Brief
Account on Housing in Indonesia
Prepared
for Istanbul+5, ACHR
By Johan
SILAS
1.
In the preparation of The Habitat Agenda (Istanbul 6/1996),
Indonesia has from the participated actively. The formulation of the
Housing Rights in the agenda was agreed after referring and discussing
article 5 of Indonesia’s Housing act (no. 4/1992) that required the fulfillment
of one’s housing right should be linked to the responsibility to be
involved in the delivery. However, later the implementation of the
Agenda was hampered by the fundamental changed in political live that
started almost right after the Istanbul meeting. It was further worsened
by the sudden occurrence of the economic and financial crisis after it
hit Thailand in mid 1997. The subsequent two elections conducted during
the crisis managed only introduced the democratic mechanism not to
include the meaning or substance of democracy itself. What Indonesia
will present at the Istanbul+5 meeting in New York will be limited to
ideas and policies as the political squabbles among the elite will be
over. It is not surprising that the international community is also
still at a loss in effectively supporting Indonesia’s recovery.
2.
In housing term Indonesia is not as bad as the political and
financial situation. If in the year 2000 Indonesia managed to achieve a
4 % economic growth, it was neither the result of government
intervention nor the performance of big private companies as before.
They are still struggling with their huge outstanding debts. On the
other hand the medium and small businesses to some extend supported by a
few larger companies but not related to and supported by government
intervention were responsible for the growth. Similar principle applies
to the housing sector. The crisis has little effect to the overall
housing condition, including in the urban area. Among others it was
caused by the slower growth of the population from 1.97% in the eighties
to 1.35% in the last decade. In the year 2000 the household size was
3.9, down from 4.5 in 1990. In the last census the five largest cities
also experienced slower population growth. Jakarta (2000; 8 256 489)
grew only to 0.16%. Two of the five municipalities in Jakarta
experienced negative growth. Surabaya with 2 578 135 persons grew with
about 100 000 persons in the last decade or 0.43 %. Bandung grew from 2
056 122 to 2 140 031 or 0.40%. Medan
(2000; 1 898 013) with 0.96% growth. And finally Palembang the second
largest city in Sumatra was the only city the still grew high from 1 144
047 persons to 1 441 165 or 2.42 %.
3.
Needless to say that although in quantitative term, housing condition
before (1997) and after the crisis (2000) changed little. However, due
to the reduction of population growth and household size, in real term
the inhabitants felt that the housing condition is improving much
better. It should also be noted that during the period of 1997 to 2000,
due to the crisis and political transformation, formal and public
housing supply practically ceased their operation. Meaning that the
housing supply to meet the population growth and maintenance of the
existing stock need to be taken over by the people. It is not a drastic
changed as about 90% of the stock were delivered through the
self-supplied method. Yet, as can be seen in the
following table,
except for water supply, the housing condition in general is improving.
The housing data was compiled from the social-economic survey conducted
annually by the Central Bureau of Statistics and used by UNDP to prepare
the annual Human Development Indicator report.
Overall
housing condition in Indonesia (%)
Note:
*) of 1999 **) in the IBRD’s evaluation study (1992) the average house
size per capita
in the kampungs exceed 14 m2.
Source: Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS)
4
The National Report of Indonesia prepared for the Istanbul+5
meeting indicates among others that the overall housing policy is based
on the enabling strategy. And the government is still determined to
improve the overall housing condition. However, in the strategy it
stressed the need for improving the capacity of the financial system in
a situation where the government has difficulty in getting sufficient
fund to meet its minimal responsibility within the much decentralised
government power. The enabling strategy was only weakly mentioned.
Meaning that it is still difficult for the bureaucrats to change their
development perception from doing housing FOR people to working WITH
People. It should also be noted that according to the local government
act (nos. 22 and 25 of 1999) the real responsibility to implement
housing programme rest on the shoulder of local government. This leave
the provincial and central government to only the role of providing
support in term of setting norms and standards, training, developing
models, guidance and to a limited extend control.
5.
During the previous government (until the crisis) most housing
intervention initiative and responsibility were in the hands of the
central government. Only Jakarta and Surabaya (the first and second
cities) formulate their own housing programme through the provision of
walk up flats and kampung improvement. Surabaya has since the early
fifties implement the co-operative housing based on the German bausparkasse model. After the crisis and in the spirit of local
autonomy, only Jakarta and Surabaya managed to continue their housing
programmes. Since the middle of last year international finance agency
stopped their support to development at local level to lessen the burden
of repaying the loan. This also provide flexible opportunity to develop
housing intervention tailored to the need, capacity and experience that
many towns and cities in Indonesia have gained that in most cases it was
ignored. Usually when formulating project documents most consultants
selected for the purpose lack the insight and understanding of what
local government and local people have achieved in solving their housing
programme. Project tend to be formulated based on the premise what is
best for the people without due respect to what people has and can do
for themselves.
6.
UNCHS and UNDP have since early nineties support the Indonesian
government in the development and implementation of the so-called
community based housing. After the project period was finished it was
further develop and supported in an improved model called the Community
Based Initiatives in housing and Local Development (CoBILD).
The idea behind the scheme was to development case model in provincial
capital city to implement low income community initiatives in improving
their housing supported by institutional building and fund to start the
process moving. This new programme started in the middle of last year
still faced difficulty in getting local community to accept greater
responsibility in improving the housing, social and economic condition.
In essence the CoBILD model is
not new as the basic principle is similar to the kampung improvement
programme (KIP) as it was implemented in Surabaya. The City Alliance
initiative taken by IBRD/UNCHS to reduce millions of people living in
poor settlements was also based on the KIP principle that effectively
managed to improve the settlement’s quality as well as developing the
social and economic capacity of the inhabitants.
7.
For the implementation of the KIP in Surabaya since 1968, it was
recognised through the Aga Khan Award (1986) and The
Habitat Award (1991) given to Surabaya. There are three basic
differences in the principle of KIP in Surabaya to the rest of the
country. The improvement standard was formulated to adapt to the work
already done in the kampungs. It stresses in the provision of public
services the community approach rather than individual. Local people are
encourage to make their priorities known and have room to take part on
deciding the project element as long as it does not bear additional
funding consequences. It gradually development community togetherness in
doing local development. Evaluation and further development on KIP was
under taken working closely with local university (The Laboratory for
Housing and Human Settlements of ITS).
8.
Since the nineties, Surabaya implemented the Comprehensive KIP
that has community development as entrée point. Revolving fund as grant
was made available to local community. Starting in the 2001 fiscal year,
Surabaya continued to implement the C-KIP in its second generation using
local budget. This leave wider room for local community to organised
themselves based on local condition, set their development priorities,
form development groups and managed revolving fund to improve their
social and economic capacity assisted by ITS and professionals in their
respective fields. It should however be noted that in some kampungs that
previously was assisted by the social safety-net project that was badly
implemented cause people to use the fund made available as gift rather
than resource for development. In the implementation of C-KIP people
have to be made aware that the C-KIP assistance might be the last in
public intervention as resource is limited and in Surabaya there exist
167 kampungs and annually less that ten kampungs can be assisted. ITS
will remain to the project for at least two years after the C-KIP was
implemented. This provide opportunity for students to follow and learn
from the development process fully under taken by the community
themselves.
