by:

Bregas Vikri Prayuko

March, 2020

 
Screenshot 2020-04-02 at 19.16.15.png

Jakarta Waterfront Development

 
 
 

Jakarta Waterfront Development: Interests, Power Struggles, and Shifting Justice.

Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia is currently under a massive transformation in the waterfront area. With two different reclamation projects happening in the Jakarta’s Waterfront, It provoke massive protests and unrests against the projects. The first project, Jakarta Waterfront Development (Reklamasi PANTURA) is a residential and commercial urban development project that starts with a presidential decree in 1995, and has been going on since after many lawsuits and moratoriums from related ministries (Sopaheluwakan, J. et al.,2017). The second project, National Capital Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD) is a international joint-cooperation between Indonesia-Netherlands-South Korea that aims to build a seawall in Jakarta Bay to prevents Jakarta from flooding from the result of land subsidence (SOMO, et al., 2017).

 
 
 

In this project, there are three main local stakeholder which is : 1) The Government (National, and Provincial); 2) Private Developers; and 3) Public (Civil society and NGOs). While the public openly against the reclamation plans, and private developers are in favour for the project; the government are also in favour towards the reclamation plans, although there are lawsuits from the civil society movements against the government regulations and plans. The protests and lawsuits starts in 2015 when the construction of islands started and impacted the fisherman’s economic and environmental aspects (Sopaheluwakan, J. et al.,2017). The first reason for the protests is about the non-involvement of public since the beginning of the project. As a consequence of that one-sided planning system, we could see the formations of segregated areas with concentrated poverty. In this area, it is most likely for a certain group of population to be forced live here as there are no other place which is affordable for them. Marcuse (2009), points 2 forms of spatial injustice, which is:“1) Involuntary confinement of any group to a limited space, and 2) The allocation of resources unequally over space.”We could see this “spatial segregation” is not only as a byproducts of injustice, but they are constituted by and constitutive by regulations, laws, and ultimately, policies (Dikec, 2001. p.1797). What make things worse is that the same regulation and laws could also used as a justifications for evictions and land grabs. (Watson, 2009, p.177). From 1996 until 2017, there are multiple evictions which account for hundreds of households on the waterfront of Jakarta related to the reclamation projects. Based on this study of Jakarta Reclamation projects, we understand what is Feinstein concerned about the possible demolishment of settlements and replaced them by high-end structures which focused to the economic development approaches by the private developers (Feinstein, 2014, p.4). This is seen as an act of “sweeping the poor away” which is also explained by Watson (2009). The second reason is the inflicting socio-economic and environment impacts from the project towards fishermen's livelihood. Vanclay (2015), explained that there may be indirect impacts of socio-economic condition as result of difference in the biophysical environment where implications could give a consequence towards the purpose of environment which provides livelihood for the citizens. There is a potential drop Jakarta Bay fishery production is 82.2 tons / years from the disappearance of the fishing grounds. (Puspasari, R. et al.,2018). The third reason is the rights to the city for each individual in Jakarta.

While new areas will benefit in accordance to the planning system which consists of policy and regulations, consequently the product of the planning system itself (policy and regulations) will burden the informal settlements with social constraints and capital costs, to sustain their quality of livelihood which is degrading and housings will be demolished. (Watson, 2009, p.181). Not only in economic terms, but as a right to access the waterfront; which is supposed to be a public space is lost as it was controlled by a private companies.

 
 

Reference list

Dikeç, M., 2001. Justice and the spatial imagination. Environment and Planning A, 33 (10), pp. 1785-1805.

Fainstein, S. S., 2014. The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18 (1), pp. 1-18.

Marcuse, P., 2009. Spatial justice: Derivative but causal of social injustice. Paris: Justice Spatiale/Spatial Justice. Available at: https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JSSJ1-4en2.pdf [Accessed 15-02-2018].

Sopalehuwakan, J. and et al., 2017. Makalah Kebijakan : Selamatkan Teluk Jakarta. Jakata: Rujak Center for Urban Studies. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2kzveVlRAW-QkJ3S3l3WHMzNEE/view [Accessed 2018].

Puspasari, R., Hartati, S. T. and Anggawangsa, R. F. 2018. ANALISIS DAMPAK REKLAMASI TERHADAP LINGKUNGAN DAN PERIKANAN DI TELUK JAKARTA. Jurnal Kebijakan Perikanan Indonesia, 9 (2), pp. 85-94.

SOMO, , ENDS, B. and TNI, , 2017. Social justice at bay : The Dutch role in Jakarta’s coastal defence and land reclamation project. 978-94-6207-115-5), Amsterdam: SOMO • Both ENDS • TNI. Available at: https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/ uploads/2017/04/Social-justice-at-bay-28-April-2017.pdf [Accessed March 4th, 2018].

Vanclay, F., Esteves, A. M., Aucamp, I. and Franks, D. M., 2015. Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. Fargo: International Association for Impact Assessment. Available at: https:// espace.library.uq.edu.au [Accessed 15-02-2018].

Watson, V., 2009. ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away...’: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation. Progress in Planning, 72 (3), pp. 151-193.