Obstacles and Challenges in Implementing Good Governance through E-government (2006) Indonesian Version
Hambatan dan Tantangan dalam Mewujudkan Good Governance melalui Penerapan E-Government di Indonesiaby Teguh Kurniawan
Departemen Ilmu Administrasi FISIP UI,Kampus FISIP UI Gd B Lt 2 Depok 16424, email
teguh1@ui.eduAbstrak
Keberadaan e-government dalam konteks Indonesia sangat diperlukan karena sejumlah pertimbangan terkait adanya tuntutan akan terbentuknya kepemerintahan yang bersih, transparan, dan mampu menjawab tuntutan perubahan secara lebih efektif. Kemajuan teknologi informasi melalui internet telah membuka kesempatan yang semakin luas kepada masyarakat untuk dapat terlibat secara langsung dalam proses perencanaan, pelaksanaan dan pengawasan kebijakan publik. Namun dmeikian, penerapan e-government di Indonesia selama ini bisa dikatakan masih cukup tertinggal dibandingkan sejumlah negara lain. Hal ini ditandai dengan mayoritas situs pemerintah yang berada dalam tahapan web presence sementara sebagian kecil lainnya mulai memasuki fase interaksi dan belum satupun lembaga yang menerapkan e-government sampai tahap transaksi dan transformasi. Makalah ini berusaha mengidentifikasi sejumlah hal yang ditengarai sebagai penyebab minimnya adopsi dan kapasitas penerapan e-government dalam mewujudkan good governance di Indonesia.
Kata kunci: good governance, e-government
1. Pendahuluan
Internet dan semua bentuk komunikasi digital lainnya telah menjadi instrumen yang penting dalam semua sektor. Demikian juga di sektor pelayanan publik dan politik, media elektronik ini telah menjadi instrumen yang penting dalam komunikasi data internal dan eksternal. Penggunaan jaringan internet telah mempercepat proses komunikasi, kontak antara instansi pemerintah dengan masyarakat semakin dekat dan langsung, waktu tunggu untuk memperoleh informasi semakin singkat, dan aliran data dari satu unit instansi pemerintah ke unit organisasi lain (baik privat maupun publik) juga mengalami peningkatan yang luar biasa.
Perkembangan tehnologi internet tidak saja telah meningkatkan efisiensi, efektivitas dan percepatan pelayanan publik, tetapi juga telah memungkinkan debat-debat yang bersifat publik yang bertujuan untuk mendiskusikan, mengkritisi, dan menganalisis keputusan politik dan tindakan administrasi publik. Kemajuan tehnlologi komunikasi dan informasi melalui internet telah membuka kesempatan yang semakin luas hubungan antara politik, birokrasi dan masyarakat. Jika penggunaan internet ini dilakukan dengan baik dan sempurna, maka proses politik akan semakin partisipatif dan demokratis. Masyarakat dapat terlibat secara langsung dalam proses perencanaan, pelaksanaan dan pengawasan kebijakan publik.
Merujuk kepada latar belakang di atas, makalah ini bertujuan untuk:
1. Mengidentifikasi dan mengklasifikasi karakteristik dan ciri-ciri dari good governance serta macam penerapan e-government dalam sektor publik;
2. Mengidentifikasi sejumlah hal yang ditengarai sebagai penyebab minimnya adopsi dan kapasitas penerapan e-government dalam mewujudkan good governance di Indonesia.
2. Governance vs Government dan Good Governance
Pada dasarnya governance, government dan good governance merupakan terminologi yang berbeda satu sama lain, meskipun ketiganya saling berhubungan. Untuk memahami ketiga terminologi tersebut, uraian berikut diharapkan dapat membantu.
(1) Governance vs GovernmentDalam memahami perbedaan antara governance dan government, Schwab dan Kubler (2001) melihatnya dari 5 (lima) fitur dimensi berdasarkan pengamatan mereka terhadap interaksi pada sebuah kontinuum pengaturan kebijakan antara governance dan government sebagai berikut:
• Dimensi aktor;
• Dimensi fungsi;
• Dimensi struktur;
• Dimensi konvensi interaksi;
• Dimensi distribusi kekuasaan.
Dilihat dari dimensi aktor, governance dicirikan dengan banyaknya jumlah peserta baik yang berasal dari sektor publik maupun privat yang terlibat dalam pengaturan sebuah kebijakan. Sementara itu, government dicirikan dengan sangat sedikit dan terbatasnya jumlah peserta dalam proses pengaturan kebijakan tersebut, aktor yang terlibat pun biasanya merupakan badan-badan (lembaga) pemerintahan.
Dari dimensi fungsi, governance dicirikan melalui banyaknya konsultasi yang dilakukan dalam pengaturan kebijakan. Hal ini memungkinkan bagi adanya kerjasama dalam pembuatan kebijakan antara aktor-aktor yang terlibat sehingga issue-isue kebijakan yang dihasilkan menjadi lebih sempit. Hal ini berbeda dengan government yang dicirikan dengan sedikitnya konsultasi, tidak adanya kerjasama antar aktor dalam pembuatan kebijakan yang menyebabkan luasnya issue kebijakan yang dihasilkan.
Berdasarkan dimensi struktur, governance dicirikan dengan adanya batas-batas yang didefinisikan secara fungsional dan sangat terbuka selain keanggotaan dari struktur yang bersifat sukarela. Batas-batas yang didefinisikan secara fungsional disini berarti pertimbangan pengaturan kebijakan didasarkan atas kebutuhan fungsional. Hal ini tidak seperti government yang mendefinisikan batas-batas berdasarkan kewilayahan dan bersifat tertutup selain tentu saja keanggotaannya yang tidak sukarela, artinya untuk dapat masuk sebagai struktur harus merupakan anggota dari organisasi sektor publik.
Dari dimensi konvensi interaksi, governance dicirikan dengan konsultasi yang sifatnya horisontal dengan pola hubungan yang bersifat kooperatif sehingga lebih banyak keterbukaan. Sementara itu government dicirikan dengan adanya hirarkhi kewenangan sehingga pola hubungan yang terjadi lebih banyak bersifat konflik dan dipenuhi dengan banyak kerahasiaan.
Berdasarkan dimensi distribusi kekuasaan, governance dicirikan dengan rendahnya dominasi negara, dipertimbangkannya kepentingan masyarakat dalam pengaturan kebijakan serta adanya keseimbangan atau simbiosis antar aktor. Sementara itu government dicirikan dengan adanya dominasi negara yang dalam banyak hal tidak terlalu memperhatikan kepentingan masyarakat serta tidak adanya keseimbangan antar aktor yang terlibat.
(2) Good GovernancePengertian dari good governance dapat dilihat dari pemahaman yang dimiliki baik oleh IMF maupun World Bank yang melihat Good Governance sebagai sebuah cara untuk memperkuat “kerangka kerja institusional dari pemerintah”. Hal ini menurut mereka berarti bagaimana memperkuat aturan hukum dan prediktibilitas serta imparsialitas dari penegakannya. Ini juga berarti mencabut akar dari korupsi dan aktivitas-aktivitas rent seeking, yang dapat dilakukan melalui transparansi dan aliran informasi serta menjamin bahwa informasi mengenai kebijakan dan kinerja dari institusi pemerintah dikumpulkan dan diberikan kepada masyarakat secara memadai sehingga masyarakat dapat memonitor dan mengawasi manajemen dari dana yang berasal dari masyarakat.
Berdasarkan pengertian di atas, good governance memiliki sejumlah ciri sebagai berikut:
• Akuntabel, artinya pembuatan dan pelaksanaan kebijakan harus disertai pertanggungjawabannya;
• Transparan, artinya harus tersedia informasi yang memadai kepada masyarakat terhadap proses pembuatan dan pelaksanaan kebijakan;
• Responsif, artinya dalam proses pembuatan dan pelaksanaan kebijakan harus mampu melayani semua stakeholder;
• Setara dan inklusif, artinya seluruh anggota masyarakat tanpa terkecuali harus memperoleh kesempatan dalam proses pembuatan dan pelaksanaan sebuah kebijakan;
• Efektif dan efisien, artinya kebijakan dibuat dan dilaksanakan dengan menggunakan sumberdaya-sumberdaya yang tersedia dengan cara yang terbaik;
• Mengikuti aturan hukum, artinya dalam proses pembuatan dan pelaksanaan kebijakan membutuhkan kerangka hukum yang adil dan ditegakan;
• Partisipatif, artinya pembuatan dan pelaksanaan kebijakan harus membuka ruang bagi keterlibatan banyak aktor;
• Berorientasi pada konsensus (kesepakatan), artinya pembuatan dan pelaksanaan kebijakan harus merupakan hasil kesepakatan bersama diantara para aktor yang terlibat.
3. E-Government dan Penerapannya di LapanganTerminologi “E-Government” dapat diartikan sebagai kumpulan konsep untuk semua tindakan dalam sektor publik (baik di tingkat Pemerintah Pusat maupun Pemerintah Daerah) yang melibatkan tehnologi informasi dan komunikasi dalam rangka mengoptimalisasi proses pelayanan publik yang efisien, transparan dan efektif. Hal ini dimungkinkan, karena secara internal pertukaran informasi antar unit organisasi publik menjadi lebih cepat, mudah dan terintegrasi.
Setidaknya ada tiga faktor yang menyebabkan pentingnya “E-Government” dalam pembangunan masyarakat jaringan (network society):
• Elektronisasi komunikasi antara sektor publik dan masyarakat menawarkan bentuk baru partisipasi dan interaksi keduanya. Waktu yang dibutuhkan menjadi lebih singkat, disamping tingkat kenyamanan pelayanan juga semakin tinggi. Disamping itu, bentuk transaksi baru ini akan menyebabkan tingginya tingkat pemahaman dan penerimaan masyarakat terhadap tindakan yang dilakukan oleh pemerintah;
• Cyberspace dalam pelayanan publik memungkinkan penghapusan struktur birokrasi dan proses klasik pelayanan yang berbelit-belit. Tujuan realistis yang hendak dicapai melalui cyberspace adalah efisiensi pelayanan dan penghematan finansial. Disamping itu, informasi online dalam pelayanan publik dapat meningkatkan derajat pengetahuan masyarakat mengenai proses dan persyaratan sebuah pelayanan publik;
• E-government menyajikan juga informasi-informasi lokal setempat. Penggunaan internet dalam sektor publik akan memungkinkan kemampuan kompetisi masyarakat lokal dengan perkembangan internasional dan global.
4. Hambatan dan Tantangan Mewujudkan Good Governance melalui E-Government
Hambatan penerapan e-government dapat lihat misalnya dari hasil pengamatan yang dilakukan Kementerian Komunikasi yang menyimpulkan bahwa mayoritas situs pemerintah Pusat dan pemerintah Daerah masih berada pada tingkat persiapan (pertama) apabila ditinjau dari sejumlah aspek:
• E-Leadership: prioritas dan inisiatif negara di dalam mengantisipasi dan memanfaatkan kemajuan teknologi informasi;
• Infrastruktur Jaringan Informasi: kondisi infrastruktur telekomunikasi serta akses, kualitas, lingkup, dan biaya jasa akses;
• Pengelolaan Informasi: kualitas dan keamanan pengelolaan informasi;
• Lingkungan Bisnis: kondisi pasar, sistem perdagangan, dan regulasi yang membentuk konteks perkembangan bisnis teknologi informasi;
• Masyarakat dan Sumber Daya Manusia: difusi teknologi informasi didalam kegiatan masyarakat baik perorangan maupun organisasi, serta sejauh mana teknologi informasi disosialisasikan kepada masyarakat melalui proses pendidikan.
Terdapat sejumlah kelemahan pembentukan e-government di Indonesia:
• Pelayanan yang diberikan situs pemerintah belum ditunjang oleh sistem manajeman dan proses kerja yang efektif karena kesiapan peraturan, prosedur dan keterbatasan SDM sangat membatasi penetrasi komputerisasi ke dalam sistem pemerintah;
• Belum mapannya strategi serta tidak memadainya anggaran yang dialokasikan untuk pengembangan e-government;
• Inisiatif merupakan upaya instansi secara sendiri-sendiri; dengan demikian sejumlah faktor seperti standardisasi, keamanan informasi, otentikasi, dan berbagai aplikasi dasar yang memungkinkan interoperabilitas antar situs secara andal, aman, dan terpercaya kurang mendapatkan perhatian
• Kesenjangan kemampuan masyarakat untuk mengakses jaringan internet.
Dengan melihat kepada kondisi di atas, maka tantangan yang muncul kemudian adalah bagaimana meningkatkan penerapan e-government di masa datang menjadi lebih memadai sehingga tidak memungkinkan lagi adanya tahapan pelayanan yang memerlukan pertemuan tatap muka antara masyarakat dengan penyedia pelayanan publik. Ketiadaan tatap muka dapat meminimalisir dan meniadakan aktivitas-aktivitas rent seeking.
5. KesimpulanSebagai penutup dari makalah ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa jalan bagi penerapan good governance di Indonesia yang memadai melalui e-government masih cukup panjang. Hal yang perlu dilakukan untuk mengatasi hal ini adalah melalui pengembangan lebih lanjut dari e-government pada tahapan paling tinggi yang memungkinkan selain melalui pendidikan dan pemerataan akses masyarakat terhadap internet.
6. Ucapan Terima KasihPenulis mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Dr. Eko Prasojo atas kerjasamanya dalam melakukan penelitian bersama yang sebagian datanya digunakan dalam makalah ini.
7. Daftar Pustaka1. E. Prasojo dan T. Kurniawan, Hambatan dalam Penerapan E-Government di Indonesia, Laporan Penelitian, DIA FISIP UI, Desember 2004
2. B. Schwab and D. Kubler, Metropolitan Governance and the “democratic deficit”: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Findings, Paper in Conference Area-based initiatives in contemporary urban policy, Copenhagen, May 2001
3. N. Woods, The Challenge of Good Governance for the IMF and the World Bank Themselves, on World Development, Vol. 28, No. 5, Pergamon, 2000
4. B. N. Hague and B. D. Loader, Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age, Routledge, 1999
5. D. Holmes, E.gov: E-business Strategies for Government, Nicholas Brealey, 2001
Makalah ini dipresentasikan dalam Konferensi nasional Sistem Informasi (KNSI) 2006, Jurusan Teknologi Informasi Universitas Pasundan dan Departemen Teknologi Informasi Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, 18 Februari 2006, dipublikasikan dalam Buku Prosiding Konferensi Nasional Sistem Informasi 2006, Bandung: Penerbit Informatika, ISBN 979-3338-71-7
Improvement of Public Services in the Era of Local Autonomy (2006) Indonesian version
PERBAIKAN PELAYANAN PUBLIK DI ERA OTONOMI DAERAH:
ANTARA HARAPAN DAN KENYATAANOleh: Teguh Kurniawan
*
PENDAHULUAN
Secara teori, pelaksanaan asas desentralisasi melalui pemberian otonomi kepada daerah dapat membuat penyediaan pelayanan publik menjadi lebih efisien dan efektif. Hal ini menurut Rondinelli (1989) dapat terjadi karena sejumlah hal, yakni (1) melalui otonomi terjadi optimalisasi hirarkhi dalam penyampaian layanan akibat dari penyediaan pelayanan publik dilakukan oleh institusi yang memiliki kedudukan lebih dekat dengan masyarakat sehingga keputusan-keputusan strategis dapat lebih mudah dibuat; (2) adanya penyesuaian layanan terhadap kebutuhan dan kondisi yang ada di tingkat lokal; (3) adanya peningkatan perawatan terhadap infrastruktur yang ada melalui alokasi anggaran yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan kondisi yang ada di wilayahnya; (4) adanya pengalihan fungsi-fungsi rutin dari Pusat kepada Daerah sehingga Pusat dapat lebih berkonsentrasi pada fungsi-fungsi kebijakan; (5) adanya peningkatan kompetisi dalam penyediaan layanan diantara unit-unit pemerintah dan antara sektor publik dan sektor swasta atas arahan Pemerintah Daerah; serta (6) dapat membuat birokrasi menjadi lebih berorientasi kepada masyarakat.
Namun demikian, kondisi ideal tersebut tampaknya cukup sulit untuk diwujudkan di Indonesia karena sejumlah alasan. Tulisan pendek ini berusaha untuk memberikan gambaran nyata mengenai kesulitan dan permasalahan yang dihadapi di lapangan dalam penyediaan pelayanan publik di era otonomi serta prospek untuk melakukan perbaikan terhadap kondisi pelayanan publik yang ada sekarang.
GAMBARAN UMUM PELAYANAN PUBLIK DI ERA OTONOMI DAERAH
Gambaran umum dari kondisi pelayanan publik di era Otonomi Daerah ini setidaknya dapat dilihat dari hasil kajian yang dilakukan oleh sejumlah lembaga seperti PSKK UGM (2001 dan 2003), SMERU (2002), The Asia Foundation (2004), dan PKPADK FISIP UI (2004). Temuan terkini dari kondisi pelayanan publik tersebut juga dapat dilihat dari hasil kajian melalui survei terhadap kualitas pelayanan publik di sejumlah daerah yang dilakukan oleh YAPPIKA baru-baru ini (2005) dimana penulis juga turut serta membantu dalam sebagian kecil pelaksanaan kajian tersebut.
Dari sejumlah hasil kajian yang dilakukan oleh lembaga-lembaga sebagaimana disebutkan di atas, diperoleh gambaran mengenai kondisi pelayanan publik pada sejumlah sektor (dalam tulisan ini difokuskan pada sektor pendidikan dan kesehatan) yang intinya adalah sebagai berikut:
1. Pelayanan publik yang disediakan pada umumnya terbatas, ditandai misalnya dengan jumlah dan kualitas guru/tenaga medis serta fasilitas dan sarana pendidikan/kesehatan yang tidak memadai dan tidak merata.
2. Keterbatasan tersebut umumnya disebabkan oleh keterbatasan sumber daya manusia yang tersedia serta alokasi anggaran yang kurang memadai dalam APBD masing-masing.
3. Masih belum berubahnya sikap dan paradigma dari aparat pemerintah dalam pemberian pelayanan, belum lagi para aparat pemerintah tersebut masih sangat rules driven dan mendasarkan diri pada petunjuk atasan dalam pemberian layanan tersebut dan tidak mendasarkannya pada kepuasan masyarakat.
4. Belum optimalnya partisipasi dari masyarakat dalam proses pemberian layanan, meskipun sudah terdapat sejumlah perangkat yang dapat mendukung upaya tersebut seperti keberadaan dari komite sekolah dan komite kesehatan.
Dari gambaran di atas dapat terlihat bahwa sejauh ini Otonomi Daerah masih belum mampu meningkatkan pelayanan publik kepada masyarakat di banyak Daerah di Indonesia. Sejatinya melalui Otonomi Daerah dapat meningkatkan kualitas dari penyediaan pelayanan publik kepada masyarakat karena dengan Otonomi Daerah memberikan keleluasaan kepada Daerah untuk dapat melakukan tindakan-tindakan yang inovatif dalam pemberian layanan kepada masyarakat. Daerah tidak perlu lagi mendapatkan persetujuan dari Pusat untuk memulai sebuah program yang inovatif dalam penyediaan pelayanan publik kepada masyarakat. Contoh nyata dari kemungkinan ini dapat kita lihat dari inovasi program yang dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Kabupaten Jembrana melalui program Bebas Iuran Sekolah (BIS) dan Jaminan Kesehatan Jembrana (JKJ). Dalam memulai dan melaksanakan program BIS dan JKJ yang terbukti dapat meningkatkan kualitas pelayanan publik ini, Pemerintah Kabupaten Jembrana tidak memerlukan persetujuan dari Pusat atau Propinsi. Hal ini akan sangat berbeda apabila kewenangan dalam bidang pendidikan dan kesehatan masih sepenuhnya dipegang oleh Pusat. Namun demikian, apa yang terjadi di Kabupaten Jembrana tersebut memang sangat ditentukan dari faktor kepemimpinan Daerah yang ada, sehingga untuk dapat diwujudkan di Daerah-Daerah lainnya di Indonesia akan sangat ditentukan salah satunya oleh figur dari pemimpin Daerah masing-masing.
Peningkatan kualitas pelayanan publik di era Otonomi Daerah juga sangat dimungkinkan mengingat keleluasaan yang dimiliki Daerah untuk menyesuaikan layanan yang diberikannya termasuk dengan mengalokasikan sejumlah anggaran tertentu sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan kondisi yang ada di Daerah. Namun demikian, dari pengalaman yang ada di lapangan didapatkan sebuah kenyataan bahwa anggaran yang dialokasikan untuk pembangunan dan penyediaan pelayanan publik masih sangat terbatas. Anggaran yang ada lebih banyak dihabiskan untuk kegiatan rutin dibandingkan dengan kegiatan pembangunan. Hal ini tidak dapat dilepaskan dari struktur organisasi dan sumber daya manusia dari Pemerintah Daerah yang cenderung besar dan tidak efisien. Belum lagi kurangnya komitmen dan kemauan dari pimpinan Daerah dan DPRD untuk mengalokasikan dana yang memadai dalam penyediaan pelayanan publik. Kondisi yang paling sering terjadi adalah pengalokasian sebagian besar dari anggaran yang minim tersebut untuk kepentingan non publik, sehingga yang terjadi kemudian adalah sebagian besar anggaran digunakan untuk kepentingan sebagian kecil dari kelompok-kelompok yang ada di Pemerintahan. Pengalokasian anggaran untuk kepentingan pelayanan publik pun seringkali ditandai dengan praktek KKN, sehingga pengalokasiannya tidak tepat sasaran. Padahal yang seharusnya dilakukan oleh Daerah adalah sebagaimana dicontohkan oleh Pemerintah Kabupaten Jembrana dimana ditengah segala keterbatasan anggaran yang dimilikinya, Pemerintah Kabupaten Jembrana berusaha melakukan tindakan efisiensi penggunaan anggaran di semua sektor dan kemudian mengalihkannya untuk penyediaan pelayanan publik yang lebih baik di bidang pendidikan, kesehatan, perekonomian dan bidang pelayanan publik lainnya. Alih-alih melakukan efisiensi penggunaan anggaran dan mengalokasikannya untuk kepentingan pelayanan publik, maka yang terjadi di banyak daerah lainnya di Indonesia adalah komersialisasi terhadap pelayanan publik dan menjadikan pelayanan publik sebagai target penerimaan PAD. Kondisi ini tentu saja semakin memperburuk kinerja pelayanan publik yang dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Daerah terhadap masyarakat. Dalam bidang kesehatan misalnya, Rumah Sakit dan Puskesmas diberikan target perolehan PAD, karenanya dalam pemberian layanan mereka cenderung mengutamakan aspek finansial ketimbang aspek kemanusiaan, sehingga yang terjadi kemudian adalah banyak masyarakat yang ditolak untuk dilayani sampai mereka dapat menunjukkan bahwa mereka mampu untuk membayar.
Minimnya kualitas pelayanan publik yang ada di era Otonomi Daerah ini juga ditandai dengan masih sangat terbatasnya kompetisi diantara para penyedia pelayanan publik. Kompetisi dalam penyediaan pelayanan publik akan sangat baik dalam merangsang para penyedia layanan untuk memberikan pelayanan yang lebih baik kepada masyarakat. Penyediaan pelayanan publik di banyak Daerah di Indonesia masih banyak yang dilakukan sepenuhnya oleh Pemerintah Daerah atau yang dikenal sebagai traditional bureaucratic authority. Padahal dalam banyak hal untuk menciptakan kompetisi guna mewujudkan pelayanan publik yang lebih berorientasi kepada masyarakat, model pelayanan yang seperti ini sudah harus dipertimbangkan untuk digantikan dengan model pelayanan publik yang lain seperti market oriented enabling authority dan community oriented enabler. Model market enabling authority memberikan kesempatan kepada pasar dalam pemberian layanan, meskipun didalamnya tetap menempatkan Pemerintah Daerah dalam posisi yang kuat. Apa yang dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Kabupaten Jembrana dengan memberikan kesempatan kepada praktek dokter dan bidan swasta untuk turut berkompetisi dalam penyediaan pelayanan kesehatan melalui program JKJ dapat dikatakan sebagai salah satu contoh dari penerapan model pelayanan publik ini. Model lainnya yakni community oriented enabler merupakan model pelayanan yang menekankan kepada partisipasi masyarakat yang luas dalam penyediaan layanan publik.
PROSPEK PERBAIKAN PELAYANAN PUBLIK DI MASA DEPAN
Belajar dari pengalaman yang ada di lapangan sebagaimana digambarkan di atas serta dengan mempertimbangkan situasi sosial politik yang ada saat ini, maka terdapat sejumlah hal yang dapat memberikan prospek akan pelayanan publik yang lebih baik di masa depan. Hal ini sangat terkait dengan mekanisme pemilihan Kepala Daerah secara langsung yang sudah mulai dilaksanakan di Indonesia, keberadaan Komisi Ombudsman yang akan lebih diberdayakan, serta keberadaan RUU Pelayanan Publik dan RUU Administrasi Pemerintahan.
Pemilihan Kepala Daerah secara langsung akan memberikan prospek terhadap peningkatan pelayanan publik apabila dalam pemilihan Kepala Daerah secara langsung tersebut dapat menghasilkan figur-figur Kepala Daerah yang memiliki visi dan keberpihakan yang lebih besar kepada masyarakat dan kemajuan Daerahnya. Karenanya, yang menjadi pekerjaan rumah bagi kita adalah bagaimana memastikan bahwa mereka-mereka yang akan maju dalam pemilihan Kepala Daerah dan menjadi pimpinan Daerah adalah orang-orang yang memiliki visi dan keberpihakan kepada masyarakat dan kemajuan Daerah.
Hal lainnya yang dirasakan sangat menggembirakan adalah terkait dengan rencana dari Pemerintah untuk memperkuat keberadaan dan posisi dari Komisi Ombudsman sebagai lembaga pengawas independen dalam proses penyediaan pelayanan publik. Apabila hal ini dapat diwujudkan, maka Komisi Ombudsman akan memiliki kewenangan untuk menjatuhkan sanksi kepada Pemerintah Daerah yang tidak mau melakukan perbaikan dalam penyediaan pelayanan publiknya. Kondisi yang demikian akan menjadi lebih mendukung lagi apabila negara ini sudah mempunyai UU Pelayanan Publik dan UU Administrasi Pemerintahan yang akan dapat menjamin pelayanan publik yang lebih profesional, transparan, akuntabel dan partisipatif.
PENUTUP
Sebagai penutup dari tulisan ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa upaya peningkatan kualitas pelayanan publik di era Otonomi Daerah saat ini akan sangat ditentukan dari adanya visi dan keberpihakan dari pemimpin-pemimpin Daerah untuk dapat melakukan inovasi, efisiensi dan kompetisi dalam penyediaan pelayanan publik kepada masyarakat. Karenanya momentum pemilihan Kepala Daerah secara langsung dapat menjadi batu pijakan utama guna mewujudkan kondisi itu. Selain itu, keberadaan lembaga pengawas independen seperti Komisi Ombudsman akan sangat mendukung bagi upaya peningkatan penyediaan pelayanan publik yang lebih baik oleh Pemerintah Daerah selain tentu saja partisipasi secara aktif dari masyarakat serta keberadaan aturan perundang-undangan yang memadai terkait pelayanan publik dan good governance yang akan menjadi payung dalam proses penyediaan pelayanan publik tersebut.
REFERENSI
Dwiyanto, Agus dkk, Reformasi Tata Pemerintahan dan Otonomi Daerah, 2003, Yogyakarta: Pusat Studi Kependudukan dan Kebijakan (PSKK) UGM
Haque, M. Shamsul, 1999, ”Relationship between citizenship and public administration: a reconfiguration”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 65, page 309-325, London: SAGE Publications
Prasojo, Eko, Teguh Kurniawan & Azwar Hasan, 2004, Reformasi Birokrasi dalam Praktek: Kasus di Kabupaten Jembrana., Depok: Pusat Kajian Pembangunan Administrasi Daerah dan Kota (PKPADK) FISIP UI
______________, 2004b, “Peran Kepemimpinan dalam Program Inovasi Daerah: Studi Kasus Kabupaten Jembrana”, Jurnal Bisnis & Birokrasi, Vol. XII/Nomor 3/September 2004, Depok: Departemen Ilmu Administrasi FISIP UI
______________, 2005, “Efisiensi Anggaran sebagai Faktor Kunci Keberhasilan Pelaksanaan Program Inovasi di Kabupaten Jembrana”, Jurnal Administrasi Publik, Vol. V/Nomor 2/Maret-Agustus 2005, Malang: Fakultas Ilmu Administrasi Universitas Brawijaya
Pusat Studi Kependudukan dan Kebijakan UGM, 2001, ”Reformasi Birokrasi Publik di Indonesia: Temuan dari Sumatra Barat, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, dan Sulawesi Selatan”, Laporan Penelitian, Yogyakarta: Pusat Studi Kependudukan dan Kebijakan UGM
SMERU, 2002, ”Dampak Desentralisasi dan Otonomi Daerah Atas Kinerja Pelayanan Publik: Kasus Kabupaten Lombok Barat, Nusa Tenggara Barat”, Laporan Lapangan, Jakarta: SMERU
The Asia Foundation, 2004, ”Indonesia Rapid Decentralization Appraisal (IRDA)”, 4th Report, Jakarta: The Asia Foundation
http://www.enciety.com/edm/css/article.php?a_id=28 diakses 4 Januari 2006
* Dosen Inti FISIP UI
Tulisan ini dimuat dalam Buletin "Aliansi", Media Penguatan Masyarakat Sipil, Yyayasan APPIKA , Vol. 27, No. XXXI, Januari 2006
Sustainable City Management in Indonesia (2003)
SUSTAINABLE CITY MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA: INDICATORS FOR DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE CITY POLICIES BY MUNICIPALITY GOVERNMENTS IN INDONESIA
(a Case Study from Municipalities of Depok, Bogor, and Bandung)*by Teguh Kurniawan
AbstractThe achievement of sustainable city conditions will require the roles of city’s government in developing and implementing proper and appropriate policies needed. In order to attain those policies, the city’s government should possess guidance within the frame of their internal management. This research tried to know the possibilities of the municipalities’ government in Indonesia in doing sustainable development in the future and proposed several indicators for the internal management of the municipalities if they want to develop and implement their policies in a more sustainable way, specifically in handling and managing solid and hazardous waste, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal problems
INTRODUCTIONThe idea for sustainable city has emerge as a response to the urbanization process that happen in the world. We are witnessing a ubiquitous scenario where more people live in and around cities than in rural areas. In 1800, only 50 million people lived in towns and cities worldwide. During 1975, there were 1.5 billion, and by the year 2000, there were three billion - more than the entire population of the world in 1960 (UNEP, 2002).
The sustainable city according to Urban 21 (2000) is how to improve the quality of life in a city, including ecological, cultural, political, institutional, social and economic components without leaving a burden on the future generations. A burden which is the result of a reduced natural capital and an excessive local debt.
In developing and implementing sustainable city, the role of city’s government is very fundamental. As a self-regulating system, a "city" consists of a control system (city governance) and a homeostatic object (community of citizens). The city’s government will portray as a legitimate institution that responsible in developing and implementing sustainable city through the policy making process.
In order to be able to engross city’s policies that have orientation to achieve sustainable conditions, the city’s government will require some indicator that would give them guidance and direction whether their policies have been in the right track or not. The indicators will tell the city’s government in what manner they should act according to the problem facing by the city. The indicators should be within the frame of internal management of the city’s government.
The emergence for specific indicators for the internal management of city’s government arise because the important role of city’s government in determining whether the city has already applied their policies in a sustainable way.
Based on above arguments, it is interesting to know the possibility for municipalities (cities) government in Indonesia in developing sustainable development and to find out the current conditions of their internal management as prerequisite to do so. By knowing those conditions will help the municipalities in doing sustainable development in an appropriate way. In order to obtain description of the current condition in internal management of municipalities’ government in Indonesia, several indicators will be developed. These indicators should be conforming to the degree of problems facing by the municipalities and their local conditions. The indicators should also be in accordance with international requirements for sustainable city development.
This research tried to propose some indicators related to internal management of the municipalities’ government in Indonesia that could be used to verse their internal management’s conditions. Knowing these conditions would be very useful for the municipalities’ government if they want to pursue development in a sustainable way in the future, especially in handling and managing urban environmental problems. Because of the far ranging character of the urban environmental problems facing every municipality, this research focused only on three areas of problems which could be considered as important problems for a city: solid and hazardous waste, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal. Three municipalities, which are Depok, Bogor, and Bandung has been selected as a case study in this research.
There were three research questions that need to be answered in this research. First question is related to current condition of the selected municipalities’ governments (Depok, Bogor, and Bandung) in handling and managing solid and hazardous waste, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal problems. Second question is to find out to what extent have the selected municipalities’ governments (Depok, Bogor, and Bandung) done their plans in order to handle and manage solid and hazardous waste, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal problems? Are those problems taken into consideration in their “Five Years Local Development Program” (PROPEDA), their “Local Strategic Planning” (RENSTRADA) or other policy tools. Third question is related to actions that could be propose to the selected municipalities’ if they want to improve their urban environmental management to become more sustainable and kinds of indicators in term of their internal management that could be proposed in order to ensure that they are handling urban environmental problems in a more sustainable way in the future.
THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORKThe analytical framework proposed here is based on an understanding that sustainable urban development was an essentially basic goal of urban environmental management which is consist of three elements: urban, environment, and management (Brilhante, 2001).
First element is urban refer to cities or municipalities (Kota) in Indonesian administration system context. Second element is environment that defined as the physical—biotic and a biotic—surrounding of the society, which has a reciprocal relationship with this society. The term environment in this research also consider the economic environment and social environment. The third element is management that in this context means the development of policies and the action based on them. A basic goal of urban environmental management is the creation of a quality of living conditions that is conducive for human health, livelihood, well-being, and prosperity. Specific policies and actions to achieve this goal will depend very much on every specific local situation and decisions have to be taken basically by the local actors.
There were at least two conceptual frameworks that are used in this research: one relating to urban environmental problems, and another one referring to good urban governance. In general, urban environmental problems are related to specific problems facing urban areas. This research focused on solid and hazardous wastes, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal problems. Concepts of good urban governance are related to the ways in which municipalities’ government develop policies to overcome environmental problems within their boundaries.
Urban Environmental Problems
Solid and Hazardous Wastes
Solid wastes are defined as the organic and inorganic waste materials, produced by household, commercial, institutional and industrial activities, that have lost their value in the eyes of the first owner (Cointreau in Huysman and Baud, 1994).
Another definition was defined by Kiely (1997) as waste from human and animal activities. In the domestic environment the solid wastes include paper, plastics, food wastes, ash, etc and also ‘liquid wastes’ including paints, old medicines, spent oils, etc. Commercially, paper packagings, timber and plastic containers make up the bulk. Liquid-solid sludges from industry and water/wastewater plants are within this definitions. Wastes were accepted by public authorities for ultimate disposal, including hazardous waste, are within this definition.
Without proper management, municipal solid wastes will remain a problem for cities because of its direct adverse effects on public health, the environment and natural resources. Therefore, the municipalities’ government need to develop proper wastes management policy to cope with these problems.
Urban Air PollutionAir is very important for human being. It supplies oxygen, which is essential for human bodies to live. However, human daily activities can release substances into the air, some of which can cause problems for humans, plants, and animals.
There are several main types of pollution and well-known effects of pollution, which are commonly discussed. These include smog, acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and "holes" in the ozone layer. Each problem has serious implications for our health and well being as well as for the whole environment.
One type of air pollution is the release of particles into the air from burning fuel for energy. The exhaust from burning fuels in automobiles, homes, and industries is a major source of pollution in the air. Another type of pollution is the release of noxious gases, such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and chemical vapours. These can take part in further chemical reactions once they are in the atmosphere, forming smog and acid rain.
In the urban areas, with rapid urban growth air quality seems likely to worsen unless rigorous pollution control measures by municipalities’ government are put into effect. These measures can be achieved by implementing policy that has orientation to reduce negative impact of the air pollution. One fine example is through urban transportation policy. This policy is supported by Kojima and Lovei (2001) that stated traffic is a large contributor to fine particulate emissions and often gives rise to as much as 80-90 percent of atmospheric lead in cities where leaded gasoline is still used.
Wastewater DisposalWastewater defined as “used” water. It means any water from water-used activities that goes down the drains in drainpipe. Wastewater carries high levels of nutrients, bacteria, viruses, and other contaminants. Untreated wastewater disposed of inappropriately, including reuse, could threaten water quality in groundwater aquifers, wetlands, estuaries, watercourses and marine environments (Middle, 1995).
In the developing world, it is estimated that more than 90 percent of sewage is discharged directly into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters without treatment of any kind (World Resources Institute, 1996). Disposal of domestic wastewater remains a problem, although by no means as severe, in wealthier regions as well. To reduce the negative impact of wastewater disposal, the municipalities’ government need to develop an appropriate wastewater disposal system that include wastewater treatment plant in the system.
Good Urban GovernanceAccording to Paproski as cited by Harpham and Boateng (1997), governance defined as:
“a system of socio-cultural, political and economic interaction among the various actors of the public and private institutions of civil society. The character of the system varies and changes through processes involving the exercise of power and authority with the inherent aim of enforcing the legitimacy of the existing power and authority structures, particularly through selective delivery and distribution of goods and services to the individual and collective groups in civil society.”
Governance is about how decisions are made, who is involved in making them, and the framework for decision making. Good governance according to UNDP (1997) is addresses the allocation and management of resources to respond to collective problems, it is characterised by participation, transperancy, accountability, rule of law, effectiveness and equity.
There are three main groups involve in urban governance, namely (EU, 1999):
- the state or public sector
- civil society; and
- the private sector
Governance is not about government alone. Many institutions and individuals within the three areas mentioned above are involved.
Promoting good governance in urban areas requires support and activities to (EU, 1999):
- Create and develop capacities in the state, civil society and the private sector at the local level; and
- Facilitate interaction and cooperation between institutions of the state, civil society and private sector at the local level, and also between central and local levels
To support and develop urban governance, there are at least three levels at which intervention can be made (EU, 1999), namely:
- Institutional level, by working to improve the governance of the cities
- Organisational, by the modernisation and strengthening of governmental agencies and structures. Support is often needed to build a sound policy, planning and regulatory capability. Key areas for intervention are financial management, human resources management, communication, and information technology
- Human resources, by enhance skill by the training and education of key actors in the process of urban governance
RESULTS DISCUSSIONThe finding of the results has shown that the current condition of the selected municipalities (Depok, Bogor, and Bandung) in handling solid and hazardous wastes, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal problems are still done unproperly. The selected municipalities has lacks of appropriate and proper methods of management (a); financial resources (b); human resources (c); infrastructures and equipments (d); appropriate policies or programs (e); and participation from the communities in handling and managing those problems (f). Solid and hazardous wastes, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal problems are also not been prioritized in planning documents of the municipalities as well as in the Local Environmental Quality Accounting or NKLD (Neraca Kualitas Lingkungan Hidup Daerah) documents.
Inorder to attain sustainable city management by the municipalities in Indonesia in managing solid and hazardous wastes, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal; the municipalities should have policies and programs that refer to the appropriate methods of management of those problems.
In managing solid and hazardous wastes, the municipalities are suppose to have policies or programs according to hierarchy of wastes management, which are to prevent and minimize the amount of wastes; to encourage re use and recycling of wastes; to transform wastes through biological and thermal treatment; and landfill with sanitary landfill methods annd not just open dumping or control landfill.
In managing urban air pollution, the municipalities should have policies or programs related to emissions standards; emissions measures; the use of cleaner energy; the use of best available technology; comprehensive local traffic management; and local air quality management that integrated with a wider strategy and action for sustainable development (transportation, land use, planning, and economic regeneration).
In managing wastewater disposal, the municipalities should have policies or programs to control and prevent of water pollution from industrial facilities; to treat wastewater in wastewater treatment plant; to treat sewage in sewage treatment plant by using bio solids recycling and other methods for better environment; and to raise awareness of the communities in conserving water resources.
By referring to the above finding, this research has proposing some indicators for internal management of the municipalities in Indonesia that could be used by them if they want to attain sustainable city management in managing solid and hazardous wastes, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal in the future times.
Because of the different situation that exists and happened in every municipality, there are possibilities for different implementation and share of roles between others level of government and private sector in the implementation of above indicators in the field.
The national government could have roles in the management of solid and hazardous wastes, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal in regard to policies or programs that would needs the involvements of the national government. For example, in managing solid and hazardous wastes, the national government could participate in making policies or programs to encourage re use of wastes. The involvement of government needed because of the importance of those programs to become national programs. The re use program will involve many stakeholders that reside not only in one region but also in many regions, therefore the involvements of the national government are needed.
The regional government (provincial government) could also have roles in the management of solid and hazardous wastes, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal in regard to policies or programs that would needs the involvements of the regional government. For example, in managing solid and hazardous wastes, the involvement of regional government will be needed in facilitating the cooperation between municipalities in using disposal site facilities. From the study case, we could see that the Municipality of Bogor has problems in providing areas for disposal site and need to cooperate with Regency of Bogor. Therefore, the roles of provincial government that in this regard is Province of West Java will be needed.
The private sectors could also have roles in the management of solid and hazardous wastes, urban air pollution, and wastewater disposal in regard to the investment in some facilities and complying with the requirements of government. For example, in managing solid and hazardous wastes, the involvement of private sector will be needed in composting the wastes or even in managing disposal site.
REFERENCESBrilhante, Ogenis., 2001., “Urban Environmental Management”., Reader for the subject Urban Environmental Management., Rotterdam: Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies
European Union., 1999., Guidelines for Sustainable Urban Development., Brussel: European Union
Harpham, Trudy and Kwasi A. Boateng., 1997., “Urban Governance in Relation to the Operation of Urban Services in Developing Countries”., Habitat International., Volume 21., No. 1
Huysman, Marijk and Isa Baud., 1994., “Solid Waste Recovery, Re-Use and Recycling: Formal and Informal Aspects of Production and Employment in Indian Cities” in Baud, Isa and Hans Schenk (ed.)., 1994., Solid Waste Management: Models, Assessments, Appraisals and Linkages in Bangalore., New Delhi: Manohar
Kiely, Gerard (ed.)., 1997., Environmental Engineering., Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill
Kojima, Masami and Magda Love.i, 2001., Urban Air Quality Management: Coordinating Transport, Environment, and Energy Policies in Developing Countries., World Bank Technical Paper No. 508., Pollution Management Series., Washington: World Bank
Middle, Garry., 1995., “Environmental Requirements for the Disposal of Effluent from Wastewater Disposal System”., Desalination., Volume 106
Pemerintah Kota Bandung., 2001., Peraturan Daerah Kota Bandung Nomor 05 Tahun 2000 tentang Pola Dasar Pembangunan Kota Bandung Tahun 2000-2004., Bandung: Bagian Hukum Pemerintah Kota Bandung
______________., 2001b., Peraturan Daerah Kota Bandung Nomor 09 Tahun 2001 tentang Program Pembangunan Daerah (PROPEDA) Kota Bandung Tahun 2000-2004., Bandung: Bagian Hukum Pemerintah Kota Bandung
______________., 2001c. Peraturan Daerah Kota Bandung Nomor 32 Tahun 2001 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Tahunan Daerah (REPETADA) Kota Bandung Tahun 2002., Bandung: Bagian Hukum Pemerintah Kota Bandung
______________., 2001d., Neraca Kualitas Lingkungan Hidup Daerah Tahun 2001: Buku I – Buku III., Bandung: BPLH Pemerintah Kota Bandung
Pemerintah Kota Bogor., 2000., Peraturan Daerah Kota Bogor Nomor 11 Tahun 2000 tentang Program Pembangunan Daerah (PROPEDA) Kota Bogor Tahun 2001-2005., Bogor: Pemerintah Kota Bogor
______________., 2001., Neraca Kualitas Lingkungan Hidup Daerah Kota Bogor Tahun 2001: Buku I – Buku III., Bogor: Pemerintah Kota Bogor
Pemerintah Kota Depok., 2001., Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Depok 2000-2010., Depok: Pemerintah Kota Depok
_____________., 2001b., Neraca Kualitas Lingkungan Hidup Daerah Tahun 2001 Kota Depok: Buku I – Buku II., Depok: Bagian Lingkungan Hidup Pemerintah Kota Depok
Powell, Jane C., R. Kerry Turner and Ian J. Bateman (ed)., 2001., Waste Management and Planning., Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment programme, World Bank, and World Resources Institute., 2002., A Guide to World Resources 2002-2004: Decisions for the Earth: Balance, Voice, and Power., Executive Summary., [Homepage of World Resources Institute, Publications and Multimedia], [Online], Available:
http://pdf.wri.org/wr2002_summary.pdf [2002, 11 November]
http://www.bandung.go.id/ [2002, 27 October]
http://www.depok.go.id/ [2002, 27 October]
http://www.kotabogor.go.id/ [2002, 27 October]
http://magnet.undp.org/policy/glossary.htm [2002, 15 May]
http://www.wri.org/wri/wr-96-97/ud_txt5.html [2002, 15 June]
Indicators for Internal Management of the Municipalities in Indonesia in Managing Urban Environmental Problems
Source: Writer (results of the research findings)
* This article was summary of the thesis report for completing MSc in Urban Environmental Management at Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS) and Wageningen University (WUR), January 2003, the Netherlands.
Indonesian version of this article was published in
Bisnis & Birokrasi (Journal Business & Bureaucracy), Vol. XI, No. 1 January 2003, pp 28-36
Problems and Challenges in jakarta’s urban Management (2001)
Problems and Challenges in jakarta’s urban Management: How the populations, land spaces, and infrastructures must be managed for the better life in jakartaby Teguh Kurniawan
Background
When we are talking about city and its management, at least there are three important aspects in my opinion that we should not forget. They are populations, land spaces, and infrastructures. These three aspects are the most crucial aspects that we must deal and consider when we manage a city. Without considering these aspects in managing city will lead us to a major disasters in the future for the city itself and the existence of its inhabitants. The huge numbers of population comparing with the availability of land spaces dispose to accommodate them and the availability of the infrastructures for life activities support must be managed well through comprehensive and careful planning. This planning activity must also involved all the stakeholders belong to the city or at least the planning body should have adequate information and knowledge about the real conditions of the people, the ecology or the environment condition, and the needed for specific action or policy in certain locations at their city. Therefore they could develop the precise plan for the glory of their city in the future.
By doing this approach could repeatedly direct for the achievement of the common objectives of the existence of the city government all over the world, which is related to the wealth of its inhabitants that is how to made city as the better living place for their inhabitants and others living things around them.
This small paper try to identify the situation happened in regards with the three-aspect mention above in the City of Jakarta. By this information’s available could give better insight for the Jakarta Provincial Government (JPG) in managing their city toward sustainable development.
The paper only discusses the condition in the City of Jakarta or JPG not the Jakarta Metropolitan Areas (JMA). The two terms have different meaning related to the administrative boundaries they had. The first term, City of Jakarta is the Capital City of the Republic of Indonesia, which has status as a Special Province (Capital city) with its autonomous authority. The current law that governed status of the City of Jakarta is the Law 34/1999. The second term is refer to the City of Jakarta and its surrounding regions which known as “Jabotabek Areas” that consists of Jakarta itself, Bogor (both municipal and regency), Tangerang (both municipal and regency), Bekasi (both municipal and regency) plus one other region Depok (a municipal that laid down between Jakarta and regency of Bogor). Both municipal and regency of Bogor, municipal and regency of Bekasi, and municipal of Depok are belongs to the West Java Province, while both municipal and regency of Tangerang belongs to Banten Province, it is a new Province establish just several months ago.
The Jakarta itself is divided into five administrative municipalities (North Jakarta, Central Jakarta, South Jakarta, West Jakarta, East Jakarta) and once administrative regency only (Thousand Archipelago). Different with other municipalities and regencies in Indonesia, the municipalities and regency in Jakarta has not autonomous authority. They only have status as administrative not autonomous regions. It mean that they cannot make a political decision because of they do not have the local representative bodies (DPRD). The Mayor (Walikota) and Head of Regency (Bupati) are only executing policies made by the Governor because of according to the law 34/1999 the political decisions are doing in the provincial level only, because the autonomous status for Jakarta’s regions is in the provincial level. That’s why make Jakarta is the Special Province, not only because of role of Jakarta as a Capital City but also because of the different system of government applied compare to the other provinces and regions. The Law 22/1999 about Local Government except for the Special Province of Aceh governs the other regions in Indonesia.
Why these three aspects and not the other aspects?
In its publication “Sustainable Development in Asia”, 2000, Asian Development Bank (ADB) state and argue that three determinants factors of sustainable development in Asia are: consumption, production, and distribution. Consumption beyond reasonable limits set by nature; production characterized by gross inefficiencies in use of water, energy, and minerals; and grossly inequitable distribution of resources—all perpetuate poverty and stop sustainable development. Sustainable development demands pro-poor economic growth, social development, and good governance, and is therefore tantamount to poverty reduction.
If we refer to the above statement from ADB and linked with the sustainable urban management approach, we will agree that populations, land spaces, and infrastructures are the most important elements for achieving sustainable city.
Consumption, production, and distribution are the core concept in economic as state by Samuelson and Nordhaus (1998) that economics is the study of how societies use scarce resources to produce valuable commodities and distribute them among different people. By studying and understanding economics and the environment, we could understand how to manage city toward sustainable city and realized that economics matter will guided us to the importance of the populations, land spaces, and infrastructures for the sustainable urban approach.
Population is very important subject when we are dealing with consumption, production, and distribution. It become crucial factor since the supply and demand in the market is determined by the amounts of people needing for some goods and services that can produce through economy activities. When the community trying to produce some goods and services, they will face with the problem of scarcity of the resources available to producing some goods and services. And the resources could appear as the land spaces available in the city. We are talking here about not only the administrative boundaries of the city, but also the capacity of the nature within the city in accommodating for the economic activities and other activities. The nature has a limitation when they are using for production activities. We should remember that there are some natural resources that cannot be renewable. Therefore it is important to consider the land spaces in term of resources availability in the city when it comes to sustainable urban management. In the process of consumption, production, and distribution in the city, infrastructures also play an important role. It is because the infrastructures are very needed in the process of consumption, production, and distribution. We can imagine what will happen if the infrastructures of the city is in a bad condition that cause a trouble in producing, delivering, and consuming goods and services.
Of course the different situation could appear in many ways in the different city that can caused the different point of view of people in determining the most important factors in their city when it comes to urban management. But once again in my point of view, when we are dealing with sustainable urban management especially in Jakarta, the three elements: populations, land space, and infrastructures will playing important roles and need to prioritized in Jakarta’s Urban Management. How these three elements become important for Jakarta? The answers for the question will you find after you read the follow sections.
City Profile of Jakarta: the latest condition exists in Jakarta todayIn order to obtain thoughtful analysis why the populations, land spaces, and infrastructures should become priority in Jakarta’s Urban Management, I will try to present some information about the three aspects. These information collected from the website of Regional Environmental Impact Management Agency (Bapedal). The information will be shown in the table format for every aspect and divided according to regions in Jakarta. Please note that the Regency of Thousand Island is the new region. Therefore the information shown here for this region is included in the section of Municipality of North Jakarta.
The information is collected and shown spatially because in my opinion it’s the best way for doing so. When you talking about populations, land spaces, and infrastructure, then you will need to analyze them region per region and must use the spatial approach. In the end of every aspect, I will try to give briefly analyze about the condition
.
Population
According to the Jakarta’s Central Statistic Agency that quoted by the Regional Environmental Impact Management Agency, in 1999 Jakarta has inhabitants of 9,604,900 peoples within its 661.52 square kilometer areas, within this figure the population density about 14,519 peoples per square kilometer. If the figure is break down into region, we have following information.
Table 1
Area, Population, and Density of Jakarta in 1999
Source: Regional Environment Impact Agency (
www.dki.go.id/bapedalda)
The tabulation is reprocess by the author
From the table 1 above, we can find that according to the size of area, the East Jakarta is the largest area with 187.73 square kilometer while the Central Jakarta is the smallest area with 47.9 square kilometer. The same ranking is applied for the population. But according to the density, the most populated region is West Jakarta with 18,897 people per square kilometer following by the Central Jakarta with 18,376 people per square kilometer.
With these figures of density, if we refer to the Wackernagel et al. (1997) and also Meadows (1995) the density in Jakarta is very critic and tends to destructive for Sustainable Development. According to Meadows, the ideal population density for sustainable development is below 50 people per hectare, while it will lead to critical if the population density around 100 – 150 people per hectare and destructive for the sustainable development if the population density above 200 people per hectare.
If we look to the table 1 above, than we will find that the rate of population density in Jakarta’s regions is laid between 110 –189 people per hectare. This condition is very danger for the sustainable urban development for Jakarta. We should remember that in the future there is possibility for increasing amount of the population in Jakarta. Even as projected by the Central Statistic Bureau, in 2000 – 2005 the growth rate of population in Jakarta will be around 1.16 %. The figure according to Meadows is also very critic for the sustainable development. Therefore the Jakarta Provincial Government should pay much their attention to do the best efforts they could do in handling the growth of population. They are also need to pay attention how to provide better services for the current population based on the characteristic of every region.
Land Spaces
The huge and uncontrolled population in Jakarta if do not have attention from government will lead to the degradation of the environment. This could happen by the fact that the increasing population will also increase the amount of space needed for the human activities. And we know that when doing their activity, sometimes people tend to ignore the carrying capacity of the environment in providing services.
The term of land spaces is refer to the availability of the resources in Jakarta that can be used to produced goods and services. The total areas of Jakarta could show us the limitation of land surface of the earth that can be used. From the information collected we have some following figures.
Table 2
Area, population, and Main Land Use in Jakarta 1999
Source: Jakarta in Figures 1999, Jakarta’s Central Statistic Agency
The tabulation is reprocess by the author
From the figures in the table 2, we can find that according to the main land use in Jakarta the settlement is very dominant with 43,230 hectare or 65,35 % of the total area while the park is only 1,328 hectare or just 2 % of the total area.
This figures however could give us description how Jakarta is lack of green belt or open space for its people. Sustainable urban management is how to act of balancing economic, social, and environmental benefits through implementation of development policies, programs, and projects that will not enhance one type of benefit at the cost of others. Based on the figures in table 2, in general we can draw conclusion that current situation in Jakarta according to its main land use is not appropriate for sustainable city. It is shown that there are still imbalance or gap between economic, social, and environmental condition.
InfrastructuresWhat I mean with infrastructure here are tools available in the city provided by the government for the benefits of people in doing their daily activities. In this section, because of limited time and space available I will only discussed infrastructures that related with the environmental condition in Jakarta. In this regards, I want to highlight infrastructure in the solid waste management. The solid waste management is very important since Jakarta has so many populations. Every day, the population of Jakarta—and of course the same happen in other cities in the world—will produced waste from their daily activities. This wastes are needed to manage carefully, therefore they could not cause environmental problem.
If we look on the solid waste management in Jakarta we will find some information below.
Table 3
Volume of Solid Waste and Number of Garbage Trucks Available in Jakarta 1999
Source: Yusi, 2000; Jakarta in Figures 1999, Jakarta’s Central Statistic Agency
The tabulation is reprocess by the author
Based on the table 3 above, we can find that not all the solid waste produced by the populations could be collected and then process. The number of uncollected waste is 18.36 % of the total wastes. The limitation of equipment such as trucks to collect the wastes is may become one possible reason why not all the wastes could collect. By showing these figures, the JPG should pay much attention on the solid waste management. The uncollected wastes will become source of the problems for environmental condition in Jakarta if the government can not managed this problem in the appropriate manners.
Besides solid waste management, another infrastructures also need to manage well by the JPG. Without better management in the future will lead Jakarta to be unhealthy city for its inhabitants whereas in the future we can predict that there will be much more people than today.
How to managed Jakarta in the Future? what actions that should be take by the Jakarta Provincial Government?
In order to find a better way in managing our city especially for the sustainable urban management, we should look and learn from the best practices that ever been done by other cities.
One of the interesting approaches to the sustainable city according to Brilhante (2001) was the ‘ecological city’ by the Dutch Government. This approach which so-called ‘Ecopolis’ strategy frameworks includes three complementary focuses on the city: the responsible city, the living city and the participating city.
If we go back to my three proposed aspects to be prioritized by the JPG and considering which actors are involved in each of the aspect, than we could use concept of the participating city in the ‘Ecopolis’ strategy above.
The participating city concept is an act that should make the difference actors in the city play an active role in its management. Only then, it will be possible to make full use of the enormous local resources potential (human and capital).
When it comes to populations, land surfaces, and infrastructures then we can identify that all possible actors should be involve in the planning process. These actors are all the level of government (central, regional and local), the private sectors, and the popular sectors (CBO’s, NGO’s, households, and the Media).
The central government is key actors because of the central government has authority in enacting the national laws. These national laws should become guidance for the local government. The regional government in term of other local government, in this case the government of West Java Province, Banten Province and all its region governments that include in the Jakarta Metropolitan Region. They are become key actors because of the need for cooperation when the JPG dealing with the urban management. Not all the problems can solve within the boundary of the City of Jakarta. Sometime we will need help from other region in certain problem.
In the new urban management, the private sector will play the greater role than before. The trend today in urban management is to involve the private sectors together with the public sectors in providing some goods and service. The approach is so-called ‘Public Private Partnership’. In regard to main problems of this paper, the private could involve in providing infrastructures for the community.
Last but not least, the role of community is very very important in the future time. When we are dealing with the policy and then we can sure that people will be effected by the policy taking by the government. And in order to take a policy that’s really needed by the people than the governments should involve people in the policy making process.
After we identified the problems that should be prioritized in the Jakarta’s Urban Management and identified the keys actors involve than we will continue to identify the potential steps to take to come to a strategic integrated development vision by using the concepts of organizing capacity and integrated urban management.
According to GTZ and USAID-CLEAN (2001), capacity is the ability of an individual, an organization or a system to perform functions and to meet objectives effectively and efficiently. This should be based on continuing review of the framework conditions, and on a dynamic adjustment of functions and objectives.
Integrated could be describe as the efforts to consider all the aspects that could affect the city performance in the planning process. In regards to sustainable urban management the aspects that should consider to integrated are the social, economic, and ecologic aspects.
Based on the above definition, what is mean by organizing capacity and integrated urban management is an effort in managing city by considering all the important aspect integrated in the planning process through the strategic development vision by using all the capacity available of the city. The capacity in here could come from the government institution and other key actors institution.
Relate to populations, land spaces, and infrastructures, the steps to take to improve all the three aspects in general as follow. The steps must be taking within the framework of sustainable urban management.
The JPG should have clear mission and vision for the development of the City of Jakarta. This mission and vision will become guidance for the JPG in prioritizing certain development aspects. The mission and vision should also address the important aspects for the development.
In implementing the mission and vision, the JPG should make adjustment for their organizational capacity. It is including the adjustment of cultural behavior in the government and the community.
The JPG should also make adjustment with their financial capacities. Money is very important to implement the plan.
In order to get more revenue and decreasing the unnecessary cost, the JPG should have a market-oriented capacity.
The JPG need also to develop strategic/anticipating/innovating capacities. Better prevent than cure according to Osborne in managing the government. For this reason, the government should have capacity in making strategic planning for their city.
The JPG should prepare the community capacities that can be support the government action.
Concluding Remarks
Managing city is not a simple problem, especially for the big and populated city such as Jakarta. However with the existing of problems will become challenges for the JPG in developing strategy for their city development.
By identification the main problems exist in Jakarta, I am insist that in the future, the JPG should give better priority for three aspects of the development: populations, land spaces, and infrastructures. This three aspect are very important aspects in my opinion.
In managing the city, the JPG should also learn from the best practices in the world and adapted with make adjustment first with the local conditions.
Reference
Asian Development Bank, 2000, Sustainable Development in Asia, Manila: Asian Development Bank
Brilhante, Ogenis M, 2001, “Urban Environmental Management”, Reader for MSc Students in Urban Environmental Management, HIS Rotterdam
Bruff, Garreth E and Adrian P Wood, 2000, “Local Sustainable Development: Land-use Planning’s Contribution to Modern Local Government”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Volume 43, No. 4, July 2000
Cunningham, William P and Barbara Woodworth Saigo, 2001, Environmental Science: A Global Concern, 6th edition, New York: Mc Graw Hill
Cybriwsky, Roman and Larry R Ford, 2001, “City Profile Jakarta”, in Cities, Volume 18, No. 3
Meadows, D.L. 1995. It is too late to achieve sustainable development, now let us strive for survivable development. In: S. Murai (ed.), Toward Global Planning of Sustainable Use of the Earth: Development of Global Eco-engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Ministry of Home Affairs and Regional Autonomy and National Development Planning Agency of the Republic Indonesia, 2001, “Capacity Building for Local Governance: A Framework for Government Action and Donor Support”, Final Report, GTZ / USAID-CLEAN Urban Capacity Building Needs Assessment for Local Governments and Legislatures, [Homepage of GTZSFDM], [Online], Available: http://www.gtzsfdm.or.id/ [2001, 5 October]
Samuelson, Paul A and William D Nordhaus, 1998, Economics, 16th edition, New York: Mc Graw Hill
Wackernagel, Mathis et al. 1997. Ecological Footprints of Nations: How Much Nature do they Use? How Much Nature Do they Have? Earth Council. San José, Costa Rica
Yusi, Andriazi Syah, 2000, “A Comparative Analysis of Public and Private Waste Collection in Jakarta”, MSc Thesis in Urban Infrastructure Management, IHE Delft and HIS Rotterdam
