisted of an analysis of the typologies of urban forms and structures in four informal settlements as based on the types, forms and structures of housing and infrastructures observed, as well as the types of public–private interface (alleyways–houses–infrastructure). These outcomes compared forms and structures as observed in formal and informal settlements. • Relationship between basic urban services and types of governance. This was then utilized as an input for analyzing overall governance types in managing settlements. Features of governance analysed included arrangements on land tenure and uses, and communal rules and principles impacting public–private interface and livelihood issues. The focus was understanding the scope of rules, regulations and consensus in planning and managing settlements which fall outside the ambit of formal governance arrangements.

3.2 Jayapura: Geography and Administrative Status The area of study is Jayapura Municipality, Papua, Indonesia. Jayapura or ‘glorious city’ is the capital of Papua Province, Indonesia, and in this research, the case study area will be termed Jayapura. The name and meaning of the Jayapura locality have been changed over time, with the native name of Jayapura being Bau O Bwai (Kambu et al. 2009), while the native tribes of Jayapura calling the locality ‘Numbay’. The name Numbay was replaced by Captain Sachse, a Dutch military commander on 7 March 1910, with ‘Hollandia’ as the geography of Jayapura was seen to resemble that found in parts of the Netherlands. The name Hollandia then was changed to Kota Baru, meaning ‘New Town’ when Papua was taken over from the Dutch by the Indonesian government on 1 March 1963. In 1969, the locality was changed again to Soekarnopura, named after the first president of Indonesia, Soekarno. In 1975, it was changed back to Jayapura and that name has remained since. The earliest written records of Jayapura originate from 1768 when L.A. de Bougainville led an expedition from France to Latin America ( Siagian 1978) and was followed by other expeditions who left their identity on the landscape. Humboldt Gulf, for example, was named after the explorer, van Humboldt (Op cit).

3.2 Jayapura: Geography and Administrative Status

51

3.2.1 Geography Jayapura, located between 137° 27 –141° 41 East Longitude and 1° 27 –3° 49 East Latitude, is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the north, the District of Depapre as contained in Jayapura Regency to the west, Papua New Guinea to the east, and the District of Arso in Keerom Regency to the south. (See Fig. 3.1 regarding the administrative area of Jayapura.) The topography of Jayapura varies from gentle to hilly and steep slopes. Hilly and undulating slopes are dominant in the northern part, while lower lands including wetlands dominate the eastern portion of Jayapura. There are some 17 rivers flowing across the city, with Muara Tami River being the largest and the longest. The rivers combined with hilly to steep slopes contribute to regular and irregular flooding in Jayapura. Being located in a tropical climate zone, Jayapura experiences two seasons over the year: wet and dry. The temperature ranges between 27and 32 °C, with an average humidity of 80%. The number of rainy days was 233 days in 2013, with an average precipitation of 4095 mm (BPS Kota Jayapura 2014).

3.2.2 Administrative Status Jayapura is the capital of Papua Province Indonesia with a municipal area of 940 km2 . Jayapura was enacted as an autonomous municipality by National Law 6 of 1993, and then comprised of 4 districts, 20 kelurahans and 11 kampungs.1 By 2006, Jayapura consisted of five administrative district areas, namely, North Jayapura, South Jayapura, Heram, Abepura and Muara Tami. Recent expansion has meant that Jayapura in 2017 now comprises 25 kelurahans and 14 kampungs. See Table 3.2 and Fig. 3.2 for details on the administrative area of Jayapura Municipality.

1 Each district consists of sub-districts/villages called kelurahan and kampung. A Kelurahan is a sub-district administrative area established by formal government, while a kampung is a sub-district area based on traditional boundaries. The head of a kelurahan is appointed by the government, while the head of a kampung is appointed or elected by the community. These villages have administrative governing structures comprising the official government and village consultation board. In terms of a Kelurahan, the head of a Kelurahan carries out his/her duties according to formal government rules and regulations. While the head of a Kampung (usually the Ondoafi) conducts his duties according to local traditional rules and regulations. The village consultation board (Badan Musyawarah Kampung) is responsible for providing advice and assistance to the head of a Kampung, including the rules and regulations, as well as acquiring periodical reports from the head of a Kampung.

Fig. 3.1 Indonesia and Jayapura (pinned). Source Google Earth (2016)

52 3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

3.2 Jayapura: Geography and Administrative Status

53

Table 3.2 Administrative areas of Jayapura municipality No.

District

Administrative status Kampung

1.

South Jayapura

Kelurahan 1. Angkasapura

6.44

2. Trikora

1,90

3. Mandala 4. Tanjung Ria

13.24 1.46

5. Imbi 6. Bhayangkara

0.34 13.57

7. Gurabesi

7.05 7.00

1. Kayu Batu 2.

North Jayapura

8. Numbay

51.00 9.30

9. Argapura

3.70

10. Hamadi 11. Ardipura

7.10 16.30

12. Entrop

2.70

2. Tobati 3. Tahima Soroma 3.

Abepura

Area (km2 )

2.50 1.80

13. Asano

43.40 12.07

14. Awiyo

9,98

15. Abepantai

2.90

16. Kota Baru 17. Yobe

13.08 6,50

18. VIM 10.22 19. Wahno 5.90 20. Waymhorock 5.80

4.

4. Enggros

19.05

5. Nafri 6. Koya Koso

34.16 36.04

Muara Tami

21. East Koya

155.70 110.50

22. West Koya

62,70

7. Holtekamp

63.30

8. Skouw Sae 9. Skouw Yambe 10. Skouw Mabo 11. Koya Tengah

72.70 81.50 87.70 75.60

12. Moso

72.70 (continued)

54

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Table 3.2 (continued) No.

District

Administrative status Kampung

5.

Heram

Kelurahan 23. Hedam 24. Yabansai 25. Waena

13. Waena 14. Yoka Total administrative area of Jayapura

Area (km2 ) 626.70 22,05 12.43 14.24 4.36 10.12 63.20 940.00

Source Adapted from RTRW Kota Jayapura (2014)

3.3 Land Use Jayapura’s land use is dominated by a combination of settlement and conservation areas. Conservation areas include open space and forests, while settlement areas comprise the designated urban area. The total urban area of Jayapura Municipality is approximately 23% of the total administrative area (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014). The urban areas are mainly located in the Districts of North Jayapura, South Jayapura, Abepura and Heram. On the other hand, the District Muara Tami, which has the largest administrative area (66.67% of the total municipal area), shares the lowest proportion of urban settlement. See Table 3.3 and Fig. 3.3 for details on Jayapura’s land use.

3.4 Population The population of Jayapura prior to World War I was approximately 300 persons and grew to 16,000 persons during the period up to and during World War II (Kambu et al. 2009). Concurrent with post-war development, Jayapura’s population increased dramatically in the late 1940s. At that time, Papuans had the largest population, followed by Europeans and Asiatic (New Guinea Institute 1958). Jayapura is the most populated city in Papua Province, with approximately 98% of the population residing in urban areas (BPS 2012a). A significant growth in Jayapura commenced at the beginning of the 1990s (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014) as urban growth in the main islands of Indonesia declined due to in-migration, and migration to less populated provinces such as Papua was encouraged (BPS 2012a). Jayapura started to grow significantly after being enacted as an autonomous administrative area in 1993 (Kambu et al. 2009).

Fig. 3.2 Administrative boundaries of Jayapura. Source RTRW Kota Jayapura (2014)

3.4 Population 55

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Fig. 3.3 Land use plan

56

3.4 Population

57

Table 3.3 Land use of Jayapura Zones Uses Conservation areas Conservation/water reserves

Water catchment area

Mt. Djar Reserve

7656.25

Abepura Reserve

560.00

Natural Cons. Area of Mt. Cyclop

22,500.00

Bougenville Reserve

35,931.75

Natural parks

10,884.15

Cultural conservation area Landslide hazard area Abrasion area Restrictive industrial forestry Settlements Agricultural land

Mining

Area (ha)

1675.00 4166.14 27.58 27,016.19 Food crops

10,983.47

Gardens Fishery

4292.39 1641.21

Iron

5049.87

Karst

26,800.00

Gravels

32,000.00

Bentonite Clay

1000.00 28,000.00

Tourism Settlement Office Trade and service Cemetery

252.90 4095.15 126.25 252.49 20.00

Total

94,000.00

Source Adapted from RTRW Kota Jayapura (2014)

3.4.1 Total Population As noted, Jayapura maintains the largest proportion of urban population in Papua, with a total population of 272,554 persons in 2013. Similarly, Jayapura has the highest growth rate of population in Papua Province with an annual growth between 2.44 and 4.4% per year (BPS Kota Jayapura 2014) (Table 3.4).

58

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Table 3.4 Population of Jayapura, 2013 No. District Administrative status Kampung 1.

North Jayapura

Kelurahan 1. Angkasapura 2. Trikora 3. Mandala 4. Tanjung Ria 5. Imbi

1.90 13.24 1.46

5397 5144 14,231

0.34

10,053

6. Bhayangkara

13.57

13,117

7.05

16,317

7.00

313

51.00

69,099

8. Numbay

9.30

8866

9. Argapura

3.70

7642

10. Hamadi

7.10

19,983

11. Ardipura

16.30

17,167

2.70

16,758

2.50 1.80

190 572

43.40

71,178

12. Entrop 2. Tobati 3. Tahima Soroma 3.

Abepura

Population (persons) 4527

7. Gurabesi

South Jayapura

(km2) 6.44

1. Kayu Batu 2.

Area

13. Asano

12.07

7842

14. Awiyo

9.98

12,776

15. Abepantai

2.90

2957

16. Kota Baru 17. Yobe 18.VIM

13.08 6.50 10.22

8585 7876 14,308

19. Wahno 20. Waymhorock

5.90 5.80

8614 9891

4. Enggros

19.05

421

5. Nafri 6. Koya Koso

34.16 36.04

1422 2878

155.70

77,570 (continued)

3.4 Population

59

Table 3.4 (continued) No. District 4.

Administrative status

Area

Kampung

Kelurahan

(km2)

Population (persons)

21. Koya Timur 22. Koya Barat

110.50

3527

62.70

4677

7. Holtekamp

63.30

1040

8. Skouw Sae 9. Skouw Yambe 10. Skouw Mabo 11. Koya Tengah

72.70 81.50

587 602

87.70

601

75.60

386

72.70 626.70

449 11,869

23. Hedam

22.05

11,528

24. Yabansai

12.43

10,658

25. Waena

14.24

16,668

4.36 10.12 63.20

1832 2142 42,828

940.00

272,544

Muara Tami

12. Moso 5.

Heram

13. Waena 14. Yoka Total area and population of Jayapura Source Adapted from BPS Kota Jayapura (2014)

3.4.2 Population Density and Distribution Much of Jayapura’s population reside in the designated urban areas which represent some 22.67% of the total city area (BPS Kota Jayapura 2013). Jayapura’s population density can be classified as medium density with 290 persons/km2 in 2013. In terms of spatial density patterns, the District of South Jayapura has the highest population density (1640 persons/km2 ), followed by the District of North Jayapura (1355 persons/km2 ), Heram (678 persons/km2 ) and Abepura (498 persons/km2 ). The district area with the lowest density is Muara Tami (19 persons/km2 ) which is dominated by rural and conservation uses. See Table 3.5 for details. In 2013, the number of households in Jayapura was 64,209 households, with the male population 143,848 persons and the female population 128,696 persons. The sex ratio in 2013 was 112, meaning the male population was 112 males to every 100 females. Population was dominated by those in the age range of 20–34 years, and the proportion of elderly (>55 years old) ranked lowest (BPS Kota Jayapura 2014). The average number of people in one household was 4.24 persons during the period 2010–2013.

60

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Table 3.5 Population density of Jayapura, 2013 No.

District

Population (persons)

Area (km2 )

Pop. density (persons/km2 )

1.

North Jayapura

69,099

51

1355

2.

South Jayapura

71,178

43.4

1640

3.

Abepura

77,570

155.7

498

4.

Muara Tami

11,869

626.7

19

5.

Heram

42,828

63.2

678

272,544

940

290

Total Source Adapted from BPS (2014)

3.4.3 Social Facilities and Human Development Index (HDI) Jayapura has a wide range of social facilities for education, health, religion and other community activities at a provincial level of service. The education participation rate in 2013 was respectively, 98.60, 92.60 and 68.00% for primary, secondary and high schools, with a ratio of students/teachers of 23, 22, and 11 students per one teacher respectively. The vocational schools show a higher ratio of students/teachers, namely, 6 students per one teacher. At a university level, the ratio between students and teachers is 11 students per one teacher. Regarding the Human Development Index (HDI), Jayapura shows an increasing level of HDI from 74.56 in 2008 to 75.16 in 2009 and 75.56 in 2010 (BPS Kota Jayapura 2011). According to the standards of the HDI published by the United Nations, Jayapura can be categorized as a city with an upper-medium level of HDI. See Table 3.6.

3.5 Socio-cultural Aspects Jayapura has a distinctive socio-cultural identity in terms of the diversity of ethnic backgrounds and mix of customary and other landownership. These enduring aspects influence the urban dynamics, including daily interaction among residents as well as the land development and management systems. Notwithstanding Jayapura’s position as a mid-sized city, the urban population in Jayapura is highly diverse for its size. Local rules, norms and values especially those embedded into customary land arrangements for indigenous inhabitant remain prominent and respected.

3.5 Socio-cultural Aspects

61

3.5.1 Ethnic Mix Jayapura’s population includes various ethnic backgrounds not only from Papua Province but also from other parts of Indonesia such as Makassar, Toraja, Manado, Buton, Padang, Ambon, Ternate, Batak, Jawa and Chinese (BPS Kota Jayapura 2012). Native Papuans possess the Melanesian physical characteristics of dark skin and curly hair, with an average height of 165–175 cm for men and 155–165 cm for women. Jayapura’s native tribes reside and claim landownership across all districts of the city. The District of North Jayapura is inhabited by the Kayubatu Tribe while the District of South Jayapura and Abepura belong to the Enggros Tobati Tribe which comprise the following clans: Hamadi, Ireeuw, Afaar, Hasor, Dawir, Hay, Itaar, Mano, Injama, Merauje, Iwo, Sanyi, Drunyi, Habubuk, Hanasbey, Srem-srem, Sembra and Samay. Kampung Tahima Soroma belongs just in the tribes of Sibi, Haay, Youwe, dan Sorok, while the Nafri tribe resides in Kampung Nafri, Abepura. The District of Heram is inhabited by the Sentani tribe, who are mainly from the area of Jayapura Regency on the western border of Jayapura City. The District of Muara Tami is inhabited by several native tribes such as Malo Membilong, Palora, Awe and Kemo in Kampung Skouw Mabo; Rolo, Patipeme, Ramela, Membilong and Pae in Kampung Skouw Yambe; the tribes of Nali, Mutang, Lomo, Reto and Palora in Kampung Skouw Sae. On the Indonesia-PNG border to the east of Jayapura, the native tribe of Nyao resides in Kampung Mosso. West and East Koya is inhabited by the native tribe of Rolo. The history of Papuan tribes in Jayapura has been recorded since the sixteenth century primarily by Portuguese explorers. The initial local settlements of Jayapura were called Enggros and Tobati and were in the area now called South Jayapura District. Tobati or ‘Tubadij’ means men are being here or my village. Enggros of ‘Injros’ comprises two words: ‘Inj’ (place) and ‘Ros’ (two) meaning second village

Table 3.6 Human Development Index in Jayapura municipality 2008–2013 No. Component 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2013

1.

Longevity expectation (years)

68.23

68.34

68.46

68.61

68.77

68.77

2.

Literacy (%)

99.09

99.3

99.58

99.83

99.84

99.86

3.

Length of education (years)

10.86

10.88

11

11.03

11.06

11.07

4.

Real expenditure (000Rupiah)

625.93

632.54

636.93

641.78

74.56

75.16

75.76

76.29

HDI

644.8

76.64

650.99

77.12

Source Adapted from IPM dan Analisis Situasi Pembangunan Manusia Kota Jayapura, BPS Kota Jayapura (2011, 2013)

62

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

or second home. A village of the same name as Tobati was first built by the native tribes of Drunyi and Sanyi. At that time, the local language was the Tobati language and Pidgin English. Pidgin English is mainly spoken by Papuans who often cross the border of Indonesia-PNG as their families reside and are scattered along the border region. The practice of local Papuans who used the native language of Tobati has declined dramatically over time. The Malay language which forms the origin of the Indonesian language has been spoken actively by the people of Tobati since 1855 concurrent with Christian missionary activity during that time. Nowadays, Bahasa Indonesia is the main language spoken and practised in Jayapura. Historically, the native tribes of Port Numbay ate Sagu (or sago) and seafood as their main sources of food. Sagu forest was abundantly found across the city until the late 1990s when much land clearing took place. Fishing and Sagu harvesting have been the main livelihoods for the native tribes of Port Numbay. Nowadays, Sagu forest is difficult to find in Jayapura as Sagu forest in several locations such as those in Kotaraja and Entrop have declined as urban settlements have expanded. Sagu as the main source of food has also been replaced by rice, corn, sweet potatoes and other imported sources of food.

3.5.2 Customary Landownership Customary landownership provides indigenous landowners the rights to control and utilize the natural resources as well as local cultural assets that exist within their localities. This also includes the governance of economic resources such as forests, crops and mines. Customary landownership in Jayapura initially belonged solely to the six native tribes of Kayu Pulo, Kayu Batu, Enggros, Tobati, Nafri and Skou (LPPM UNHAS 2010). In the new millennium, Jayapura now comprises thirteen native tribes (see Table 3.7) which have their own customary landownership rights (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2012). Customary rights in Jayapura can be best described as communal rights. Arrangements for customary rights are led by the Heads of tribes, namely, an Ondoafi. Every Ondoafi leads his tribe within an agreed governance structure including leadership protocols. In governing the community, an Ondoafi is assisted by sub-leaders, called Koselo. Customary rights consider land as a communal property and land remains under the single custodianship of the Ondoafi, regardless of the family size. Families in the tribe only have the rights to gain benefits from crops, harvest and other materials extracted from the land (LPPM UNHAS 2010). See Fig. 3.4 for areas of customary land in Jayapura. There is limited documentation regarding customary land boundaries in Jayapura. The traditional boundaries are demarcated by natural features and landmarks, such as large trees, streams and rivers, hilltops and mountains, rocks, access tracks and betel nut or sago tree lines. A recent study by LPPM UNHAS (2010) shows that the Tobati Enggros Clan owns the largest forest area (2894.30 ha), and the Tobati Laut tribe owns the smallest forest area. See Table 3.8 for details.

Fig. 3.4 Main customary land boundary in Jayapura

3.5 Socio-cultural Aspects 63

64

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

Local knowledge regarding customary land boundaries is preserved by members of the local community and rarely shared with those outside these communities. Awareness of the importance of customary land boundaries has increased since the enactment of Law 21 of 2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua. The Law acknowledges the existence of Papuan customary rights to govern their traditional lands including natural resources. However, limited records on customary land boundaries have led to issues and disputes about landownership. This includes issues of overlapping claims upon particular areas of customary land, especially when the land is bought by and or rented to people outside of the tribe. A common approach utilized to resolve such disputes is mediation and the negotiation on land as led by an Ondoafi and elder members of the tribe.

3.6 The Urban Economy The urban economy in Jayapura is generated and underpinned by secondary and tertiary economic sectors, primarily services, trade and finance (BPS 2012b). Jayapura’s urban economic growth as reflected in the growth of economic sectors as measured in Gross Domestic Regional Product (GDRP) and GDRP per capita, generally shows a positive trend during 2006–2012. In terms of formal economic sectors as contained in Jayapura’s GDRP, the building sector has been the main contributor to the urban economy, contributing 23.69% of the total economy. This is followed by services (21.35%); transportation and communications (19.01%); and trade, hotel and restaurants (18.13%). During the period of 2007–2010, the transportation and communication sectors grew positively, while the finance, leasing and corporate services sectors showed fluctuating growth.

Table 3.7 Native tribes in Jayapura No. Tribe name

Head of tribe

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Skow Sae Skow Mabo Skow Yambe Nafri Warke Nafri Sembekra Yoka Waena Tobati Laut Tobati Enggros

Amos Lomo Yans Mallo Abisai Rollo Jors Awi Somi Awi Yohanes K. Mebri Ramses Ohee Yacob Ireeuw Herman Hamadi

10.

Kayu Batu

Rudolf Makanway

11.

Kayu Pulo Sibi

Gaspe Sibi

12.

Kayu Pulo Youwe

Nikolas Youwe

13.

Koya Koso

Matias M. Wemsom

Source Derived from Laporan Akhir Pemetaan Hak Ulayat Tanah Kota Jayapura, Tahun (2010)

3.6 The Urban Economy Table 3.8 Area of customary land in conservation zones in Jayapura

65 No.

Tribe

Total area (ha)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Skow Sae Skow Mabo Skow Yambe Nafri Warke Nafri Sembekra Yoka Waena Tobati Laut Tobati Enggros

656.87 172.86 345.72 864.3 691.44 587.72 1424.65 – 2894.30

10

Kayu Batu

2251.12

11

Kayu Pulo Sibi

770.5

12

Kayu Pulo Youwe

616.4

13

Kayu Koso

1695.10

Total

12,970.98

Source Derived from Hasil Pemetaan Hak Ulayat Masyarakat Port Numbay LPPM UNHAS (2010)

Fig. 3.5 GDRP performance in Jayapura (%). Source Adapted from BPS Kota Jayapura (2012)

Other sectors such as mining and quarries, manufacturing, electricity and ‘clean water’ have a low proportion compared to the other dominant sectors (below 4% on average). GDRP analysis provided by BPS also highlights potential sectors such as fishery and maritime, as well as tourism. See Table 3.9 and Fig. 3.5.

19.43

20.43

11.59

19.48 100

9.08

13.54

48.28

5.47 13.21

32.05 16.53

16.12

14.17

9.51

17.61

2.58

5.96

12.85

5.22

G

20.35 100

15.36

18.43

17.75

19.41

0.43

3.24

0.47

4.56

2009 S

28.95 22.49

65.78

14.5

11.14

18.65

4.69

7.08

7.84

4.77

G

Source Compiled from BPS Kota Jayapura (2011), S  structure; G  growth

18.58

15.91

3.81

17.87

0.65

Electricity and clean water Buildings

6.61

0.55

Trade, hotel and 20.04 restaurant Transportation 21.6 and communication Finance, leasing 11.12 and corporate services Services 17.24 Total 100

4.33

Manufacturing

6.29

5.59

2008 S

0.54

0.58

Mining and quarries

4.54

G

4.55

6.57

2007 S

Agriculture

Sectors

Table 3.9 Economic structure and growth by sectors 2007–2012 (%)

21.35 100

9.56

19,01

18.13

23.69

0.38

3.14

0.47

4.26

2010 S

14.13 7.93

28.61

15.55

10.7

19.99

4.02

7.81

8.44

7.88

G

20.56 100

11.03

19.37

18.6

22.38

0.37

3.08

0.47

4.14

2011 S

14.31 12.59

35.26

13.4

9.64

14.53

3.93

7.01

7.61

7.61

G

17.71 100

10.74

19.69

19.35

25.06

0.33

2.75

0.46

3.91

2012 S

7.97 9.84

11.91

15.37

12

17.65

5.35

3.37

8.59

6.31

G

66 3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

3.6 The Urban Economy

67

During the 2006–2012 period, GDRP per capita has fluctuated. The average growth of GDRP per capita is 17.81% per annum with the highest percentage in 2009 (26.81%) and the lowest rate in 2010 (10.9%). Concurrent with the formal economic sectors, the informal economy has contributed approximately 60% of Jayapura’s urban economy (Lamba 2011). The informal economy consists of economic activities conducted by ‘unregistered’ traders of which the Municipal Government keeps a register. This list includes unregistered street vendors (kaki lima), fixed stands and permanent shops. Other informal economic activity in Jayapura includes the subsistence economy, such as gardening and farming which is mainly undertaken by migrants from highland Papua. Lamba (2011) states that the informal economy has been a key contributing factor to the increase of per capita income and has assisted in exceeding the average regional income. The informal sector provides a major role in generating adequate income to cover household daily expenses and to support ‘extended’ family members in their hometowns and/or villages. The informal sector in Jayapura also shows high productivity as the vendor’s income reaches two to four times the production costs. The informal economy also provides flexibility in terms of the required entry level, and the basic levels of resources and skills needed for participation. Informal trading also provides a variety of goods with affordable prices with informal vendors often adapting their ways of trading to cover the buyer’s needs in the dispersed settlements of Jayapura—for example, buying boxes of bulk goods such as soap and washing powder, and breaking them down into small quantities for sale. Importantly, approximately 75% of Papuan women work in the informal sector to support their family’s economy (Lamba 2011). In accordance with Law 21 of 2001 regarding Special Autonomy in Papua, the government provides special regulations for Papuan street vendors and other economic activities run by Papuans. Based on the Law, the government supports the informal economy run by Papuans by building stalls and markets for local Papuan street vendors, mainly women, so they can trade in the city centre and designated settlement markets.

3.7 Urbanization in Jayapura Modern settlement development in Jayapura can be considered as commencing in the mid-1800s. The first recorded landing by foreigners was in 1858 by the Dutch explorer van der Goes, after which the Dutch decided to build offices for a colonial administration (Siagian 1978). From that period, the Dutch government actively established administrative buildings and basic infrastructure such as local markets. The first ‘planned’ European settlement was built in 1909, leveraging off its main functions as a military camp, hospital and homestays for soldiers and officers. Concurrent with formal town development, houses were built by people working outside of the government and to ‘contain’ those local Papuans living in the surrounding areas on fringes of the main settlement.

68

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

During the period of Dutch occupation, Jayapura or Hollandia as it was then known was positioned as the capital for Dutch administration in the West Papua region (New Guinea Institute 1958). The Hollandia Division consisted of the capital district of Hollandia and several subdivisions or districts, namely, Tobati, Sentani, Demta, Wembi, Jamas, Jafi and Waris (Ibid, p. 19). Much of the population in Jayapura worked for the servicing of the government, including the military. The Dutch colonial government and its allies invested largely in defence and military facilities, including the provision of modern settlements for officers and soldiers. Infrastructure development during this period also included harbour and airport expansion. The Port of Hollandia was the busiest Dutch harbour in the Pacific region, not only for military purposes but also for economic activity. Hollandia was positioned as a military fortress to cover colonies in the Pacific region as well as an important hub connecting the west and eastern parts of Indonesia, as well as South East Asia and the Pacific. Several locations in the Papua region still retain names introduced from World War II, thus reflecting the prominence of Jayapura for both defence and economic development during that period. The United States (US) army developed main roads connecting Jayapura and Abepura in 1925, which was then followed by the establishment of additional settlements in Jayapura comprising 300 houses for soldiers and officers in 1930 (New Guinea Institute 1958). All buildings were destroyed during World War II, however, urbanization continued to focus on the strategic location of Jayapura. After World War II, the US Army continued to build new housing for Europeans and local workers. The first formal settlement built after World War II was called ‘Base G’ and was aimed at providing an allied defence base utilizing a model of dispersed infrastructure and facilities around Jayapura and the coastal hinterland (Ibid, p. 73). Other types of formal settlements were also developed for different government worker groups. Settlements in Polimak were built to house European officers in 1950, while settlements in Hamadi were built for local non-Dutch officers in 1956. As well, a settlement was built to contain housing for senior government officers in 1958 in Dok V. In the other parts of Dok V closer to the sea, a housing compound was built as an education centre along with housing for teachers and other civil servants. Other settlements such as the American Post Office (APO) settlement were built in 1947 for both local and European workers. Concurrent with the growth in economic activity, informal settlements in Jayapura have been rising alongside formal settlement development. An informal settlement comprising Christian Javanese was noted as first being developed with a church and housing in the hills adjoining the APO settlement in 1949. According to the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014, these and other unauthorized settlements that have now flourished and are categorized as ‘unplanned settlements’. These settlements in the main are located in fringe urban lands and conservation areas, including undeveloped pockets of land allocated for residential use in planned areas. Informal settlers also build shelters and kiosks in public spaces, such as in parks and waterways (Jones and Suhartini 2014a). Informal settlements in and adjoining the built-up urban areas also utilize public land such as parks, roadside reserves, pedestrian paths, river floodplains and coastal

3.7 Urbanization in Jayapura

69

areas in urbanized districts such as North Jayapura, South Jayapura, Abepura and Heram. Settler groups have also encroached onto formal public facilities, such as the city markets in Entrop, Gurabesi, Dok IX, Hamadi and the public transport terminals in Youtefa and Entrop. This includes modifying space in these areas to residential use (Ibid, p. 101). The settlements of the native tribes in Jayapura were originally confined to 3 native villages, namely, Enggros, Tobati and Kayu Pulo (Siagian 1978). As of 2005, the settlements comprising native tribes were considered as formal settlements and are now dispersed across 14 native villages (kampungs) in Jayapura, namely, Kayu Batu, Tobati, Kayu Pulo, Tahima Soroma, Enggros, Nafri, Skow Sae, Skow Mabo, Skow Yambe, Holtekamp, Mosso, Koya Koso, Waena and Yoka (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014). Jayapura has maintained its prominence after the period of Dutch government by being designated as the capital of Papua Province (Kambu et al. 2009). After the handover from the Dutch to the Indonesian Government in 1963, Jayapura has attracted many migrants from other localities in Papua and other islands in Indonesia. Urban settlements in Jayapura, formal and informal, have been growing since that time with the main formal settlements located in the settlement areas initially developed by the Dutch Government in the colonial era. According to the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014 (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014), the area considered as accommodating formal planned settlement is 14,011.32 ha or 14.91% of the total city area. Figure 3.6 shows the current locations of informal settlements.

3.8 Summary The city of Jayapura has been growing significantly since the Dutch colonial occupation in the early 1900s. The land use of Jayapura is unique in that it is dominated by conservation areas and urban settlement, the latter concentrated in four districts in the western part of Jayapura, namely, North Jayapura, South Jayapura, Abepura and Heram. The Jayapura Municipal Government continuously expands residential areas initially allocated by the Dutch government and this is reflected in the current Jayapura Spatial Plans. However, concurrent with formal development, informal settlements have grown rapidly, including emerging in locations which are not considered as appropriate residential areas by the government and hence, not included in the Spatial Plans. Jayapura maintains the largest proportion of urban population as well as the highest growth rate of population in Papua. Despite migration policies, Jayapura’s population remains dominated by Papuans followed by other ethnic groups, comprising diverse backgrounds and a rich composition of culture and customs. The urban population live as individual families and/or in groups, depending on their ethnic and socio-cultural backgrounds. Residents occupy settlement areas according to their needs, affordability and whether the location mimics attachment to their place of origin. With approximately 98% of the total population in Jayapura residing in urban areas punctuated by diverse topography of hills, foot slopes and a strip of coastal hinterland, the urban settlements are dense.

Fig. 3.6 Planned and informal settlements in Jayapura

70 3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

3.8 Summary

71

Customary rights in Jayapura remain preserved by the native tribes, namely, the Port Numbay community. Customary rights govern customary landownership and the use of natural resources by the native tribes of Jayapura. Customary landownership in Jayapura is protected and has been considerably enhanced by Law 21 of 2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua. Jayapura contributes to the national economy and sustains a major function as a national growth centre for eastern Indonesia. Jayapura’s economy has been highly driven by the investment in secondary and tertiary sectors, such as services, finance, transportation and building. Jayapura provides a wide range of social facilities for education, health, religion and other social activities at a provincial level of service.2 Jayapura has a strategic position for national defence as the city shares an international borders with PNG and Palau. The importance of Jayapura and Papua in terms of defence and national security is reflected in the large investment in defence facilities initiated by the Dutch government in the early 1900s and has been well maintained by the Indonesian government since that time. The borders function as an international gateway for travellers, as well as to maintain traditional travel by Papuan tribes from Papua to PNG and vice versa. Jayapura has continuously experienced rapid urbanization despite the different influences of administrative and political situations. Rapid urbanization was generated by modern development commencing after World War II. Formal and informal settlements have grown concurrently over time across four districts in the western part of Jayapura, while native villages remain located in the initial settlements both on coastal and inland urban areas. The government applies a hierarchical structure of formal governance in conducting spatial planning and development planning processes to provide strong links and control among the different tiers of formal governance in Jayapura. National government establishes laws and guidelines in terms of the provision of programs and projects and budget allocation. Lower tiers of government implement these in terms of preparing, enacting, controlling and evaluating the processes of planning and development. The laws and regulations in terms of spatial and development planning arrangements show a complex and hierarchical arrangement that has been applied to these domains. They are complex in terms of providing layers of organization, structures and sets of procedures that include some urban areas and their populations and exclude others. The structures and procedures follow hierarchical steps, either from national to regional or vice versa (Hudalah and Woltjer 2007). In this setting, Jayapura faces urban challenges similar to other developing mid-sized cities in Asia and the Pacific, including rapid urbanization, an increasing and diverse urban population, plus overcrowded urban settlements and the persistence of informal settlements. In the above setting, Chap. 4 explains the types, processes and outputs of the formal governance system in Jayapura so as to accommodate the basic urban service demands of urban residents. 2 The

Human Development Index (HDI) of Jayapura is categorized at an upper-medium level in terms of human resource development as a result of large investment in education, health and infrastructure since Jayapura was enacted as an autonomous municipality in 1993.

72

3 An Introduction to Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia

References Bappeda Kota Jayapura (2012) RIPPDA Kota Jayapura BPS Kota Jayapura (2011) PDRB Kota Jayapura BPS Kota Jayapura (2012, 2013, 2014) Jayapura Dalam Angka BPS (2011, 2013) IPM Kota Jayapura BPS (2012a) Human development index (HDI) by province and national, 1996–2010. From http:// www.bps.go.id/eng/menutab.php?tabel=1&kat=1&id_subyek=26 BPS (2012b) Number and percentage of poor people, poverty line, poverty gap index, poverty severity index by province 2007–2009 (March), 2010–2011. Retrieved 25 September 2012, from http://www.bps.go.id/eng/menutab.php?tabel=1&kat=1&id_subyek=23 Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research, vol 2. Thousand oaks: SAGE Publications De Vaus DA (2002) Surveys in social research, vol 5. Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin Firman T (2012) Urbanization and urban development patterns. The Jakarta Post. Sat, May 12 2012. From http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/12/urbanization-and-urbandevelopment-patterns.html Firman T, Kombaitan B, Pradono P (2007) The Dynamics of Indonesia’s Urbanisation, 1980–2006. Urban Policy and Research, 25(4): 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140701540752 Gauthier P (2005) Conceptualizing the social construction of urban and architectural forms through the typological process. Urban Morphology 9(2): 83–93 Handbook On Netherlands New Guinea/New Guinea Institute of Rotterdam (1958) Netherlands U6--ctx_ver=Z39.88–2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.title= Handbook+On+Netherlands+New+Guinea+%2F+New+Guinea+Institute+of+Rotterdam&rft.date =1958&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=b41396418¶mdict=en-USU7-Book Hudalah D, Woltjer J (2007) Spatial planning system in transitional Indonesia. Int Plan Stud 12(3):291–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470701640176 Hudalah D, Firman T, & Woltjer J (2014) Cultural cooperation, Institution building and metropolitan governance in decentralizing indonesia. Int. J Urban and Reg. Res., 38(6): 2217–2234. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12096 Jones P (2012) Pacific Urbanisation and the Rise of Informal Settlements: Trends and Implications from Port Moresby. Urban Policy and Research 30 (2):145–160 Jones P, Suhartini N (2014a) Reframing approaches to conceptualising urban governance in Melanesia: Insights from Jayapura and Port Moresby. Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota 25(2): 96–114 Kambu MR, Kambuaya WW, Sagala TMH, Tambaip B, Pasaribu TH, Karim S, Aminah RS (2009) Satu Abad Kota Jayapura Membangun (1910–2010). Indomedia Global, Jakarta Lamba A (2011) Fleksibilitas dan pooduktivitas sektor informal perkotaan di Kota Jayapura. Unpad Press, Provinsi Papua LPPM UNHAS (2010) Pemetaan Hak Ulayat Port Numbay Kota Jayapura McGee TG (1991) Asia’ s growing urban rings, University World in Progress (UN) 13(3): 9 Nagendra H, Unnikrishnan H, Sen S (2013) Villages in the city: Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity in Rurality and Urbanity in Bangalore, India. Land 3(1): 1–18 Payne GK, Great Britain. Overseas Development Administration (1997) Urban land tenure and property rights in developing countries: a review. London, Eng: IT Publications/ODA Peraturan Daerah Kota Jayapura Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Jayapura Siagian AW (1978) Jayapura Dulu, Sekarang dan Esok. Sapdodadi, Jakarta Suhartini N (2016) Governing informality: urban basic service provision in informal settlements. Paper presented at the 9th IFOU International Conference Buenos Aires

References

73

Tyrrell ML (2008) Urban design for capacity development in informal settlements. Case study: Diepsloot, Johannesburg, South Africa, Public space and environmental infrastructure UNDP (2015) Human development report 2015: work for human development. New York: the United Nations Development Programme UNECE (2009) Self-made cities: In search for sustainable solutions for informal settlements in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe region. Geneva: UNECE Information Service UN-Habitat (2016) World cities report 2016: urbanization and development emerging futures. Nairobi: UN-Habitat Wekesa, BW, Steyn GS, Otieno FAO (2011) A review of physical and socio-economic characteristics and intervention approaches of informal settlements. Habitat International, 35(2): 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.09.006 Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods 5th edn. Thousand oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, Inc

Chapter 4

Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance in Jayapura

The City Center of North Jayapura

Abstract This chapter explains the types, processes and outputs of the formal governance system in Jayapura so as to accommodate basic urban service demands of a diverse mix of urban residents. This chapter discusses formal urban governance as applied in Jayapura, namely, the concurrent spatial, development and sectoral planning processes and the influence they have in respect of the differing provision of basic urban services for housing, water and sanitation. The analysis of planning documents reveals that structures, processes and stakeholders involved in the urban © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Suhartini and P. Jones, Urban Governance and Informal Settlements, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06094-7_4

75

76

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

planning and development process in Jayapura are provided for by laws and regulations at both national and regional levels and nuanced to some degree at the local level. Law 26 of 2007, namely, Spatial Management, regulates the types of involvement of different stakeholders in terms of spatial planning, implementation and control. Law 25 of 2004 regarding the National Development Planning System regulates the types of involvement of different stakeholders in development planning, implementation and monitoring and supervision. What emerges is complex formal urban governance arrangements strongly defined by the structures and guidelines as enacted in the prevailing framework of laws and regulations. This results in plans and policies which have different roles and outputs for certain segments of the population, which results in different levels of ‘equity’ and ‘accessibility’ in basic service provision across the urban population. Formal planning conducted in Jayapura therefore addresses different interest groups and their needs, and involves some stakeholders, not all. Keywords Types · Processes · Outputs · Formal urban governance · Spatial Development and sectoral planning

4.1 Introduction This chapter discusses the main types and processes of formal urban governance that are applied in Jayapura, namely, spatial, development and sectoral planning and the influence they have in respect of the provision of the basic urban services of housing, water and sanitation. The discussion is based on the analysis of primary data, namely, observations, interviews, household surveys, plus a review of Jayapura planning documents as collected for this research. Importantly, the analysis of the planning documents reveals that structures, processes and stakeholders involved in the urban planning and development process in Jayapura are provided for by laws and regulations at both national and regional levels. Law 26 of 2007, namely, Spatial Management, regulates the types of involvement of different stakeholders in terms of spatial planning, implementation and control. Law 25 of 2004 regarding the National Development Planning System regulates the types of involvement of different stakeholders in development planning, implementation and monitoring and supervision.

4.2 Types, Processes and Outputs of Spatial Planning The arrangement of spatial plans including their preparation, implementation and evaluation is based on Law 26 of 2007 regarding Spatial Management. The law provides rules and regulations regarding preparing, implementing and controlling all types of spatial plans. According to the law, spatial plans comprise two major plans: general plans and detailed plans. General plans function as comprehensive guidelines

4.2 Types, Processes and Outputs of Spatial Planning

77

for any type of development. On the other hand, detailed plans function as operational guidelines in implementing general plans as well as providing guidelines for areas or regions designated with a strategic development function. These comprise spatial plans for islands, strategic plans at a national, provincial, municipal and regency levels, as well as detailed local plans at a municipal/regency level. Detailed plans are also the basis for the provision of development control at the municipal level.

4.2.1 Types and Processes The first Spatial Plan of Jayapura was made by Law 26 of 2007 which was enacted in Regional Law 5 of 2008. This plan was prepared during 2006–2007 to anticipate a new national law regarding spatial management that was released in 2007. The Ministry of Public Works supported the preparation of the plan by providing an ‘expert team’ to assist the Municipal Government in the plan preparation. As well, the Municipal Government also worked with the Provincial Government in the registration process of Regional Law 5 of 2008. However, this law was subsequently replaced by Regional Law 1 of 2014 due to the introduction of new procedures for legalising spatial plans as set out in the Regulation of the Minister of Internal Affairs no: 28/PRT/M/2008 and the Regulation of the Minister of Public Works no: 17/2009. The implication of the above was that the contents of Regional Law 5 of 2008 were repeated within the new regulations, and that a new ‘Spatial Plan Review’ process for Jayapura was commenced. The Municipal Planning Board led the review process which involved multisectoral departments and the community, including academics within the Jayapura Municipality. The process from the initial plan review until the enactment of the new plan by regional law took approximately 2 years over the period of 2012–2014.1 This included the process of obtaining ‘substantial approval’ from the Papua Province Planning Board, plus other approval processes as required by the national government. The plan review included the assessment of the contents of the 2008 plan, as well as the registration of the plan as law using the procedures of the Regulation of the Minister of Internal Affairs, number 28/PRT/M/2008. Based on the assessments, several adjustments were made to the plan’s contents. This included the adoption of new terms and definitions as introduced via national regulations, and updates on related data and information. During the process of preparing the new plan and law, Law No. 5 of 2008 continued to be utilized as a basis for planning approvals and framework for development planning. An arrangement with the national and provincial planning coordination boards for obtaining ‘substantive approval’ of the plan was also negotiated during the 2012–2014 period. However, as a general observation, the substantive policy contents of the plan remained unchanged, and the revised Spatial Plan of Jayapura was enacted via Regional Law 1 of 2014. Following this approval, a series of public consultations were held to inform stakeholders and the broader 1 Sourced

from interviews with stakeholders, 2014 and individual observations, 2008–2014.

78

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Fig. 4.1 Detailed spatial plans preparation. A preparatory meeting on the review of the Detailed Spatial Plans for the District of Heram involved sectoral departments led by the Planning Board and representatives from districts. Photo taken by Edison Bab (2016)

community regarding the 2014 law at a district and municipal levels as led by the Municipal Law Bureau and the Municipal Planning Board.2 It should be noted that following the enactment of Regional Law 5 of 2008, the Municipal Government prepared a series of detailed spatial plans which functioned as operational guidelines for spatial management at the district level. The detailed spatial plans also provided zoning regulations to manage land use as well as spatial development procedures, incentives/disincentives and penalties/sanctions.3 The preparation of detailed spatial plans was completed in 2012 for the Districts of Muara Tami, South Jayapura, Heram, Abepura and North Jayapura. The Municipal Government proposed these plans to the Municipal House of Representatives for legal registration in 2013. However, the process was postponed due to the implementation of new spatial regulations as outlined above. In 2015, the Municipal Planning Board commenced a ‘review’ of the detailed spatial plans following the enactment of Regional Law 1 of 2014, so they would align with the new overarching Spatial Plan of Jayapura. The results of interviews and individual observations showed that revised detailed plans are under current review and will be submitted for legal approval via a regional law late 2018 (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2).

2 It

was compulsory to conduct such consultations before the implementation of the law. sourced from minutes of Bappeda Kota Jayapura (2012).

3 Data

4.2 Types, Processes and Outputs of Spatial Planning

79

Fig. 4.2 Community consultation for detailed spatial plan preparation. The community consultation for the review of the Detailed Spatial Plans in the District of Heram was led by the Planning Board, and attended by heads of RTs and RWs, the leaders of Port Numbay tribes, and representatives from various women’s organizations. Photo taken by Edison Bab (2016)

With the support of the Municipal and National Government, the Provincial Government also prepared a range of local level block plans in Jayapura. These block plans are prioritized via spatial planning processes at the national level and function as the main basis for provincial and national government to prepare infrastructure, housing and basic urban service programs and projects, particularly those funded by the Ministry of Public Works. The Municipal Government and the Ministry of Public Works via the concurrence of the Provincial Government fund the preparation of block plans in Jayapura. This work entails preparing conceptual schemes and are commissioned to planning consultancy firms who liaise with the community and government agencies during the preparatory process. Block plans in Jayapura are prepared for precincts within districts which are identified as having economic and or environmental significance, such the Block Plans for the City Centre of Kelurahan Gurabesi, the Youtefa Regional Market, Kali Acai River Basin and the Residential Precinct of Expo Waena (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014).4 See Fig. 4.3 for an example of block plans. A summary of the spatial planning process is shown in Fig. 4.4 and reflects the complex bureaucratic and administrative arrangements embodied in law and policy. Table 4.1 summarizes the thematic consistency among spatial plans as directed from the national level.

4 The

Municipal Government proposed the planning areas for the Block Plans according to their functions in the Jayapura Municipal Spatial Plans and Detailed Spatial Plans.

80

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Fig. 4.3 The block plans of Jayapura City Center, North Jayapura. The Block Plans of Jayapura City Center include detailed plans in terms of land use, urban service provision and key buildings

Fig. 4.4 The complex process of spatial plan preparation in Jayapura

4.2 Types, Processes and Outputs of Spatial Planning 81

82

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Table 4.1 Thematic consistency amongst spatial plans as directed from the national level No. Key themes contained in The spatial plan of Papua The spatial plan of Jayapura national spatial plans Province 1.

Jayapura as the National Activity Centre

Included

Included

2.

Jayapura as the National Strategic Activity Centre

Included

Included

3.

Jayapura as the National Secondary Transportation Node International River Basin Tami River Conservation Area of Cyclops

Included

Included

Included

Included

Included

Included

6.

Provision of Zoning Regulations

Included

Included

7.

Establishment of Coordinative Board for Spatial Management

Included

Included

8.

Provision of Legal and Administrative Sanctions Provision of Incentives and Disincentives for Development

Included

Included

Included

Included

4. 5.

9.

Source Adapted from Government Regulation 26 of 2008, Regional Law 23 of 2013, and Regional Law 1 of 2014

4.2.2 Key Outputs The analysis of planning documents published by the Municipal Government explored the outputs of the spatial planning process in Jayapura, which includes the Spatial Plan of Jayapura and Detailed Spatial Plans of Jayapura. This section explains the outputs in respect of land allocation regarding housing, water and sanitation. a. The Spatial Plan of Jayapura The Spatial Plan of Jayapura is a general spatial plan which defines the aims, objectives, policies and strategies for spatial management including land allocation (see Fig. 4.5). This includes spatial structure plans, land use plans, urban strategic zones and zoning regulations for the period of 2013–2033. Since the Municipality of Jayapura includes agricultural lands on its periphery, the Spatial Plan of Jayapura also contains policies on agricultural land management. Both physical and financial resource allocation as allowed for in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura are expressed in the structure and land use plans as prepared. Resource allocation for programs and projects, including land use, is identified by budget, location and government responsibility. Structure plans comprise settlement centres and

4.2 Types, Processes and Outputs of Spatial Planning

83

Fig. 4.5 The spatial plan of Jayapura under Law 26 of 2007 (Regional Law 1 of 2014). The Spatial Plan of Jayapura is a public document and can be accessed from the Municipal Government website. The law includes legal and administrative provisions regarding spatial management as well as resource allocation at the Jayapura municipal level

infrastructure networks, while land use plans focus on settlement and conservation areas. The Jayapura structure and land use plans adopt national and provincial policies in relation to Jayapura’s function as a National Activity Center and a National Strategic Activity Center in terms of economic development, socio-cultural attributes and defence importance. These attributes are reflected in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura under the sections on structure and land use plans, which accommodate national policies on land uses such as national harbours and ‘international gateways’, plus significant bilateral activities such as border schools, hospitals and markets. • Allocation for Housing The Spatial Plan of Jayapura allocates land for housing expansion based on land suitability, spatial and physical feasibility for development of housing (including disaster risk and location) as related to the service centres in each district. Three main categories of housing areas are defined according to their future density, namely, high, medium and low (see Table 4.2 and Fig. 4.6). The priority residential areas are subject to the preparation of the more detailed Block Plans. • Allocation for Water The analysis of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014 showed that for water allocation the Spatial Plan of Jayapura categorizes water resources by four broad types, namely,

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Fig. 4.6 Land allocation for housing

84

4.2 Types, Processes and Outputs of Spatial Planning

85

Table 4.2 The spatial plan of Jayapura—Land allocated by housing type No. Housing type Locations 1.

High-density housing

Kel. Gurabesi and Tanjung Ria (North Jayapura); Kel. Numbay, Ardipura, Argapura, Hamadi (South Jayapura); Kel. Wahno, Vim, Wai Mhorock, Kota Baru, Yobe, Asano, Awiyo (Abepura); Kel. Hedam, Waena, Yabansai, and Kp. Waena (Heram)

2.

Medium density

Kel. Gurabesi, Bhayangkara, Mandala, Angkasapura, Trikora, Imbi, Tanjung Ria (North Jayapura); Kel. Entrop (South Jayapura); Kel. Abepantai (Abepura); Kel. Hedam, Yabansai, dan Kp. Yoka (Heram); Kel. Koya Barat, Koya Timur, Kp. Koya Tengah, Holtekamp, Skouw Mabo (Muara Tami)

3.

Low density

Kel. Entrop (South Jayapura); Kel. Wahno, Abepantai, Asano, Koya Koso, and Kp. Enggros (Abepura); Kp. Yoka (Heram); Kp. Holtekamp, Skouw Mabo, Skouw Sae, and Mosso (Muara Tami)

Source Adapted from RTRW Kota Jayapura (2014) Notes Kel  kelurahan; Kp  Kampung. Total housing area: 3801 ha Table 4.3 Allocation of water resource types according to the spatial plan of Jayapura No. Water resource type Locations Area 1.

Water resource networks

Water catchment area of Mt. Cyclops, Protected Forest of Abepura, Mt. Djar-Muara Tami, Mt. Bougenville, Kel. Entrop, Kel. Angkasapura, Kayubatu, water springs of Dok IX and Dok VIII-North Jayapura

6457 ha

2.

Irrigation networks

2477 ha

3. 4.

Clean water structures Flood prevention systems

Kp. Yoka-Abepura, Kel Koya Barat, Koya Timur, Koya Tengah, Holtekamp, Skouw Mabo, and Skouw Yambe of Muara Tami District All districts All districts

Na All protected and conservation areas

Source Adapted from RTRW Kota Jayapura (2014)

water resource networks (inter-state between Papua and PNG, provincial and municipal/regency scales), irrigation networks, clean water and flood prevention systems. Each type as contained in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura includes the location and scale of service. Details regarding water allocation in Jayapura are summarized in Table 4.3 and Fig. 4.7.

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Fig. 4.7 Water service plan

86

4.2 Types, Processes and Outputs of Spatial Planning

87

The provision of drinking water falls under the Urban Infrastructure Plans in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura. Clean water infrastructure is planned based on the availability of water resources, population growth and the water demands for individual and public needs. Formal water infrastructure provision is integrated within the wider policy setting of water catchment area protection and the water resource controls. In this context, water infrastructure provided in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura includes the following (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014): a. Main water installations in the District of Muara Tami, and b. Main distribution pipes in Kampung Enggros, Tobati; the District of Muara Tami; Kelurahan Yobe, Asano in the District of Abepura; Kelurahan Yabansai and Kampung Yoka in the District of Heram; Kelurahan Argapura, Hamadi and Ardipura in the District of South Jayapura. As the Spatial Plan of Jayapura is a citywide plan at a scale of 1: 170,000, the water projects identified are primarily of city network significance and apply to planned areas only. Unplanned and informal areas are excluded. • Allocation for Sanitation There are no specific government-led arrangements regarding sanitation provision. Sanitation as defined by World Health Organization (WHO) includes waste management and grey and black water collection, and there is an array of different sanitation arrangements including individual and commercial housing arrangements (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014). Like water, the provision of sanitation infrastructure falls within the Structure Plans as provided in Chap. 3 of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura. Grey and black water management is based on an estimated household production of grey and black water at the end of a planning period. Toilet provision comprises individual and communal toilets. The Spatial Plan of Jayapura emphasizes on-site systems at a household level, and small-scale local reticulated systems for commercial and office areas as well as in high-density settlements. Integrated water treatment networks are encouraged in new housing complexes, notwithstanding the lack of technical capacity in the private sector and municipal level to maintain such systems once they are in place. The location of the main black water treatment is in the Municipal Landfill in Koya Koso in the District of Abepura. Furthermore, the Spatial Plan of Jayapura also highlights the need for preventing waste disposal into main waterways, such as Sentani Lake, Youtefa Gulf and directly to the Pacific Ocean. Grey water disposal in all planned areas is connected directly into the main drainage system. Regarding solid waste arrangements, the Spatial Plan of Jayapura predicts the waste production at the end of a planning period. Solid waste handling includes those carried out at a household level and integrated solid waste collection systems as authorized by the Municipal Government. Solid waste is collected in transfer stations as provided for in all planned districts. The Spatial Plan of Jayapura strongly emphasizes waste management (reduce, reuse and recycle 3R principles) at a local level, targeting households, schools and youth centres. Financial incentives are available as a reward for those implementing the 3R principles.

88

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

• The Detailed Spatial Plans of Jayapura The analysis on planning documents reveals that Detailed Spatial Plans of Jayapura were prepared for five urban districts, namely, the District of North Jayapura, the District of South Jayapura, the District of Abepura and Heram and the District of Muara Tami. Detailed Spatial Plans contain local level spatial arrangements regarding land use, infrastructure and other public facilities but only in the planned areas. They also provide a framework for local plan implementation which comprises zoning regulations for different land uses.5 The Detailed Spatial Plans provide the guidelines for the Municipal Government to implement the objectives of the overarching Spatial Plan of Jayapura. They also indicate the stakeholders such as developers, individuals and the community who will gain from the benefits of the detailed spatial plans. The Detailed Spatial Plans essentially regulate the type and scale of land uses that are allowed and prohibited.6

4.3 Types, Processes and Outputs of Development Planning The second major plan type used in urban planning and development in Jayapura are development plans. This section explores the types, processes and outputs of development planning as practiced in Jayapura based on formal planning procedures. This includes the practice of various sectoral and spatial regulations as applied by the government at higher levels. The discussion includes the results of analysis of planning documents, interviews with stakeholders as well as individual observations.

4.3.1 The Long-Term Development Plan (LTDP) of Jayapura The Long-term Development Plan (LTDP) of Jayapura 2005–2025 was prepared in the period 2005–2007 and was registered as Regional Law of Jayapura 4 of 2008. The preparation of the LTDP of Jayapura was led by the Municipal Planning Board and involved stakeholders from sectoral departments, private sector, academics and community representatives. Consultations were also conducted at village/kampung, district and municipal levels in Jayapura to prepare and finalize the LTDP, noting the process was concurrent with the preparation of Regional Law 5 of 2008 regarding the Spatial Plan of Jayapura. The main inputs for determining the LTDP were the contents of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura and the visionary development aspirations and aims derived from input by stakeholders. The LTDP of Jayapura provides the development vision for the Municipal Government and other stakeholders for the period of 2005–2025 (RPJPD Kota Jayapura 5 Results

of analysis by the author on the Detailed Spatial Plans of the District of North Jayapura, the District of South Jayapura, the District of Abepura and Heram and the District of Muara Tami. 6 Results of policy analysis by the author on the Detailed Spatial Plans.

4.3 Types, Processes and Outputs of Development Planning

89

2005–2025). The contents of the LTDP of Jayapura comprise planning rationale and background information, visionary development aims and objectives for 2005–2025, as well as the indicative programs for mid- to long-term implementation. The LTDP of Jayapura also emphasizes the inclusion of Law No. 21 of 2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua, thus highlighting the need for accelerating the achievement of development targets for indigenous Papuan communities. • Key Outputs The vision of the LTDP of Jayapura is to develop Jayapura as a ‘clean, beautiful, advanced and self-sufficient municipality’ (RPJPD Kota Jayapura 2005–2025). The LTDP of Jayapura identifies several ‘mission statements’ as follows: • • • • • •

To establish a ‘religious and highly civilized urban society’; To develop a clean, beautiful and safe city; To create Jayapura as a centre for trade and urban services; To develop ‘good governance’ in Municipal Government; To create a competitive, sophisticated, self-reliant and prosperous society; and To expand urban development to the eastern part of Jayapura.

The LTDP of Jayapura highlights three priority focus areas, namely, sectoral, locational and targeted priorities. Sectoral targets are mentioned in the above ‘mission statements’, while locational targets show specific spatial areas for development. For example, the district of Muara Tami is nominated as a ‘new town’ in the eastern part of Jayapura. The target groups of the LTDP of Jayapura comprise three population groups, namely, the broader residents of Jayapura, Papuan residents (including migrants) and the Port Numbay indigenous community (customary landowners). The LTDP of Jayapura provides different development emphases as applied to the target groups by highlighting the importance of education, health, economic development and community empowerment to the Papuan and Port Numbay residents.

4.3.2 Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP) of Jayapura Following the enactment of the LTDP of Jayapura in 2008, the Municipal Planning Board led a team comprising cross-departmental representatives in the preparation of the Mid-Term Development Plan (MTDP) of Jayapura which cut across two periods of the Mayor of Jayapura: 2005–2010, and 2012–2016. The preparation involved discussion with multisectoral departments and community representatives, with the Municipal House of Representatives registering the MTDP of Jayapura as a regional law. One major input to the MTDP of Jayapura are the programs, policies and strategies proposed by the elected Mayor. Candidates nominated for the Mayor of Jayapura have to use in their campaigns the LTDP of Jayapura as a basis for defining their development aspirations and potential programs and strategies during the election period. The programs and strategies put forward by Mayoral candidates should reflect

90

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

the resident’s development preferences and ‘voice’, and hence the strong use of programs in the LTDP and previous MTDPs. The Municipal sectoral departments prepare their sectoral MTDPs based on the MTDP of Jayapura. The sectoral MTDPs reflect sectoral programs and strategies conducted by municipal departments for a 5-year period. The departments use the sectoral MTDPs for preparing the sectoral annual development plans. Box: 4.1 A View of the Medium-term Development Plan (MTDP) ‘The processes of planning and development carried out are aligned with the MTDP, sectoral MDTP, annual programs and budgets as defined by the city mayor and by the sectoral development guidelines. Program and project prioritization is carried out considering the limitations, and should align with the Mayoral Visions and missions in the MTDP…. the MTDP is the main development guideline, everything needs to be synchronized with MTDP’. (RS)

• Key Outputs In the new millennium, the MTDPs of Jayapura comprise policies and strategies for the periods of 2005–2010 and 2012–2016, respectively. The MTDP of Jayapura 2005–2010 includes the visions as defined in the LTDP of Jayapura 2005–2015 and hence has a similar overarching development emphasis, namely, a. b. c. d.

To establish a strongly religious community; To develop a clean, beautiful, civilized and safe city; To create Jayapura as a centre for trade and services; To develop technological advances, self-sufficiency and prosperity for the city; and e. To develop Jayapura as the main centre of administrative and regional development in the eastern–northern part of Papua.

The MTDP of Jayapura for 2012–2016 focuses on the importance of ‘local wisdom’ and ‘social capital’ of the communities as a basis for undertaking development activities. In this setting, the ‘mission statements’ of the MTDP of Jayapura 2012–2016 are as follows: a. To improve the quality of community interaction especially among different religious groups; b. To develop Jayapura as a clean, beautiful, friendly and safe municipality; c. To establish Jayapura as a center for trade and services which is supported by the development of environmentally friendly urban services; d. To continue the establishment of ‘good governance’ and professional public services; e. To improve the implementation of good democracy and law and order; and f. To strengthen and empower kampung communities.

4.3 Types, Processes and Outputs of Development Planning

91

The key target groups of the MTDP 2005–2010 are the residents of Jayapura, while the MTDP of Jayapura 2012–2016 targets the poorer Port Numbay communities who live in kampungs. Furthermore, the MTDP of 2005–2010 emphasizes the importance of Jayapura’s function as a National Activity Centre by encouraging development which benefits all of Papua Province, while the MTDP of 2012–2016 focuses on development at the scale of Jayapura municipality.7

4.3.3 The Annual Development Plan (ADP) of Jayapura The Municipal Planning Board leads the process for the preparation of the Annual Development Plan (ADP) of Jayapura which is a short-term development plan derived from the development vision and mission of the MTDP of Jayapura. The preparation of the ADP of Jayapura involves stakeholders from the government, private sector, academics and wider community representatives, and commences one year before its due date of implementation. The process builds on community participation and deliberation at the lowest levels (village  kampung/kelurahan level) followed by consultations at higher levels, with the ADP finalized at the municipal level (see Fig. 4.8). The initial consultation at village (kelurahan/kampung) level commences in January and is completed at the municipal level in April or May. The Municipal House of Representatives enacts the ADP of Jayapura as a regional law. Both the Government and the community identify development priorities in the form of possible proposals and projects for ADP discussion. Government proposals are usually sector-oriented, while community proposals are need driven and location specific. At each stage of the consultation, stakeholders discuss and rank the proposals according to their degree of importance, including the scale of the development, economic and environmental impacts, and budget and level of urgency. The prioritized proposals represent those with a high degree of importance, followed by proposals with a descending level of importance. Proposals with indicative budgets exceeding the Municipal budget ceiling are re-categorized as projects with the lowest priority. These proposals are then put forward in consultations at the provincial or national levels to obtain funding and or for further consideration in the same or subsequent years.8 The development programs and budget contained in the ADP of Jayapura is completed in December of each year (that is, the end of the financial year). The Municipal Planning Board, the Municipal Supervisory Board and the Municipal Treasury Board conduct an evaluation of the ADP of Jayapura in the year following its implementation to assess the performance of the ADP including budget implementation. See details in Fig. 4.9. The contents of the ADP of Jayapura comprise development programs and projects regarding basic urban services and infrastructure as allocated in the five municipal 7 Excerpt 8 Authors

from MTDP 2005–2010 and MTDP 2012–2016. individual observation, 2003–2015.

92

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Fig. 4.8 The annual development planning process in Jayapura at the municipal level. Source Bappeda Kota Jayapura (2016)

districts according to their level of priority. The priorities are arranged based on the MTDP of Jayapura and the Spatial Plan of Jayapura (see Fig. 4.10). The consistency among development plans is presented in Table 4.4. The Municipal Government receives revenue from several sources for development. These include transfers from the national government, municipal generated income, allocations from the Special Autonomy Fund (Dana Otsus) and the Special Allocation Fund (Dana Alokasi Khusus).9 Each source requires specific spending and reporting mechanisms. For example, transfers from the national government can be utilized for most development projects, while the Special Autonomy Fund supports only projects aiming to enhance the quality of life of Papuans. The latter priorities are defined in varying sectoral plans for education, health and capacity building. Similar procedures apply to projects which are funded by the Special Allocation Fund. There are also projects that are partially funded by the Government and international donors such as USAID, the Australian Government and UNICEF. These projects focus mainly on capacity building at the lower levels of government, especially in providing basic urban services (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014).

9 APBD

Kota Jayapura 2008–2012.

4.3 Types, Processes and Outputs of Development Planning

93

Fig. 4.9 The process of long-term and mid-term development planning in Jayapura. Source Analysis on planning documents and observations of LTDP and MTDP meetings

94

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Fig. 4.10 The process of annual development planning in Jayapura. Source Adapted from Jones and Suhartini (2014)

Box: 4.2 A View of Annual Development Planning (ADP) Process ‘For budgeting, we follow the mechanisms from the upper level. In the past and still in practice, we rarely involve the community in the budgeting process. Now, the processes gradually involve the community (bottom-up). So the community plans, conducting the process and they implement the programs…We aim for this approach to be fully implemented in this municipality and we are still working to improve it’. (EM)

• Key Outputs The municipal departments recommend projects across the five districts in Jayapura, with the District of Abepura receiving the largest number of infrastructure development projects implemented by the Municipal Government during the period 2008–2012. The district is also the fastest growing planned urban area in Jayapura, with the availability of suitable development land being the main consideration in promoting this district as a top priority residential area. On the other hand, the District of Heram has received the least Municipal development projects both by number and budget as Heram is a relatively new district (previously part of the District of Abepura) (see Fig. 4.11).

4.3 Types, Processes and Outputs of Development Planning

95

Table 4.4 Consistency of visions and ‘Mission statements’ in the development plans of Jayapura No. Long-term development Mid-term development plan plan 1.

Vision on developing Jayapura as a clean, beautiful, advanced and self-sufficient city

2.

Mission Statements: To establish a religious and highly civilized urban society To develop a clean, beautiful and safe city

2005–2010

2012–2016

Vision on developing Jayapura as a clean, beautiful, advanced, self-sufficient and prosperous city

Vision on developing Jayapura as a clean, beautiful, advanced and self-sufficient city, based on local wisdom

To establish a strongly religious community

To improve the quality of community interaction among religious groups

To develop a clean, beautiful, civilized and safe city

To develop Jayapura as a clean, beautiful, friendly and safe city

To develop Jayapura as a trade and service center

To develop Jayapura as To establish Jayapura as a trade, education and service center for trade and service, center which is supported by environmentally friendly urban services To apply ‘good governance’ – To continue the in the operation of the establishment of ‘good municipal government governance’ and professional public services To create a competitive, sophisticated, self-reliant and prosperous society

To develop technological advances, self-sufficiency and prosperity in municipal development

–

To expand urban development to the eastern part of Jayapura

To develop Jayapura as the – center of administrative and regional development in the north-eastern Papua

–

–

–

–

To improve the implementation of good democracy and law and order To strengthen customary rights and empower kampung communities

Source Compiled from Regional Law 4 of 2008, and Regional Law 20 of 2011

96

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Fig. 4.11 Total number of municipal development projects per Jayapura Districts, 2008–2012. Source Compiled from APBD Kota Jayapura (2008–2012)

In terms of allocation of the development budget, the overall amount has increased steadily during the period 2008–2012. The infrastructure sector has become a municipal development priority followed by those classed as general sectors (i.e. government administration), education, economy and health. Infrastructure includes sub-sector projects organized by the municipal departments including Public Works, the Environmental Board, Tourism and Culture, Waste Management and Funeral, City Management, Transport, and Security and Amenity. General sectors are those organized by municipal departments which oversee municipal administration including civil and legal affairs. Economy includes sectors which are managed by the Municipal Planning Board, the Treasury Board, the Departments of Agriculture, Trade, Industry and Cooperation, City Revenues, Fishery and Maritime, Food and Training. The health sector is organized by the Municipal Department of Health, while the Municipal Department of Education oversees educational activities. According to the ADP of Jayapura and budgets from 2008 to 2012, a larger proportion of the infrastructure budget was allocated to arterial road development, especially ring roads which connect the four districts of North Jayapura, South Jayapura, Abepura and Heram. Other major budget allocations were directed to the development of government offices, health clinics and school buildings.10 Within the overall infrastructure budget, the amount of budget allocated for basic urban services such as water, sanitation and electricity remained low and was shared with state-owned enter-

10 Extracted

from City Government of Jayapura-Annual City Programs and Budget, Bappeda Kota Jayapura, 2008–2012.

4.3 Types, Processes and Outputs of Development Planning

97

Fig. 4.12 Proportion of municipal budget by sectors in Jayapura 2008–2012. Source Compiled from APBD Kota Jayapura (2008–2012)

prises, such as Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (PDAM) for water and Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN) for electricity (see Fig. 4.12). Apart from infrastructure, the main development sectors show a steady growth in budget allocation. The completion of the arterial ring-road development projects by the end of 2012, and increasing budget sharing schemes amongst municipal, provincial and national government within this sector has contributed to the decline in the Municipal Government budget for infrastructure, including basic urban services (see Fig. 4.13).11

4.4 Sectoral Planning Types, Processes and Outputs for Housing, Water and Sanitation This section explores a range of sectoral planning arrangements that affect the provision of housing, water and sanitation. Sectoral planning in Jayapura is the responsibility of the national and regional government and other state bodies as defined in national and regional laws and regulations. Housing arrangements are regulated by Law 11 of 2010 regarding Housing and Settlements. Housing provision includes housing construction, infrastructure and public utilities. House types in this law include commercial housing, general and self-organized housing by individuals or groups, plus special and state housing provided by the government. Government Regulation 88 of 2014 regarding Housing and Settlement Arrangements provides 11 Verbal

communication with Bappeda Kota Jayapura (2015).

98

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Fig. 4.13 Budget trends by sectors in Jayapura 2008–2012. Source Compiled from APBD Kota Jayapura (2008–2012)

operational guidelines for the implementation of Law 11 of 2010. This regulation highlights the hierarchical processes of formal housing arrangements, coordination, supervision and technical management. Water provision is highly controlled by the State according to one law and two regulations, namely, Law 11 of 1974 regarding Water, and Government Regulation 121 of 2015 regarding Water Resources and Government Regulation 66 of 2014 regarding Environmental Health. At an operational level, water is regulated by the Minister of Public Works Regulation 01/PRT/M/2014 which stipulates Minimal Service Standards (MSS) concerning Public Works Affairs and Spatial Management. The Law 11 of 1974 provides the State with broad authority to manage and distribute the benefits of water and water resources, as well as to establish a legal and regulatory framework for water resources, infrastructure and institutions. For sanitation provision, there is no specific national law. The most relevant law applying to sanitation is National Law 18 of 2008 regarding Waste Management. However, there are sufficient existing provisions to manage sanitation including Government Regulation 81 of 2012 regarding Domestic Waste Handling, and the Regulation of the Minister of Health 3 of 2004 regarding Total Community-Based Sanitation.

4.4 Sectoral Planning Types, Processes and Outputs for Housing, Water …

99

4.4.1 Housing Provision Several key stakeholders including the Municipal Government, private developers, NGOs, individuals and groups provide formal housing in Jayapura (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014). The Government’s provision of housing is primarily undertaken by Perum Perumnas which is a state-owned housing developer responsible for providing housing for low-income residents. The Department of Public Works also provides housing projects via affordability housing schemes (Perumahan bagi Masyarakat Berpenghasilan Rendah/MBR) as well as by ‘slum’ upgrading programs (Peningkatan Kawasan Kumuh). The Municipal Government has developed database management schemes to improve the evidence base for better understanding housing demand in Jayapura. However, due to a lack of funding, both system development and implementation have been slow, and thus data on the detail of housing trends and need groups is incomplete and unreliable. Furthermore, the housing database only covers housing with legal permits in the planned areas. Thus, data and information regarding housing are limited to approved housing only, with much of the housing in the city not recognized or understood in terms of quality, quantity and user characteristics. a. Housing Provision by Perum Perumnas The main function of Perum Perumnas is to provide low-income housing by developing small-sized housing units on serviced lots. Housing provision by Perum Perumnas in Jayapura commenced in 1992 with the building of four housing blocks in Waena Jayapura called Perumnas I, II, III and IV (Paruntung 2004). Perum Perumnas provides compact houses of 27 m2 (small) on lots of 120 m2 and houses of 36 m2 (medium) and 45 m2 (large), respectively, on lots of 150 m2 . Housing provision by Perum Perumnas follows the national housing rule of 1:3:6 which requires the company to provide six small-sized and three medium-sized housing units, plus one large house on each housing block as developed. The Municipal Government is only involved in land provision, not housing provision and essentially takes on the role of enforcing planning and building permits. Perum Perumnas also provides a mortgage scheme for low-income buyers by collaborating with banks and large credit providers. This housing provision model as developed by Perum Perumnas has been included in the Municipal Government regulations, with local developers now replicating this model to align land and finance. b. General Housing Provision by Individuals, Groups and Private Developers Private developers provide housing in accordance with the formal planning system, which includes seeking planning and building permits from the Municipal Government.12 Housing developers in Jayapura such as REI and APERNAS develop partnerships with the Municipal Government in terms of providing housing and mortgage support (http://www.penataanruang.com/perumahan1/category/papua, cited 2016). 12 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2014.

100

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Fig. 4.14 Upper market housing provision by private developers

As shown in Fig. 4.14, high-quality upper market housing as provided by private developers has contributed to diverse housing supply in Jayapura.13 c. Housing Assistance Projects Facilitated by the Municipal Government Housing assistance projects coordinated by the Municipal Government target improving existing housing stock and broader settlement planning, rather than building specific houses and adding to the housing supply. As reflected in Table 4.5, housing assistance projects are coordinated by multisectoral departments and are included in ADPs and target planned areas only. Several projects share funds managed by the Planning Board, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Social Affairs. The Municipal Government budget is mainly utilized for enabling activities such as plan preparation, improving data management and providing basic services (APBD Kota Jayapura 2008–2012).

4.4.2 Water Provision a. Water Provision by PDAM Kabupaten Jayapura Known as PDAM, the main water provider in Jayapura is PDAM Kabupaten Jayapura and is under the management of the Government of Jayapura Regency. Noting that the Municipal Government has a 10% share of PDAM, the decision-making process and internal management in PDAM are controlled and regulated by the Government of Jayapura Regency (that is, the body overseeing development in the rural areas outside the Jayapura Municipality). The PDAM service area includes both Jayapura Municipality and Jayapura Regency, which makes it more challenging for PDAM to meet the demand for water coverage over such a large area (Suhartini 2016). The PDAM service objectives are contained within the PDAM Corporate Plan and include annual and mid-term plans for construction and maintenance projects. Water connections are provided based on the demands by new users in planned 13 The

author estimates that approximately 75% of total housing stock is upper market housing.

Formal settlements

Individual housing for self-housing and rent

Formal housing for student accommodation

1.

2.

Formal settlements

Location

No. Type of housing arrangement Individually planned and built, seeking formal approval for planning and building from the Municipal Government, seeking approval for the use of customary rights from local tribes, obtaining access to formal basic provision: water by PDAM, electricity and infrastructure projects conducted by the Municipal Government Formally organized by the Municipal Government of student’s origins, usually other regencies in Papua, obtaining access to formal basic service provision: water by PDAM, electricity and infrastructure projects conducted by the Municipal Government Blocks of houses, Regional high-rise, internal Regulations: facilities Spatial Plans, Planning and Building Approvals

Individual houses, Regional housing block Regulations: Spatial Plans, Building Approvals

Organization-process features Typical Legal Binding projects/activities (Rules and Regulation)

Table 4.5 Types of formal housing provision in Jayapura: key features

The Municipal Government (owners and Municipal), students, local customary landowners

Individuals (freehold owners), the Municipal Government, customary landowners, neighbourhood leaders (RT/RW)

Stakeholders

(continued)

Neighbourhood

Neighbourhood

Scale

4.4 Sectoral Planning Types, Processes and Outputs for Housing, Water … 101

Formal settlements

Formal housing by developers

Individual housing for self-housing or rent

3.

4.

Formal settlements

Location

No. Type of housing arrangement

Table 4.5 (continued)

Self-organized building Individual house construction, use of professionals in design and building construction, seeking formal approval from the Municipal Government, obtaining access to formal basic service provision: water, electricity and infrastructure provision by the Municipal Government, and mortgage from banks

Corporately organized, use of Blocks of houses professionals in design and building construction, seeking formal approval from the Municipal Government, obtaining access to formal basic service provision: water, electricity and infrastructure provision by the Municipal Government, and can access mortgage schemes for developers and buyers Regional Regulations: Spatial Plans, Planning and Building Approvals

Regional Regulations: Spatial Plans, Planning and Building Approvals

Organization-process features Typical Legal Binding projects/activities (Rules and Regulation)

Individuals, the Municipal Government, local customary landowners

Developers, the Municipal Government, local customary landowners, buyers

Stakeholders

(continued)

Household

Neighbourhood

Scale

102 4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Formal settlements

5.

Formal housing by Perum Perumnas

Location

No. Type of housing arrangement

Table 4.5 (continued)

State-organized, follows the national policy on housing, prioritized buyers (priority for government staff to access mortgage), obtaining permit from the Municipal Government, partnership mechanisms between Perumnas and Municipal Government regarding mortgage arrangements for government staff, obtaining access to formal basic service provision: water, electricity and infrastructure provision by the Municipal Government, and mortgage from banks

Housing complex, internal and external facilities and infrastructure

National Regulations, Regional Regulations: Spatial Plans, Planning and Building Approvals

Organization-process features Typical Legal Binding projects/activities (Rules and Regulation)

Scale

(continued)

The national Municipality government, Perum Perumnas, the Municipal Government, buyers, banks

Stakeholders

4.4 Sectoral Planning Types, Processes and Outputs for Housing, Water … 103

Formal settlements

Affordable housing schemes for low-income buyers, by the Department of Public Works (national program)

Formal housing by the Municipal Government for sale to targeted buyers (Municipal officers)

6.

7.

Formal settlements

Location

No. Type of housing arrangement

Table 4.5 (continued)

Obtaining permit from the Municipal Government, the Municipal Government participates in funding and land provision as well as providing incentives to accelerate the development process, obtaining special access to soft loans Obtaining permit from the Municipal Government, provides special mortgage schemes for Municipal officers, obtaining access to formal basic service provision: water, electricity and infrastructure provision by the Municipal Government Blocks of houses, Regional Laws internal facilities and Regulations: and infrastructure Spatial Plans, Development Plans, Sectoral Plans

Blocks of houses, National internal facilities Regulations, Regional Laws and Regulations: Spatial Plans, Development Plans, Sectoral Plans

Organization-process features Typical Legal Binding projects/activities (Rules and Regulation)

Municipal government, buyers, banks, local customary landowners

National government, municipal government, buyers, banks

Stakeholders

(continued)

Neighbourhood

Municipality

Scale

104 4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Formal settlements

Formal housing by private companies for housing government staff

Formal housing by the Municipal Government for self-housing internal staff

8.

9.

Formal settlements

Location

No. Type of housing arrangement

Table 4.5 (continued)

Formally and internally organized housing arrangements

Corporately organized, seeking approval from the Municipal Government, obtaining access to formal provisions

Blocks of houses, Corporate internal facilities policies, Regional and infrastructure Laws and Regulations: Spatial Plans, Development Plans, Sectoral Plans Blocks of houses, Department internal facilities policies and infrastructure

Organization-process features Typical Legal Binding projects/activities (Rules and Regulation)

The Municipal Government (providers), municipal government

Companies, the Municipal Government

Stakeholders

(continued)

Citywide

Neighbourhood

Scale

4.4 Sectoral Planning Types, Processes and Outputs for Housing, Water … 105

Formal settlements

10.

Formally organized by the national government in partnership with the municipal government (land, budget, construction, management, etc.), seeking formal approval from the Municipal Government, obtaining access to formal basic service provision, managed by an office for rental arrangements and maintenance

High-rise buildings and internal facilities

Department policies

Organization-process features Typical Legal Binding projects/activities (Rules and Regulation)

Source Household surveys and interviews with stakeholders

Rental housing provision by the Department of Public Works for low-income populations and students

Location

No. Type of housing arrangement

Table 4.5 (continued)

The Municipal Government (providers), municipal government, tenants, management office

Stakeholders

Citywide

Scale

106 4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

4.4 Sectoral Planning Types, Processes and Outputs for Housing, Water …

107

settlements as approved by the Municipal Government. The unplanned settlements are not eligible for PDAM water. Water usage is monitored using water meters and PDAM closes the connections if users delay their monthly payment by 3 months or more. b. Water Provision by the Municipal Government of Jayapura The Municipal Government supports varying water arrangements in order to respond to the need for improved water supply across all segments of the population. Water projects conducted by the Municipal Government focus on providing communal water networks at a local scale, primarily in villages and neighbourhoods (i.e. RTs and RWs). In contrast to water provision conducted by PDAM that focuses on projects in formal settlements, the Municipal Government projects aim to accommodate water demands as agreed in the ADP consultations, which are applied in all types of settlements. The latter arrangements are undertaken via a number of processes such as the ADP of the Municipal Department of Public Works, multi-sector projects and programs, joint projects between the Municipal, Provincial and National Government via programs funded by the Ministry of Public Works and Special Allocation Funds (Dana Alokasi Khusus/DAK). These arrangements also include partnership programs with international donors and NGOs such as USAID, UNICEF and the former AUSAID (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014). The Municipal Government also provides a budget for assisting community groups in carrying out communal water projects, including those supported by the PNPM Mandiri schemes, which encourage locally based development (PNPM 2013). The Municipal Government via its departments and boards is responsible for the planning, design, implementation and monitoring of water projects. For example, water projects jointly funded by the National Government and the Municipal Government have a shared budget under the responsibility of the Municipal Planning Board and the Municipal Environmental Board, while the actual water construction and maintenance projects are the responsibility of the Municipal Department of Public Works, the Municipal Department of Health and the Municipal Department of Agriculture. Table 4.6 summarizes the type arrangements for formal water provision in Jayapura.

4.4.3 Sanitation As mentioned in Chap. 3, the main responsibility for providing and managing sanitation services, which includes black and grey water and domestic waste, lies with the household and community while the Municipal Government provides financial and technical assistance. The Municipal Government oversees sanitation management in Jayapura conducted by the community during the stages of preparing plans, construction and management, as well as assisting with capacity building and educational programs (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014). Partnership mechanisms have been exten-

Formal settlements

Water provision by PDAM

Water provision by NGOs and the community

1.

2.

Formal and informal settlements

Location

No. Types of water arrangement

Based on organization principles and consensus achieved with the community, non-profit, sharing responsibility, government intervention in coordinating programs with government programs/projects, co-arrangements between NGOs and the Municipal Government, co-arrangements between NGOs and the community

Corporate organization, profit-oriented, internal management, least intervention from municipal government

Water treatment installation, water tanks, communal bath and toilets

Infrastructure, individual connection, maintenance

Organization-process features Typical project/activities

Table 4.6 Types of formal water provision arrangements in Jayapura

Regional laws and regulation: Spatial Plans, Development Plans, Sectoral Plans

Regional Regulation

Legally binding (Rules and Regulation)

NGOs, community and the Municipal Government

PDAM, Government of Jayapura Regency, Government of Jayapura Municipality

(continued)

Groups of households and neighbourhoods

Citywide

Lead stakeholders Scale of application

108 4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

Formal and informal settlements

3.

Government planning and development mechanism

Water network construction includes water intake, reserves and pipelines; communal bath and toilets

Organization-process features Typical project/activities

Source Household Surveys 2014–2015, and interviews with stakeholders, 2015

Water provision by the Municipal Government

Location

No. Types of water arrangement

Table 4.6 (continued)

Regional laws and regulation: Spatial Plans, Development Plans, Sectoral Plans

Legally binding (Rules and Regulation) The Municipal Government, Port Numbay community in land provision

Neighbourhood (RT/RW/ Kampung or Kelurahan)

Lead stakeholders Scale of application

4.4 Sectoral Planning Types, Processes and Outputs for Housing, Water … 109

110

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

sively developed with donors and NGOs to increase community awareness regarding good sanitation practice.14 Domestic waste produced by households in Jayapura is approximately 1276 m3 per day. On the other hand, the capacity to collect by the Department of Waste Management and Funerals is only 462.455 m3 per day or 36.25% of the total domestic waste (DKP Kota Jayapura 2012). This has resulted in approximately 380.10 m3 of uncollected domestic waste per day, which is often disposed directly into the street, formal drainage systems, rivers or burnt. Domestic waste collection is under the management of the Municipal Department of Waste Management and Funerals. The service also includes the collection of waste produced by shops, hotels, restaurants, offices and markets. The Department of Waste Management and Funerals is also responsible for waste collection in public space and public facilities, such as markets and terminals. To provide service in denser settlements (formal and informal), the Municipal Government provides tricycles and mini-trucks to collect waste directly from households. In coastal urban areas both on- and off-shore, the Municipal Government provides trash boats which collect waste from the seawater and surrounding islands inhabited by the Port Numbay community (DKP Kota Jayapura 2012). The Municipal Government seeks support from the private sector and state-owned companies to contribute to the provision of rubbish bins and dump trucks (BPS Kota Jayapura 2012). The Municipal Government also provides several programs to increase community awareness towards reducing domestic waste via projects conducted by multisector departments. In addition, there are partnership projects with international donors and NGOs aiming to develop an integrated waste management system and to increase stakeholder involvement in waste handling, reduce, reuse and recycle (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014). USAID and the former AUSAID both initiated projects that provided training in applying the 3R principles at a household and local level. As well, a partnership scheme has also been carried out between the Municipal Government and private companies to educate schoolchildren and youth about the importance of hygiene and a clean environment (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014). The Municipal Government makes little intervention in the management of grey and black water. Grey water from households is disposed into drainage systems, while the provision of individual septic tanks for black water disposal is the responsibility of the residents (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014). The Provincial Government built a black water treatment plant in 2000, but the facilities, including trucks for collecting black water, have not been functional due to lack of maintenance. Similarly, the Integrated Waste Treatment Installation plant built by the Municipal Government in 2004, including a 3 km pipe system for an on-site facility located in Terminal Mesran remains non-functional (BPS Kota Jayapura 2012). On-site water treatments have been built in several hospitals to manage their medical and hazardous waste disposal and are at varying levels of functionality. 14 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2014.

4.4 Sectoral Planning Types, Processes and Outputs for Housing, Water …

111

Difficult geographical conditions, high-density formal settlements and lack of technical capacity were among the issues considered by the Municipal Government when closing the main integrated grey water treatment system in Jayapura as built in 2004 (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014, interviews, 2014). As a result, the Municipal Government now emphasizes building on-site communal toilets to handle grey water and black water. The main black water constructions are on-site systems, comprising septic tanks and individual or communal toilets. There are reticulated systems, albeit small, in the communal centers. However, they suffer from breakdowns and a lack of technical support to ensure satisfactory on-going operation. The Municipal Government has conducted construction projects for communal toilets via sharing funds with international donors, such as USAID and the former AUSAID (Australian Government) as part of the implementation of the MDGs in Indonesia (APBD Kota Jayapura 2008–2012). Under this scheme, the Municipal Government received technical assistance, capacity building and financial support to increase awareness of the need for sanitation, particularly in dense formal and informal settlements. Thus, the emphasis is on community education and awareness, rather than the Municipal Government taking a physical role in providing and managing the systems given they have limited capacity and technical know-how.

4.5 Summary This chapter has assessed the types, processes and the outputs of formal urban governance in Jayapura in providing basic urban services as indicated in spatial, development and sectoral planning arrangements. Formal urban governance is strongly led by the structures and guidelines as enacted in the prevailing Indonesian framework of laws and regulations which exist in a national ‘top-down’ led hierarchy of plans and policies. In terms of spatial planning, the Municipal Government leads the process of plan preparation and implementation with Spatial plans comprising two types of plans: general and detailed spatial plans. The general plan is termed the Spatial Plan of Jayapura, while the Detailed Spatial Plan is termed according to the respective names of the districts. The Spatial Plan of Jayapura functions as the main guideline for land use allocation at the municipal level. The Detailed Spatial Plans provide operational guidelines at the local neighbourhood level to implement the overarching Spatial Plan of Jayapura which includes the provision of zoning regulations for settlement areas and conservation use. The Spatial Plan of Jayapura allocates approximately 24% of the total municipal area for formal settlement development (that is, planned settlements) and approximately 76% for conservation areas which include preserving natural resources, water catchment areas and disaster prevention corridors (non-developable land). The Spatial Plan of Jayapura also comprises provision for different types of infrastructure at the municipal scale, such as roads, water, electricity and other infrastructure in alignment with national and provincial plans on infrastructure. In terms of housing, the Spatial Plan of Jayapura indicates the zoning of land for housing expansion in

112

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

the District of Muara Tami, a planned settlement, while the other areas in the Spatial Plan reflect densification within the existing formal settlement boundaries. Development planning in Jayapura provides development guidelines for long-, medium- and short-term (annual) horizons. The types and procedures for development planning in Jayapura are aligned with laws and regulations at the provincial and national levels. The Municipal Government leads the preparation of development plans and involves a range of stakeholders from local academics, donors and the varying communities. The ADP process strongly reflects collaborative arrangements between different levels of government and various stakeholders, including those residents living in unplanned informal settlements. As such, the process actively involves municipal stakeholders from the kampung/village level to the national level. Intensive consultations at different levels are reflected in the refinement and reiteration of the plans, including development proposals carried out into subsequent ADP’s. The analysis from sectoral planning documents and the household surveys shows that basic urban service provision in Jayapura has evolved in terms of the range of providers and types of projects being undertaken. Basic urban service provision is the domain of several stakeholders whose service provision capacity varies across different types of settlements. In terms of water supply, water is delivered by several providers including the state-owned water company PDAM, the Municipal Government, as well as self-organized communities. Although PDAM was intended to have a monopoly on water provision, it has been incapable of meeting the overall demand of the city serving less than 50% of the total city population. In responding to service gaps, other arrangements have evolved for water provision including involvement by the Municipal Government at a neighbourhood level in providing water connections and standpipes to springs in both planned and unplanned settlements.15 There have also been initiatives in water bottling by private companies, and self-organized water provision by urban communities (primarily in unplanned settlements). In addition, partnership schemes connecting the Municipal Government, donors and community groups have been evolving, including adapting new technology for drinking water treatment. Provision of adequate housing has been a major issue within the realm of basic urban service provision in Jayapura. There is a widening supply and demand gap in terms of the provision of affordable housing traditionally provided by Perum Perumnas, as well as private developers and individuals. This situation is exacerbated by rising land prices, inflation, in-migration (Papuans and non-Papuans) and complicated land provision arrangements, including customary land tenure and servicing issues. Solid waste disposal and grey and black water management have been extensively developed and expanded by the Municipal Government. This has occurred mainly by utilizing partnership schemes with donors and NGOs, and thus sharing the respon15 The notion of neighbourhood as used by the Municipal Government can apply to a grouping of few houses to a larger cluster of houses. These physical boundaries are blurred in the context of formal administrative settlement boundaries.

4.5 Summary

113

sibilities and risks. However, attempts at integrated off-site reticulated sanitation systems have had minimal impact in improving urban sanitation and the wider environment in Jayapura. Increasingly, residents respond to this situation by providing their own individual or communal toilet systems, which they manage themselves without technical assistance. In conclusion, the following trends can be observed for housing, water and sanitation and their relation to the three main types of plans which constitute the main delivery mechanisms for formal governance: a. Spatial plans are land use oriented. In the context of Jayapura, the history of spatial planning is strongly influenced by the Dutch colonial system which was then followed by a strong hierarchical Indonesian system. The latter is heavily influenced by Euro-American norms and values. Both systems apply a ‘top-down’ zoning and centralized approach with an emphasis on a regulated ‘order’. Under this approach, the views from the wider community and those people who did not fall under the ‘plan’s vision’ are not recognized. Not surprisingly, informal settlements, which have emerged on lands deemed unsuitable for housing by spatial plans such as slopes, ridges, riverbanks, waterways and conservation areas, are not eligible for formal basic urban services. This spatial approach only further reinforces gaps in basic urban service provision. Spatial plans only apply to areas designated as ‘planned areas’ which are characterized by a high degree of legality in land tenure, planning and building standards, as well as having good public services in terms of sealed roads, formal drainage, water supply and electricity. Formal settlements are predominantly characterized by the ‘formal’ provision of basic urban services with many of the settlements accessing water supply by PDAM. These settlements also have good quality housing, and adequate solid waste collection and on-site sanitation. Importantly, the latest Spatial Plan of Jayapura in 2014 includes informal settlements (previously excluded at a plan and map level). What this designation means in practice is yet to be clarified. b. Development plans are population oriented as they focus on improving the accessibility and distribution of urban services to the overall population residing in planned and informal settlement areas. For informal settlement areas, development plans provide an alternative development mechanism for those who do not benefit from and are excluded from spatial plans. Development plans are more flexible by providing hybrid arrangements between levels of government and other stakeholders, such as those conducted via the PNPM Mandiri Program. The adoption of Law No. 21 of 2001 in development plan guidelines in Jayapura has slowly provided the opportunity for native Papuans and Port Numbay communities to be actively involved in the planning process and subsequent implementation. c. Government-community arrangements, including donors and NGOs, are prominent in supporting government-led projects in planned and informal settlements. These include projects conducted by multi-stakeholders, comprising various

114

4 Types, Processes and Outputs of Formal Urban Governance …

combinations of the Municipal Government, the Provincial Government, the community, NGOs and individuals as well as the private sector.

References APBD Kota Jayapura (2008–2012) BPS Kota Jayapura (2012, 2013, 2014) Jayapura Dalam Angka DKP Kota Jayapura (2012) Laporan Kinerja Dinas Kebersihan dan Pemakaman Kota Jayapura Jones P, Suhartini N (2014) Governance and its complexities: insights from formal and informal urban governance approaches in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia. Paper presented at the 11th UPE international conference, La Plata Paruntung M (2004) Faktor-faktor yang Memperngaruhi Pemilihan Lokasi Perumahan Perumnas IV Padang Bulan Kota Jayapura. Tesis, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang Peraturan Daerah Kota Jayapura Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Jayapura Peraturan Daerah Kota Jayapura Nomor 4 Tahun 2008 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Daerah Kota Jayapura 2005–2025 PNPM (2013) Profil Pelaksanaan PNPM Mandiri Perkotaan Kota Jayapura Suhartini N (2016) Governing informality: urban basic service provision in informal settlements. Paper presented at the 9th IFOU international conference Buenos Aires

Chapter 5

Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban Governance for Basic Urban Services

Clockwise: Rental housing by the Ministry of Public Works for Low Income Residents in Dok IX, Monitoring meeting by the Municipal Government, Waste collection by the Jayapura Department of Waste Management and Funerals, State housing in Dok V

Abstract This Chapter explores the nexus between the formal planning objectives for Jayapura and the outcomes ‘on the ground’ as reflected in plan implementation. Spatial planning outcomes include the implementation of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura and the Detailed Spatial Plans and their impact on the urban quality of life. The outcomes of spatial planning include the distribution of resources allocated © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Suhartini and P. Jones, Urban Governance and Informal Settlements, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06094-7_5

115

116

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

for settlement improvement as indicated in the plans. The implementation of Law No. 21 of 2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua residents in Jayapura provides an opportunity for the local government to modify the planning outputs to be more ‘flexible and responsive’ to local basic urban service needs. Thus, it is observed that the upper level tools of formal governance such as the Spatial Plan of Jayapura and the Detailed Spatial Plans are more rigid, while lower levels are more fluid and responsive to local needs and circumstances. Spatial planning, for example, benefits stakeholders who are directly involved in the planning process and is primarily oriented to residents who live in the planned settlements. On the other hand, development planning benefits a wider range of target groups such as those defined by Law No. 21 of 2001. The development planning process has strong connections to sectoral planning priorities and provides greater flexibility to address the wider needs of marginalized ethnic groups, such as Papuan customary land owners in the unplanned settlements. As a result, a range of self-organized basic urban services have evolved ‘on the ground’ especially in informal settlements. Keywords Gains · Benefits · Formal urban governance Spatial, development and sectoral planning mechanisms

5.1 Introduction As discussed in Chap. 4, arrangements for formal urban governance in Jayapura are complex and multifaceted being led and facilitated by the Government in terms of spatial, development planning and sectoral planning. All types of formal planning conducted in Jayapura address different interest groups and involve various stakeholders and processes. Arrangements have evolved to supplement deficiencies in the main formal arrangements as shown by the emerging urban service provision regarding housing, water and sanitation as developed by different providers, including the community. Within the above context, this chapter explores the nexus between the formal planning objectives for Jayapura and the outcomes ‘on the ground’ as reflected in plan implementation. Spatial planning outcomes include the implementation of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura and the Detailed Spatial Plans and their impact on the urban quality of life. The outcomes of spatial planning are reflected in the distribution of resource allocation for settlement and conservation areas as indicated in the plans. Based on data and information provided by secondary sources, observations, interviews and household surveys, this chapter focuses on basic urban service outcomes especially who benefits and gains from formal urban governance in terms of the spatial, development and sectoral planning processes.

5.2 Spatial Planning Outcomes

117

5.2 Spatial Planning Outcomes The spatial planning outcomes presented in this chapter are based on information provided by household surveys and interviews, typology analysis, overlays of spatial plan maps and the land use on the ground as sourced from aerial images and observation.1

5.2.1 Resource Allocations As noted in Chap. 4, the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014 provides the allocation of resources regarding land for two main uses, namely, settlement and conservation. The land uses characterizing the needs of settlements include housing, agriculture, public and social facilities, landfill, defence and forestry. On the other hand, typical conservation areas consist of protected areas and forests, buffer zones, water catchment areas, open space, ecotourism parks and all non-settlement areas. Forests, which are potentially available for the logging and timber industry, are considered as non-settlement areas due to their ecosystem management and natural resource characteristics. As indicated in Fig. 5.1, the spatial planning outcomes as presented by the overlays of aerial imagery on existing land use in Jayapura in 2012 (indicated with diagonal stripes) and the Land Use Plan of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014 (indicated with green and yellow shades) show the dynamics of land use change. The overlays show that the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014 reflects the current land use at that point in time including informal settlements which are considered ‘unplanned settlements’ by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008. Furthermore, the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014 has omitted the provision of 10,000 ha of land in the southern part of Jayapura as defined by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008 as settlement areas.2 According to the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014, settlements have been both extended and densified. For example, in the District of Abepura, several locations such as Asano, Kota Baru, and Abepantai are designated as new housing areas. On the other hand, in other districts with limited suitable land for housing, the housing 1 As

mentioned in Chap. 3, the household surveys show the resident’s perceptions represented by three types of respondents who reside in formal settlements (termed planned settlements by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008), informal settlements (termed unplanned settlements by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008) and from overall settlements. Whereas the interviews reflect the perceptions of community representatives. Furthermore, a typology analysis and map overlays provide spatial perspectives of the outcomes achieved on the ground. 2 There are several features that differentiate the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008 and 2014. First, the inclusion of the national and provincial development agenda in the land use plan, such as the ring road of Tobati–Enggros and Railway Line Jayapura–Sarmi. Second is the inclusion of settlements which are considered unplanned areas in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008, to planned settlements in the Spatial Plans of Jayapura 2014. These include locations prone to landslides and flooding and have been inhabited by the community. The settlements are designated as low-density housing in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014.

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Fig. 5.1 Current land use of Jayapura

118

5.2 Spatial Planning Outcomes

119

areas are not indicated for expansion, but rather reflect densification such as those in the Districts of North Jayapura, South Jayapura and Heram. Furthermore, housing expansion into new lands remains concentrated in the District of Muara Tami, thus continuing the planning and development objectives of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008. Conservation areas, categorized according to their specific uses and level of accessibility, are also provided in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014. These reflect the inclusion of national and provincial spatial policies regarding the protection of conservation areas in the plan. However, right of ways (ROWs) for arterial and secondary roads, and river buffer zones for conservation are not clearly defined in high-density settlements, such as those that could be provided for in Anafree River, Dok IX River, Kujabu River, Siborongonyi River and Entrop River. As mentioned in Chap. 4, the Spatial Plan of Jayapura outlines future priority services such as housing, water and sanitation. However, in practice, it makes specific emphasis that the provisions of the plan aim to deliver services in the planned settlements. Therefore, the plan is explicit in providing greater benefits to residents who reside in the planned areas. Regarding the provision of water and sanitation, there is no major difference between the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008 and the plan in 2014. The estimate of water and sanitation needs in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014 is based on the needs of the overall population, with the key assumption that all residents are in the planned areas. However, since the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014 includes all the settlements that existed in 2012, the implementation of this plan will provide a broader opportunity for many residents in Jayapura to obtain access to basic urban services provided and supported by the Government. In terms of housing, the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014 includes the settlements that were considered unplanned areas by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008. These settlements were underserviced because of the implementation of the 2008 plan and as such, the residents were excluded in the spatial planning process. However, observations as well as the content of the Jayapura ADP show little evidence of potential service improvement provided by the Municipal Government in those settlements since 2014. The main policy facilitating the inclusion of informal settlements into formal spatial planning was via the Municipal law regarding housing improvement and upgrading of ‘slum areas’ which was released in 2015.3 However, these policies have yet to translate to specific programs and projects.

5.2.2 Who Gains and Benefits from Spatial Planning Based on the regulations, the main stakeholders involved in spatial planning at a municipal level are the Municipal Government, community members and groups, the Municipal Coordination Board for Spatial Management and civil investigators. 3 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2014.

120

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Fig. 5.2 Meeting for the Coordination Board for the Spatial Management of Jayapura. The Planning Board leads the meeting regarding development applications that have significant impact in terms of the economy and environmental sustainability. Photo taken by Edison Bab (2015)

The Municipal Government has the main role in spatial planning as a leading actor in planning and implementation, but only in the planned residential and wider fringing conservation areas which constitute the broader land use fabric as contained in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014. The Municipal Government is a regulator, resource provider, supervisor and evaluator. It provides a regulatory framework, establishes institutions and develops legal and administrative rules and regulations in terms of spatial management. The Municipal Government also obtains the authority to manage budgets for natural resources and infrastructure. The latter occurs by synchronizing the content of spatial plans and development processes carried out by the varying levels of government and other bodies, plus groups and individuals. As the leading actor in spatial planning and implementation, the Municipal Government has the authority to prepare spatial plans at the municipal and lower levels as described in Chap. 4. Furthermore, its role as a regulator and supervisor allows the Municipal Government to establish the Coordination Board for Spatial Management. The latter body provides recommendations to the Mayor in the decision-making process regarding spatial plan implementation and control, as well as assisting residents, private sector, groups and individuals to access and contribute to spatial planning within the designated areas (Fig. 5.2).4 The Municipal Government’s role as a resource provider and facilitator allows them to allocate municipal budgets to undertake the implementation of the spatial plans. In this role, the Municipal Government has the mandate to provide official spatial planning information to the public via oral communication, website and other media. Their role as an evaluator provides the Municipal Government with the authority to conduct reviews of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008 (Figs. 5.3, 5.4, 5.5). 4 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015.

5.2 Spatial Planning Outcomes

121

Fig. 5.3 Field surveys of the Coordination Board for the Spatial Management of Jayapura. The Coordination Board for the Spatial Management of Jayapura undertakes field surveys in planned areas to assess development proposals as led by the Municipal Planning Board. Photos by Jouwe and Edison Bab (2016) Table 5.1 The usefulness of Spatial Plans for individuals—all settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Yes No Na Total

429 13 6 448

95.8 2.9 1.3 100.0

95.8 2.9 1.3 100.0

Cumulative percent 95.8 98.7 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448

The community in the planned areas are the main beneficiaries, resource provider and potential ‘supervisor’ in spatial planning. According to the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014, the community benefits from the plan by having access to spatial plans and their resources, including receiving adequate compensation related to the implementation of the spatial plans. Results from the household surveys show the respondent’s perception regarding the usefulness and the effectiveness of spatial plans.5 Regarding the usefulness of spatial plans, responses from the household surveys show that most of the respondents agreed that spatial plans are useful for individuals (95.8%) and their neighbourhood (96.9%). In both formal and informal settlements, residents perceive spatial plans as being useful (see Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6), notwithstanding little or no spatial planning processes occur in informal settlements. Thus, residents in informal settlements are aware of these planning tools and potential role, even though they have no input into the plans. However, the results from the household surveys indicate varying perspectives regarding the effectiveness of spatial plans. Approximately 10% of respondents 5 The term ‘useful’ is defined by respondents as being beneficial for the respondents such as increas-

ing development activities in their areas, while ‘effective’ is perceived as having impact on the respondents such as via law enforcement and ensuring clarity on land status.

122

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Table 5.2 The usefulness of Spatial Plans for individuals in formal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No Total

147 2 149

98.7 1.3 100.0

98.7 1.3 100.0

98.7 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  149 Table 5.3 The usefulness of Spatial Plans for individuals in informal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No Na Total

282 11 6 299

94.3 3.7 2.0 100.0

94.3 3.7 2.0 100.0

94.3 98.0 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299 Table 5.4 The usefulness of Spatial Plans for the neighbourhood—all settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No Na Total

434 6 8 448

96.9 1.3 1.8 100.0

96.9 1.3 1.8 100.0

96.9 98.2 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448 Table 5.5 The usefulness of Spatial Plans for the neighbourhood in formal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes

149

100.0

100.0

100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  149 Table 5.6 The usefulness of Spatial Plans for the neighbourhood in informal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No Na Total

285 6 8 299

95.3 2.0 2.7 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

95.3 2.0 2.7 100.0

95.3 97.3 100.0

5.2 Spatial Planning Outcomes

123

Fig. 5.4 The Municipal Planning Board website. The website provides information regarding the government’s activities on spatial planning. It also provides public access to the government’s documents, data and information regarding spatial and development plannings. Source http://bappeda. jayapurakota.go.id/

agreed that spatial plans are effective in implementation, whereas many respondents in both planned and informal settlements cited the plans as having little effectiveness. The percentage of respondents from formal settlements who agreed that spatial plans are effective is higher compared to informal settlements, which is to be expected considering their inclusion spatially and by process compared to unplanned informal settlements. See Tables 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 for details. Based on the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014, the community benefits from the plan by obtaining access to spatial plan preparation, implementation and resources. At the preparation stage, the community submits inquiries and questions regarding the plan’s preparation, including prioritizing strategic development areas, question-

124

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Table 5.7 The effectiveness of Spatial Plans—all settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Very effective

Cumulative percent

45

10.0

10.0

10.0

Effective Average

47 152

10.5 33.9

10.5 33.9

20.5 54.5

Less effective Not effective Do not know Na Total

157 34 4 9 448

35.0 7.6 .9 2.0 100.0

35.0 7.6 .9 2.0 100.0

89.5 97.1 98.0 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448 Table 5.8 The effectiveness of Spatial Plans in formal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Very effective

14

9.4

9.4

9.4

Effective Average

16 66

10.7 44.3

10.7 44.3

20.1 64.4

46 5 1 1 149

30.9 3.4 .7 .7 100.0

30.9 3.4 .7 .7 100.0

95.3 98.7 99.3 100.0

Less effective Not effective Do not know Na Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  149 Table 5.9 The effectiveness of Spatial Plans in informal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Very effective

31

10.4

10.4

10.4

Effective Average

31 86

10.4 28.8

10.4 28.8

20.7 49.5

111 29 3 8 299

37.1 9.7 1.0 2.7 100.0

37.1 9.7 1.0 2.7 100.0

86.6 96.3 97.3 100.0

Less effective Not effective Do not know na Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

5.2 Spatial Planning Outcomes

125

Fig. 5.5 Development notice board. A notice board highlighting the importance of hazard prone areas, as provided by the Coordination Board for the Spatial Management of Jayapura. Photo taken by Edison Bab (2015)

ing existing and proposed development issues in the planned areas, conceptualizing development ideas and strategies and establishing partnerships with the government and other institutions. In implementing the spatial plans, the community provides feedback regarding spatial policies and strategies, including local information on customs, traditions and practice. However, it should be noted that these methods of practice have only been in the planned areas. For example, in the spatial plan consultations conducted by the Municipal Government in the preparation of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014, detailed plans for the District of Heram in 2016 and plans for the District of South Jayapura in 2015, all involved community consultation. The community in planned areas provided input regarding issues arising in their residential areas, as well as recommendations for improvement (see Fig. 5.6). The community’s role as a resource provider and planning facilitator has provided the community with access to public facilities in the planned areas. For example, the Port Numbay community has a prominent role in providing access to customary land for development.6 In terms of land arrangements, the Port Numbay community’s rights over land have been legalized and recognized in the processes of formal land arrangements as conducted by the Municipal Government (Fig. 5.7).7 In the context of planned areas, the community provided feedback regarding zoning regulations, planning permits and the reporting of activities that do not comply with the spatial plans as approved (see Fig. 5.8).8 In Jayapura, the community’s

6 Interviews 7 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015. with stakeholders, 2015.

126

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Fig. 5.6 Community participation in the preparation of plans in the formally planned District of Heram. Community representatives, including women’s associations were involved in providing feedback regarding the environmental impact of formal development in their residential areas and recommendations to alleviate negative impacts

Fig. 5.7 Claims on customary land compensation made by the local customary landowners

role as a ‘supervisor’ is mainly exercised in the process of plan preparation and public ‘socialization’ including awareness of the regional laws regarding spatial plans. This includes the community reporting on and submitting complaints about the implementation of the spatial plans in the planned areas.9

8 Interviews 9 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015. with stakeholders, 2015; http://bappeda.jayapurakota.go.id/, accessed 9 October 2016.

5.2 Spatial Planning Outcomes

127

Fig. 5.8 Public consultation regarding the Spatial Plan preparation. Communication between staff of the Municipal Government and community member (left) and academics (right) regarding spatial plan implementation in the District of Heram

5.2.3 Issues Regarding Spatial Planning Outcomes in Jayapura The implementation of the Spatial Plan of Jayapura has been a challenging task for the Municipal Government. Regarding its contents, spatial plans are mainly focused on providing a policy framework regarding spatial resource allocation targeting basic urban service outcomes. Thus, the scale of these plans makes the implementation ‘on the ground’ more challenging as the Municipal Government must follow up with tangible development programs and projects (Fig. 5.9). Furthermore, there are issues of non-compliant planning permits and unauthorized development as well as an increasing number of informal settlements. Despite being reviewed to include unplanned areas, the spatial plans via their monitoring and regulatory roles cannot cope with the rapid growth of unauthorized development. This is because the process of obtaining permits remains complex and time consuming, which results in the residents developing their land and properties prior to the issue of permits, or no permits at all. This situation is compounded by the lack of resources of the Coordination Board of the Spatial Management of Jayapura which is responsible for monitoring and enforcement regarding the spatial plan implementation (Fig. 5.10).

128

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Fig. 5.9 Dysfunctional public market in a designated ‘New Town’. This formal settlement (planned area) in the District of Muara Tami was constructed by the Municipal Government. Muara Tami has been enacted as the ‘new town’ to accommodate rapid urbanization in the western part of Jayapura. However, due to the lack of supporting infrastructure and proximity to urban centers and security reasons, the ‘new town’ remains undeveloped

Fig. 5.10 ‘Illegal Development’ in unplanned settlements. These images show development in informal settlements (unplanned areas) despite the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008 allocating these localities as conservation areas due to environmental risks. Unauthorized development is not only conducted by individuals but also by private developers

In conclusion, the range of stakeholders involved in spatial planning in Jayapura, including who gains and benefits, is summarized in Table 5.10.

Role as per law

Description

Direct/indirect benefits

Undertakes reviews of the implementation of the Jayapura Spatial Plan and detailed plans

Evaluator

The reviews of the Jayapura Spatial Plan 2012–2014, the preparation of detailed Spatial Plans 2014–2016

Provides recommendations Input regarding to the Mayor and Municipal development proposals officers regarding decisions and possible action on spatial planning

‘Supervisor’

The establishment of the Coordination Board of Spatial Management (activities of planning permits, field surveys and meetings, providing information via media and notice boards)

Provides a regulatory framework and an ad hoc body to carry out the supervision

(continued)

Direct: obtains access to alter and modify the spatial plans Indirect: provisions of consistent spatial plans which allow smooth coordination among different tiers of planning authority

Direct: obtains access to provide input to decision-makers regarding spatial planning Indirect: well-managed spatial planning arrangements; well-managed administration regarding development approvals

Direct: well-managed spatial planning arrangements Indirect: receives acknowledgement from urban residents and thus increasing support on policy implementation and development

Leads the processes of The preparation and Direct: authority to control the spatial planning in Jayapura registration of the Jayapura formal spatial arrangements of formal power Spatial Plan Indirect: well-managed formal spatial arrangements; consistency of spatial plans across different levels of authority

Gains

Regulator

The Municipal Government The leading actor

Stakeholders/beneficiaries

Table 5.10 The range of stakeholders/beneficiaries and their gains in spatial planning in Jayapura

5.2 Spatial Planning Outcomes 129

The community in unplanned areas

Nil

Advice and complaints submitted in the spatial planning process at district and lower levels as conducted by the Municipal Government Awareness of the plans and Through media awareness policies

Provides feedback and complaints

The inclusion of customary arrangements in the land release process carried out by district government

The Port Numbay community obtains the rights regarding the customary land of Jayapura, thus providing them the privileged access to land

Supervisor

Releases private land for public access with compensation, releases private land for hazard prevention construction

Provides access to public facilities

Resource provider

Involvement in the spatial planning process: preparation for registration, submits complaints

Access to spatial plans obtains the added value produced by spatial plans, receives adequate compensation and benefits from the spatial plan’s implementation

Main beneficiaries

Description

The community in planned areas

Gains

Role as per law

Stakeholders/beneficiaries

Table 5.10 (continued)

Direct: no physical impact Indirect: knowledge awareness

Direct: residents may receive compensation caused by misconduct in the implementation of spatial plans

Direct: for the Port Numbay community, they have access to intervene in the spatial planning and development process Indirect: increased value of land

Indirect: increased access to public facilities, increased value of land

Direct: access to include community needs and interests in terms of spatial planning; increased land value; access to basic urban services Indirect: an inclusion of government and community interest in the spatial plans

Direct/indirect benefits

130 5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

5.3 Development Planning Outcomes

131

5.3 Development Planning Outcomes As noted in Chap. 4, the Municipal Government prepares development plans as a requirement of laws and regulations, with the process of development planning aiming to translate policies into local development programs and projects. The latter is initially based on the policies as outlined in the spatial plans and is further developed with input from sectoral departments and community members/groups during the development plan consultations. The main development planning outcomes are subsequently outlined in the LTPD, MTDP and ADP plans. Regarding the provision of basic urban services, the LTDP outlines long-term aims and goals, while the MTDPs provide milestones, targets and priorities for a 5 year development horizon. The ADPs provide tangible program and project outcomes for implementation as described in Chap. 4. Programs and projects for housing, water and sanitation are included in the sectoral development plans of municipal departments and comprise program and project titles, locations, target groups, and budget including a breakdown of detailed expenses.

5.3.1 Resource Allocations Analysis of the LTDP and MTDPs for Jayapura indicates that there are no specific provisions in these overlapping plans targeting housing, water and sanitation. The policies are broad addressing the need to improve ‘settlement quality’ which includes housing, water and sanitation. However, in the ADPs of Jayapura, resource allocation is clearly quantified as the Municipal Government allocates programs, projects and a budget as part of their mandate to provide basic urban services for housing, water and sanitation. Development planning is population and need oriented and focuses on meeting basic urban services for the wider population. Unlike the content of spatial plans, development plans include both planned and unplanned settlements, thus focusing on a broader range of target groups and individuals within Jayapura. With the support of Law No. 21 of 2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua Province, development planning provides an opportunity for residents who live in ‘unplanned areas’ to access basic urban services through development mechanisms outside those suggested by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura with its confined social and spatial mandate. Thus, formal governance uses this mechanism to address service inequalities in the unplanned areas. Results from stakeholder interviews show that development planning has been effective in addressing the needs of people in informal settlements, especially in providing various hybrid and ‘bottom-up’ development arrangements (see Box 5.1). These include partnerships in terms of planning advocacy, building construction and resource provision, and involves the Municipal Government, various donors and the community working together.

132

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Box 5.1 Development Partnership ‘Partnerships with donors such as USAID, AUSAID and UNICEF have emerged to address the needs for water in the settlement above Jalan Percetakan and Kloofkamp (informal settlements) which allow the community to lead and manage their development needs’. (SK)

5.3.2 Who Gains and Benefits from Development Planning Development planning in Jayapura provides a local level conduit to position the Municipal Government working with the wider community as leading actors in addressing service needs. The result is that individuals across a range of communities and settlement types are the main beneficiaries. The private sector obtains the benefits from development planning by providing services in construction and development, including feasibilities and scoping studies. The Municipal Government facilitates development planning through its authority to conduct development plan preparation and implementation. As described in Chap. 3, the Municipal Government conducted the preparation and registration of the LTDP of Jayapura 2005–2025 and the MTDP of Jayapura, 2005–2010 and 2012–2016. Furthermore, the Municipal Government prepares and implements the ADPs with many residents recognizing that such plans have greater flexibility to address the needs of all communities and settlement types, rather than the suite of spatial plans which apply only to planned areas (Fig. 5.11).10 The ADP process provides the Municipal Government with the authority to apply and modify planning approaches according to the needs identified in the spatial plans and ADPs.11 This includes the implementation of laws and regulations on development, and importantly, accommodating the community’s needs as raised in development planning consultations, which includes both planned and unplanned communities.12 As such, a broader community is involved in the process of ADP preparation and registration. Furthermore, community input is also considered by sectoral departments in Jayapura when aligning their annual programs and projects, as stated in the interviews with stakeholders shown in Box 5.2 and 5.3.

10 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015. with stakeholders, 2015. 12 Interviews with stakeholders, 2015. 11 Interviews

5.3 Development Planning Outcomes

133

Fig. 5.11 Meeting preparation for the ADPs. The ADP preparation is led by the Municipal Planning Board and involves sectoral departments. Photo taken by Edison Bab (2015)

Box 5.2 The Consistency of Development Plans ‘The processes of development planning is aligned with Law 25 of 2004 and national regulations. They are according to the Mayor’s policies which are included in MTDP and then are included in the sectoral MTDP and annual sectoral plans. About 90% of the processes are aligned with the procedures as enacted by the regulation’. (EM)

Box 5.3 Community Input into the ADPs ‘Regarding community participation, the proposals and feedback from the community are the basis for preparing plans. Every year, approximately 80% of our programs and projects such as training, financial assistance, partnerships and empowerment, involve the community. It is only 10–20% of the budget which is allocated to our internal programs’. (RA) In practice, community proposals tend to address short-term needs such as water supply, sanitation, disaster mitigation and building renovations, and are specific to the context of settlement location and community needs. Not surprisingly, development proposals suggested by the community often do not comply with the MTDPs.13 In response to this, the Jayapura Municipal Planning Board provides technical assistance to the community from the stage of preparing proposals to the process of finalizing planning documents. For example, the Municipal Planning Board requires sectoral departments to respond to community-based proposals and to include 13 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015.

134

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Table 5.11 Awareness of development plans for basic urban services—all settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No Total

185 263 448

41.3 58.7 100.0

41.3 58.7 100.0

41.3 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448

sectoral-based proposals which reflect an ‘equitable’ spatial distribution of sectoral development across the municipality.14 However, the decision to include community proposals covering the full range of settlement and community types within the final ADPs remain the perogative of the government. The implementation of community-based proposals relies strongly on the commitment of the community and locally elected leaders to assist and follow up the process at higher levels which is time consuming and political. As a resource provider, the Municipal Government and the community have different roles in providing development resources. The Municipal Government has the authority to provide the regulatory framework, budget and infrastructure to conduct the process of development planning and implementation. This includes encouraging stakeholders to collaborate in the planning and budgeting process with the upper levels of government, the latter having access to varying control over external funding. On the other hand, community groups have the authority to allow access to private and or customary land for public facilities, to facilitate and mediate access arrangements on customary land as well as to prepare and put forward community development proposals. The community contributes to and receives financial support in hybrid programs and projects which are facilitated under the schemes of PNPM Mandiri or those sponsored by international donors. The latter is primarily targeted at housing, roads, sanitation and water connections at the kampung/village level.15 In the long term, this role provides an opportunity for the communities to improve their capacity and skills in identifying, managing and carrying out development projects while strengthening the community’s awareness of the development planning process, programs and projects that may be beneficial to their neighbourhoods. Regardless of this process of co-evolution, the results from household surveys show varying responses in terms of resident’s awareness of development plans. There is a lower percentage of respondents who are aware of development plans compared to those who are aware of them. Approximately 58.7% of the respondents in all settlements were not aware of development planning (see Table 5.11). The results of the household surveys in both formal and informal settlements also show a similar pattern regarding the awareness of development plans with many respondents in both settlements unaware of these plan types. There is a higher proportion of respondents that are unaware in informal settlements compared to those 14 Author’s

individual observations, 2003–2015, interviews with stakeholders, 2015. with stakeholders, 2015.

15 Interviews

5.3 Development Planning Outcomes

135

Table 5.12 Awareness of development plans for basic urban services in formal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No Total

65 84 149

43.6 56.4 100.0

43.6 56.4 100.0

43.6 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  149 Table 5.13 Awareness of development plans for basic urban services in informal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No Total

120 179 299

40.1 59.9 100.0

40.1 59.9 100.0

40.1 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

in formal settlements, as can be seen from Tables 5.12 and 5.13. This result could be expected given a larger proportion of the Municipal Government budget, as shown later, is expended in formal settlements compared to informal settlements. The Municipal Government has the authority to conduct formal development plan monitoring and evaluation.16 From the interviews and observations, the Municipal Government conducts regular monitoring and evaluation activities of development plans. The results of these activities are utilized by the Municipal Planning Board to advise sectoral departments on how to improve their performance in the ongoing implementation of the ADPs (Figs. 5.12 and 5.13). The benefits of development plans to the community are reflected in household surveys regarding the usefulness of development plans. Household surveys show that regardless of the level of community inclusion in the process, respondents show a high level of satisfaction regarding the usefulness and the effectiveness of development planning. Approximately 96% of the respondents agree that development planning is useful for individual well-being and for their neighbourhood as shown in Tables 5.14, 5.15, 5.16. A similar trend emerges regarding the usefulness of development planning at the neighbourhood level. As shown in Tables 5.17, 5.18, 5.19, more than 96.2% of respondents from all settlements agreed that development planning is useful in the provision of basic urban services. Regarding the effectiveness of development planning, approximately 40% of the respondents agreed that development planning is ‘average’ in its effectiveness in delivering basic urban services. As shown in Table 5.20, 8.2% of the respondents agreed that the planning is ‘very effective’, followed by those who considered that development planning is ‘effective’ (11.4%). More respondents view that develop16 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015.

136

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Table 5.14 The usefulness of development plans for basic urban services for individual wellbeing—all settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No na Total

427 10 11 448

95.3 2.2 2.5 100.0

95.3 2.2 2.5 100.0

95.3 97.5 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448 Table 5.15 The usefulness of development plans for basic urban services for individual well-being in formal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No na Total

147 1 1 149

98.7 .7 .7 100.0

98.7 .7 .7 100.0

98.7 99.3 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  149 Table 5.16 The usefulness of development plans for basic urban services for individual well-being in informal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No na Total

280 9 10 299

93.6 3.0 3.3 100.0

93.6 3.0 3.3 100.0

93.6 96.7 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015, n  299 Table 5.17 The usefulness of development plans for basic urban services for the neighbourhood—all settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No na Total

431 8 9 448

96.2 1.8 2.0 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448

96.2 1.8 2.0 100.0

96.2 98.0 100.0

5.3 Development Planning Outcomes

137

Fig. 5.12 Monitoring and evaluation. The monitoring of development plan implementation at Kampung Enggros in the District of South Jayapura is led by the Municipal Planning Board and involves community representatives. The monitoring team collects data and information regarding the progress of development projects and programs at the village/kampung District and municipal level. Photo taken by Edison Bab (2016)

Fig. 5.13 Field monitoring. Development plan field monitoring on the Indonesia–PNG Border. Results of the monitoring are compiled as an input for progress reports prepared for the Municipal Planning Board. Photo taken by Edison Bab (2015)

ment planning has a positive impact in their settlements for basic urban services than those who do not. Results from household surveys in formal settlements regarding the effectiveness of development plans for basic urban services show similar figures to those in all settlements. Table 5.21 shows that approximately 48% of the respondents agreed that development planning is effective, followed by 30% of those who stated that development planning is less effective.

138

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Table 5.18 The usefulness of development plans for basic urban services for the neighbourhood in formal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No Total

147 2 149

98.7 1.3 100.0

98.7 1.3 100.0

98.7 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  149 Table 5.19 The usefulness of development plans for basic urban services for the neighbourhood in informal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Yes No na Total

285 6 8 299

95.3 2.0 2.7 100.0

95.3 2.0 2.7 100.0

95.3 97.3 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299 Table 5.20 The effectiveness of development plans for basic urban services—all settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Very effective

37

8.3

8.3

8.3

Effective Average

52 179

11.6 40.0

11.6 40.0

19.9 59.8

Less effective Not effective Do not know na Total

149 24 2 5 448

33.3 5.4 .4 1.1 100.0

33.3 5.4 .4 1.1 100.0

93.1 98.4 98.9 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448

On the other hand, household surveys in informal settlements show that many respondents (37%) agreed that development planning is less effective, followed by those who agreed that the level of development planning effectiveness is average. Interestingly, there is a reasonable percentage of respondents in informal settlements who agreed that development planning is very effective (10%) and effective (10%) as shown in Table 5.22. The figures show that when comparing both settlement types, many respondents view development plans as an effective mechanism in accommodating basic urban service needs for urban residents. This can be viewed as positive in that the development planning process and outcomes are having an impact on improving the quality of life of residents in both formal and informal settlements.

5.3 Development Planning Outcomes

139

Table 5.21 The effectiveness of development plans for basic urban services in formal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Very effective

11

7.4

7.4

7.4

Effective Average

19 71

12.8 47.7

12.8 47.7

20.1 67.8

44 3 1 149

29.5 2.0 .7 100.0

29.5 2.0 .7 100.0

97.3 99.3 100.0

Less effective Not effective na Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  149 Table 5.22 The effectiveness of development plans for basic urban services in informal settlements Responses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Very effective

31

10.4

10.4

10.4

Effective Average

31 86

10.4 28.8

10.4 28.8

20.7 49.5

111 29 3 8 299

37.1 9.7 1.0 2.7 100.0

37.1 9.7 1.0 2.7 100.0

86.6 96.3 97.3 100.0

Less effective Not effective Do not know na Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

5.3.3 Issues Characterizing Development Planning Outcomes in Jayapura Unlike spatial planning, development planning provides residents living in settlements deemed unplanned the opportunity to access basic urban services at the neighbourhood and household levels. Within this context, issues raised by residents in unplanned areas during the ADP process include the fairness of varying planning and development standards which are applied across the municipality. Despite such views, the government is grappling with the issue of how to meet the needs of a range of city populations using different approaches based on their residency in formal and informal settlements. In responding to the inequity of outcomes associated with the varying plan types, the Municipal Government encourages development arrangements that involve NGOs and foreign donors which target specific beneficiary groups and locations, especially those outside the planned areas. The Municipal Government also facilitates project arrangements which involve the community in informal settlements as the main actor in initiating the process rather than as a direct beneficiary to a physical

140

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

project. This mechanism is increasingly being used in lower level development planning processes, thus positioning the Municipal Government as service provider and facilitator rather than the main actor who has little jurisdiction in informal settlement (and which contradicts the legal provisions of the spatial laws and regulations). In addition, Law No. 21 of 2001 is utilized to justify development projects in informal settlements (identified in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura), which are mainly inhabited by Papuans. Within this context, it is not surprising that the Municipal Government took the opportunity to widen the scope of development target groups by the inclusion of settlements which were considered ‘unplanned areas’ in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008, to ‘planned areas’ in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014. Based on this realignment, the residents in former informal settlements are now included in the ADPs, although what this means in terms of spatial planning processes and outcomes is unclear as there has been little change in plan content especially in the annual ADPs. In terms of project implementation and the resources that flow onto the wider community, formal development projects use formal procurement procedures. Consequently, the opportunity to participate in bidding is restricted only to registered consultants or contractors. ‘Local’ Port Numbay contractors and community (that is, the original Jayapura residents) often challenge this process as they do not meet the qualification criteria and are excluded from bidding and winning local service contacts. The Port Numbay community often appeals for special consideration based on their rights of customary landownership and being the original inhabitants of land on which Jayapura has developed. In order to accommodate the community’s needs, the Municipal Government establishes a tri-party development arrangement involving the Municipal Government, the churchs and leaders of the Port Numbay customary landowners. As mentioned by stakeholders in the interviews (see Box 5.4), the involvement of local community leaders including religious groups is important to ensure the realization of development targets. Box 5.4 Tri-Party Development Arrangements ‘In the development planning processes, we involve the government and community leaders from religious groups and local tribes. We call it the three pillars of governance. We apply this approach, particularly in Papua, so development can go smoothly. If we don’t involve these 3 pillars, sometimes development doesn’t achieve the target, for example, the realization is only 20% of the development target. The customary community wants to be involved in the processes, with the government and the church as well’. (EM) In terms of development planning outcomes, a summary of the stakeholders and their benefits and gains in development planning in Jayapura is shown in Table 5.23.

The community (in planned and informal areas)

Undertakes reviews of the implementation of LTDP, MTDP and ADP

Evaluator

Actively involved in the plan preparation, provides development proposals and conducts development projects

Supervises the implementation on the ground

‘Supervisor’

Leading actor

Provides facilities and budget to conduct the process of planning, implementation and evaluation of development plans

Resource provider

The involvement in the spatial planning process: preparation for registration, submitting complaints

Reviews processes, which involves multisectoral teams from the government, community, academics and the House of Representatives

Desk and field monitoring

Provision of budget for conducting meetings regarding development planning

Provides regulatory framework and The establishment of multisectoral government teams to carry out the teams to prepare and monitor plan preparation, registration and development plans monitoring/evaluation

Regulator

The preparation and registration of Jayapura development plans, the implementation and monitoring and supervision

Leads plan preparation, implementation and evaluation and monitoring of development planning

The Municipal Government

Leading actor

Description

Stakeholders/beneficiaries Role as per Law Gains

Table 5.23 Who gains and benefits in development planning in Jayapura

(continued)

Direct: broader community involvement in decision-making processes, the inclusion of community needs and interests Indirect: improved development achievements

Direct: well-controlled ongoing development projects and programs Indirect: improved government performance

Direct: consistent development plan implementation Indirect: improved development performance by the government

Direct: effective uses of resources, smooth planning implementation Indirect: increased development performance by the government

Direct: well-managed development mechanisms Indirect: improved governance arrangements

Direct: increased positive benefits for residents and acknowledgement regarding formal governance Indirect: improved development performance

Direct/indirect benefits

5.3 Development Planning Outcomes 141

Development contractor

Private sector

Carries out commissioned development projects

Receive benefits of the implementation development plan in their residential areas

Provides input regarding the ongoing development as well as completed development projects

Evaluator

Beneficiaries

Provides feedback and complaints regarding development plans

Supervisor

Individuals

Provides access to public facilities, Port Numbay community obtains the rights regarding customary land of Jayapura, thus provides them privileged access to land

Resource provider

Stakeholders/beneficiaries Role as per Law Gains

Table 5.23 (continued)

Direct: access to involvement in implementation Indirect: increased community awareness of planning and development projects

Direct: access to intervene in planning and development processes Indirect: increased community awareness of planning and development projects

Direct/indirect benefits

Receives profit from development

Receive benefits of projects and programs implementation

Direct: receives profit from development projects Indirect: recognition from the government and the community over the project accomplishment

Direct: obtain the benefits of development programs and projects Indirect: effective development programs and projects

Input is submitted in development Direct: access to involvement in assessing planning consultations, and at desk development outcomes and field monitoring Indirect: increased community awareness of planning and development projects

Advice and complaints submitted in development planning consultations conducted by the Municipal Government or by written documents submitted to the Municipal Planning Board

Releases private land for public access with compensation, releases private land for hazard prevention construction, the inclusion of customary arrangements in the land release process carried out by district government

Description

142 5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

5.4 Who Benefits from Sectoral Planning: Housing, Water and Sanitation

143

5.4 Who Benefits from Sectoral Planning: Housing, Water and Sanitation The previous discussion explored the range of development outcomes that results from spatial and development planning processes. It is shown that different stakeholders obtain various direct and indirect benefits from the arrangements. This section explores the outcomes of sectoral planning with a focus on the main beneficiaries of the basic urban service provision of housing, water and sanitation as conducted by the formal providers in Jayapura. Sectoral plans accommodate policies as defined in the spatial and development plans and translates them into sectoral programs and projects conducted by sectoral departments working with the private sector, NGOs and communities. The analysis utilized to develop the following discussion is based on secondary data as well as results from interviews with stakeholders and household surveys. Responsibility for sectoral planning for housing, water and sanitation is distributed among several municipal departments, such as the Planning Board, the Environmental Board, the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Health and the Districts. Parallel with sectoral planning processes at the municipal level is sectoral planning by provincial and national departments which are also responsible for conducting programs and projects regarding housing, water and sanitation.

5.4.1 Housing As discussed in Chap. 4, the national model of housing provision developed by Perum Perumnas has been replicated by the Municipal Government in providing and facilitating a wide range of housing types (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014). Formal housing provision, therefore, includes projects facilitated by Perum Perumnas, national and municipal government, as well as by private developers. Observations indicate that housing outcomes in Jayapura reflect the various dynamics from the processes of formal and informal governance. For example, in terms of state-housing provision, the residents often stay in their state-provided houses for longer than the duration of their position.17 While State houses are no longer available for active staff, they have been acquired by the former residents as private assets, often commencing in their retirement period. Regarding the provision of general housing by individuals and private developers in planned settlements, there are several issues related to meeting the affordability of potential buyers, including landownership and compliance with spatial plans. Because formal housing is restricted to planned settlements, housing is targeted at buyers with middle to high incomes and includes the costly process of land transfer and registration. Despite the government regulation requiring developers to provide a proportion of housing projects for low-income buyers in planned 17 Individual

observations, 2003–2016.

144

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

settlements, the price of housing being placed on the market by private developers remain high.18 Moreover, freehold or corporate landownership is mostly attached to customary landownership, which results in more complex arrangements in terms of land release and the registration of the individual housing plot.19 Because of the length of the formal planning process, private developers who want to cut the costly process of housing arrangements often buy land directly from local Port Numbay community members. This land is often located in the areas defined as unplanned areas by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura. As a result, the houses are sold without formal building certificates and planning permits, with landownership and subsequent rights to the building assets often disputed. Housing assistance projects coordinated by the Municipal Government have targeted improving housing and settlement planning, rather than building specific houses. Land prices and servicing issues have been a main cause of a lack of formal housing provision by the Municipal Government in Jayapura. The Municipal Government managed to build 30 houses for staff in 1998 in Tanah Hitam, in partnership with Bank Papua.20 However, as noted, the Municipal Government no longer plays a role as a direct housing provider for staff. Figure 5.14 shows that the Municipal Government investment in housing has fluctuated dramatically during the period 2008–2012. The Municipal Government

Fig. 5.14 Housing assistance projects coordinated by the Municipal Government. Source Compiled from APBD Kota Jayapura (2008–2012), amount in Rupiah 18 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015; individual observations, 2003–2015. with stakeholders, 2015. 20 Interviews with stakeholders, 2015. 19 Interviews

5.4 Who Benefits from Sectoral Planning: Housing, Water and Sanitation Table 5.24 Types of housing ownership—all settlements Ownership Frequency Percent Valid percent

145

Cumulative percent

Owned Owned, other

335 2

74.8 .4

74.8 .4

74.8 75.2

Rented Government owned Other na Total

71 14

15.8 3.1

15.8 3.1

91.1 94.2

20 6 448

4.5 1.3 100.0

4.5 1.3 100.0

98.7 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448

funding in housing improvement in 2012 has increased dramatically as a proportion of Municipal Government investment since 2009 (no new construction). The National Government and Provincial Government share a larger proportion of the housing budget, compared to the Municipal Government.21 Household surveys provide insights regarding the types of housing ownership and tenure that exists in Jayapura. As can be seen in Table 5.24, many respondents own their house followed by those who rent and live in Municipal-Government-owned housing. It is also shown that the provision of rental housing has also contributed to providing an affordable housing stock for those who cannot afford to buy and/or obtain mortgages for houses.

5.4.2 Water Formal water provision in Jayapura is provided by several bodies including PDAM, national and municipal government and private providers. PDAM holds the legal right to provide a water service for the overall population. However, PDAM has experienced difficulties in meeting the increasing demand (Suhartini 2016). As reflected in Table 5.25, PDAM struggles to fulfil the overall demand for water in Jayapura. PDAM serves only 46.41% of the total demand in the planned Districts of North Jayapura, South Jayapura, Abepura and Heram. The District of Muara Tami is totally excluded from service coverage. The largest coverage area is in the District of Abepura (76.62%), followed by the District of South Jayapura (45.54%) and the District of North Jayapura (35.32%). The District of Heram reflects the lowest coverage area with only 31.44% of the district’s population covered by PDAM. Despite the increasing population in Jayapura, PDAM investment in water supply remains minimal. As implied in Table 5.26, the majority of PDAM infrastructure is in poor condition with irregular maintenance, and PDAM clearly has not expanded 21 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015.

North Jayapura

South Jayapura

Abepura

Heram

1

2

3

4

Waena

Abepura

Jayapura

Jayapura

PDAM Branch

311

77

124

59

51

Area (km2 )

265,228

47,142

52,136

95,077

70,873

Total population

Source Adapted from the PDAM Corporate Plan, Jayapura 2010–2014

Total

Service area

No.

Table 5.25 PDAM water coverage in Jayapura

22,940

2924

7869

7620

4527

Household

Usage

84

2

6

52

24

Hydrant

23,024

2926

7875

7672

4551

Total

123,100

14,820

39,945

43,300

25,035

Population coverage

46.41

31.44

76.62

45.54

35.32

% Coverage

146 5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

No.

Intake location

Intake Ajen II (Inlet Res. Polimak IV)

Intake Ajen III (Pel. Kodam Lama/Ampera)

Intake Ajen IV (Inlet Res. Paulus DOK V)

Intake Ajen V (Pel. RSUD Dok II)

2

3

4

5

153

181

204

222

227

456

Intake Ajen I (Inlet Res. Polimak IV)

Intake APO (built in 1992)

1

KLOOF KAMP

453

Intake Bhayangkara (built in 1968)

2

Intake Anafree II (built in 1970)

2

569

Intake Anafree I (built in 1950) 577

Elevation (above sea level) (m)

1

BHAYANGKARA/APO

ANAFREE SYSTEM

Service area: North Jayapura and South Jayapura

Water springs

Table 5.26 Water infrastructure of PDAM Jayapura

10

5

5

5

10

6

9

10

23

Production capacity (L/det)

Leakage, decreasing water intake, poor maintenance, open intake

Decreasing water intake capacity, open intake, no water treatment, poor maintenance

Open intake, no debit meter, no water treatment, poor maintenance

Condition

10

6

15

(continued)

Reservoirs

5.4 Who Benefits from Sectoral Planning: Housing, Water and Sanitation 147

1

1

BROGONJI

KOREM

Subtotal

Intake Korem

Intake Brogonji

Intake Kamp Wolker

Subtotal

Source Skema Daerah Pelayanan PDAM Jayapura, 2010

1

KAMP WOLKERWAENA

Service area: Abepura dan Heram

Intake Kujabu I

Intake Entrop II

1

2

KUJABU

Intake Entrop I

Intake Kali Kamp

1

Intake Ajen VII (Inlet Res. Ajen Baja/Pelabuhan)

7

1

Intake Ajen VI (Inlet Res. Ajen Beton)

6

ENTROP

Intake location

No.

KALI KAMP/BLK BRI

Water springs

Table 5.26 (continued)

166

306

167

275

88

107

75

142

84

Elevation (above sea level) (m)

120

18

30

72

376

219

10

20

20

20

10

Production capacity (L/det)

Leakage, decreasing water intake, no debit meter,

Leakage, decreasing water intake, poor maintenance, open intake

Condition

10

10

Reservoirs

148 5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

5.4 Who Benefits from Sectoral Planning: Housing, Water and Sanitation

149

its district water coverage since its establishment in the 1950s (PDAM Kabupaten Jayapura 2012). According to Kinerja PDAM (2012), PDAM Jayapura has been experiencing decreasing efficiency in terms of production from close to 100% during the 2007–2009 period to 73.2% in 2010 (Suhartini 2016). Water leakage remains significant (54%) mainly caused by illegal connections to pipelines by residents in unplanned settlements. Poor maintenance also has been highlighted as a main problem causing decreasing supply capacity as the main open intakes require regular maintenance.22 In terms of water distribution, more than 50% of customers are not supplied with a continuous 7-day water flow, and more than 50% of PDAM customers do not obtain continuous water supply within a 24-hour period (PDAM Kabupaten Jayapura 2012). Furthermore, approximately 80% of customers do not have individual water meters. Customers tend not to close taps, so water flows continuously at varying flow rates. Lack of coordination and consultation among development bodies has also exacerbated coordination and water leakages in the main reticulation pipelines.23 In response to the above PDAM situation, water provision has been supplemented by projects funded by the Municipal Government and the national government via the Provincial Department of Public Works.24 The projects were conducted independently from those carried out by PDAM, and water provision projects include the installation of communal water connections and water resource protection. Joint water projects increasingly focus on those at a neighbourhood and local village/kampung scale (APBD Kota Jayapura 2008–2012). As a result of the diversity of water sources used, the Municipal Government carries out water quality checks and sampling in random locations across the municipality such as at open water springs, PDAM intakes, water bottling companies and restaurants. However, as a general observation, these tasks cover only limited locations and exclude the population located in informal settlements. Despite the commitment to improve water provision in Jayapura as reflected in the LTDPs and the MTDPs, the Municipal Government funding for water-related projects fluctuated during the period 2008–2012 (see Fig. 5.15). The largest investment was in 2009 being approximately 40% of the total municipal government investment during this period, followed by projects conducted in 2012 which contributed 31.65% of the total investment. The lowest investment was in 2010, with 1.13% of the total government investment allocated to water-related projects. Since 2012, investment has gradually increased due to sharing of funds provided by the national government. However, this has also fluctuated.25 Results from observations in the field regarding water provision projects conducted by the Municipal Government show various outcomes. Water connection projects in partnership with international donors, such as those built in informal

22 Individual

observations, 2003–2015. with stakeholders, 2015. 24 Interviews with stakeholders, 2015. 25 Interviews with stakeholders, 2014. 23 Interviews

150

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Fig. 5.15 Funding for water-related projects by the Municipal Government (in Rupiah). Source Compiled from APBD Kota Jayapura (2008–2012)

settlements are dysfunctional due to discontinuous water supply and lack of maintenance (see Fig. 5.16). The situation above is confirmed by the results of household surveys which show several types of water provision have been carried out by different stakeholders, including PDAM, the Municipal Government, NGOs, the community and self-organized provision. The results demonstrate that water provision is not the monopoly of one stakeholder but is often shared contributions by different providers (see Table 5.27 and Fig. 5.17 for details on type and stakeholder regarding water provision in Jayapura). From a government perspective, this can be seen as sharing the ‘risk’ associated with projects whose technical capcaity is limited and sustainability is questionable. Figure 5.17 reflects the different stakeholders contributing to water provision arrangements in Jayapura. The intersections reflects co-provision among different providers, namely, between the government and the community (segment A), the community and NGOs (segment B), the Municipal Government and NGOs (segment C), individuals and NGOs (segment F), the community and individuals (segment D) and co-provision by NGOs and the private sector that intersect with all stakeholders.

5.4 Who Benefits from Sectoral Planning: Housing, Water and Sanitation

151

Fig. 5.16 Types of formal water provision. Different types of water supply construction conducted by the Municipal Government in partnership with donors and NGOs. The projects are no longer functional due to fluctuations in water supply and lack of maintenance. Source Suhartini (2016) Fig. 5.17 The stakeholders contributing in water provision. Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015

152

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Table 5.27 Status of clean water arrangements—all settlements Stakeholders Frequency Percent Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Municipal Government

240

53.6

53.6

53.6

Municipal Government, Provincial Government Municipal Government, NGOs Municipal Government, community

4

.9

.9

54.5

1

.2

.2

54.7

3

.7

.7

55.4

Municipal Government, community

2

.4

.4

55.8

Municipal Government, other Provincial Government NGOs NGOs, Self-organized, Community

2

.4

.4

56.3

16 6 1

3.6 1.3 .2

3.6 1.3 .2

59.8 61.2 61.4

76

17.0

17.0

78.3

9

2.0

2.0

80.4

Self-organized, Individual Self-organized, Community Self-organized, other Community Other Total

2

.4

.4

80.8

34

7.6

7.6

88.4

52 448

11.6 100.0

11.6 100.0

100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448

5.4.3 Sanitation Solid waste collection and management is undertaken by a mix of stakeholders including the Municipal Government, the Provincial Government, the community, individuals and NGOs. Formal waste collection only covers the planned Districts of North Jayapura, South Jayapura, Abepura and Heram, with Muara Tami underserviced, as shown in Table 5.28 (DKP Kota Jayapura 2012). Despite a Municipal Government policy stipulating the need to separate organic and non-organic wastes, approximately, 91% of domestic waste collected is mixed waste with no separation (EHRA 2012). Most of the rubbish bins from which rubbish is collected are provided by the residents, while the Department of Waste Management provides public containers and transfer stations at designated locations often close to main throughways. A lack of infrastructure is considered the main cause of imbalance in service levels between well-serviced urban and less serviced rural settlements (DKP Kota Jayapura 2012). Furthermore, the long distance between the Nafri landfill and urban areas is also seen as a cause of delay in waste collection.

5.4 Who Benefits from Sectoral Planning: Housing, Water and Sanitation

153

Table 5.28 Domestic waste collection by planned districts in Jayapura No. Districts Settlements serviced Settlements identified as underserviced 1. North Jayapura Angkasapura, Trikora, Mandala, Kayu Batu Tanjung Ria, Imbi, Bhayangkara, Gurabesi 2. South Jayapura Numbay, Argapura, Hamadi, Tobati, Tahima Soroma Ardipura, Entrop 3.

Abepura

4.

Heram

5.

Muara Tami

Asano, Awiyo, Abe Pantai, Kota Baru, Yobe, Vim, Wahno, Wai Mhorock Hedam, Yabansai, Waena, Kampung Waena, Yoka

Enggros, Nafri, Koya Koso

Koya Barat

Koya Timur, Holtekamp, Skouw Sae, Skou Mabo, Koya Tengah, Mosso

–

Source Adapted from DKP Kota Jayapura (2012)

Despite the Municipal Government initiatives, community awareness on the importance of good waste management can be seen as low. A Black Water Treatment Installation is located in Nafri landfill and was built by the Provincial Government in 2000. The facilities, including a truck for collecting black water, have not been functional. Similarly, the Integrated Waste Treatment Installation plant built by the Municipal Government in 2004 with 3 km of piping for black water located in Mesran is not working as well (DKP Kota Jayapura 2012). Onsite water treatments have been built in several hospitals to manage their medical and hazardous waste disposal. Several communal sanitation installations developed as pilot projects in the planned settlements of Dok IX and APO are also dysfunctional. Not surprisingly, large plots and waterways become the main disposal locations for grey water and black water. Grey water from households is also disposed directly into drainage systems (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2014). In coastal areas and the periurban fringe, black water is defecated directly into seawater, gardens and vacant lots without processing. Rivers in Jayapura and Sentani Lake are highly contaminated with solid waste and grey water, and are unsafe for drinking (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014). Difficult geographical conditions and high-density planned settlements were considerations for the Municipal Government when closing the integrated grey water treatment system in Jayapura that was built in 2004 (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014; interviews, 2014). The Municipal Government now emphasizes building small-scale on-site communal toilets to handle grey water and black water. The main black water constructions are on-site systems, comprising septic tanks and individual or communal toilets.

154

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Fig. 5.18 Funding for sanitation-related projects by the Municipal Government (in Rupiah). Source Compiled from APBD Kota Jayapura (2008–2012)

Building construction projects for communal toilets have been supported by sharing funds provided by international donors, such as USAID and former AUSAID (APBD Kota Jayapura 2008–2012). Under these schemes, the Municipal Government receives technical assistance, capacity building and financial support to increase resident’s awareness of the benefits of improved sanitation, particularly in dense formal and informal settlements. Figure 5.18 shows that sanitation has been the focus of Municipal Government funding since 2009, and this continues with major support from USAID and former AUSAID to improve the quality of the environment (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2009). Results from the household surveys show that government arrangements regarding solid waste collection are dominant, followed by self-organized arrangements. As can be seen from Table 5.29, other arrangements include combinations of different stakeholders such as the Provincial Government, the Municipal Government, the community, NGOs and self-organized provision. Sanitation provision primarily at the household level has been evolving as multi-stakeholder development projects. Since the physical provision of sanitation arrangements by the Municipal Government has been dysfunctional cutting across varying schemes with limited effectiveness, selforganized provision by residents has increased significantly.

5.4 Who Benefits from Sectoral Planning: Housing, Water and Sanitation Table 5.29 Types of solid waste management—all settlements Stakeholders Frequency Percent Valid percent

155

Cumulative percent

Municipal government

173

38.6

38.6

38.6

Municipal government, provincial government

1

.2

.2

38.8

Municipal government, NGOs Municipal government, self-organized

1

.2

.2

39.1

10

2.2

2.2

41.3

Municipal government, self-organized, community

2

.4

.4

41.7

Municipal government, self-organized, other

1

.2

.2

42.0

Municipal government, community

6

1.3

1.3

43.3

Provincial government

13

2.9

2.9

46.2

NGOs Municipal government, community

1 1

.2 .2

.2 .2

46.4 46.7

153

34.2

34.2

80.8

Self-organized, community

1

.2

.2

81.0

Self-organized, other

1

.2

.2

81.3

Self-organized, individual

Community Other Total

10

2.2

2.2

83.5

74 448

16.5 100.0

16.5 100.0

100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448

Household survey data as shown in Table 5.30 shows that respondents from all settlement types agree that arrangements for grey water service have been mainly self-organized by individuals (37.1%). On the other hand, the Municipal Government provides approximately 25.7% of the total grey water service in Jayapura. This shows that the Municipal Government has the lowest contribution in providing physical services for grey water, while community efforts to organize grey water have evolved to fill the gap that may have been once filled by ‘formal’ arrangements that applied only to some settlements, not all.

156

5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Table 5.30 Types of grey water arrangements—all settlements Stakeholders Frequency Percent Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Municipal government

115

25.7

25.7

25.7

Municipal government, provincial government

3

.7

.7

26.3

Municipal government, provincial government, self-organized

1

.2

.2

26.6

Municipal government, NGOs Municipal government, self-organized

1

.2

.2

26.8

6

1.3

1.3

28.1

Municipal government, self-organized, community

1

.2

.2

28.3

Municipal government, community

4

.9

.9

29.2

Municipal government, other Provincial government

1

.2

.2

29.5

Self-organized, individual Self-organized, community Community Other Total

8

1.8

1.8

31.3

166

37.1

37.1

68.3

3

.7

.7

69.0

12

2.7

2.7

71.7

127 448

28.3 100.0

28.3 100.0

100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  448

5.5 Summary Spatial, development and sectoral planning mechanisms in Jayapura strongly adhere to the rules and regulations provided by national government. However, the implementation of Law No. 21 of 2001 for Papuan residents provides an opportunity for the government to modify the planning outputs to be more flexible and responsive to local basic urban service needs. Thus, it could be argued that upper levels of formal governance are more rigid, while lower levels are more fluid and responsive to needs. Spatial, development and sectoral planning outcomes as observed in Jayapura for basic urban services show that urban governance arrangements have involved various stakeholders and provided direct and indirect benefits depending on the plan types. This includes the emergence of ‘other’ planning arrangements, some supported and some not supported by the above plans in both planned and informal settlements. What exists is a patchwork of planning mechanisms and arrangements

5.5 Summary

157

not applied consistently across the municipality and which include and exclude varying stakeholders, thus providing different outcomes on the ground as summarized in Table 5.31. Spatial planning benefits stakeholders who are directly involved in the planning process and is primarily oriented to residents who live in the planned settlements. Spatial planning outcomes are characterized by broad policy statements for basic urban services and have a discrete spatial focus (that is planned areas with plots that have ‘clear’ title, plus have been issued with planning and building permits). On the other hand, development planning benefits a wider range of target groups such as those defined by the Law No. 21 of 2001 regarding Special Autonomy for Papua. Development planning has strong connections to sectoral planning and provides greater flexibility to address wider needs, including the unplanned settlements which are excluded from the spatial plans and their stated outcomes. The community gains basic urban service benefits by having access to planning processes, thus providing them an opportunity to include their needs and interests in the formal planning documents for projects and programs. The private sector obtains benefits from managing commissioned projects, especially in planned settlements. The Municipal Government obtains benefits from adhering to spatial and development planning, including seeking consistency between development outputs and outcomes, improved urban service provision and use of budgets. Other stakeholders, such as civil investigators, do not gain from the formal urban arrangements. As the original Port Numbay community, the indigenous landowners gain benefits from varying customary land arrangements for formal development. Both the government and the private sector need to accommodate customary land rights in any land release and registration. This arrangement has increased the complexity of project arrangements and has caused an increase in land price and the delay of government and private projects. However, the acknowledgement of local customary rights has also improved the participation and legitimacy of the local indigenous community in the spatial and development planning processes in Jayapura. At a sectoral planning level, formal basic urban service provision regarding housing, water and sanitation now targets different beneficiaries. Formal basic urban service provision in Jayapura has increasingly evolved into hybrid arrangements, which comprise partnership mechanisms between the Municipal Government, community members, donors and NGOs (Suhartini 2016; Jones and Suhartini 2014). It is also been shown that various formal arrangements have overlapped to provide broader service opportunities for the overall population (Suhartini 2016). However, since each type of arrangement must deal with technical and financial issues, including a lack of technical know-how in the Municipal Government and the broader private sector in maintaining projects such as local area reticulated systems, the range of formal arrangements practiced outside the individual plot and household level remain insufficient in providing adequate basic urban services (see Table 5.31 for details). As reflected in the results from household surveys, a range of self-organized basic urban services has evolved on the ground, especially in informal settlements. Chapter 6 will elaborate on the types and nature of the basic urban service arrangements existing in informal settlements as produced by a range of governance mechanisms.

Informal settlements

Perum Perumnas

Formal settlements

Groups

Individuals

Private developers

The Municipal Government

Main provider

Types of settlements Housing

Blocks of houses, water connection, alleyways, toilets, communal electricity meters

Blocks of houses and related urban basic services: water, electricity, drainage system, on-site septic tank, parks, public facilities Blocks of houses and internal facilities Housing material and financial assistance Blocks of houses, individual houses and internal facilities Individual houses

Types of projects

Neighbourhood

Household

(continued)

Does not comply with regional laws and regulations, lowest priority in terms of infrastructure development, informal arrangements are not well monitored, informally attached to formal urban service provision, occupying state land or open space, open defecation, highly dense buildings, semi-permanent buildings, on-site waste handling

Does not comply with regional laws and regulations, lowest priority in terms of infrastructure development, informal arrangements are not well monitored, dense and overcrowded houses with low quality environment, informally attached to water, electricity, drainage, open defecation, on-site waste handling

Targeted buyers, land price and land provision arrangements with customary landowners

Limited target groups, for low-income Papuans

Municipality Neighbourhood

Limited to government staff

Land provision arrangements regarding customary rights and land price, limited number of houses

Issues

Neighbourhood

Neighbourhood

Scale of service

Table 5.31 Summary of basic urban service providers and type by settlements

158 5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

Types of settlements Water Formal settlements

Individuals and groups

Neighbourhood

Neighbourhood

Municipality

Water tanks, water piping, Household and groups of water pumps houses

Communal water connections, including reserves and household connections Drinking water treatment installation

The Municipal Government

The Municipal Government in partnership with donors

Water bottling

Private companies

Municipality

Individuals/household/ offices Municipality

Water meters

Household water connections Maintenance

Municipality

Water infrastructure construction: intakes, piping, reserves

PDAM

Scale of service

Types of projects

Main provider

Table 5.31 (continued)

(continued)

The residents have to request and pay their individual water checks

No proper training to operate and maintain the equipment, abandonment of equipment

Limited service area, lack of maintenance, no water meter, discontinuous water debit/flow

Irregular water quality control by the authority

Under budget, the Municipal Government has less intervention due to different span of authority

Under capacity of water supply, low water debit/flow

Broken meter causes leakage

Low production capacity, low maintenance, lowest level of management by the Municipal Government, limited service area, water leakage, lowest level of coordination between Jayapura Municipality and Jayapura Regency in expanding the network

Issues

5.5 Summary 159

Informal settlements

Sanitation Formal settlements

Types of settlements Water Informal settlements

Water catchment areas

Water resource protection projects

Individuals and groups

The Municipal Government

Individuals and groups

Neighbourhood

Drinking water treatment installation

The Municipal Government in partnership with donors

Individual and communal toilets

Neighbourhood

Open defecation, water and soil pollutants

Dysfunctional

Neighbourhood

On-site grey and black water service provision (communal toilets and baths)

Only covers particular urban areas, over capacity

Dysfunctional, lack of maintenance, difficult geographical situations

Municipality

Limited water debit, no water checks

Occupation by migrants for housing making the water springs polluted and experience low water debit/flow

No proper training to operate and maintain the equipment, abandonment of equipment

Occupation by migrants for housing making the water springs polluted and experience low water debit/flow

Issues

Off-site grey water service District and provision neighbourhood

Solid waste handling infrastructure, including landfill, dump trucks, containers, transit stations, waste collectors

Water tanks, water piping, Household and groups of water pumps houses

Water catchment areas

Water resource protection projects

The Municipal Government

Scale of service

Types of projects

Main provider

Table 5.31 (continued)

160 5 Who Gains and Benefits from the Outcomes of Formal Urban …

References

161

References APBD Kota Jayapura 2008–2012 Bab E (2015) Laporan Hasil Survey BKPRD Kota Jayapura Bappeda Kota Jayapura (2009) Renstra Sanitasi Kota Jayapura Bappeda Kota Jayapura (2014) Laporan Kegiatan Tahunan Bidang Sosial Budaya DKP Kota Jayapura (2012) Laporan Kinerja Dinas Kebersihan dan Pemakaman Kota Jayapura EHRA (2012) Laporan Survei EHRA Kota Jayapura 2012 Jones P, Suhartini N (2014) Governance and its complexities: insights from formal and informal urban governance appraches in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia. Paper presented at the 11th UPE International Conference, La Plata PDAM Kabupaten Jayapura (2012) Laporan Kinerja PDAM Kabupaten Jayapura Pemerintah Kota Jayapura (2014) Peraturan Daerah Kota Jayapura Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Jayapura Suhartini N (2014,2015) Household Surveys Suhartini N (2016) Governing informality: urban basic service provision in informal settlements. Paper presented at the 9th IFOU International Conference Buenos Aires Youwe M, Bab E (2016) Laporan Hasil Survey BKPRD Kota Jayapura

Chapter 6

Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements in Informal Settlements

The Four Informal Settlements (clockwise): Batu Putih, Kampung Kayu Pulo, Dok IX, Argapura Bawah

Abstract In the context of basic urban services formally delivered by the Municipal Government and other stakeholders, either individually, in groups or in combination, such as with state-owned companies, NGOs, international donors and community members, Chapter Six elaborate on the types and nature of basic urban service arrangements emerging in informal settlements as produced by a range of governance mechanisms. Four informal settlements in Jayapura are reviewed to assess trends and patterns, namely, Argapura Bawah, Batu Putih, Dok IX and Kayu Pulo. These settlements represent communities from various kin and ethnic backgrounds, urban locations and land tenure patterns in Jayapura. The chapter highlights key © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Suhartini and P. Jones, Urban Governance and Informal Settlements, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06094-7_6

163

164

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

features of governance arrangements that provide basic urban services including the mechanisms applied in managing land, leadership and the organization of basic urban service provision. The results as revealed in the four settlements and strongly supported by an innovative typology analysis is that various types of urban governance arrangements provide basic urban services, albeit with diverse outcomes. The service type is repeated in each settlement, that is, housing, water, sanitation and public facilities, but they differ in terms of methods, process of construction, materials used, siting and placement (private/public/community interface), and the approach to usage (single or multifunctional). Modes of basic urban service provision in informal settlements range from self-built, group-built to community-built, and basic urban service provision undertaken in partnership with the Municipal Government and other stakeholders. As such, governance arrangements in informal settlements in Jayapura consist of several overlapping modes of governance, namely, traditional, formal and informal governance, and hybrid governance, all meeting and responding to different basic human and community needs and the adaptive capacity of stakeholders. Keywords Community · Typology analysis · Informal settlements · Traditional Formal and informal governance · Hybrid governance

6.1 Introduction As discussed in Chaps. 4 and 5, formal, hybrid and informal urban governance arrangements act as a conduit for providing basic urban services to the population of Jayapura. The provision of basic urban services is not only delivered by the Municipal Government but also by other stakeholders, either individually, in groups or in combination such as with state-owned companies, NGOs, international donors and community members. The arrangements occur via a multi-tiered plan and policy framework, comprising formal and evolving governance structures. It is concluded that both government and non-government led arrangements have evolved to fill the gaps and shortcomings of basic urban service needs in both planned and informal settlements. This chapter presents: (i) the results of household surveys, semi-structured interviews and human-scale observation and lot-sized scale ground mapping on the types of housing, water and sanitation services in informal settlements and (ii) the governance arrangements in place that provide such services. Community governance as discussed in this chapter includes the notions of self-organized, group-organized, community-organized and kin-based arrangements. There is limited data and information provided by the Municipal Government regarding community-based arrangements in Jayapura (Jones and Suhartini 2014a). As such, the analysis based on primary data as gathered from household surveys, observations, interviews and ground mapping, provides rich insights into current practices. To better understand governance outside the formal planned settlements, four informal settlements in Jayapura

6.1 Introduction

165

are reviewed, namely, Argapura Bawah, Batu Putih, Dok IX and Kayu Pulo. These settlements represent communities from various kin and ethnic backgrounds, urban locations and land tenure patterns.

6.2 An Overview of the Types of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements 6.2.1 Context Informal settlements continue to grow representing approximately 25% of the total urban area of Jayapura and comprising approximately 60,000 inhabitants (Kambu et al. 2009). Informal settlements in Jayapura are found in various locations deemed unsuitable for development by the formal planning system, including public open space, road reserves, abandoned buildings and peri-urban fringe areas such as hillsides and waterways. The latter, for example, are classified in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura, 2008, as conservation areas and not suitable for development (Fig. 6.1). Basic urban service provision in Jayapura generated by self-organized community groups and households is most prominent in the informal settlements of Jayapura. Since informal settlements were classified as unplanned areas by the Spatial Plan of 2008 and earlier plans, formal governance for basic urban services has put minimal effort into upgrading these settlements (Jones and Suhartini 2014a). As a result, basic urban services in informal settlements in Jayapura have emerged via community

Fig. 6.1 Informal settlements in hillside areas in Jayapura. Informal settlements in Jayapura utilize hillside locations which invariably are lands deemed unsuitable for development as contained in plans and policies created by the formal planning system

166

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.2 Providing access in informal settlements, Jayapura. Pedestrian access is provided across two-family plots in the informal settlement of Kampkey (Jones and Suhartini 2014a)

governance, including self-organized and group-organized mechanisms (Jones and Suhartini 2014b; Suhartini 2015, 2016). A range of basic urban services including the provision of housing, water, sanitation, drainage, roads, alleyways, electricity and waste have been developed by the residents of informal settlements utilizing their own resources and skills (Suhartini 2015) (Fig. 6.2). Excluding land and housing, residents in informal settlements access a range of basic urban services such as clean water, electricity, roads and sanitation including solid waste collection, grey water disposal and drainage systems as shown in Table 6.1. Only 40.5% of respondents have access to all urban services mentioned above, while a further 10% of respondents have access to water, electricity and roads but not to sanitation services. Approximately 8.4% of respondents have access to clean water, electricity, roads and solid waste, while only 2.3% of respondents do not obtain access to any basic urban services.

6.2.2 Housing In the absence of development standards contained in the Spatial Plan of Jayapura being applied in informal settlements, residing in such settlements provides affordable housing options for residents. Housing types vary based on their location, building construction, materials and the prevailing communal norms and values. Given the diversity of the locations with varying physical conditions, housing in informal settlements in Jayapura strongly adapts to the environmental constraints and opportunities of the landscape. Houses are detached and/or are in blocks/clusters ranging from one to three storeys, while building construction varies depending on the location and resources (including skills, finances and labour) acquired by the residents

6.2 An Overview of the Types of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements Table 6.1 Household access to basic urban services in informal settlements Types of basic urban Frequency Percent Valid percent service

167

Cumulative percent

Clean water Clean water, electricity

7 20

2.3 6.7

2.3 6.7

2.3 9.0

Clean water, electricity, roads Clean water, electricity, roads, solid waste

30

10.0

10.0

19.1

25

8.4

8.4

27.4

Clean water, electricity, roads, solid waste, grey water Clean water, electricity, roads, solid waste, grey water, drainage system

19

6.4

6.4

33.8

121

40.5

40.5

74.2

Clean water, electricity, roads, solid waste, drainage system

20

6.7

6.7

80.9

Clean water, electricity, roads, grey water

2

.7

.7

81.6

Clean water, electricity, roads, grey water, drainage system

4

1.3

1.3

82.9

Clean water, electricity, roads, drainage system

15

5.0

5.0

88.0

Clean water, electricity, drainage system

1

.3

.3

88.3

Electricity

7

2.3

2.3

90.6

Electricity, roads

9

3.0

3.0

93.6

Electricity, roads, solid waste Electricity, roads, solid waste, drainage system

5

1.7

1.7

95.3

2

.7

.7

96.0

Electricity, roads, solid waste, drainage system

1

.3

.3

96.3

Electricity, roads, drainage system

2

.7

.7

97.0

Electricity, drainage system

1

.3

.3

97.3

Roads, solid waste, grey water Not at all Total

1

.3

.3

97.7

7 299

2.3 100.0

2.3 100.0

100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

168

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

and household members. Thus, building materials used for housing comprise a mix of concrete, timber, plastic and corrugated iron, either new or recycled. As a rule, securing a housing plot in an informal settlement involves seeking permission and negotiating an agreement with individuals, groups and community leaders. The latter act as the ‘gatekeepers’ at varying levels to access land and building of houses for residential and small-scale commercial purposes. The potential residents occupy settlement land with the consent of the customary landowners and the leaders in the settlements (heads of RTs) or by squatting on customary land without the consent of the landowners.1 The agreement between residents and the landowners, either verbal or written, includes discussion on the boundaries of the land plot, its location, compensation arrangements and conditions regarding usage. These arrangements include a guarantee that the landowners will not claim back the ‘ownership’ or transfer the land to other parties. The agreement is endorsed by both parties and witnesses include the heads of the tribes and the head of the district. Based on household surveys in informal settlements (Table 6.2), approximately 52.8% of respondents obtain freehold landownership, which is similar with the results from formal settlements (61.1%) as shown in Table 6.3. The percentage of respondents in informal settlements residing on customary land under the jurisdiction of the native Port Numbay landowners is 25.1%, while in formal settlements only 12.8% of respondents reside on the same land tenure type. Other arrangements include squatting on State land (6%). However, these results contradict the interviews and observations that show that the majority of land in informal settlements is customary land. It is possible that residents in informal settlements understand the term ‘freehold’ land as being equivalent to land tenure that is ‘safe and secure’, hence, the answers being skewed to their own notions of ‘freehold land’ (Fig. 6.3). Regarding the status of house ownership, approximately 80% of respondents in the household surveys built their own house followed by those who rent their current dwelling (15.4%) plus other arrangements (see Table 6.4). The results of household surveys in formal settlements show similar patterns to those in informal settlements with around 68.5% of the respondents owning their house followed by those who rent their dwelling (16.8%). Aside from building quality and siting, the main difference between houses in informal and formal settlements is their legal ownership status. In informal settlements, house ownership is separate from the land tenure agreement. Since access is obtained by conducting informal arrangements on land and within settlements defined as unplanned, residents cannot obtain any legal status over their housing plots. Thus, many houses in informal settlements do not have formal land certificates, which is the main document required to obtain a legal house status under the formal system. However, there is a mutual understanding between the customary landowners and the residents that the house as built ‘belongs to’ and ‘is owned by’ the residents of that household (Table 6.5).2 1 RT

or Rukun Tetangga is a neighbourhood unit within a kelurahan or kampung, and consists of minimum 30 households. RW is Rukun Warga, consists of 3–5 RTs. The heads of the RT consult with members of the settlement on civil administrative matters in liaison with the heads of the RWs. 2 Interviews with stakeholders, 2015.

6.2 An Overview of the Types of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements Table 6.2 Landownership in informal settlements, Jayapura Landownership Frequency Percent

Valid percent

169

Cumulative percent

State land State land and customary land of residing community

18 1

6.0 .3

6.0 .3

6.0 6.4

Customary land of residing community

75

25.1

25.1

31.4

Customary land of residing community and other community

2

.7

.7

32.1

Customary land of residing community and other Customary land of other community

1

.3

.3

32.4

16

5.4

5.4

37.8

158 21 7 299

52.8 7.0 2.3 100.0

52.8 7.0 2.3 100.0

90.6 97.7 100.0

Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Freehold Other na Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299 Table 6.3 Landownership in formal settlements, Jayapura Landownership Frequency Percent State land Customary land of residing community Customary land of other community Freehold Freehold and other Other Total

17 19

11.4 12.8

11.4 12.8

11.4 24.2

3

2.0

2.0

26.2

91 1 18 149

61.1 .7 12.1 100.0

61.1 .7 12.1 100.0

87.2 87.9 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  149

170

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.3 Housing variety in informal settlements, Jayapura. Community-organized housing in informal settlements involves both individuals and groups. This form of housing provides various options for urban residents in terms of location, placement, housing type, incremental construction and quality

Housing construction in informal settlements varies from permanent to nonpermanent.3 Table 6.6 shows that 47.8% of housing in informal settlements is permanently constructed while 29.1% of the houses have semi-permanent construction and 22.4% are made from non-permanent materials. Thus, there is a mix between permanent, semi-permanent and non-permanent materials used in the construction of housing. In terms of the perception of housing quality, the results of the household surveys show similar results to housing construction. Approximately 51% of respondents 3 Permanent

houses have a rigid and fixed construction such as those with solid concrete and good quality new materials of timber or corrugated iron. Semi-permanent houses are built from a mix of good and average quality of brick and other materials, new and recycled, but still can withstand winds and rain. Non-permanent houses are built from low quality materials such as recycled corrugated iron, cardboard, plastic sheets, and recycled banners.

6.2 An Overview of the Types of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements Table 6.4 House ownership in informal settlements, Jayapura House ownership Frequency Percent Valid percent Owned, self-built 233

77.9

171

Cumulative percent

77.9

77.9

Owned, other

1

.3

.3

78.3

Rented Government owned Other na Total

46 6

15.4 2.0

15.4 2.0

93.6 95.7

7 6 299

2.3 2.0 100.0

2.3 2.0 100.0

98.0 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299 Table 6.5 House ownership in formal settlements, Jayapura House ownership Frequency Percent Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Owned Owned, other

102 1

68.5 .7

68.5 .7

68.5 69.1

Rented Government owned Other Total

25 8

16.8 5.4

16.8 5.4

85.9 91.3

13 149

8.7 100.0

8.7 100.0

100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  149 Table 6.6 Housing construction in informal settlements, Jayapura Housing Frequency Percent Valid percent construction

Cumulative percent

Permanent Permanent and semi-permanent

143 1

47.8 .3

47.8 .3

47.8 48.2

Semi-permanent

87

29.1

29.1

77.3

Non-permanent

67

22.4

22.4

99.7

1 299

.3 100.0

.3 100.0

100.0

na Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

172

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Table 6.7 Perception on housing quality of informal settlements, Jayapura Housing quality Frequency Percent Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Good Average

152 113

50.8 37.8

50.8 37.8

50.8 88.6

Poor na Total

33 1 299

11.0 .3 100.0

11.0 .3 100.0

99.7 100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

have a good quality house, followed by those with average quality (38%) and poor quality housing (11%) as indicated in Table 6.7. The results suggest that either permanent, semi-permanent or non-permanent construction provides ‘housing quality’ perceived as adequate by residents.

6.2.3 Water Access to water in informal settlements consists of communal water access to PDAM pipes by using non-metered or illegal connections, and by partnership arrangements between the Municipal Government, residents and other institutions. Access also occurs by community-organized water provision which is undertaken by individuals, groups/families and the wider settlement. The arrangements include access to water resources, building construction, management, land provision, budget and maintenance activities.4 Water connection to the PDAM network is via non-metered connections and as such, PDAM applies a fixed monthly fee payment regardless of the amount of water usage. Water is often shared among several households as is the payment. In some squatter settlements such as Angkasapura, Cigombong, Kloofkamp, APO and Buper Waena, the residents access PDAM water illegally and never pay for water usage. There is no PDAM enforcement in squatter settlements, a key reason being that such settlements are considered unsafe and high risk for PDAM or government officials to access and follow through on enforcement. Community-organized water provision was practiced for long periods before water supply was introduced by the colonial Dutch government.5 Communityorganized arrangements still provide alternative water resources and water supply in 4 There

was little published documentation on self-organized water provision in Jayapura. In responding to this, a series of observations was conducted by utilizing a typology analysis as described in Chapter Three. Observations in four informal settlements in Jayapura show that several self-organized initiatives have been utilized to secure water provision, including accessing water reserves, water springs and providing piping. 5 Interviews with stakeholders, 2014.

6.2 An Overview of the Types of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements Table 6.8 Clean water providers in informal settlements, Jayapura Water providers Frequency Percent Valid percent

173

Cumulative percent

PDAM PDAM, Municipal Government, Provincial Government Municipal Government, Community

150 1

50.2 .3

50.2 .3

50.2 50.5

2

.7

.7

51.2

Municipal Government, Community

1

.3

.3

51.5

Municipal Government, Other Provincial Government NGOs NGOs, Self-organized, Community

1

.3

.3

51.8

8 6 1

2.7 2.0 .3

2.7 2.0 .3

54.5 56.5 56.9

59

19.7

19.7

76.6

8

2.7

2.7

79.3

31

10.4

10.4

89.6

31 299

10.4 100.0

10.4 100.0

100.0

Self-organized, Individual Self-organized, Community Community Other Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

response to the low levels of PDAM service. Communities use local water springs, communal baths, rain harvesting, pumping from underground reserves, as well as bottled water. In locations with proximity to natural water (surface springs), residents obtain water by individual and/or communal piping and pumps, such as those seen in the informal settlements of Dok IX, Kloofkamp, APO Gunung, APO Kali, Hamadi and Dok V. Table 6.8 shows the range of water providers in informal settlements. Around half of the respondents (50.2%) have access to water from PDAM followed by those who self-organize water provision (19.7%) and community-organized water provision (10.4%). Other water provision includes buying bottled water and rain harvesting via water tanks (10.4%). Table 6.8 also shows that there are respondents who get water from several providers, and as such, options for water availability within a wider settlement framework have evolved as the needs of residents for a reliable water supply have increased. Such informal arrangements among users/neighbours include sharing of water resources to households and communal locations within the settlements. Importantly, one in every five households self-organize to provide their own water connection as reflected in Fig. 6.4.

174

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.4 Types of community-organized water provision in informal settlements, Jayapura. Left: Self-organized water piping in the APO settlement. The multiple pipes represent individual connections/schemes to different households at different points in time (Jones and Suhartini 2014a, used by permission of ITB Journal Publisher). Right: Group-organized water piping in the Kloofkamp settlement, North Jayapura, includes non-metered PDAM connections Table 6.9 Perception of water quality in informal settlements, Jayapura Water quality Frequency Percent Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Very bad

14

4.7

4.7

4.7

Bad Average

13 73

4.3 24.4

4.3 24.4

9.0 33.4

Good Very good

149 34

49.8 11.4

49.8 11.4

83.3 94.6

Do not know Total

16 299

5.4 100.0

5.4 100.0

100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

Perception of water quality in informal settlement ranges from very good to average. As indicated in Table 6.9, 49.8% of the respondents surveyed said that water in their settlement was of good quality, followed by respondents indicating water was of average quality (24.4%), and very good quality (11.4%). Only less than 15% of the respondents indicated their water was of ‘bad and very bad’ quality6

6 Respondent’s perceptions regarding water quality are based on availability and cleanness of water.

‘Very good’ quality includes continuous water supply and no need for filtering before boiling. ‘Good quality’ means regular supply but not 24 hours and no need for filtering. ‘Average quality’ comprises irregular supply and no need for filtering before usage which is mainly for washing, while ‘bad and very bad quality’ are perceived as minimal water supply with no need for filtering before usage.

6.2 An Overview of the Types of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements

175

Fig. 6.5 Waste handling methods in informal settlements, Jayapura. Left: Trash boat collects waste from informal settlements in coastal areas and open seawater. Right: Uncollected waste being burnt in informal settlements

6.2.4 Sanitation Communities in informal settlements take their own initiatives to reuse, reduce and recycle (3R) waste, especially non-organic waste. Waste processing initiatives led by housewives have promoted the 3R activities in several informal settlements in Jayapura. One informal arrangement in waste handling generating income involved individual waste collectors from households collecting waste sourced from transit stations and landfill operators so as to process into chippings and compost ‘blocks’ and send to Surabaya and Makassar (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014) (Fig. 6.5). The household survey results summarized in Table 6.10 show that solid waste collection in informal settlements is mainly self-organized by the residents (43.5%), followed by the Municipal Government service (27.8%) and other. The latter includes selling waste to recycling groups (20.4%). Table 6.10 reflects the variation of solid waste collection practices as seen in the settlements. Despite the prominence of self-organized arrangements for solid waste in informal settlements, respondents show varying perceptions regarding the quality of arrangements. As shown in Table 6.11, approximately 35% of the respondents access good quality waste handling, followed by those who obtain a service deemed as average quality (24.7%). Interestingly, approximately 21% of respondents indicated they do not know about the quality of the service including the service provider. This could be explained by the fact the Municipal Government only collects waste from formal settlements, main roads and public facilities, and thus, does not interact directly with the residents in informal settlements regarding solid waste. Since formal arrangements provided by the Municipal Government in handling black and grey water are minimal, households and communities develop their own initiatives. The provision of an adequate on-site septic tank is part of the requirements in obtaining planning and building permits only in planned settlements. As such, residents in informal settlements provide their own on-site toilets and sanitation arrangements such as pit toilets which can be readily relocated. Toilets in or adjoining

176

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

waterways are not equipped with septic tanks and use the dwelling under floor, plus waterways and beaches as disposal sites (see Fig. 6.6). Projects undertaken by the Municipal Government and donors to build septic tanks and public toilets in informal settlements have not been sustainable. As shown in Fig. 6.7, public toilets are abandoned and not utilized by the residents due to limited

Table 6.10 Solid waste collection in informal settlements, Jayapura Provider Frequency Percent Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Municipal Government

83

27.8

27.8

27.8

Municipal Government, Self-organized

3

1.0

1.0

28.8

Municipal Government, Self-organized,

2

.7

.7

29.4

Municipal Government, Self-organized, Other

1

.3

.3

29.8

Municipal Government, Community

5

1.7

1.7

31.4

Provincial Government NGOs Municipal Government, Community

6 1 1

2.0 .3 .3

2.0 .3 .3

33.4 33.8 34.1

Self-organized, Individual 130

Community

43.5

43.5

77.6

Self-organized, Other

1

.3

.3

77.9

Community

5

1.7

1.7

79.6

61 299

20.4 100.0

20.4 100.0

100.0

Other Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299 Table 6.11 Perception of solid waste collection in informal settlements, Jayapura Quality of waste Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative handling percent Very bad

11

3.7

3.7

3.7

Bad Average

43 74

14.4 24.7

14.4 24.7

18.1 42.8

Good Very good

104 3

34.8 1.0

34.8 1.0

77.6 78.6

Do not know Total

64 299

21.4 100.0

21.4 100.0

100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

6.2 An Overview of the Types of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements

177

Fig. 6.6 Self-built toilets in informal settlements, Jayapura. Self-built toilet construction in some informal settlements are not equipped with septic tanks and dispose waste directly into the dwelling underfloor and waterways

Fig. 6.7 Government-organized toilets in informal settlements, Jayapura. Toilets built by the Municipal Government with donor funding in informal settlements are dysfunctional due to lack of water supply, maintenance and often lack of consultation in the design process. Also ‘closed’ toilet structures are unfamiliar to residents, with migrants more familiar with ‘open’ pit toilets often in bush and forest settings

access to water, no maintenance and unfamiliar toilet design. Residents needs have not been fully understood. Grey water provision in informal settlements is mainly self-organized by households. As can be seen from Table 6.12, self-organized grey water handling shares 43.5% of the total provision, followed by other arrangements including projects with NGOs. There are various arrangements for grey water handling as practiced in informal settlement such as self-organized arrangements, community arrangements and projects by the Municipal and Provincial Government. Regarding the quality of grey water arrangements, most respondents did not know of the quality of grey water handling (30.4%). Moreover, there is an equal proportion of respondents who get good quality and average quality of grey water handling (approximately 24%, respectively). As most of the grey water in informal settlements flows into creeks, waterways or directly into the subsurface, these results reflect the

178

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Table 6.12 Grey water arrangements in informal settlements, Jayapura Provider Frequency Percent Valid percent

Cumulative percent

Municipal Government

55

18.4

18.4

18.4

Municipal Government, Provincial Government Municipal Government, Self-organized

1

.3

.3

18.7

3

1.0

1.0

19.7

Municipal Government, Self-organized,

1

.3

.3

20.1

.7

20.7

2

.7

Provincial Government 3 Self-organized, Individual 130

1.0 43.5

1.0 43.5

21.7 65.2

Community Municipal Government, Community

Self-organized, Community

2

.7

.7

65.9

Community

8

2.7

2.7

68.6

94 299

31.4 100.0

31.4 100.0

100.0

Other Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299 Table 6.13 Perception on grey water arrangements in informal settlements, Jayapura Quality of grey Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative water percent arrangements Very bad

10

3.3

3.3

3.3

Bad Average

51 72

17.1 24.1

17.1 24.1

20.4 44.5

Good Very good

73 2

24.4 .7

24.4 .7

68.9 69.6

91 299

30.4 100.0

30.4 100.0

100.0

Do not know Total

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

ready access to drainage lines in the undulating to hilly topography where many informal settlements are located. See Table 6.13 for details. Table 6.14 summarizes urban service provision in informal settlements in Jayapura as described above.

6.2 An Overview of the Types of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements

179

Table 6.14 Summary of basic urban services in informal settlements, Jayapura No. Urban services Types Tenure and other arrangements 1.

Housing

Land tenure: customary land, state land Houseownership: owned—self-constructed, rented Occupation: informal, squatting Construction: permanent, semi-permanent, non-permanent House uses: residential, commercial House arrangements: self-organized, group-organized, community-organized

2.

Water

Individual and communal connections, communal water tanks, bottled water, rain harvesting Arrangement: self-organized, group-organized, hybrid with formal institutions. Uses: drinking, washing

3.

Sanitation

Self-built individual and communal toilets, communal baths Arrangements: self-organized, community-organized, the Municipal Government

Informal individual agreement with customary landowners to use the land or waterways to build houses and incremental housing expansion. There is no tax applied for commercial uses such as for rental housing and kiosks or workshops. There is no direct government intervention on housing, financial support for housing improvement is usually attached to other projects such as basic urban service improvement for water and sanitation Individual connection uses informal arrangements with PDAM officials or tapping from main pipes, communal connections are collectively arranged among the users with the permission from landowners and contact with PDAM officials (to use no meter connections); government water installation is arranged by the Municipal Government and users, landowners and NGOs/donors Individual toilets are part of individual houses and built by the residents. Communal toilets are provided by houseowners for tenants. The Municipal Government builds communal toilets in partnership with the community, NGOs and donors. Communal toilets are built on vacant land as agreed by the residents and the landowners

State land as classified by Law No 5 of 1960 regarding Agrarian Basic Laws. The land in Papua has ‘double tenure’ status after the enactment of Law No. 21 of 2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua. The law recognizes the presence of the customary rights of Papuan communities including rights upon and over land. Thus, regardless of the formal status of the land such as state land or freehold, all land in Papua also has ‘customary land’ status

180

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal Settlements: A Case Study of Four Settlements The following explores the nature of governance arrangements with a focus on the provision of housing, water and sanitation as practiced in four informal settlements in Jayapura. The features of governance explored by the household surveys, typologies, interviews, observations and ground mapping focused on understanding the following, namely: • General conditions of each settlement including the historical development as well as physical, demographic and socio-cultural aspects; • Local governance type, including leadership; • Types of arrangements regarding access and provision of land, housing, water and sanitation as practiced in the settlements; and • Organization of basic urban service provision, such as self-, group- or communityorganized. The case studies were selected based on their social, demographic and physical representation as outlined in Chap. 2 and Chap. 3.7 All settlements are within the designated urban area and each settlement represents different features regarding location, ethnic background and historical development. Table 6.15 summarizes the details of the settlement characteristics.

Table 6.15 Summary of key features of four informal settlements, Jayapura Settlement name Location Ethnic Land tenure backgrounds

Historical development

Argapura Bawah

Coastal, both foreshore and above water

Mix of native Customary land, Port Numbay and state land Papuan migrants married with native Port Numbay

Unplanned area/informal settlement

Dok IX

Riverside to estuary

Papuan migrants from Serui

Customary land, state land

Kayu Pulo

Island

Native Port Numbay

Customary land

Unplanned area/informal settlement Native Settlement

Batu Putih

Hillside with steep contours

Non-Papuan migrants from other parts of Indonesia

Customary land, state land

Unplanned area/informal settlement

7 The case studies are based on the access obtained by Ninik Suhartini to conduct household surveys

in these settlements. The author was precluded from accessing squatter settlements due to strong resistance from residents.

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

181

6.3.1 Case Study 1: Argapura Bawah The settlement of Argapura Bawah was formerly defined as an informal settlement by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008, and is located in the District of South Jayapura.8 The settlement was part of the Kayu Pulo settlement established by the native Port Numbay community in the early 1970s to accommodate community members who married people from outside Kampung Kayu Pulo.9 The population of the Argapura Bawah settlement is approximately 247 persons or 60 households, and is under the administration of three RTs (Suhartini 2016). Much of the population in Argapura Bawah are Papuan migrants and their descendants are from Serui in the Regency of Yapen Waropen (Suhartini 2015). Residents of Argapura Bawah are registered by the Municipal Government as residents of Kelurahan Argapura, with many of the residents working as fishermen, government staff and local traders. The settlement has a formal RT and RW structure, with the RT and RW leaders working together with the head of Kelurahan Argapura. The RT and RW leaders and the native landowners are responsible for governance arrangements in the settlement. The heads of the RT and RW are connected to the municipal development systems and governance and actively involved in formal governance in Jayapura. This includes providing input into the ADPs, managing civil data and information on residents, and maintaining a ‘harmonious and safe’ social life in the community. Thus, governance could be described as hybrid, with formal and traditional arrangements working side by side.

Fig. 6.8 Housing patterns in Argapura Bawah.

 Landowner families;

 direction

of growth

8 According

to the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008, the settlement of Argapura Bawah is defined as a buffer zone, thus categorizing the settlement as an unplanned area for settlement and including it in areas of conservation. 9 Kampung Kayu Pulo is a sacred place for the Port Numbay communities and is only inhabited by native people from this kampung (Interviews with stakeholders, 2014–2015).

182

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.9 Types of public facilities in Argapura Bawah

In terms of governance for land arrangements, the landowners control the customary ownership and land release. As per law, the land of Argapura Bawah has an

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

183

Fig. 6.10 Leadership in Argapura Bawah. Local leaders in Argapura Bawah-Residents become a ‘leader’ either by a kin-based relationship (marriage with Youwe families), by being a relative of the latter, by appointment by the community based on ‘trust’ and ‘service’, or by being appointed by the government as an RT or RW ‘leader’

overlapping status of State land and customary land as acknowledged under Law 21 of 2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua that customary rights now prevail. The land of Argapura Bawah belongs to the native tribe of Kampung Kayu Pulo. Figure 6.8 shows housing patterns in Argapura Bawah, which reflects the process of settling and how the landowners govern their land. The landowners, namely, the Clan Youwe from Kampung Kayu Pulo, build their houses in the front rows (shown by blue circles) followed by residents who rent or lease the land from the landowners (shown by blue arrows).10 The landowners build the alleyways to connect houses as well as to reinforce the settlement structure. The linear alleyways represent house boundaries while house clusters reflect the area of land owned by different landowners. Informal agreements for those who wish to rent or lease land are based on trust between the owners (Clan Youwe) and the newcomers. This is the main process to access land in Argapura Bawah, with residents subsequently obtaining an agreement to site their houses in agreed locations from surrounding neighbours. Argapura Bawah settlement has several public facilities such as a traditional market built by the Municipal Government in the centre of the settlement, a ‘traditional’ cemetery for Youwe families (also open for other residents), a primary school, churches and a maritime college (see Fig. 6.9). It also is surrounded by large-scale commercial activities, such as a brick factory and hotels (Fig. 6.10). Governance regarding housing provision in Argapura Bawah is controlled by the Youwe families.11 The new residents need to obtain an agreement with the Youwe families to occupy a ‘housing plot’, that is, a space above the seawater to erect housing pillars. The landowners decide the location, ‘plot size’ and the amount of compensation. 10 Interviews 11 Houses

with stakeholders, 2014. in coastal area do not have land or building certificates.

184

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.11 Types of housing in Argapura Bawah

The residents then self-build their house on the ‘housing plot’ over the water as indicated by the landowners. They share access to basic urban services, such as water and electricity, with other households residing in the same building cluster as already

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

185

Fig. 6.12 Examples of house layouts in Argapura Bawah

organized by the landowners. There is no time limit for the residents for length of stay in the settlement. The ‘right’ to reside is decided by the landowners and is often terminated when the residents have disputes with the landowners or other residents. See Fig. 6.11 for details on housing types and Fig. 6.12 for the diversity of house layouts in Argapura Bawah. Water provision in Argapura Bawah has evolved via several arrangements (Suhartini 2016). Water is accessed using individual and communal connections to the main PDAM pipes which were built in the 1960s without meters. There is also a water spring located in the centre of the settlement for communal use and residents also buy bottled water. PDAM water is group-organized among several households based on the clusters of building. The landowners provide the connection and then share it with other users. The users must provide their own connections as well as maintain their individual piping. The payment to PDAM is nominal as users have a non-metered arrangement which is shared among the users. There is an informal agreement among the users regarding the sharing payment that is based on estimated water consumption by households. This PDAM water-sharing arrangement in Argapura Bawah has been practiced since the early 1970s.12 Water provided by PDAM is categorized as clean water that still needs boiling before drinking.13 Water supply is not continuous and requires residents to provide other alternatives to access water. In response to this, residents use a water spring in the settlement for washing, plus buy bottled water for drinking. The water spring is open to all residents in the settlement. See Fig. 6.13 for details on types of water provision in Argapura Bawah. In terms of waste collection, Argapura Bawah is not covered by the Municipal Government service. Solid waste is directly disposed into the sea by residents that front directly onto the sea. Residents located inland dispose solid waste into municipal rubbish containers located on the main roads of Kelurahan Argapura. Waste is also 12 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015.

13 The clean water quality as referred to the Regulation of Minister of Health of Republic Indonesia

(PerMenkes 492 Tahun 2010).

186

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.13 Types of water supply in Argapura Bawah

burnt by individuals in the front of their houses. There is no individual or communal arrangement to collect solid waste from houses. Individual toilets and bathrooms are attached to each house. Grey and black water from the toilets is directly disposed into the sea without any filtering. Individual toilets do not have septic tanks. There are also communal toilets which were built by the Municipal Government in partnership with the community via the PNPM Mandiri program. These communal toilets are equipped with water tanks, drainage and septic tanks, and are in the terrestrial areas of the settlement. Land is provided based on

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

187

Fig. 6.14 Types of sanitation provision in Argapura Bawah

an agreement between the Municipal Government and the landowners. Communal toilets are registered as municipal assets, while the land remains in customary owner-

188

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

ship. However, these communal toilets are rarely used by the residents due to a lack of water supply and the toilet design being unfamiliar to the residents (see Fig. 6.14). Observation in the settlement reflects that sanitation conditions of Argapura tend to be average to poor. Many of the houses and surrounds are tidy and clean, while other parts are full of solid waste and uncaged chickens and pigs. The settlement of Argapura Bawah has been categorized as a settlement with low-level sanitation in Jayapura (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014).

6.3.2 Case Study 2: Batu Putih Batu Putih was categorized as an informal settlement according to the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008 (Peraturan Daerah Kota Jayapura Nomor 5 Tahun 2008 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Jayapura). Batu Putih is under the administrative area of Kelurahan Numbay in the District of South Jayapura and comprises two RTs with a total population of approximately 237 persons or 177 households.14 The main population of Batu Putih are migrants from outside Papua, and they work in the private sector, government and own small businesses, such as in transport and freight. Batu Putih was part of the farming land of Kampung Kayu Pulo and was initially settled in the late 1950s. The early residents of Batu Putih were a Papuan family named Udam from Nimbokrang in the Regency of Jayapura, who had an agreement to use the farmland based on arrangements with the head of the Kayu Pulo tribe (Suhartini 2016). The Udam family was delegated by the head of the Kayu Pulo tribe to control and manage the use of land, including accepting new residents into the settlement and processing related land release arrangements. Land arrangements are currently overseen by the youngest Udam in the family, Johanis Udam, who also acts as the head of RT 04/RW 02 in Batu Putih as part of Kelurahan Numbay. Customary land release is conducted under the name of the Kayu Pulo tribe of Haay and is undertaken by Johanis Udam as the local leader in consultation with the Haay families, the customary landowners. Since the area is defined as an unplanned area by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008, land release in the settlement remains under the rules and jurisdiction of the Kayu Pulo tribe. Therefore, houses and other buildings in the settlement are not equipped with formal land certificates or building permits. The ‘status’ of ownership is based on agreements with the Udam families endorsed by the Haay families as mentioned above. To obtain land, new residents have to pay compensation to the customary landowners, which is shared between the ‘gatekeepers’, namely, the Udam and Haay families. A written agreement stipulates the involvement of the Udam and Haay families to mediate the land and social disputes that may arise between incoming residents in the settlement. In terms of formal RT and RW governance, the heads of the RT are responsible for managing matters such as residential registration, involvement in the ADP process 14 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2014.

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

189

Fig. 6.15 Leadership in Batu Putih (left: Supardi, right: Johanis Udam). The RT heads in the Batu Putih Settlement are appointed by a local election at the RT level

conducted by the Municipal Government, as well as monitoring and maintaining interaction among residents. The heads of the RTs work under the supervision of the head of the RW, and thus, they can contribute directly to the formal development processes conducted by different levels of government. This includes ADP preparation, meetings with other authorities and conducting local elections and other social meetings (Fig. 6.15). The heads of the RTs in Batu Putih are appointed via a formal election in the settlement and they serve a 4-year term and can be re-elected. The head of RT 4/RW 4 has been elected for the second period, while the head of RT 01/RW 02 has been re-elected for the fourth time. Even though they are actively involved in formal governance processes, the positions are part of ‘service to the community’ and are unpaid. The heads of the RTs are considered part of the ‘leadership group’ in the settlement, primarily deliberating on access and provision of services, rather than being involved land or housing matters which are the domain of the Udam and Haay families (Figs. 6.16 and 6.17). There are several religious facilities in the settlement, including a church and a mosque, plus a kindergarten and open space. The settlement has direct access to the main road of Polimak-Abepura which makes the settlement a ‘high land value’ informal settlement. The settlement has access to electricity provided by PLN, water is provided by PDAM, and a waste collection service is provided by the Municipal Government. A communal parking lot for motorcycles and trucks/cars is provided adjacent to the Polimak main road and at the end of RT 04. This allows residents to access non-motorized alleyways (Fig. 6.18). Housing construction in Batu Putih is self-built by the residents on the steep slopes of the settlement. Houses and land are owned by the residents based on proof of obtaining land release from the customary landowners. Houses do not have formal land certificates and building permits from the government. Selling houses is accepted

190

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.16 Housing block pattern in Batu Putih.  House of Johanis Udam, the first house  direction of growth. Source Suhartini (2015) built in the settlement;

using a land release letter from the customary landowners. Houses are also rented using an informal agreement between the owners and the tenants. There is no tax payment to residents who rent part or all of their houses or use their houses as workshops, offices or for other economic activities (see Fig. 6.19). Housing is high density, generally two to three storey, and of concrete and wooden construction. Given the hilly terrain, a strong emphasis is placed on reinforced building construction to provide adequate support for houses and internal stairs and alleyways. The stairs and alleyway pavement are self- and group-built by individuals and groups of households, and they function as the main internal access within the settlement. There is also public lighting attached to the houses as provided by residents. Any extensions to housing needs to be discussed with the customary landowners so as to ensure potential issues of additional compensation are negotiated. Failure to follow this may result in verbal notice, and temporary or permanent closure (pemalan-

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

191

Fig. 6.17 Batu Putih settlement. Batu Putih is a dense settlement defined by multi-usage. Basic urban service provision must adapt to physical constraints such as steep slopes, soil type and overcrowded alleyways

gan) of the property by the customary landowners. The head of the RT acts as the informal mediator for solving disputes regarding land and housing claims brought to higher levels such as the Municipal Government. Since the residents obtain customary consent for their land and housing status in the settlement, many choose to pay the compensation claims made by the landowners. Water supply to Batu Putih is from several sources with the main supply provided by PDAM pipes using non-metered connections. This allows residents to share water and make a communal water payment to PDAM. However, since the PDAM water supply is not continuous, the residents need to find other alternatives to source water. As such, residents use electric pumps to get water from the main PDAM pipes to individual water storage tanks. Underground water is unavailable due to adverse soil conditions that consist of karst, thus, the residents use rain harvesting and buy water from a private water truck or bottled water providers. Water provided by PDAM needs to be boiled before drinking.15 There is no water test for water sourced from rain harvesting and like PDAM water, residents boil the water before drinking. A group water connection installation in Batu Putih was built under the PNPM Mandiri scheme in 2009 connecting several households in the settlement. In responding to water scarcity in the settlement, the heads of the RTs in Batu Putih proposed that an additional water connection be provided by the Municipal Government. The water connection was built using a partnership mechanism, which included contributions from the Municipal Government, the residents and external facilitators. 15 Based on the clean water quality as referred to the Regulation of Minister of Health of Republic Indonesia (PerMenkes 492 Tahun 2010).

192

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.18 Types of public facilities in Batu Putih

However, the connection is now abandoned due to a discontinuous water supply and lack of maintenance by the Municipal Government. Household PDAM water connections are obtained by contacting PDAM officials directly, who then arrange for the installation of non-metered connections. The monthly payment to PDAM is fixed regardless of the amount of water used. Disputes among water users are discussed internally and involve the head of the RT. Late payment by group members delays the collective payment and often causes group-organized provision to be disconnected by PDAM. Figure 6.20 shows different types of water supply in Batu Putih. In terms of sanitation and environmental arrangements, solid waste in Batu Putih is taken to a single-point transit station located on the main road of Polimak-Abepura. The residents dispose of solid waste at the station which is collected daily by waste trucks operated by the Municipal Government. To offset costs, the Municipal Government attaches a waste collection payment to the monthly electricity bills. In addition, an informal collective payment is made by the head of the RT to the truck operators to ensure continuity of the service. Grey water is disposed of directly into the drainage channel which bisects the settlement and this flows to the main municipal drainage system. There are also

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

193

Fig. 6.19 Housing types in Batu Putih

individual grey water pipes built by individuals that connect directly to the main surface drains. Due to the steep slope of the settlement, drainage connections function not only for rainwater and grey water, but importantly to provide slope stability to prevent landslides and erosion.

194

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.20 Types of water supply in Batu Putih

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

195

Fig. 6.21 Types of sanitation provision in Batu Putih

The main drainage channel in the settlement was individually built by the residents using different construction methods according to their budget and needs. Individual drains are self-built by the residents. There are cases where residents have disputes about the communal drainage channel, particularly if the residents do not connect their individual pipes properly and cause flooding, erosion or damage to other residents’ properties. In resolving this, the head of the RT mediates the process of hearing resident concerns.

196

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Residents of Batu Putih build individual toilets within their houses. Due to the soil conditions in the settlement, black water from the septic tanks is rarely emptied. Septic tank construction is unplastered to allow black water absorption. In addition to individual household toilets, communal toilets are provided by houseowners for tenants adjacent to boarding houses. Toilet maintenance is the responsibility of each household. In cases where there is spillover from bathrooms and toilets to other households, the RT heads mediate the dispute. See Fig. 6.21 for types of sanitation provision in Batu Putih.

6.3.3 Case Study 3: Dok IX The settlement of Dok IX is in the administrative area of Kelurahan Tanjung Ria and is defined as an informal settlement by the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2008 (RTRW Kota Jayapura 2008). The settlement was built by Papuan migrants from Serui in the Yapen Waropen Regency in the late 1950s based on an informal agreement with the Puy families from the local tribe of Kayubatu.16 The Papuan migrant families were Elias Waromi, Arrongear, Fonataba and Raubaba, and they are called the ‘initial families’.17 The settlement comprises 3 RTs and has a population of 415 persons or 185 households consisting mainly of the descendants of the ‘initial families’ (Suhartini 2016). Most of the residents in the Dok IX settlement work as fishermen, government staff or are self-employed (Figs 6.22, 6.23). The land of the Dok IX settlement remains under the ownership of the customary landowners of Kayubatu. New residents need to obtain consent from the customary landowners, followed by the heads of the RTs and RWs. Residents must pay compensation to the landowners for their residency agreement. The heads of the RTs mediate initial disputes between residents and the landowners and/or among residents and if not resolved, it is dealt with by the customary landowners. Disputes include claims regarding customary landownership, housing that extends beyond boundaries, and ‘inappropriate’ land use by residents. The ‘initial families’ are also delegated by the Kayubatu customary landowners to manage land use, water resources and access to basic urban services in the settlement, including accessing formal governance through the RT system (Fig. 6.24). The settlement has several public facilities such as a church, cemetery, primary school, communal water reserves, communal bath, youth centre, market and open space for sport activities. The ‘initial families’ built the cemetery, water reserves and communal bath for communal use by Dok IX residents. The Municipal Government built the youth centre, primary school and has improved the roads which access the settlement. The church was built by an international missionary (Fig. 6.25). Dok IX settlement is located adjacent to the waterways of Dok IX River which connects to the Youtefa Gulf. The settlement comprises clusters of elevated houses on 16 Interviews 17 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2015. with stakeholders, 2015.

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

Fig. 6.22 Housing block pattern in Dok IX. Source Suhartini (2015)

= First families,

197

= direction of growth.

198

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.23 Dok IX settlement. Houses in Dok IX settlement are traditionally elevated, using wooden and concrete pillars

Fig. 6.24 Leadership in Dok IX. The RT heads in Dok IX are from the ‘initial families’ that founded the settlement. A local election is held every 5 years, however, the leaders remain elected from these long-standing families

estuary lands, with houses built from wooden materials and corrugated iron roofing. On average, there are 4–10 houses attached to each other in a cluster. Wooden alleyways connect houses and the foreshore lands. Some houses are built from concrete; however, the foundation is raised following the traditional model of wooden houses elevated to protect against flooding. Most houses are one storey and function both for residential use and as space for boat storage. Houses for renting and buildings for economic activities are separate from the main houses. Houses have access to shared

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

199

Fig. 6.25 Types of public facilities in Dok IX

electricity connections provided by PLN and are equipped with separate toilets and basic kitchens.

200

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Most of houses in the Dok IX settlement are owned by migrant Papuan families. New houses are built by existing families to accommodate new settlers related to the ‘initial families’. Despite no specific rules regarding the ethnic and social backgrounds of new residents, most of residents are descendants from the ‘initial families’. Individual houses are also built by new non-kin related residents after obtaining consent from the customary landowners, who are represented by the initial families and current community. As there are RTs and RWs in the settlement, both customary and formal governance prevail. Figure 6.26 shows different types of housing built in Dok IX. In terms of access to water, Dok IX is not covered by PDAM due to ongoing issues regarding delayed payment by former users. Residents get water by connecting to surrounding water springs which provide a continuous ‘clean water’ supply. Connections were built by the ‘initial families’ and each family has its own access to the connections within the settlement. The residents also share water from a communal water reserve located in the centre of the settlement. There is no payment for using family water connections. The family members especially the elders share the cost of maintaining water connections, piping and the like. Residents who are not related to the ‘initial family’ members have to source their own water connections often from the water spring via discussion with the heads of the RTs and the ‘initial families’. Disputes regarding water are mediated by the heads of the ‘initial families’ and the heads of the RTs. Water in Dok IX is not distributed evenly. Families who reside further from the water springs often find it difficult to get connections to water sources. They must buy bottled water or clean water from private providers. In response to this, there were several water projects conducted by the Municipal Government and international donors in Dok IX focusing on improved access to local water piping, provision of water reserve/tanks, and an installation of a water treatment station to produce drinking water. These projects were sponsored by government-funded projects as well as in partnership with international donors under the PNPM Mandiri scheme (Suhartini 2016). However, all these projects have become dysfunctional due to the late payment of non-metered connections, a discontinuous water supply and minimal pressure from the main pipe, and lack of maintenance capability by the Municipal Government. See Fig. 6.27 for types of water provision in Dok IX. Waste collection in Dok IX utilizes a transit station built by the Municipal Government and located on the main road of Jayapura-Pasir II. There is no payment from the residents for waste collection. Some residents directly dispose of solid waste into waterways or burn waste adjoining their houses. Solid waste remains uncollected in some parts of the settlement, such as in open space, basements and waterways. Grey water and black water is also directly disposed into waterways. In summary, the sanitation conditions in the settlement are poor. The Dok IX River meanders and some parts of the settlement remain waterlogged. Animals such as pigs, dogs and chickens are not fenced and wander around the settlement at will through houses making it unhygienic. The settlement has been rated among those settlements with the lowest sanitation quality in Jayapura (Bappeda Kota Jayapura 2014). In responding to this, the Municipal Government has attempted to improve the

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

Fig. 6.26 Types of housing in Dok IX

201

202

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.27 Types of water supply in Dok IX

sanitation quality by developing communal toilets and off-site sanitation. However, septic tanks were disturbed by flooding and washed away by the river, and thus

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

203

Fig. 6.28 Types of sanitation provision in Dok IX

remain unrepaired. Hence, the residents continue to dispose of grey and black water directly into wetlands and waterways. In this settlement, the heads of the RTs and RWs have little input in sanitation monitoring and management. Figure 6.28 shows various types of sanitation provision in Dok IX settlement (Figs. 6.29 and 6.30).

204

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

6.3.4 Case Study 4: Kampung Kayu Pulo Kampung Kayu Pulo is inhabited by 144 persons or 25 households, and represents the original families and their descendants from the tribe of Kayu Pulo.18 The number of households is fixed and any additional requests for households are placed in the settlement of Argapura Bawah or other locations in Jayapura. The residents have various occupations, mainly working for the government, private sector, university, fishermen or self-employed. Kampung Kayu Pulo is considered a sacred place by the Port Numbay community as it represents the original settlement of the Port Numbay customary landowners. The settlement reflects traditional structures and vernacular architecture embedding traditional rules and customs which are applied in the placement of houses and the community hall (built over the water), while the other main public facilities include

Fig. 6.29 Housing block pattern in Kampung Kayu Pulo. Source Suhartini (2015) 18 Members

of the tribe who married persons from outside Kayu Pulo have to reside outside the settlement and are mainly housed in Argapura Bawah.

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

205

Fig. 6.30 Gate of Kampung Kayu Pulo

government-built buildings and a church (Figs. 6.29 and 6.30). The traditional community hall is used by the Ondoafi (head of the tribe) to lead meetings with tribe members while the Port Numbay community use it for social–cultural matters including discussion on customary rights and obligations. The church functions as a center for the Port Numbay community to conduct their religious and social activities.19 Meanwhile, the community center built by the Municipal Government functions for conducting formal governance, including meetings for youth, women and preschool children (see Fig. 6.31). The settlement is dominated by customary governance arrangements based on long-standing values and protocols practiced by the tribe of Kayu Pulo and led by the Ondoafies, namely, the Sibi and Youwe Families.20 The Ondoafies of the Kayu Pulo tribe function as the head of Kampung Kayu Pulo and are also involved in the formal 19 Interviews

with stakeholders, 2014. traditional governance of Port Numbay consists of the Customary Community Board (Lembaga Masyarakat Adat) and the Tribal Clan (Keondoafian). There are 12 tribal clans or Keondoafian in Jayapura. Each clan consists of several heads of tribe and is led by a head of clan (Ondoafi). The Ondoafi has the authority to make decisions over communal matters within the clan, such as the use of land, mediating disputes, and communicate with other clans. Each clan owns customary rights over land and other resources within their area. The rights are communal and can be transferred to families within the clan, but not to individuals. The Customary Community Board comprises of all Ondoafies in Jayapura and is led by the Head of Customary Board, who is appointed by all members. Only men can be appointed as Ondoafies and the Head of the Customary Board. The Ondoafi’s position belongs to oldest male descendants of the Ondoafi’s families, while the Head of the Customary Board’s position is decided in community meetings. The Ondoafi’s leadership in

20 The

206

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.31 Types of public facilities in Kampung Kayu Pulo

Municipal Governance.21 Only male descendants of the Ondoafi can be selected as the Ondoafi. In cases where the Ondoafi does not have any male descendants, the leader will be appointed via a community meeting of the Kayu Pulo tribe. The Ondoafi is assisted by the family of Sorok as the secretary of the community, who is responsible for maintaining archives and minutes. The Sorok family also has an important role in providing advice to the Ondoafi in the decision-making processes. Most of the customary governance matters are discussed by men in the community meetings and are attended by tribe members who may live in or outside the settlement. Men and women sit separately in tribal meetings and decision-making only involves elderly men. The meetings are conducted in the Kayu Pulo language, which is only spoken by particular families of the same lineage and taught to descendants who will Jayapura is formally recognized and he acts as the head of Kampung, which is at the same level of the head of Kelurahan. 21 Kampungs in Jayapura do not have RTs and RWs in their governance structure.

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

207

Fig. 6.32 Leaders in Kampung Kayu Pulo. Governance in Kampung Kayu Pulo is based on traditional governance of the Port Numbay community, led by the Ondoafi/head of Kampung (right) and supported by women and youth

continue the tribal governance. The Ondoafi has the authority to make decisions based on the results of the meetings, including liaising with the Municipal Government (Fig. 6.32). Housing in Kampung Kayu Pulo is built above the water line that surrounds Kayu Pulo Island. The settlement layout represents the hierarchy of families in the tribe of Kayu Pulo, with families with higher social and leadership positions residing closer to the community hall. The vernacular architecture also shows the local traditional Kayu Pulo style as expressed in motifs, paintings, local roof design and materials. Local materials as utilized in the building of houses in the early twentieth century, such as wooden pillars and walls, as well as sago leaves for the roof are continued today. More recently, houses are being built from timber and corrugated iron roofing, with residents realizing that their houses can last for 30–50 years with minor structural renovation and maintenance. The number of houses is maintained at 25 houses, representing the 25 families in the tribe. Changes to house plots on the water are decided by the Ondoafies and the members have to obtain the Ondoafi’s consent before building. Houses are not ‘for sale’ and residents hand over their houses to their descendants. Most of the housing property in the settlement is communal and members of the Kayu Pulo tribe contribute to house building, renovation and maintenance in the settlement. Houses function only for residential use and are equipped with electricity connections provided by PLN, water access and individual toilets (see Fig. 6.33). There is only one house which has commercial activity in the ‘over water’ settlement. Traditionally, the community of Kampung Kayu Pulo accessed water from springs piped from the Districts of North Jayapura and South Jayapura. Nowadays, water in the settlement is provided by the Municipal Government, private bottled water

208

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.33 Types of housing in Kampung Kayu Pulo

providers and self-initiatives by the residents, such as rain harvesting. Individual water connections in the settlement are supplied and paid for by the Municipal Government using water sourced from main PDAM pipes in Weref, which is connected by undersea pipes built by the Municipal Government. Maintenance of water pipes and tanks is funded by the Municipal Government. This support mechanism is provided by the Municipal Government in all native settlements (kampungs) in Jayapura to accommodate Law No. 21 of 2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua (Fig. 6.34). Solid waste in Kampung Kayu Pulo is collected in individual bins at the household level, while organic waste is burnt on the island. Waste collection is taken out periodically by boats provided by the Municipal Government. Like electricity and water supply, the household waste collection service is funded by the Municipal Government via the ADP Budget and requires no payment from the residents. However, the settlement also receives ad hoc waste from other parts of Jayapura as it is brought to

6.3 Governance of Basic Urban Services in Informal …

209

Fig. 6.34 Types of water supply in Kampung Kayu Pulo

the island by sea currents. As such, the residents must periodically collect the waste from the foreshore to keep the settlement tidy (Fig. 6.35). Houses in Kayu Pulo are equipped with individual bathrooms and toilets. However, these do not function properly as grey and black water is directly disposed into the sea without any treatment. Observations in the settlement show that the sanitation quality is average as the residents still mix housing and animal (pig) cages side by side.22 Maintenance requests are made by the head of the kampung through the ADP consultation with the Municipal Government.

22 Pigs

have an important part in Papuan traditional culture and function as in-kind payment for weddings, land release, governance successions and funerals.

210

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Fig. 6.35 Types of sanitation provision in Kampung Kayu Pulo

6.4 Summary This chapter has highlighted the key features of governance arrangements that provide basic urban services in informal settlements. This includes the mechanisms applied in managing land and other resources, including the leadership and the organization of basic urban service provision. What is clear in the four settlements and strongly supported by the typology analysis is that various modes of urban governance arrangements provide basic urban services, albeit with diverse outcomes. In other words, the service type is repeated in each settlement—that is, housing, water, sanitation and public facilities—but they differ in terms of methods and process of construction, materials used, siting and placement (private/public/community interface), and the approach to usage (single or multifunctional). The above reflects

6.4 Summary

211

the multiplicity and fluidity of governance arrangements at work in responding and adapting to local circumstances. Based on the exploration of the four case studies, governance arrangements in informal settlements in Jayapura consist of several different modes of governance, which can be termed traditional, formal and informal governance, and hybrid governance. Traditional governance arrangements are rules and regulations practiced in managing settlements based on local socio-cultural values, norms and aspirations. This governance is tied to specific kin and ethnic groups and is embedded in a specific land tenure. Formal governance comprises development interventions led and conducted by the Municipal Government and other bodies via legally endorsed processes of development planning. Informal governance, on the other hand, is an arrangement practiced by community members, either individually or collectively, based on mutual understanding and agreement of the processes to meet their basic urban service needs. Hybrid governance, namely, ‘the governance of three pillars’, includes decision-making carried out by utilizing a combination of traditional, formal, and informal arrangements. In other words, they overlap and intersect and in this context, they co-evolve at the local settlement level (Jones 2016). Traditional governance is widely practiced in the native Port Numbay settlements (kampungs) as reflected in Case Study 4 Kampung Kayu Pulo. The governing system in the kampung reflects the structures of the traditional ruling processes and procedures, attitudes and aspirations as held by the native Port Numbay communities. This is the basis for organizing and managing the settlement. Except for Kampung Kayu Pulo, formal governance in informal settlements is best exemplified by the presence of a Rukun Tetangga (RT) and Rukun Warga (RW). They lead and manage social and cultural activities in their settlement as well as providing formal ‘letters of endorsement’ regarding matters of residency status, house buying and land release, marriage, births and funerals. Furthermore, they act as a mediator in resolving disputes among residents, and between residents and other parties, such as regarding land disputes, family matters and intercommunity conflicts (including water which transgresses one RT/RW to another). Heads of the RTs and RWs are accountable to the head of Kelurahan, and are actively involved in the ADP process in Jayapura (but not the spatial planning process). Informal governance in Jayapura has rapidly evolved since the 1960s in providing basic urban services for residents in informal settlements (Jones and Suhartini 2014b). Informal urban arrangements remain prominent in long-established informal settlements such as APO and Kloofkamp, despite the formal urban arrangements applied to planned settlements during the Dutch occupation and the more recent Indonesian governance era. Informal governance arrangements have led to the provision of roads, alleyways, stairs, sanitation, water networks, drainage and housing. As indicated in Case Studies 1, 2 and 3, informal governance in informal settlements has been excluded from the formal planning systems due to the issues of non-compliance with spatial planning rules and regulations, and designation of the settlements as illegal. Mixed or hybrid governance arrangements are reflected in the mechanisms facilitated by the Municipal Government to accommodate a wider participation

212

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

and inclusion of residents in planning and development in informal settlements. Hybrid arrangements are conducted in partnership between the government, community, international donors and NGOs. The National Program for Community Empowerment-Urban or Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Perkotaan (PNPM-Urban) undertaken by the Municipal Government since 2007, for example, has strengthened community participation and broadened development targets to include residents in informal settlements. The program was initiated in seven kelurahans and kampungs in 2007 and currently includes all kelurahans and kampungs in Jayapura.23 Other hybrid arrangements that elevate communities in informal settlements to be part of the wider development process occurs by delegating the management of public spaces to the community, selecting Port Numbay settlements as tourism destinations, and providing traditional street markets and parking lots for the local community (Jones and Suhartini 2014a). In addition, the Municipal Government and Municipal Police Authority involve the local community in assisting with security management on religious occasions. The modes of governance described above intersect and co-evolve with each other in the development process to provide basic urban services in informal settlements. The heads of the RT, RW and tribes are actively involved in development planning by providing input and feedback regarding basic urban service provision in their settlement, especially in allocating land for development. They also mediate development consultation and disputes between the Municipal Government and community members. As a rule, traditional and informal arrangements have the most impact on land access and security, including the siting of housing in informal settlements. On the other hand, the basic urban services of water and sanitation (including solid waste collection and grey and black water) are mainly provided under a combination of formal, informal and hybrid arrangements. This is summarized in Table 6.16. The analysis indicates that no single mode of governance arrangement is solely responsible for the provision of all basic urban services in informal settlements. As there are multiple norms and values being played out by (a) different stakeholders via written and unwritten rules and regulations and (b) local governance institutions in the settlements, basic urban service arrangements reflect an ‘equilibrium’ of governance

Table 6.16 Basic urban services by main modes of governance arrangements Basic urban Main modes of governance arrangements services Traditional Informal Formal Hybrid Land and housing ✓

✓

–

–

Water Sanitation

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

23 Interviews

– –

with stakeholders, 2015.

6.4 Summary

213

approaches at different points in time. The equilibrium is fluid and is reflected in how stakeholders utilize, share and access various contributions. It also reflects how they exercise their resources in various ways by negotiation and dispute to obtain basic urban services. Within this evolving system, two features can be noted: (1) there are ‘fixed’ elements of governance that apply generally to all settlements such as land tenure and leadership of the heads of the RTs, RWs and tribes, and (2) there are ‘variable’ governance elements which are contextual and location specific to the settlements and include the type, scale and ongoing organization of basic urban service arrangements. Land arrangements for housing in informal settlements are first and foremost governed by the customary landowners. The heads of the RTs and RWs are just one but important player in the larger process dominated by traditional protocols. The case studies indicate that given the formal spatial plans have minimal or no impact in managing activities in the informal settlements, traditional governance exercised by the customary landowners provides long-established mechanisms in managing resident needs for land and housing security in the settlements. For residents, customary land arrangements fill the gaps in land security which do not result from or are acceptable in the formal system. For the Municipal Government, the acknowledgment of customary landownership (such as in Law No 21 of 2001) means reduced authority in managing unplanned areas such as ‘conservation areas’ as required by the spatial plans. On the other hand, this acknowledgement provides an ‘entry point’ to provide services to the informal settlements by delegating and involving the customary landowners in the arrangements under the Spatial Plan of Jayapura 2014. Leadership in informal settlements reflects the evolution of local power-sharing in the settlements. Leaders are appointed based on the dominant socio-cultural values and kin relations being played out in the settlements. As shown in the case studies, the ethnic and kin backgrounds of the residents, the history of the initial settlement process, and the strength of the socio-cultural norms and values among residents as reflected in governance arrangements strongly influences leadership in the settlements. All types of leadership in informal settlements coexist and work together with formal governance structures, processes and stakeholders as reflected in the RTs, RWs and kampungs. From the formal planning perspective, the ‘presence’ of formally appointed leaders via the RTs and RWs in informal settlements maintains a ‘balance’ as they act as ‘government representatives’ in accommodating resident needs and mediating disputes for basic urban services for consideration by the Municipal Government. The results of the household surveys in informal settlements confirm the importance of the co-evolution of governance arrangements for basic urban services. As shown in Table 6.17, approximately two-thirds (67%) of the respondents prefer both government and the community involved in governance arrangements, followed by other types of arrangements. This reflects multiple modes of governance are more desirable in basic urban service provision in informal settlements compared to a single type of governance arrangement. Variable elements of governance impacting on basic urban service provision in informal settlements include type, scale and organization. Types of basic urban

214

6 Key Features of Community Governance Arrangements …

Table 6.17 Respondent preference regarding governance arrangements on basic urban services in informal settlements Types of governance Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Municipal Government

52

17.4

17.4

17.4

Municipal Government and Kampung Community

3

1.0

1.0

18.4

Municipal Government, Kampung Community and both of them Municipal Government and both the Municipal

1

.3

.3

18.7

1

.3

.3

19.1

8.7

27.8

Government and Community Kampung Community

26

8.7

Both the Municipal Government and Community

202

67.6

67.6

95.3

Other Total

14 299

4.7 100.0

4.7 100.0

100.0

Source Household Surveys, 2014–2015. n  299

service provision in informal settlements range from self-built, group-built to community-built, and basic urban service provision is undertaken in partnership with the Municipal Government and other institutions. The scale of service for water and sanitation in informal settlements varies according to the needs generated by individuals, households, groups of households (including households from the same or different families) and settlement-wide. Regarding organization, basic urban services are delivered by a combination of self-organized, group-organized and community-organized arrangements. The dominance of self-organized and grouporganized arrangements, such as in a group cluster, occurs within the framework of wider community-organized arrangements anchored by contextual factors. Despite hybrid arrangements evolving in providing basic urban services in the settlements, it is the community as a whole or in part that takes the initiative and plays a dominant role in the processes. Excluding land and housing, the various types, scales and organization of basic urban services in informal settlements are influenced by local physical conditions, the availability of local and external resources, the extent of formal government intervention regarding particular services, and the level of ethnic and kin diversity in the settlements. The combination of these factors and variables drives the emergence of the adaptive provision of basic urban services, and hence, the community (individually, in groups or as an entity) adjusts the type, scale and organization of basic urban services within the overarching evolving governance framework of the settlement. Most importantly, this melting pot of factors and variables reinforces the

References

215

fundamental need for a nuanced and contextual understanding of governance within informal settlements and, arguably, the shaping and making of the wider city.

References Bappeda Kota Jayapura (2014) Laporan Kegiatan Tahunan Bidang Sosial Budaya Jones P (2016) The emergence of Pacific urban villages: Urbanization trends in the Pacific Islands. Asian Development Bank Jones P, Suhartini N (2014a) Reframing approaches to conceptualising urban governance in Melanesia: insights from Jayapura and Port Moresby. Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota 25(2):96–114 Jones P, Suhartini N (2014b) Governance and its complexities: Insights from formal and informal urban governance appraches in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia. Paper presented at the 11th UPE International Conference, La Plata Kambu MR, Kambuaya WW, Sagala TMH, Tambaip B, Pasaribu TH, Karim S, Aminah RS (2009) Satu Abad Kota Jayapura Membangun (1910–2010). Indomedia Global, Jakarta Suhartini N (2015). Exploring typologies of informal settlements as a reflection of adaptive and responsive urban development. Paper presented at the 3rd Planocosmo Conference, Bandung Suhartini N (2016). Governing informality: urban basic service provision in informal settlements. Paper presented at the 9th IFOU International Conference Buenos Aires Pemerintah Kota Jayapura (2008) Peraturan Daerah Kota Jayapura Nomor 5 Tahun 2008 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Jayapura

Part III

Conclusion

Chapter 7

Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance

Urban Governance in Action in Jayapura: Above: The Annual Development Planning process at the Municipal Level. Below: Public Consultations regarding arrangements for customary land

Abstract This concluding chapter summarizes the main research findings and their relation to the broader discourse on urban governance in developing countries as discussed in the literature, plus their contribution to theory development and policy implications. This chapter revisits the main areas of inquiry and findings for each key theme, namely, (1) the types, processes and stakeholders that constitute formal urban governance in the provision of basic urban services; (2) who and how the

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Suhartini and P. Jones, Urban Governance and Informal Settlements, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06094-7_7

219

220

7 Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance

stakeholders gain and benefit ‘on the ground’ from formal urban governance in basic urban service provision; and (3) how individuals, groups and communities who do not benefit directly from formal urban governance, organize and access governance to meet their basic urban service needs. What emerges is the fundamental role of urban governance in urban management and service provision and the reality that no ‘one size’ governance arrangement fits all. Most importantly, the melting pot of factors and variables influencing the effectiveness of governance reinforces the fundamental need for nuanced and contextual understanding of governance especially within informal settlements and, arguably, a better appreciation of who makes and shapes the wider city. Therefore, by better understanding, the workings of the city ‘as it is’ will hopefully result in better urban governance and outcomes for not just some, but all city residents. Keywords Inclusive · Governance equilibrium · Fixed elements Variable elements · Contextual · Self-organized

7.1 Introduction This book has explored the nature of urban governance in providing basic urban services in developing countries by using the mid-sized city of Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia, as a case study. Set within a review of the existing literature, the key inquiries have been to (1) identify the types, processes and stakeholders that constitute formal urban governance in the provision of basic urban services; (2) assess who and how the stakeholders gain and benefit ‘on the ground’ from formal urban governance in basic urban service provision; and (3) identify how individuals, groups and communities who do not benefit directly from formal urban governance, organize and access governance to meet their basic urban service needs. This research has focused on understanding governance in the provision of housing, water and sanitation at the municipal level in the mid-sized city of Jayapura, Papua, with detailed observations on four informal settlements so as to explore and better understand local governance mechanisms and outcomes shaping the city. Within the above setting, this chapter summarizes the main research findings and their relation to the broader discourse on urban governance in developing countries as discussed in the literature review, and their contribution to theory development and policy implications. Recommendations for future research exploration are also presented in this chapter.

7.2 Revisiting the Key Research Questions and Findings

221

7.2 Revisiting the Key Research Questions and Findings 7.2.1 Question 1: What Are the Types and Processes, and Who Are the Stakeholders that Constitute Formal Urban Governance in the Provision of Basic Urban Services? The formal urban governance that underpins basic urban service provision in Jayapura follows the structures and guidelines for plans and policies as outlined in a hierarchy of laws and regulations. The formal governance arrangements are set within a national framework and generally comprise western ‘top-down’ notions of spatial planning, development planning and sectoral planning. As revealed in the interviews and surveys, spatial planning is led by the Municipal Government and includes community representatives from planned settlements at varying stages of plan and policy preparation and implementation. The spatial plans consist of general and detailed spatial plans. The general spatial plan, namely, the Spatial Plan of Jayapura, provides the main guidelines for land use allocation at the municipal level. This allocation includes a range of land uses for planned settlements and conservations areas (that is, non-developable land). Meanwhile, detailed spatial plans which are derived from overarching policy in the general spatial plans provide operational guidelines to implement the higher level Spatial Plan of Jayapura. The emphasis in this process is strongly oriented towards the ‘territorial planning’ of planned settlements with varying levels of basic urban services. Analysis of planning documents shows that development planning mechanisms in Jayapura outline development policies, programs and projects for a range of basic urban service provision in long-, medium- and short-term plans. Like spatial planning, these comply with the laws and regulations at the upper levels. The Municipal Government leads the process of development planning which involves stakeholders from varying government departments and agencies, donors and key community representatives including indigenous landowners and local academics. However, this process differs from spatial planning and its strong focus on land use arrangements as the development planning processes represent strong collaboration between diverse stakeholders, and increasingly represent a highly reiterative process from local kampung to national level. Spatial plans are strongly land use oriented and are derived and implemented from Euro-American models of planning. They represent a continuation of ‘top-down’ planning approaches which emphasize a ‘regulated order’ and vision of planned urbanization in settlements that are characterized by formal land tenure, approved planning and building permits, and ‘good quality’ basic urban service provision. As a result, informal settlements that grow on ‘undevelopable’ and developable land are not included in Spatial Plans and hence not serviced as they are illegal according to the plans. Development planning, on the other hand, emphasizes a broader accessibility and distribution of basic urban services in both planned and informal

222

7 Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance

settlements. Development planning in Jayapura therefore positions the wider community, particularly the native Port Numbay landowners, as one of a number of main stakeholders to be included in the provision of basic urban services. This flexibility to address gaps in human development and basic urban service provision in such settlement types occurs due to stakeholders in positions of power allowing a greater interpretation and flexibility of the rules and regulations that govern ‘local development planning’. It is also an admission by the Municipal Government that they do not have the capacity to provide ‘formal’ services to all its constituents. On the other hand, sectoral planning is a key mechanism in implementing the objectives of development planning and to a lesser degree, spatial planning in Jayapura. Sectoral planning in terms of housing, water and sanitation programs and projects is not only carried out by the Municipal Government but also contributed by other formal institutions and entities such as state-owned companies, the private sector, donors, NGOs, and the provincial and national government. It also represents how a range of community arrangements for basic urban service provision can evolve through the highly legal and bureaucratic complexity of the three primary types of planning mechanisms. From another perspective, it shows the level of permeability in both formal and informal urban governance arrangements to achieve ‘better’ basic urban service outcomes. Thus, the lower the level of plan making in the Jayapura context, the greater the flexibility in governance processes and potential to develop and implement specific basic urban service solutions.

7.2.2 Question 2: Who and How Do the Stakeholders Gain and Benefit ‘on the Ground’ from Formal Governance in Providing Basic Urban Services? The results of analysis on planning documents, interviews and individual observations reveal that spatial, development and sectoral planning outcomes for basic urban services in Jayapura reflect urban governance arrangements that involve various stakeholders and provide a combination of direct and indirect benefits depending on the plan type. Spatial and sectoral planning outcomes such as roads, electricity, formal drainage and domestic waste collection benefit stakeholders who are directly involved in the planning process, which in the case of Jayapura are residents who live in the planned settlements. Other residents living in informal settlements are excluded from involvement in spatial planning. On the other hand, development and sectoral planning potentially benefits groups in both planned and informal settlements. The use of both development and sectoral planning provides the flexibility to (i) address a wider range of basic urban service needs and (ii) include residents excluded from the spatial planning process. Importantly, the latter allows local forms of governance to flourish to address service needs and be linked where possible to wider plans and policies. Hence, development and sectoral planning benefits a greater range of

7.2 Revisiting the Key Research Questions and Findings

223

stakeholders in terms of housing, water and sanitation provision regardless of their spatial location. As shown by the results of household surveys, the community gains basic urban services such as land, housing, water and sanitation by having varying access to planning processes which provides them an opportunity to include their needs and interests in formal planning, albeit this process is not equal in including all stakeholders. The private sector obtains benefits from conducting commissioned projects and consultancies, especially in planned settlements. The Municipal Government obtains benefits from spatial, development and sectoral planning by achieving consistency between development outputs and outcomes of different plan types, thus improving overall urban service provision targets and human development outcomes. This occurs despite ongoing questions over the quality and longer term sustainability of basic service outcomes, especially for water and sanitation. Development, sectoral and to lesser degree spatial planning outcomes in Jayapura are highly influenced by the implementation of Law No. 21 of 2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua. Under this law, the native Port Numbay community gains potential benefits from acknowledgement of customary land rights in formal development as the government, the private sector and communities need to work with and accommodate both customary land rights and the landowners in land release and registration. As highlighted by interviewees, Law No. 21 of 2001 has now contributed to the increasing complexity of project arrangements, including plummeting land prices and longer project duration. On the other hand, this acknowledgement has increased local community awareness of the existence of formal planning, development processes and systems. At the same time, Law No. 21 of 2001 has provided the opportunity for the Municipal Government to recognize its limitations and to adjust governance arrangements regarding the provision of basic urban services to a wider population, both spatially and in terms of the socio-ethnic mix. Despite the evolving formal and informal governance arrangements in basic urban service provision, the issues of financial and technical capabilities of stakeholders plus the ‘skewed’ overarching planning framework to planned settlement and their residents have strongly influenced outcomes. This has contributed to an increasing prominence of community-organized basic urban service provision being practiced in both planned and informal settlements.

7.2.3 Question 3: How Do Individuals, Groups and Communities Who Do not Directly Benefit from Formal Urban Governance, Organize and Access Governance to Meet Their Basic Urban Service Needs? As demonstrated by the results of household surveys, typologies, interviews, lotsized ground mapping and individual observations, the major modes of governance arrangements in informal settlements in Jayapura consist of what can be termed

224

7 Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance

traditional governance, formal and informal governance, and hybrid governance. Traditional governance is based on local socio-cultural values and norms and is tied to specific kin and ethnic groups and embedded in a particular land tenure type, namely, customary land. Formal governance comprises development interventions conducted by the Municipal Government and higher level bodies via legally endorsed planning processes, while informal governance comprises varying self, group and community arrangements that provide urban services based on mutual understanding or agreement to address a service needs. Hybrid governance in Jayapura involves the ‘governance of three pillars’ (that is, the government, church and the native Papuan community), and comprises arrangements combining traditional, formal and informal governance. All these governance types overlap, intersect and co-evolve through time at the local settlement, municipal and to a lesser degree, national level. This research shows that traditional governance is widely practiced in the native Port Numbay settlements (Kampungs) as reflected in Case Study 4: Kampung Kayu Pulo. The governing system in the Kampung reflects the structures of the traditional ruling processes and procedures, attitudes and aspirations as held by the native Port Numbay communities. Such protocols based on custom are longstanding and form the basis for organizing and managing the settlement. Apart from Kampung Kayu Pulo, governance in informal settlements is best exemplified by the presence and operation of the lower level Rukun Tetangga (RT) and Rukun Warga (RW) governance units. These community organizations established by formal government manage and facilitate a wide range of urban governance at the settlement level, including civil administrative matters, social and cultural activities, and arrangements regarding status of residents, house buying and land release. The heads of the RTs and RWs mediate disputes between residents and other parties in the settlements. They are also actively involved in the ADP process in Jayapura in raising local specific issues. As such, informal governance remains a prominent conduit in the provision of roads, alleyways, stairs, sanitation, water networks, drainage and housing. Mixed or hybrid governance arrangements are reflected in mechanisms facilitated by the Municipal Government to accommodate the wider participation and inclusion of residents in planning and development in informal settlements. Hybrid governance outcomes include the suggestion of new and modification of existing projects, the scale of service to be provided, and the degree of stakeholder involvement in planning and implementation. It also positions the native Port Numbay community as the main stakeholder in managing urban governance arrangements on customary land in Jayapura. The modes of governance described above are not discreet constructs of reality. They work together at varying levels of coherency and ‘equilibrium’ in the development process to provide basic urban services primarily in informal settlements. Traditional and informal arrangements have the most impact on land access, land security and house sitting, while the combination of formal, informal and hybrid arrangements have the most impact on the basic urban service outcomes of water and sanitation.

7.2 Revisiting the Key Research Questions and Findings

225

The notion of ‘governance equilibrium’ represents a ‘balance’ at a specific point in time in how stakeholders share resources and utilize their various human, financial and political contributions to leverage better basic urban service outcomes. This ‘balance’ is shaped by two main elements: (1) ‘fixed’ elements of governance that apply generally to all settlements, such as land tenure and local leadership arrangements, and (2) ‘variable’ governance elements comprising contextual- and location-specific elements embedded in the settlements, such as the type, scale and ongoing organization including maintenance of basic urban service arrangements. Land arrangements for housing in informal settlements are first and foremost governed by the customary landowners and the prevailing mix and type of social units, followed by the influence of ‘outside’ elements such as the RTs and RWs. Given the formal spatial plans have minimal or no impact in managing activities in the informal settlements, traditional governance exercised by the customary landowners provides long-established mechanisms to manage and respond to resident needs for land, housing security and other basic urban service needs in the settlements. Leadership in informal settlements reflects the evolution of local power, including relationships to the formal planning system. Leaders are appointed based on their support and respect for the dominant socio-cultural values, kin relations and governance arrangements being played out in the settlements. All types of leadership in informal settlements coexist and work together with formal governance structures, processes and stakeholders as reflected in the RT and RW structure in kampungs. The presence of formally appointed leaders via the RTs and RWs in informal settlements assists in maintaining a ‘governance balance’ in that they act as formal government representatives in accommodating resident needs and mediating disputes for basic urban services for consideration by the Municipal Government as well as their local communities. The household surveys in informal settlements strongly confirm Heylighen’s suggestions (2010) regarding co-evolution and self-organization as reflected by residents’ support for the co-evolution of governance arrangements for basic urban services. Approximately, two-thirds of respondents preferred both government and community involvement in governance arrangements for basic urban services. Regarding the mode of delivery, basic urban services are preferred to be facilitated by a combination of self-organized arrangements involving individuals, groups and the community. Self-organized initiatives are strong and are more common within the context of unplanned settlements which have overarching informal governance arrangements in place. Table 7.1 summarizes that self-organization can be distinguished from selfgovernance by the following characteristics. Variable elements of governance impacting on basic urban service provision in informal settlements include type, scale and organization. Types of basic urban service provision in informal settlements range from self-built, group-built and community-built, plus basic urban service provision undertaken in partnership with the Municipal Government and other institutions. The proposed scale of service for water and sanitation in informal settlements varies according to the needs generated by individuals, households, groups of households (including households from the same or different families) and settlement-wide.

226

7 Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance

Table 7.1 Self-organization and self-governance in informal settlements Aspect Self-organization Self-governance The lead arrangement

Self-organization focuses on the arrangements of basic urban service provision which are led by the residents based on self, group and/or community initiatives

Self-governance emphasizes a single authority outside the government at play in the decision-making processes in providing such services for individuals, groups and/or communities under the authority

The range of governance

Self-organization arrangements are contextual and may involve more than one governance body permeating in the arrangements so as to allow access to basic needs such as land and water Self-organization arrangements reflect varying degrees of informal and hybrid governance at work

Self-governance reflects one dominant governance system at play in managing all resources and services in the settlement

Types of governance at play

Self-governance in informal settlements is strongly coloured by elements of traditional governance

Importantly, the various types, scales and the organizations of basic urban services in informal settlements are influenced by local physical conditions, the availability of local and external resources, the capacity to maintain the services, and the extent of formal government interventions regarding services (such as those provided via development and sectoral planning processes, for example). It also includes the level of ethnic and kin diversity in the settlements. On one hand, the combination of these factors and variables drives the emergence of the adaptive provision of basic urban services as reflected in the typology analysis in Chap. 6, while on the other hand this allows the community to adjust the governance regime depending on the service outcomes. This dynamic interplay of factors and variables reinforces the importance of the need for a nuanced and contextual understanding of the multiple governance arrangements at play not only within existing informal settlements but also the wider city.

7.3 Contribution to the Literature This section elaborates on several interrelated themes emerging from this research as stated in Research Question 4, which supports the literature, namely, (i) the nature of urban governance, (ii) the complexity of urban governance arrangements and (iii) the importance of understanding context and the need for nuanced urban governance arrangements at varying scales. Furthermore, this section summarizes several contributions of the research in expanding research methodology and how to better

7.3 Contribution to the Literature

227

understand key concepts and definitions commonly used regarding urban governance in developing countries. This includes (i) developing a typology analysis as the main tool in classifying informal settlements and identifying types of arrangements, the stakeholders and processes of basic urban service provision; and (ii) to better understand key concepts examined in this research: ‘informal settlements’, ‘self-organization’ and ‘self-governance’.

7.3.1 The Nature of Urban Governance This research builds on discussion as presented in the literature review regarding the notion of urban governance in the context of developing countries as suggested by Devas (2004) and Hendriks (2014). As concluded in this research, urban governance in developing countries reflects the interaction and initiatives between different stakeholders that extends beyond the involvement of government in the provision of basic urban services. The research reaffirms that urban governance arrangements have emerged in varying forms to cope with gaps in basic urban service needs in both formal and informal settlements. This research also shows that emerging midsized cities such as Jayapura have experienced rapid urbanization, and as identified at Habitat III, October 2016, such cities have been forced to confront and acknowledge how they respond to the fast-growing demands of basic urban service provision for a diverse population. This research adds to the literature, which highlights the interplay between the types, processes and stakeholders that constitute formal urban governance in the provision of basic urban services. As observed in this case study, the Municipal Government leads the formal provision by utilizing different types of urban governance mechanisms (as suggested by Stoker 1998) which in this research context includes spatial, development and sectoral planning tools. Each type has its territorial emphasis and target beneficiary group. This research reveals that the Municipal Government is the main stakeholder for basic urban service provision at the local municipal level being responsible for formal planning and implementation processes within its technical, budgetary and human resource capacity. However, as this research also indicates, other types of governance such as informal, hybrid and traditional governance are also at play competing for resources and political support. The nature of formal urban governance arrangements is often suggested in the literature as being rigid and standardized, with a strong emphasis on top-down approaches and hierarchical processes in the provision of basic urban services. The research indicates that formal provisions have limitations in dealing with basic urban service needs in developing countries as follows: a. Standardized and rigid arrangements of the formal government provisions are less effective in addressing the various needs of basic urban services (Silva 2016). b. ‘Top-down’ planning approaches as contained in spatial and sectoral planning processes are less effective in addressing basic urban service needs compared

228

7 Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance

to the development planning processes that may facilitate hybrid development approaches in the plan preparation process (Jones 2016b). c. Hierarchical processes of basic urban service provision rely heavily on the consistency of policy contained in planning documents across varying scales. Yet, plan implementation is a decentralized process and highly influenced by local circumstances and conditions as observed by Obeng-Odoom (2012b). d. The use of formal governance tools such as zoning and the exclusion of stakeholders from participation and resource sharing in settlements considered informal, unplanned and illegal as designated by government do not fully function as ‘sanctioning’ elements as intended by planning policy. In fact, the absence of formal urban governance arrangements may encourage and strengthen the emergence of social groups and associated governance such as traditional, informal and hybrid governance as suggested by Roy (2011). The research further reinforces the position that formal urban governance arrangements have evolved from rigid and standardized processes to a complex ‘patchwork’ of governance mechanisms as suggested by Silva (2016). These arrangements are contributed to by stakeholders from formal and non-formal institutions by the use of varying processes and interactions among stakeholders so as to provide better basic urban service outcomes. Formal urban governance arrangements regarding basic urban services have slowly become inclusive in terms of addressing different target groups by contextualizing formal instruments, such as laws and regulations (for example, Law No. 21 of 2001) as a means of change. The varying implementation of laws and regulations addressing different target groups and territorial areas reflects an inconsistency by government in managing myriad legal and policy frameworks regarding basic urban service provision (Watson 2009). The requirements and non-requirements of multiple plan types often raises confusion among government and other stakeholders on the position of responsibility for the provision of individual basic urban service needs. On the other hand, the vexed interpretation of laws and regulations and unclear policy often at lower levels provides an ‘entry point’ for the government and the community to address basic urban service needs. This may result in a perceived improved level of service (however, defined) and an increasing quality of life for specific and broader population groups. As reflected in the research findings, sectoral planning as shown by housing and water provision arrangements in the planned settlements in Jayapura applies to a large extent standardized approaches in addressing urban needs. A ‘one size fits all’ approach of control and order still permeates for these services as suggested by Jones (2016b) and Watson (2009). In contrast, the implementation of contextual planning approaches, such as those conducted in the provision of varying sanitation options in informal settlements has complemented the shortcomings of the formal governance arrangements. However, bottom-up development approaches as practiced such as in sanitation arrangements cannot ensure an equal distribution of adequate provision since they are highly dependent on local resources including management capacity and leadership styles, the physical conditions, and residents’ preference for an

7.3 Contribution to the Literature

229

‘improved’ sanitation outcome. Thus, as recommended by Jones (2016a), a multiplicity of approaches is needed across space targeting individuals and groups having different needs and aspirations.

7.3.2 The Complexity of Urban Governance Arrangements At a broader level, this research adds weight to the work done by Christopher Alexander (1965) and Jane Jacobs (1961), for example, that planning and design needs the capacity to recognize and respond to the complexity of the city. The challenge for planning is to recognize and accommodate this complexity, as highlighted by the changes playing out and evolving in the Jayapura case study. Some literature suggests the need to unravel the complexity of urban governance arrangements. However, current discussion also highlights the lack of approaches to dissect the complexity and what this complexity really means (Obeng-Odoom 2012b). Governance arrangements increasingly evolve as an organic assemblage of social, political and economic decisions and activities in order to achieve the ‘inclusive’ provision of basic urban services. They occur as part of the evolution of incremental additions, adaptations and adjustments exercised at varying scales in order to achieve the functionality and utility of the service provision (Silva 2016). Governance arrangements regarding basic urban service provision as researched in the four settlements show the complexity of governance in informal settlements as suggested by Jones (2016b). The complex multilayered arrangements reflect the stakeholder’s endeavours in responding to and accommodating various issues and circumstances in aspiring to improving basic urban service provisions. In these cases, the stakeholders exercise and adjust governance approaches to accommodate and satisfy needs at that point in time. As approaches are developed simultaneously to deal with growing needs in the settlements, the sum of these arrangements produces a ‘melting pot’ of governance structures that are specific and contextual to the settlements observed. Importantly, they transgress self, group and community boundaries. The governance structure as unfolding above can be traced from the presence of an organic settlement form and structure as suggested by Dovey (2012) in which development processes occur as an ‘adaptive assemblage’ resulting from different governance arrangements and actions of various types and scales. In the Jayapura case study, the type and scale of governance arrangements for basic urban services vary from one settlement to another. For informal settlements, basic urban services emerge as a result of governance arrangements organized by the residents within the settlements, either individually or collectively. Self-organized arrangements as shown in this research reflect residents’ adaptation by utilizing varying modes of governance at different scales, which work simultaneously in formal and informal governance processes. Despite the challenges of their complexity and uniqueness, understanding self-organized processes in informal settlements can be enhanced and understood by utilizing typology analysis regarding basic urban service provision (Jones 2016a).

230

7 Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance

7.3.3 The Importance of Understanding Context and the Need for Nuanced Urban Governance Arrangements at Varying Scales As reflected in the main findings, governance arrangements regarding housing, water and sanitation in informal settlements show four main dimensions as stated by Boeninger et al. (1991). This includes technical, political, socio-cultural and institutional dimensions. Basic urban service provision in informal settlements comprises various types and scales of provision based on the available resources and technical skills, as well as the prevailing governance ‘equilibrium’ of different stakeholders involved in the processes (political and socio-cultural). Furthermore, the arrangements are contextual and specific in that they accommodate local values and norms (socio-cultural and political) and are organized by organizations of varying capacity for governing and managing the processes (institutional, socio-cultural and political). As examined in Chaps. 4−6, the outcomes of urban governance arrangements in planned and informal settlements are decentralized, contextual and modified to fit with local needs (including the limitations of the Municipal Government), whether explicitly or implicitly, with various local stakeholders involved in developing ‘adaptive’ arrangements to achieve better outcomes. Democratization is strongly shown by the emerging governance arrangements in informal settlements compared to planned settlements, as community members use their authority and initiative to decide on the level of participation, contribution and scale of the organization for the services. Since the main objective of basic urban service provision is the utility or ‘satisfaction’ (Obeng-Odoom 2012a, p. 210) of the provision that best works for them, residents exercise different organizations to provide basic urban services, such as self-organized arrangements by individuals, groups or communities. Basic urban service provision in informal settlements shows the entrepreneurialism of the individuals and communities as they lead the provision of housing, water and sanitation. However, the above mechanisms do not occur in isolation from one another, as shown by the preference by residents living in informal settlements (approximately, 70% of the household survey respondents) for using both formal and community-organized governance arrangements. It is only by deconstructing case studies such as Jayapura that we appreciate the value and importance of understanding contextual differences and similarities and their implications for planning.

7.3 Contribution to the Literature

231

7.3.4 Typology Analysis as the Main Tool in Classifying Informal Settlements and Identifying Types of Arrangements, Stakeholders and Processes of Basic Urban Service Provision As extensively discussed in Chaps. 3 and 6, this research expands the use of typology analysis in understanding informal settlements and analyzing urban governance arrangements regarding basic urban services in three ways. First, this research develops a structured methodology by systematically utilizing different sources of data to obtain more comprehensive information regarding the nature of urban governance at work. This included conducting a range of analyses to understand the complexity of urban governance arrangements, such as results from household surveys, observations on physical form, interviews, aerial imageries and published documents. Second, this research provides criteria to distinguish informal settlements from other types of settlement such as slums, squatter settlement, urban village and village in the city, as shown in Chap. 2. In addition, this research develops typologies for analysing physical forms, structures and locations of housing, water and sanitation to provide important baseline data and information regarding development outcomes in informal settlements. Third, this research shows how to apply typology analysis in order to understand the ‘commonalities’ and ‘differences’ (defined as fixed and variable elements respectively in this research) of governance arrangements in informal settlements. Given secondary data and information on informal settlements is not considered a priority and/or relevant by formal institutions such as Municipal Government, identifying such patterns supplements the need for adequate data and information so as to understand resident needs, governance processes and outcomes in informal settlements.

7.3.5 A Better Understanding of the Concepts ‘Informal Settlements’, ‘Good Urban Governance’, ‘Self-Organization’ and ‘Self-Governance’ This research clarifies literature regarding the term ‘informal settlements’ and how this term is defined based on physical features, legal land status, quality of settlement, compliance with formal spatial plans and their establishment (as shown earlier in Table 2.2). The study also highlights the emphasis on different criteria in measuring ‘good urban governance’ as suggested by the literature as shown in Table 2.4. This includes an emphasis on formal urban arrangements, community engagement and level of participation, the importance of formal and informal arrangements, values developed and quality of decision-making produced in the processes. This research provides three main aspects to distinguish the concepts of ‘self-organization’ and ‘self-governance’ in the context of informal settlements as

232

7 Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance

shown in Table 7.1, namely, the lead of the arrangements, range of governance and types of governance at play. This research reaffirms that in the context of a fast-growing mid-sized city such as Jayapura, different types of governance outside the formal systems work in delivering basic urban service arrangements in informal settlements. As discussed earlier in Chap. 6, land and housing provisions are most effective under traditional and informal arrangements, while water and sanitation outcomes are strongly influenced by informal and hybrid arrangements. Importantly, this research highlights that urban governance reaches an ‘equilibrium’ as the stakeholders agree on a desired combination of arrangements regarding land tenure, local leadership, type, scale and the organization. Land tenure and local leadership are essential in all informal settlements (termed fixed elements), while type, scale and basic urban service organization work in specific contexts and locations (termed variable elements).

7.4 Policy and Practice Implications Regarding policy and practice implications, this research suggests four areas of further exploration as follows: a. There is an urgent need for contextual urban governance arrangements to be accommodated in formal governance, particularly at local government levels. As suggested by Stoker (1998) and Friedmann (1987), the government takes the role as the main actor in leading public service delivery given its access to formal rules, regulation, planning, development tools and instruments including budgets and resource allocation. Thus, acknowledging and potentially improving urban governance arrangements embedded primarily in government is needed (this is discussed later). The implementation of Law No. 21 of 2001 as observed in this research, for example, has modified formal governance arrangements in terms of recognizing certain land rights to be respected in achieving varying basic urban services in Jayapura. Thus, the law has been a driver for contextual, adaptive and more inclusive governance arrangements building on local situations and conditions. b. The use of a ‘one size fits all’ approach in land and basic urban service needs analysis—for example, in spatial planning—as it does not accommodate local nuanced governance arrangements that are argued to be crucial in defining the ‘best’ level of service utility/satisfaction of the users/beneficiaries (Silva 2016). Since urban development in developing countries occurs within an overarching framework of urban governance (Devas 2004; Obeng-Odoom 2012b) and involves various stakeholders who exercise various types of arrangements, the improvement of basic urban services for the broader urban population can be achieved by increasing the participation of broader stakeholders in mainstream urban governance where a ‘coalition of the willing’ for such change exists. This includes the consideration of varying types of governance such as

7.4 Policy and Practice Implications

233

traditional, hybrid and informal governance, and the benefits they can bring to a well-functioning city. c. This research shows how both centralized and decentralized formal governance systems have contributed to varying basic urban service provision at the municipal/local level. Both systems work simultaneously notwithstanding that they have different spheres of authority in terms of planning tools and instruments, as well as the scale at which they operate. This includes the flexibility to deal with local variations in urban problems and needs, and to apply adaptive governance approaches. As the plan and budget preparation mechanisms of all formal plans observed in this research are hierarchical and highly controlled by the upper levels of government, the provision of strategic plans at the local level may provide municipal/local government the opportunity to deal with urgent and immediate needs such as water supply and sanitation. Supported by the provision of budget allocation for the strategic plans, they can be effectively implemented based on human development and basic urban service targets and objectives to reflect the local context and circumstances. There needs to be a greater alignment between budgets, strategic plans and ‘emergency service needs’. The implementation of such contextual approaches in plan preparation requires the availability of supporting theoretical and methodological approaches as well as competent urban planners, policymakers and politicians who can translate the contextual needs into effective policy and planning documents. Thus, implementation in practice requires a balance between aspirational formal standards, local variances, and as such, the setting of local nuanced standards and targets. A question that arises therefore is the extent of improvement and modification that can be applied to entrenched formal governance arrangements to achieve better outcomes. This major task requires consideration of the spans of authority of each stakeholder, the types of interventions, resource allocations and the extent to which those stakeholders in positions of authority are willing to share and possibly relinquish their ‘power’ for the benefit of a wider group of stakeholders (Jouve 2008).

7.5 Further Research Opportunities Based on the above discussion, the following summarizes recommendations for further research: a. In addition to planned settlements, this research to a large degree has focused on informal settlements which use informal and traditional land arrangements. It has not included squatter settlements in a mid-sized city context due to safety and security issues regarding fieldwork research. Thus, further research focusing on the different types of informal settlements, such as squatter settlements, their longevity and governance styles, is important in enhancing our understanding of urban governance arrangements in providing basic urban services.

234

7 Towards More Inclusive Urban Governance

b. This research has concluded that there is an urgency for inquiry regarding the nature of urban governance with an emphasis on the complexity of overlapping and differing processes used by stakeholders involved in planning. This includes inquiry into a better understanding of the use of mainstream terms and concepts such as ‘community’ and ‘one size fits all’ approaches in the context of developing countries. For example, the term community often implies a homogeneous population with relative stability and governance, but in reality, they may be subgroups differentiated by ethnicity, kin and socio-economic status all impacting on underlying governance effectiveness. c. What is equally important is the quality of the basic urban service outcomes as opposed to a strong focus on governance process. There has been lack of measurement criteria for assessing the quality as well as the sustainability of the urban governance arrangements that produce physical outcomes such as basic urban services. Criteria as suggested by the literature are primarily applied in the context of formal governance arrangements, which reflect only part of the actual urban governance processes in developing countries. There is a greater need not only to understand the complexity of the processes, but also the quality of the basic urban services that result from the latter. For example, how can terms such as self-organization and self-governance be usefully applied and used to ‘improve’ mainstream formal realms of urban governance and quality of outcomes.

7.6 Concluding Remarks This research has been a fascinating exploration into a deeper understanding of the nature of governance and what this means in a mid-sized city grappling with urbanization including rising urban growth needs. Urbanization outcomes in developing countries are evidence of dynamic governance processes in which urban inhabitants adapt their circumstances to fulfil their basic urban service needs to varying levels of success. Urban development as evolving in planned and informal settlements expresses a collation of human effort to meet basic needs. This is deployed in various ways of territorialization, such as in self-organized arrangements of basic urban services by individuals, groups and communities, and reflects the nature of self-resilience, adaptation and creativity inherent to human beings in dealing with their environment (Holling 2001). The challenge for planning and local government is to embrace and deliberate what an inclusive and socially just city means in varying national, regional and local contexts.

References

235

References Alexander C (1965) City is not a tree. Architectural Forum 122(1):58–62 (Part I), 122(2):58–62 (Part II) Boeninger E, Nelson JM, Lateef KS (1991) Governance and development: issues and constraints; Comments; Floor discussion. The World Bank Res Observer 267 Devas N (2004) Urban governance, voice and poverty in the developing world. Earthscan Publications, Sterling, VA, London Dovey K (2012) Informal urbanizm and complex adaptive assemblage. Int Dev Plann Rev 34(4):349–367 Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton University Press, New Jersey Hendriks F (2014) Understanding good urban governance: essentials, shifts, and values. Urban Aff Rev 50(4):553–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087413511782 Heylighen F (2010) Self-organization of complex, intelligent systems: an action ontology for transdisciplinary integration. Integr Rev. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ECCO-paradigm.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017 Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosyst 4(5):390–405 Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New York Book Jones P (2016a) Unpacking informal urbanizm. Penerbit ITB, Bandung Jones P (2016b) The emergence of Pacific urban villages: urbanization trends in the Pacific Islands. Asian Development Bank Jouve B (2008) Urban governance: towards the emergence of a new policy instrument? Int Soc Sci J 59(193–194):343–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2009.01671.x Obeng-Odoom F (2012a) The challenge of third world development. Capital & Class 36(1):194–196 Obeng-Odoom F (2012b) On the origin, meaning, and evaluation of urban governance. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift—Norw J Geogr 66(4):204–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2012. 707989 Roy A (2011) Urbanism, wording practices and the theory of planning. Plann Theor 10(1):6–15 Silva P (2016) Tactical urbanizm: towards an evolutionary cities’ approach? Environ Plann B: Plann Des 43(6):1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516657340 Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Int Soc Sci J 50(1):17–17 Watson V (2009) Seeing from the South: refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Stud 46(11):2259–2275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342598