FUNDAMENTOS DESDE LA EDUCACIÓN ARTÍSTICA

This section presents the existing condition of planning and policies related to urban transport in Indonesia. As discussed in previous sections (section 1.3), Indonesian cities face increased motorisation and severe congestion due to the adoption of policies in favours of cars and investment in roads. There is no, or very limited, investment, and few policies and governance arrangements for public transport systems in Indonesian cities. Sohail et al. (2006) argue that self-regulation has emerged as an alternative governance arrangement because of the failure of the government to regulate public transport effectively. Local transport such as minibuses or angkot plays an important role in providing transport facilities for the urban poor. The angkot has the dominant share of public transport use in cities. It also allows drivers to make a living through the public transport industry. Due to the long absence of a decent public transport facility, transport has been developed by locals, based on local conditions and with specific characteristics of demand-responsiveness, context-sensitivity and socio-culturally appropriateness and is accepted as part of the local culture in transport (Mateo-Babiano, Susilo, Joewono, Vu, & Guillen, 2013). There is a tenuous relationship and minimal communication between regulators, providers/operators and users of public transport in developing countries (Sohail et al., 2006), including Indonesia. Therefore, any change to transform and modernise the public transport system by the introduction of BRT and rail-based systems is a sensitive issue for the local population and that sensitivity needs to be addressed in

of poor people operating local forms of public transport and may results in protests, create political sensitivities, and be projected as a human right issues.

1.5.1.

System for the development of planning and policies

In Indonesia the planning system follows the Law 25/2004 on the National Development Planning System (Republic of Indonesia, 2004b). This law acknowledged the importance of planning at all government tiers from national to provincial, city and community levels. This hierarchy adopted a top-down planning process to achieve outcomes at the local level. However, informal processes include bottom-up consultations, technocratic input, and political participation at several levels.

The system for developing planning and policies in Indonesia face challenges from many factors related to the capacity of planning institutions, the availability of information for decision-making, and planning knowledge transfer from developed countries though reciprocal visits and the movement of international consultants, NGOs, and international development agencies. However, such knowledge transfer is limited to higher-level planning institutions, while institutions at the sub-national level face serious capacity issues (Ayatac, 2007; Banerjee, 2009; Healey, 2013) Although, subnational-level institutions have the opportunity to raise issues important to them during the planning process, they generally try to align these issues with development programmes and priorities set at the higher levels (Ayatac, 2007; Hudalah & Woltjer, 2007). Therefore, many Indonesian cities have invested in high-speed roads as per the priorities set by higher-level institutions. Similarly, they accepted the development of BRT projects to align their priorities with those of central government ministries and departments. However, since the early 2000s, decentralization has occurred in Indonesia, which has given more policy and financial autonomy to the local levels, under which local planners can set development priorities within their own administrative boundaries (Firman, 2008). Nevertheless, that decentralisation did not bring greater capacity to the local level and inter-governmental relations have become problematic in areas (such as transport and environment) where inter-jurisdictional collaboration is required to address development issues (Miharja & Woltjer, 2010). For example, the conflict on road development in Dago-Lembang in the Northern Bandung Area (NBA) was caused by strong public

Woltjer, 2010). Local NGOs, experts and media opposed the proposed road development even though this transport plan had been approved and had received a budget allocation from the provincial government of West Java and the city government of Bandung.

Like many other small- and medium-sized urban areas in many developing countries, central government has a little attention to promote sustainable urban transport in medium-sized Indonesian cities (Dimitriou, 2006). This is due to a lack of understanding in developing countries of the benefits of some alternative modes and a perception that links walking and cycling to backwardness (Roy, 2005; Watson, 2012; Yiftachel, 2006). Hudalah and Woltjer (2007) argued that external forces also influenced the development of perceptions that advanced roads and high-technology public transport as a symbol of development and modernisation. Leshinsky and Legacy (2016) argue that the lack of planning instruments at the local government level, both in substance and process, hinder the innovative solutions to local transport problems. Therefore, urban planners face challenges in capturing the unique city structure and social system present in developing countries’ cities (Roy, 2005). Non-technical aspects of planning such as communication that are necessary to advance development projects are largely missing or under emphasised in developing countries (Kumar, 2013). Lindau et al. (2014) studied barriers to planning and implementation of BRT projects in many developing cities in Brazil, Mexico and Asian cities and found that complexity in coordination and participation at multiple levels may cause political problems in BRT projects.

The development and implementation of planning and policies resides not only in the government domain, but also in the public domain. (Martius, 2011) argued that the validity of policies in the public domain in Indonesia is questioned due to an absence of or weakness in public engagement strategies. The authority and power owned by different government agencies and the legitimacy of the policy decisions during implementation are central to the focus of this research. Intergovernmental relationships, interactions and interplay between vertical and horizontal actors at multiple levels are also considered. The research is particularly interested to investigate the role of higher-level actors in the development and implementation of BRT projects, but at the same time is interested in the informal relationships and influence of lower levels actors in promoting or objecting

structures. Therefore, the role of actors in horizontal relationships is also important in studying BRT policy development and implementation.

1.5.2.

Spatial and sectoral planning

Land use development in Indonesia follows Spatial Planning Law No. 26/2007, which allows central government to formulate a national spatial plan and subnational government to prepare provincial and local spatial plans in their respective jurisdictions (Republic of Indonesia, 2007a). However, the content of the spatial plan formulated by lower levels of government should be aligned with the directions for urban development that have been decided by the central government in the national spatial plan. Ideally, a strategic spatial plan should be closely linked with infrastructure development policy to achieve desirable city structure and accessibility for people in the city (UN-HABITAT, 2009). In Indonesia, the national spatial plan identifies future urban transport projects and made it compulsory for local government to follow and implement these projects in their areas (Republic of Indonesia, 2007a). In addition, the importance of public participation is acknowledged in the Spatial Planning Law, but with limited implementation during the planning process (Rukmana, 2011).

Like the spatial plans, sectoral planning (such as transport, environment, and energy) is also prepared in a hierarchical fashion that involves multi-level actors; and sectoral planning must be aligned with the national and provincial spatial plans. For example, local transport plans must be aligned with the local spatial plans. Similar practice has been observed at the provincial level (Nugroho, Zusman, Nakano, & Jaeger, 2014; Rukmana, 2015; World Bank, 2012a). The difficulty in integrating a transport plan with a spatial plan is that the spatial plan is more focused on land use and has a strong relation with housing and road infrastructure (Hudalah & Woltjer, 2007). There is a limited link between the provision of public transport in a transport plan and the spatial plan, as the latter does not deal with users of transport systems. As a result, high land prices in city centre has forced people to live in peri-urban areas as per the spatial plan and in which there is a lack of public transport networks.

people’s housing and their daily activities to cater for their trips from home to other places. However, in a period of rapid urbanisation and the restructuring of jobs into service sectors, people are traveling from and within the inter-jurisdictional areas, which needs an institutional response for the development of a people-centred public transport system. Problems with housing location and development is also part of planning privatization that emerged in many developing cities in Asia (Shatkin, 2008). For example, Leaf (2015) studied the dominant role of Ciputra Group, one of urban property developers in Indonesia, in building houses for medium-class people in more than 22 provincial’s capital cities. The locations for these houses are not connected with public transport networks provided by the city government. This situation illustrates the dominant role of the private sector in housing by leaving out the need for an integrated transport and separating rich and poor people. This trend illustrates potential conflict in managing land use between the city government and urban developers as the private sector. Therefore, this research is particularly focus on how city government in Indonesia face challenges in housing and public transport problems.

1.5.3.

Urban transport projects

The selection of urban transport projects is influenced by many factors related to funding availability, social and demographic condition, and national and local politics (Flyvbjerg, 2007; Jabareen, 2006; Kennedy et al., 2005). In Indonesia, government tiers decide urban transport projects according to their roles and mandates. The national vision for urban development is to increase national economic growth and translated as central’s government policies to build more roads to connect all parts of the country (Republic of Indonesia, 2011a). Funding for urban transport projects is allocated more for road building rather than promoting public transport. Therefore, urban public transport services were developed informally by individual and the private sector, giving a dominant role to minibuses and paratransit such as angkot, motorcycle taxi (ojek). This informal mode of public transport makes up 20-50% of public transport modes (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004). The low quality of these services is being replaced slowly with motorcycles and motorcycle taxis (ojeks) and better-quality private transport. These several modes of transport are available in Indonesian cities, but there are no mechanisms to integrate these modes to achieve a better-quality service.

The transport sector is seen to contribute to GHGs emission and has been a major concern at the global level. In recent years, climate change and environmental policies have strongly emphasised the use of public transport at the global level (Bache, Reardon, Bartle, & Marsden, 2015; Banister et al., 2011; Marsden & Groer, 2016).However, historically little attention has been given to this aspect due to the existing internal complexity within the sector and the lack of holistic thinking about integrating transport policies with other policies. Therefore, it is interesting to explore whether such an emphasis is present in Indonesia and to what extent it counters economic and social dimensions of transport.

In Indonesia, the central government promotes toll-roads as a solution to heavy congestion in urban areas. However, these projects often collide with local spatial plans and locally-identified transport projects. As a result, there is resistance at the local level to the implementation of such central government projects. For example, the central government decided to develop an inner toll-road to directly connect the southern and northern parts of Surabaya as far as Tanjung Perak harbour (Republic of Indonesia, 2008). Although this plan has been present in the National Plan since 2008, the proposed road has met resistance at the local level, where other transport projects are preferred. The central government project has not been implemented because it has not gained a license from Surabaya’s local government. Problems with urban transport in Indonesia include the existing widespread and deep penetration of deregulated public transport systems provided by individual operators. The lack of coordination between the government and local operators and the impact of decentralisation has made the situation more complex.

When the revision of Surabaya’s spatial plan was started in 2010, the proposed plan objected to the inner toll-road development, which created tensions and a mismatch of priorities between central and the local government of Surabaya. This also impacted upon the relationships between the East Java Province and the local government of Surabaya due to a disconnection between the Spatial Plan of East Java (East Java Provincial government, 2012b) and the proposed urban transport projects of the Surabaya government. Moreover, these projects appeared in documents that have to be implemented in different time frames, which created additional challenges of political tenure and funding cycles.

In theory, the selection of transport projects should be based on agreement and negotiation between multi-level transport policy actors. But how these projects are selected and the role of provincial and local government need to be explored. Funding for mega transport projects in developing countries is one of the most complex areas to investigate, due to the unavailability or sudden availability of funding from higher-level actors. Therefore, the debate between BRT and roads resounds around the issues of capital expenditures (capex) and operational expenses (opex). In the BRT system, capex includes the purchasing of equipment and buses, the properties owned by the transport department at the local level and the costs of secured lanes for BRT buses. Opex includes the payment of workers’ and drivers’ wages, for utilities and maintenance and the costs of providing the services such as fuels, power, and others. In contrast, the capex and opex is simple for road development projects, and therefore may be prioritised for quick implementation.

In developing Asian countries, the decision-making power in relation to urban public transport projects is generally distributed unequally between central government, provincial government, and city government in developing Asian countries (Jaeger et al., 2015; Susilo, Joewono, Santosa, & Parikesit, 2007). This is mainly because of a lack of organisational capacity and funding at the subnational levels. As a result, transport projects are shared unequally between central, provincial and city government in terms of planning, funding and implementation. Therefore, transport projects indirectly reflect the concept of MLG in which policy actors and organisations at different levels can make decisions that influence the type and characteristics of projects. BRT, LRT, underground metro, and other high-speed road projects mainly comes about from the vertical lines of coordination of top-down government policy for improving urban transport systems in LIA cities. Therefore, there is a chance that these projects will supersede a ‘paper plan’ produced at the local level. This possibility needs to be investigated in this research.

Transport projects carry political and societal values and demands strong leadership and interactive communication between formal and informal actors at different levels. Because political actors have multiple goals and priorities, they can overcome the gap between organisations and people. They can connect with local people and political and institutional actors at the provincial and national levels. However, the politics of inter-

due to the political style and communication patterns of different actors who contribute to policy development.

At the city government level, the Mayor and the members of the House of Representatives (DPRD) are the main political cum institutional actors who have the power to decide transport projects. The Mayors and vice-Mayor received information from middle- management within the government organisations, the heads of the local planning agency and the sectoral departments to make informed decisions. Each decision has an impact on the public and therefore Mayors and DPRD are sensitive to the reactions to each decision of the public, civil society organisations and local NGOs. The provincial government has a dual role, as a representative of central government and in looking after the local governments. However, in the decentralisation era since 2000s, local government has largely ignored the role of provincial government. Moreover, provincial governments have not played their traditional role of transferring national policy in the context of local circumstances. They have prepared new plans for cities and the districts in their administrative areas. This situation contributes to the separation and fragmentation of institutional responsibilities between city and provincial government. This thesis makes a detailed exploration of the extent to which that is the case in transport projects.

Historically, the introduction of BRT in Indonesian cities is based on the successful implementation of Jakarta’s BRT, the first in Asian cities, in 2004. BRT is a central government policy initiative, which limits the ability of provincial and local governments to contribute to a discussion of the selection of the project. This is a form of policy transfer from international best-practice which is imposed by central government on lower levels of government (Roy, 2005). The strong influence of international development agencies has driven the central government to accept this popular solution to urban transport problems, taking advantage of funding potential from the global climate change platform to support technical assistance and aid development for BRT systems. This top-down approach in urban public transport systems has undermined bottom-up challenges, in which city government may act as an agent of central government and international development agencies. This condition has ultimately could make city government lose its power to set policy direction. This thesis aims to explore this complex relationship in urban governance.

Hook (2005) argued that, due to increasing private ownerships of public transport services, BRT systems pose a challenge to the ability of city government to set up regulatory control effectively. A policy package for supporting the implementation of BRT is also absent because of a lack institutional design and a legal framework (Filipe & Macário, 2013). Transport planning and projects exhibit a multi-level policy structure in Indonesia and needs a detailed investigation to untangle this complex institutional structure where public transport policy is interwoven with energy, climate change and economic development policies.

1.6.

Summary

The chapter has set the landscape of the complexities in urban transport systems in many LIA cities sharp urbanisation, high-use of public transport, walking and cycling trips within high-density environment are some key similarities among LIA cities. In spite of this, these cities have distinct political and institutional dynamics which make the policy environment more complex. In Indonesia, many cities are promoting BRT projects based on different policies devised by multiple actors at different levels. These actors have multiple goals and suggest different implementation strategies and actions which causes tensions in improving public transport systems in Indonesia. The next chapter discusses multi-level governance and how it provides a useful theoretical framework in understanding these tensions in LIA cities.