www.smeru.or.id0

Incorporating Urban Poverty Issues into City Spatial

Planning: The Case of Solo and Makassar

Lembaga Penelitian SMERU

Jakarta - Rabu, 2 Mei 2012

Forum Kajian Pembangunan

Outline of Presentation

1. Background & Study Objectives

2. Study Framework

3. Study Locations

4. Findings : Spatial Elements and Vulnerability

5. Findings : Vulnerability Factors and Coping mechanism

6. Findings : Institutional Aspects of Poverty reduction

7. Policy Implication & Recommendation

BackgroundAs the world becomes more urbanized, urban related problems have grown substantially;

Global Context Indonesian Context

Therefore, there is urgent need to pay more attention to poverty problems and poverty reduction efforts in urban areas…

• Between 1980-2010, urban population grows at the average rate of 3.8% a year

• The share of urban poor has increased by two-folds from 18.45% (1976) to 36.61% (2009)

• Number of poor urban people increased From 9,50 million (1980) to 11,10 million (2010)

• Since 2009, for the first time more people lives in urban Areas,

• In 1950, only 28% of world population lives in urban areas, in 2010 its 50.46%.

• And it will only gets urbanized…

Research Questions and ObjectivesThis study seeks better understanding on the connection between spatial planning and urban poverty reduction :

Research Questions

1. How does urban planning, including general development planning and urban spatial planning address urban poverty?

2. To what extent the urban planning is inclusive to the poverty problems in the area?

1. Producing an urban poverty profile in selected locations; based on spatial-geographical locations and typology of livelihood;

2. Generating a map of key institutional actors and issues in urban planning and poverty reduction in City of Surakarta and Makassar;

Study Objectives

Study Framework : DFID Sustainable Livelihood Framework

City Profiles

Surakarta

• Population: 500.642 (SP2010)

• Density: 11.370jiwa/km2

• Number of poor people:

• 69,800 (2007)

• 83,400 (2008)

• 78,000 (2009)

• Poverty rate: 14,99% (2009)

Makassar • Population:

1.339.374 (2010)

• Density: 7.620jiwa/km2

• Number of poor households:

• 68.477 HH (2008)

• 62.192 HH (2009)

• Poverty rate: 5,6 %

Kel.Mojosongo,Kec.Jebres

Location:Peri Urban Livelihood Typology (Poor): low-end informal workers, scavengers

Poor households (2011):20%

Kel. Sangkrah,Kec.PasarKliwon

Kel. Kemlayan,Kec.Serengan

Location:Inner City

Livelihood Typology (Poor): informal sector workers, street vendors, hawkers, parking services

Poor households (2011): 41%

Research Location : Surakarta

Location: Along the river bank of Bengawan Solo

Livelihood Typology (Poor): informal workers, scavengers

Poor households (2011):51%

Research Location : Makassar

Location:Peri Urban

Livelihood Typology (Poor):mix of formal sector workers in industrial sites (migrants) and informal workers (local people

Poor households (2011):30%

Kel.Daya, Kec.Biringkanaya

Kel.Tallo, Kec.Tallo

Location:coastal area

Livelihood typology: predominantly fishers, casual labors

Poor&Very Poor household (2011): 71%

Location:Inner City

Livelihood Typology (Poor): Informal sector (casual labors, street vendors, etc)

Poor households (2011): 55%

Kel.BarabarayaUtara,Kec.Makassar

Part 1. Livelihood Assets of the Poor

Findings : Livelihood Assets of the Poor

Using pentagonal asset framework within SLF, There are several key trends observed for the 5 types of capital :

Human Capital

• In terms of educational attainment, there is generally low asset condition in all study areas

•There are improving trends on healthcare, as a result of provision of Jamkesmasand Jamkesda

Natural Capital

•Very low in coastal and river bank areas as a result of environmental degradation

•Lower in the inner city areas, as a result of high density and limited space

•Slightly higher in peri-urban areas.

Financial Capital

•Generally low in all areas as result of informal sector and casual employment

•No access to formal and sustainable financial institutions (perceived as un-bankable)

Physical Capital

•There are improvement in roads and sanitation services, except in coastal and river bank area.

•However, access to electricity and water still limited in high poverty concentration area.

Social Capital

•Consistently high in all areas; as a form of social safety web

•However, on cautious note:

•result of normative answers

•Include the “negative” social capital

Findings : Livelihood Assets in Spatial Perspectives

0

1

2

3

4

5

Human Capital

Natural Capital

Financial Capital

Infrastructure Capital

Social Capital

Coastal

Inner City

Peri-Urban

There are no significant difference on Human, Physical and Social capital across all spatial context.

However, there are significant difference in terms of Natural capital; • Natural degradation are very

extensive in coastal areas; deteriorating livelihood assets•High density and lack of living space in the inner city areas.

And Financial Capital• On coastal areas, low productivity on fisheries limiting access to formal financial institutions.

Part 2. Vulnerability context of the Poor

Findings : Asset Vulnerability

There are several key Vulnerability observed in research location:

Trends

Higher population growth and migration from surroundingDegradation of natural resources in coastal areaPrice increase/inflation

Seasonality

Natural : rainy seasons, unpredictable weatherSocio-Cultural : holiday seasons, wedding seasonsNew School Year

Shocks

Global financial crisis 2008Floods, Fire and Eviction/RelocationMicro Level shocks : Sickness (but not on the OOP cost, but on opportunity and transactional cost)

•Stiffer competition for work •Diminishing livelihood asset•Lowering well being and QoL

•Prohibits assets accumulation and investment•Eroding asset base

Destruction of livelihood assets

Impacts

Findings : Spatial Vulnerability Risk Factors

Coasta

l

• Natural resource degradation

• Land illegalities

• Lack of water and sanitation infrastructure

Inner

City

• Fire Hazard

• Lack of Public Space

• Tenure insecurities (Magersariin Solo)

Peri

Urb

an

• Tenure insecurities

• Absence of garbage disposal systems and sanitation.

• Lack of serviced land

Co

asta

l/R

iver B

an

k

In

ner C

ity

PeriU

rb

an

Kel. Barabaraya Utara, Makassar

Kel. Sangkrah, Surakarta

Findings : Coping Strategies

Based on the nature of vulnerability they faced, there are several key coping strategies employed by the poor:

Coping with seasonal vulnerability

Coping with unpredicted shocks

Coping with spatial vulnerability

•Lebaran revolving funds (arisan lebaran)•Joining Cooperation•Taking side Jobs•Reduce household consumption (mostly on food expenses)

•Borrow money from neighbors and acquaintances•Taking loan from local store•“Buy” revolving fund•Take loan from moneylenders/loanshark•Sell available durable goods

•Create attic in flood prone areas•Submit to condition/ can’t do anything

Part 3. Institutional analysis and Policy Implications

Findings : Local Institutions Utilizing Venn Diagram, there are several key institutions that played significant role in Urban Poor livelihood

Surakarta Makassar

Important : MaleImportant :

FemaleImportant :

MaleImportant :

Female

1. RT2. RW3. Lurah

1. PKK2. RT3. RW4. Bank Titil

1. Koperasi keliling 2. Lurah3. Warung

1. Warung2. Rentenir/koperasi keliling3. Lurah

Close : Male Close: Female Close : Male Close: Female

1. RT2. RW3. PKK4. Posyandu5. Bank Titil6. Pegadaian

1. Bank Titil2. Pegadaian3. RT4. RW

1. Koperasi keliling

2. Warung RT

1. Warung2. Koperasi keliling

Key Actors on Spatial Planning and Poverty reduction

Local Government

• Mayor’s Office

• Bappeda

• Sectoral Agencies, esp: PU, Tata Ruangand BPM

• TKPKD

Private/NGO and CentraL Govt.

• JICA/ other donors

• Solo Kota Kita

• Kupas

• PNPM

•BAPPEDA still plays acentral role on planning

• Donor agency have relatively limited role on planning. They more focused on direct intervention or providing information for LG

• Non government actors has played more and more significant role on poverty reduction efforts, thanks to TKPKD

•There is still limited synchronization between PNPM and local government planning through Musrenbang.

•TKPKD has seen increasing role, but its activity still challenged in regards to cooperation and mandate.

Finding1 : There is still limited awareness on spatial distribution of the Poor

Key Issues on Interrelation of Spatial Planning and Poverty Reduction

• There is no official data on the citywide location of poverty pockets and slums.• Review on selected key planning documents also show that there are still limited integration between poverty data and spatial information

Finding2 : There is still a tendency for SKPDs to see poverty reduction efforts as sectoral issue

Key findings : There are still limited or weak connection between spatial planning and poverty reduction effort

• Limited understanding on poverty issues and perceived role on poverty reduction by the officials outside “traditional” poverty agency (Bappeda, Dinsos and BPM)• There is still inter sectoral issues in coordination and “ego”. TKPKD is intended to fill this coordinating role, but still have limited success

Finding 3 : Poverty alleviation initiatives in both cities are still dominated heavily by programmatic approaches

Key Issues on Interrelation of Spatial Planning and Poverty Reduction

Finding 4 : Still limited integration between poverty reduction and spatial planning aspects in key development planning documents

• There are still more emphasis on “traditional” programmatic poverty reduction program such as Makassar 5 Gratis and BPMKS/PMKS

• The NGO advocacy also mostly still focused on budget advocacy with only limited understanding to spatial planning issues, with the exception of Solo Kota Kita Mini Atlas initiative.

• Very limited attention on poverty issue in RTRW plan document, which focuses mostly on zoning and land utilization control

• Same goes to poverty document planning SPKD and RPJMD which does not given enough attention on spatial plan to reduce poverty.

Policy Implication on Spatial and Poverty Reduction Planning

Spatial Poverty Aspects

Planning Policy implication

Inner City Coastal/ River Bank

Peri-Urban

Settlement area planning and revitalization

•Slum upgrading•Fire hazard mitigation•Land certification

• Flood mitigation• Relocation*

• Settlement area master plan (prevent urban sprawl)

Water, Sanitation and Garbage Disposal

• Settlement-wide sanitation control (case of Barut)• Space-efficient sanitation systems (shared septic tank system)

• Clean water piping• Artesian water source• Water supply for public toilet

• Garbage disposal systems

Spatial Poverty Aspects

Planning Policy implication

Inner City Coastal/ river Bank

Peri-Urban

Status of Land ownership

• Land formalization• Easily accessible certification servicefor undisputed land

• Above sea settlement policy (prohibition, relocation or formalization)

• Land Control policies• Land service• Cheap landed/rise housing (Daya)

Economic integration of urban poor to sustainable economic opportunities

• Re-skilling of labor forces• Labor certification to improve access to formal sectors

• Coastal areas revitalization• Livelihood transition adjustment assistance

• Affordable public transportation system•Social protection system for low end formal worker (Makassar)

Policy Implication on Spatial and Poverty Reduction Planning

Key recommendation

• Future urban poverty programs should be based on spatial condition and livelihood analysis to increase programs effectiveness in reducing the vulnerability of the poor.

• Targeted slum upgrading policy

• Pro poor land use.

• More comprehensive poverty data management, especially the one that is already integrated to spatial information system

• Poverty map

• Vulnerability map.

• Current social protection program scheme should take account of actual livelihood condition of the poor to better address the vulnerability factors.

• Increasing poor access to more sustainable financial institutions is imperative to reduce vulnerability factors of the poor in the long run.

• There should be more comprehensive evaluation and assessment system for pre and post program.

• There is a need for revitalization of participatory planning systems and institutional strengthening of TKPKD.

Key recommendation

Future Challenges : Towards Pro Poor City Planning

Inform key urban spatial planning actors and other decision makers about the poverty problems in the area and its spatial relevance, and the need to build a strong connection between urban poverty and urban spatial planning.

Building concrete and practical references on the concept of pro poor city spatial planning.

Follow closely the implementation of the spatial and regional planning document (RTRW) and its impact on poverty conditions and poverty reduction efforts.

Thank You