Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Impoverishment of induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) slum eviction development in Jakarta Indonesia

Impoverishment of induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) slum eviction development in... INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2018, VOL. 10, NO. 3, 263–278 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2018.1534737 ARTICLE Impoverishment of induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) slum eviction development in Jakarta Indonesia Puput Ichwatus Sholihah and Chen Shaojun National Research Center for Resettlement (NRCR), Public Administration School Hohai University China, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 2 April 2018 The Government of DKI Jakarta plans to free the city from slum dwellings by 2020. In Accepted 8 October 2018 the quest to mitigate floods from Jakarta, the government relocated about 25,533 people; 5,725 households and 5,379 business units from 12 slum areas between KEYWORDS 2014 and 2016. With the intention of moving slum dwellers from a highly congested DIDR; impoverishment; IRR; and poor environment to a more decent one, this policy looks like one that helps resettlement; slums the poor earn a better life, at first glance. Nevertheless, this policy is still considered ineffective because it results in the impoverishment of most of the displaced population. This study attempts to analyze the risk of impoverishment resulting from displacement and resettlement using the IRR model and also append another factor that emerged as a risk-specified relocation development and resettlement program of slums in Jakarta Indonesia. insecurity and declining community interactions, the Introduction main end is inevitable (Cernea and Kanbur 2002). In the IRR model Cernea (2000b) specifies eight Impoverishment is defined as a situation where wel- resulting effects of displacement; landlessness, home- fare and livelihoods are worsening as a result of inter- lessness, joblessness, marginalization, food insecurity, vention, in this case a relocation that causes social loss of access to common property, morbidity and and economic displacement of the affected people. mortality, and social disarticulation. These eight ele- Cernea (1997) introduced the Impoverishment Risk ments have been confirmed and validated by the and Reconstruction (IRR), which explain the eight World Bank Review and a plethora of other studies impoverishment risks of displacement. Eviction and especially for rural displacements (World Bank 1994; relocation projects have resulted in displacement, Morimoto 2013; Kirchherr and Charles 2016;Wu etal. especially in the livelihood of directly affected dwell- 2016; Singer and Watanabe 2014; etc.). However, exist- ers, to a large extent. Displacement always raises ing literature have focused largely on rural displace- questions about policies and implementation pro- ment. Urban displacement and the consequences of cesses that the government considers to be of mutual affected persons are still rarely studied. In India, for interest. Some authors have also pointed out that example, research on urban displacement and its displaced individuals have great social, economic, impact on resettlements in poor urban areas has and cultural risks, raising the issue of justice (Cernea only been examined by Patel and Mandhyan (2013), 2000b, Downing 1996). Only a small percentage of the Patel et al. (2012) and Bhan (2009). In Indonesia itself, affected persons have a better life after the displace- assessment research using IRR models is still very rare, ment process, the rest experience severe living condi- mainly for the issue of Development Induced tions, especially with regards to financial constraints, CONTACT Puput Ichwatus Sholihah puputichwatus@gmail.com National Research Center for Resettlement (NRCR), Public Administration School Hohai University China, 8 West Focheng Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210098 China © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 264 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN Displacement and Resettlement (DIDR) in urban areas. mentions that adolescents living in slums tend to This study attempts to analyze the risk of impoverish- engage in some deviant behaviors such as the attach- ment resulting from displacement and resettlement of ment of life in unattended peers group which easily slum residents in Jakarta using the IRR model, and by leads to juvenile delinquency in the form of inter- knowing these risks is expected to be a reference for group fighting, narcotics, theft, robbery, prostitution, the provision of solutions even for the formulation of and other forms of antisocial behavior, or even in the sustainable development programs in Greater Jakarta form of undisciplined acts such as disposing of gar- in future. bage and dirt haphazardly. Nevertheless, because The slum environment has become a priority for the crime is not a result of any single factor or combina- Jakarta government and several other organizations in tion of factors, some studies also show that there are Indonesia since 1960s. In the 1960s, Indonesia’sfirst several other opposing causes which are also consid- president, Soekarno embarked on a Mercusuar (light- ered as triggers for crime such as: the growth of gated building) project such as the preparation of the 1962 communities due to reasons such as the need for Asian Games infrastructure development and flood- privacy, exclusivity, convenience, and the growing prevention projects in Jakarta (Sosromatmojo 1981), desire of citizens to be separated from other sectors which subsequently made many residents homeless. of society as a rational response to rising crime levels On the other hand, as the population of Jakarta con- (Breetzke et al. 2014). tinues to increase, (Koestoer 2001) the city government Slum settlements located in the center of the city is trying its best to put in place the right policy to in Indonesia are close to the central business district overcome slums. Governor Soemarno (1960–1964) and are indigenous settlements, riverbanks, along tried to provide a decent settlement by building mass the railroads, the area around the industry and housing in Kalibata on eight hectares of land (Djaja warehouses, ports, terminals, and railway stations 1963). Followed by the Muhammad Husni Thamrin (Shah 2012). In the central and suburbs, slums are Project (MHT) commonly known as the Kampung commonly found behind the upper middle class Improvement Program (KIP) initiated by Ali Sadikin housing parallel to the outer city lane (Ratu 2011). (1966), which has been successfully underway until Slum dwellings in Jakarta are characterized by very 1999. KIP then progressed with a new concept known low quality housing, buildings made of non-compli- as the ‘dedicated-program’ in 2006, however, this pro- ant materials, sometimes consisting of all kinds of ject no longer contributes to becoming an alternative used materials while sanitation and water supply is solution for slum settlement problems. This is due to generally unavailable or inadequate (Country Report the rapid development of the capital city of Jakarta, Indonesia 2012). Though these slum dwellings are which creates high urbanization, especially for low- of low quality and not conducive for living, people income groups and the narrowness of settlements continue to live there because of its proximity to the and high housing prices. city center, their work places, and other social ame- In Jakarta, slum settlements increased by 60 ha per nities. As some of these slums are on the banks of year (Ciputra, 2009). Besides causing many urban pro- the river, slum settlements in Jakarta also cause the blems (because it can be a source of various deviant loss of drainage basins, narrowing of rivers, and behaviors, such as crime and other sources of social river pollution, resulting in the capital city of diseases), poor visual effects, public health levels that Jakarta becoming flooded during the rainy season are inconsistent with health standards and have poor (Van Voorst 2011; Pandawangi and Doughlass 2015; socioeconomic impacts (Bahjeri 2012;Sufaira 2013; Van Voorst and Pandawangi 2015). Sajjad 2014; Subasinghe 2015;Singh 2016). The close The Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta has correlation between crime and slums is explained by plans to free the city from slum dwellings by 2020 the classic studies of Meyer and Christopher (1989). in the program: Structuring the Slum Area, KOTAKU This study suggests that in a bad environment, envir- (the national program upgrading slum) and other onmental structural barriers can hinder the develop- policies which are geared towards mitigating floods ment of environmental social organizations, these in Jakarta. Programs funded by State Budget (APBN) environmental social organizations can increase the and supported by the donor’soverseas lending, risk of crime and violence (Sampson et al. 1999). World Bank, Islamic Development Bank (IDB), Asian While in Indonesia, research from Puti et al. (2015) Development Bank (ADB) and Asian Infrastructure INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 265 Investment Bank (AIIB) have proposed policies to households, and 5,379 business units (Ursula 2017). address slum areas, and promote relocation from This relocation project has a main intention of slums and rehabilitation rather than mere replace- improvingthe qualityoflifeofslumdwellers.To ment of housing. Theobjective of therelocation further improve the quality of life of relocated slum and rehabilitation program in Jakarta is to imple- dwellers, the government also provides them with ment Law No. 1/2011, Law No. 17/2017, and Law no education subsidy, that is, Jakarta Smart Card (KJP- 4/1992. Law No. 1/2011, which focuses on housing Kartu Jakarta Pintar) for displacees from elementary and settlement areas, states that slum improvement to high school age. This smart card also provides for can be conducted through restoration, renewal, and free public transportation (Transjakarta). Displacees relocation. Law No. 17/2017, which is aimed at the are also given a healthcare insurance cards (Jakarta Long Term National Development Plan (RPJP) Healthy Card/KJS-Kartu Jakarta Sehat) to cater to whose primary objectives are to meet the needs of their health care needs. At a glance, this policy housing and infrastructure and to free the city from looks like a policy that helps the poor to earn a the slums, providing houses with the necessary better life. Nevertheless, this policy is still consid- facilities and infrastructure. Finally, Law no 4/1992 ered ineffective; instead, it increases the rate of on housing and resettlement sections 5 states that impoverishment for most of the displaced every citizen is entitled to inhabiting in a decent population. house with a healthy, safe, harmonious, and orderly environment, and it also does not diminish the pur- Conceptual discussion pose of normalizing the river (for slums on river- banks) in an effort to cope with flood problems in Definition of slums settlements Jakarta. Moreover, this program is believed to pre- While UN-HABITAT defines a slum as vent people from ARI, DHF, Muntaber (Vomiting and Diarrhea), Diarrhea and Tuberculosis, a very crucial “A slum is a contiguous settlement where the inhabi- development, as Indonesia is currently the second tants are characterized as having inadequate housing and basic services. A slum is often not recognized and world’s largest country affected by Tuberculosis addressed by the public authorities as an integral or (WHO 2018). Tuberculosis cases in Indonesia are equal part of the city” (UN-HABITAT 2002, 2003). A more about poor communities living in slums. The slum household as a group of individuals living under immune systems of people living in these impover- the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of ished communities are likely to be weak due to poor the following: 1. Durable housing of a permanent nature that protects against extreme climate conditions. 2. nutrition and inadequate environmental sanitation Sufficient living space which means not more than (MOH 2006). three people sharing the same room. 3. Easy access to In this regard, the work plan of Jakarta provincial safe water in sufficient amounts at an affordable price. government for 2010–2030 and the implementation 4. Access to adequate sanitation in the form of a private of the government itself have shown a preference or public toilet shared by a reasonable number of peo- ple. 5. Security of tenure that prevents forced evictions for community housing projects. This planning gen- (UN-HABITAT 2006). erally involves the destruction of slums and com- munity transfers to Rusunawa (public apartment Indonesian Law defines slums as units, with rental arrangement). Until 2016, there “Uninhabitable settlements due to building irregularity, have been 18 Rusunawa, which have been used high building density, and quality of buildings and facil- for residential areas by the Provincial Government ities that do not meet the requirements. Slum housing is of DKI Jakarta for evictions and relocation of slums a housing that has decreased the quality of function as in Jakarta. The eviction and relocation of slums has a shelter both physically, socio-economic and socio-cul- tural, which does not allow the achievement of a decent been conducted since 2009, but it has become one life for its inhabitants” (Law of the Republic of Indonesia of the project highlighted in the era of government Number 1 Year 2011 on Housing and Settlement Area). governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama. Recorded in the 2 years of leadership of Governor Basuki Tjahaja Looking at the two definitions above, it is clear that the Purnama, there has been 12 evictions and relocation definition of both includes low-income settlements and in DKI Jakarta. The number of individuals relocated poor living conditions. Slum settlements in this context from 2014–2016 reached 25,533 people; 5,725 also include illegal (informal) settlements, which are 266 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN housing areas created by people who have no land ● Loss of access to common resources: away from ownership and largely in contravention of officially previous school, the difficulty of access to tradi- applied building codes. Unclear land ownership is unli- tional markets, away from fair price shops, away kely to be opposed or prevented by the authorities; from access that can provide additional income, such settlement conditions arise due to the inability of away from recreational areas. the conventional housing market to cope with the ● Social Disarticulation: loss of community, rela- demand arising from rapid urbanization (Johnston tives and neighbors scatteredness. et al. 2000; Clark 2003). Background/context policy discussion on poverty and slums in Jakarta IRR model for urban displacement There have been many eviction slum programs since DIDR was originally aimed at generating economic the independence of the Indonesian people with the growth and improve general welfare. However, displa- aim of reducing slum settlements in Jakarta; how- cees are always traumatized and struggled to rebuild ever, slum settlements still continue to be rampant their livelihoods, social life, and the ties of communities in the city. Data shows that about 13.52% of Jakarta’s in new places (Oliver 2009). In the case of Rusunawa in total size is still a slum settlement. Government that Jakarta, displacees also change the habit of living in is unable to provide affordable housing for slum horizontally aligned housing, to living in vertically residents and flooding migrants’ urbanization have aligned housing. In this study, the Impoverishment been used as the main reason for this source of Risk and Reconstruction (IRR) model developed by failure. Although the government has implemented Cernea (1996, 2006 and 2008) in which the elements the concept of the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Area of the risk of poverty consist of: landlessness, jobless- to distribute and build suburban housing in Jakarta, ness, homelessness, marginalization, loss of general slums settlement still remain in the city. As an alter- property resources, morbidity and mortality, food inse- native, various improvement programs have also curity, and social disarticulation. This model is already been carried out to improve the quality of life in widely used for rural displacement, especially for indi- slums, such as the KIP program in the 1960s–1990s, viduals affected by projects such as the construction of and the Thematic and Row House Program in 2010s. dams. For this model to be suitable for urban displace- The programs that have been proposed are still ment, it has been adjusted as follows: unable to eradicate slums in Jakarta. The experience of these programs shows that set- tlements will continue to exist despite ongoing eco- ● Landlessness: The loss of land, which has been nomic development. In addition, the limitations of the occupied for years, even generations. For slum results of these programs prove that all parties who settlements on state land (without land owner- have an interest in this matter must understand the ship), landlessness is defined as increasing dis- resettlement of slums is more than just their physical tance from initial livelihood sources, markets form. It is very understandable if the focus of programs for shopping, social access, etc. to diminish slum settlements in Jakarta is only limited ● Joblessness: loss of work, loss of ownership to physical features, because slum areas are always assets, additional expenses, and job changes. identical with legal status and limited resources for ● Homelessness: Loss of being with neighbors housing development. Slum areas always look messy, that make the displacees feel like strangers in unorganized, and unhealthy; however, it is very impor- their new environment, insufficient house tant to understand that slum dwellers also have the space given to the family, loss of home. value of social capital, support, social organization, ● Marginalization: job skills that are not suitable hope, innovation, etc. that also needs to be considered. in a new location, reduced income, loss of social position such as the head of the commu- nity, and loss of political influence. Methods ● Morbidity, mortality, and food insecurity: stress, anxiety, lack of access to clean water, distress for This research uses both a quantitative and qualitative disability and elderly to live in vertical housing. combined method with IRR model approach for INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 267 cases of eviction of slums that occurred between Secondly, this study is more qualitative research 2014–2016. In that time frame there has been 12 study, supported by quantitative data, especially evictions and relocation in DKI Jakarta. Respondents from the perspective of displacees. The comparison in this study came from 12 eviction areas in Jakarta, between quality of life in Rusunawa before and after including: relocation is collected quantitatively and qualitatively through a survey based on experience and the recall (1) Underpass Prof Sedyatmo Penjaringan, North of displacees. Quantitative recall such as distance, Jakarta. income, and so on, while their qualitative recall of (2) Kampung Pulo, East Jakarta. community bonding, mutual help, communal har- (3) Bidaracina, East Jakarta. mony, and so on are based on memories allowing (4) Bukit Duri, South Jakarta. for limitations to remember such as contaminated or (5) Pinangsia, Jakarta Barat. decayed memory (Gass and Mackey 2013). (6) Kemayoran, Central Jakarta. The interviews conducted in this study followed a (7) Waduk Pluit, North Jakarta. series of questions in accordance with the framework (8) Menteng Dalam, South Jakarta. of this study. The survey was designed to corroborate (9) Kali Krukut, Central Jakarta. findings as well as to discover new information relat- (10) Bukit Duri Tebet, South Jakarta. ing to the lives of displacees after being relocated to (11) Pasar Ikan, North Jakarta. Rusunawa. The questionnaire given has been formu- (12) Kalijodo, North Jakarta. lated to find out aspects of displacement before and after resettlement such as household details, educa- tion, hygiene and health, income and expenditure There are two qualitative methodologies for iden- patterns, social networks, food security, marginaliza- tification and analysis in this study, they are field tion, loss due to relocation, productivity in terms of research and structured in-depth interview. Field time utilized at work, education, public amusement research is a prototype of qualitative research and park, access to social services, dispersion of relatives can be used to gather qualitative data because it and neighbors, social disarticulation, etc. which pro- takes holistic perspective and analysis of real-life pro- vide conclusions on social and economic impoverish- cesses (Nachmias and Nachmias 1992). In the field ment risks of respondents. research, contexts are mapped for the understanding Jakarta government until May 2016 has built 23 of subject interpretations and finally produce an Rusunawa in various regions in the city. Nevertheless, explanation that reflects the social realm. Field according to the head of Jakarta Housing and Building research is mainly used to uncover the process of Agency, Ika Lestari Aji, from the 23 Rusunawa, only 18 social life (Gaber 1993), while structured in-depth Rusunawa have been used for residential areas affected interviews can provide more detailed information by the relocation program due to slum demolition and involving systematic and intensive observation of the normalization of rivers or reservoirs. 17 out of the sightings or social processes based on a list of ques- 18 Rusunawa were selected for the surveys since 1 tions that have been compiled in this study (Boyce Rusunawa is known to be a case of successful displace- and Neale 2006). The quantitative technique used in ment with fewer complains about welfare issues as this study is quantitative comparison, which is a compared to the 17 Rusunawa, where displacees comparison of such data as income, distance, and often complain about a decline in their welfare after so on before and after relocation. being relocated. The peculiar nature of the Rusunawa This study has limitation on several factors. First, not researched in this study will be considered in future the process of eviction, relocation and resettlement is research. a fairly complex process; the length of the process Any information obtained from the survey results can reach yearly and involves various kinds of will be explored more deeply by interviewing meth- approval, planning, financing, and execution. The ods with community representatives. The survey in survey in this study was conducted for 5 months. this study was conducted on 550 apartment resi- With limited time, this study focused only on the dents with the characteristics of the head of the factors of negative consequences and the implication family (the main breadwinner in the family, both of risks that arise after relocation and resettlement. 268 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN Figure 1. Slum dwelling and Rusunawa location. male and female) and victims of forced evictions prevent impoverishment and rebuild the affected per- prior to becoming apartment dwellers. Respondents son’s livelihood. These risks may not entirely appear in were selected randomly from the list obtained from DIDR projects, each case study has its own uniqueness the Rusunawa Management Unit (UPRS) of Rusunawa (Hoadley 2004; Patel and Mandhyan 2013); however residents (slum evictees) who had been delinquent the main line is the risk for communities to become (more than 3 months). The survey was conducted poorer and have a crisis because of the loss of eco- from 3 September 2017 to 17 January 2018 in 17 Rusunawa inhabited by the affected person of DIDR Table 1. Rusunawa location and number of respondents. in DKI Jakarta. The spread of the location of 17 No Rusunawa Respondents Rusunawa, which is the location of this research 1 Waduk Pluit (Muara Baru) 30 survey, are presented in figure 1 while the number 2 Penjaringan 21 3 Kapuk Muara 24 of respondents each of rusunawa presented in 4 Sukapura 39 table 1. 5 Tambora 26 6 Flamboyan 26 7 Karang Anyar 34 Empirical study impoverishment risk 8 Jati Rawa Sari 23 9 Cipinang Besar Utara 28 DIDR is intended to promote economic growth and 10 Jatinegara Kaum 20 11 Daan Mogot 19 improve mutual prosperity; policies related to DIDR 12 Komarudin 35 are usually involuntary to affected persons. Therefore 13 Rawa bebek 52 these people usually have trauma and distress to 14 Pinus Elok 47 15 Cakung Barat 29 restore their livelihood, including social and commu- 16 Pulo Gebang 50 nity bonding (Smith 2009). The IRR was developed by 17 Jatinegara Barat 47 Cernea M. (1996, 2006, and 2008). It addressed eco- TOTAL 550 nomic, cultural and social impoverishment in order to INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 269 nomic, social, and cultural resources. Losing land is formorethan20years areallowed to obtain aland one of the tangible evidence of crisis, but it only certificate for occupied land; except those who live accounts for 10–20% of the risk of impoverishment on government land such as river banks (Legal Aid (Downing T 2002). Impoverishment at a very severe Institute Jakarta, 2016). From the results of the level may result in the affected person losing civil and study, DIDR affected person in KOTAKU program human rights, being so poor that there is no ability to and the slum settlement has occupied most of this claim such rights (Hoadley 2004). land for more than 20 years. In a study of 550 household heads, about 47.5% of households occu- pied over 20 years, 20.6% occupied for 10–20 years, Analysis 14.4% occupied for 5–10 years, and 17.5% of the This section will analyze how impoverishment occurs residents of the flats occupied old houses for less in DIDR Slum Eviction Jakarta using eight elements of than 5 years. To elaborate further, the villagers of the IRR model as a benchmark. All elements will be PuloKampong onlyhaveevidenceofcustomary used to explain in detail how the DIDR Slum Jakarta ownership of their land (girik and verponding/non- affected person experiences a post slum eviction certificated proof of ownership of land rights, Land impoverishment. These risks will not occur in each and Building Tax receipt, and land trading letter). Rusunawa, elements that appear relative to each This evidence is actually recognized in the adminis- other and can change, and different settlement pro- trative law of registration of land rights pursuant to jects may also influence others (Hoadley 2004). In this Article60paragraph(2)letterfof theRegulationof study the differences in Cernea’s IRR elements occur- the Minister of Agrarian Affairs/Head of BPN ing in each rusunawa are presented in table 2.The Number 3 of 1997 concerning Provisions on the real risk is that displacees are pushed deeper into Implementation of PP. 24 years 1997. Land verpond- crisis and poverty by the loss of land, economic, ing Indonesia is a land of indigenous property rights social, and cultural resources. imposedonIndonesianverpondingtax,inother words the land according to the law is the land of citizens (Boedi 1999). Landlessness It is also mentioned in the Law on Land Acquisition In accordance with article 1963jo.1967 Civil Code for public interest (Law No. 2/2012) and Presidential and Article 24 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation no. 71/2012 has the following stages: (1) Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land before the development of the development project Registration stated that people who occupy a land is established, the government should consult the Table 2. Cernea’s IRR Element occurring in each Rusunawa. Increased Loss Food Morbidity of Social Landlessness Joblessness Homelessness Marginalization Insecurity &Mortality Access Disarticulation Waduk Pluit (Muara Baru) ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Penjaringan ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Kapuk Muara ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Sukapura ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Tambora ✔✔ ✔ ✔ Flamboyan ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Karang Anyar ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Jati Rawa Sari ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Cipinang Besar Utara ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Jatinegara Kaum ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Daan Mogot ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Komarudin ✔✔ ✔ ✔ Rawa bebek ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Pinus Elok ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Cakung Barat ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Pulo Gebang ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Jatinegara Barat ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 270 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN community of land and house owners; (2) if the economic status, most of who work in the informal affected person refuses, the government cannot con- sector such as scavengers, footpads, factory workers, tinue the development project; (3) if the affected per- fishermen, small businessmen, domestic workers, and son agrees to determine how much the compensation traders. During the relocation some people lose their is worth for the land and the building of the residents. jobs due to displacement of residential locations, and Both parties must approve this determination. If the their qualifications may not match the jobs that may affected person does not agree with the price set, then be available in newly relocated places. For instance, the affected person is given an opportunity to file a casual workers like laundry operators will likely not price fixing to a state court; (4) before the agreed value find employment in their newly relocated areas since is received by the affected person, the government their customers are usually residents living around cannot evict the affected person from his or her home the previous residential location. and land. For example in the normalization case of In addition, displacees who own their own busi- Ciliwung River, Jakarta Provincial Government and nesses such as operating food stalls and boarding Head of Central Ciliwung Cisadane River Region houses are the ones most affected by DIDR. Self- (Kepala Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai CIliwing Cisadane/ employed disclosures with the type of restaurant BBWSCC) must pass through these steps. However, the and boardinghouse business no longer have enough city administration mentioned that the affected per- space and human resources to open similar types of sons on the riverbank as residents of squatters, villagers businesses in the relocated apartment. The workers of state land, poor people who reclaimed the river, and at these food stalls may no longer have a source of all negative stamps were given to the affected persons income because their owners have been relocated so the Jakarta Provincial Government did not need to and are no longer able to pay them. Meanwhile, provide proper compensation. room-rent entrepreneurs who are relocated lose Land is the main foundation of livelihood, eco- their larger homes when they are relocated to smal- nomic activity, social life and productivity and its ler flats, which are not large enough to contain his takeover is one of the basic factors for creating household let alone to be rented out. The findings in impoverishment (Cernea 2000b). Land has a major this study also indicate that the employment status, role in tackling quality of life by providing jobs, social which was previously 34%, declined to 17%. At the networks, and facilities for health and education same time, the displacees that became laborers (Patel and Mandhyan 2013). The role of the land itself increased from 24% to 36%. Additionally, unemploy- differs between the city and the rural. Location as the ment increased to 13%. main benchmark in urban area because the location provides an opportunity and when the location Homelessness changes it will greatly affect the livelihood and life. In this study the compensation provided (which was The loss of a home can mean loss of ownership, as moved to an economically nonstrategic location) has well as culture and identity. The loss of his dwelling failed to recover the ownership and use of the land and his community may result in him feeling alie- for the affected person. nated, deprived of social status, and impoverished (Cernea 2000b). In this case homelessness can be explained in the phenomenon of the existence of Joblessness several heads of families whose homes were Loss of employment in this sense is intended as a destroyed but these families did not receive replace- major job loss or additional financial burden as a ment facilities, as they did not meet the require- result of relocation. Massive losses can also result in ments to receive the compensation package. For a state of financial disability and in some cases can example the government firmly stated that those also result in death (Patel and Madhyan 2014). Loss who own homes and rent in slum areas in the of income for day-to-day activities is always a major Radjiman area do not receive compensation, as the issue for DIDR’s affected person. Broadly speaking, government considers them to be middle to upper the main characteristics of displacees are low socio- class (Elitha 2015). Approximately 300 households of INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 271 evictees in the slum area of Muara Angke beach did government is entitled to either terminate or extend not get replacement resettlement package. The the rental period of the displace unilaterally. evicted house is mostly a hut and has no ownership Displacees living in rented homes are subject to certificate. These people are forced to return home or security guarantees. With a delinquent unit sealing live with relatives and neighbors (Arimbi 2015). While policy, as many as 72% displacees live in anxiety due the fishermen who used to work around the Pluit to uncertainty of residence. Reservoir and moved to Rusunawa, also in addition to losing their jobs also lost their homes. Marginalization Displacees from Kampung Pulo stated that they obtained their homes in the slums first through a The risks of marginalization can threaten personal legitimate purchase process. In addition displacees and community displacements as they become less also pay Land and Building Tax (PBB). Nevertheless economically viable. The study mentions that mar- they remain relocated and are perceived to have ginalization is usually accompanied by loss of self- failed to have their place of residence legally because esteem, especially when displace becomes foreigners they do not have a certificate of ownership which in and entrants to host communities (Downing T 2002). the presentation of the certificate displacees is not Marginalization can also be interpreted as losing available due to bureaucratic obstacles or illegal human capital, lowering socio-economy status in a levies during the registration process at the land new place, losing privilege of political power/influ- agency. In its socialization, the government finally ence in the community, and losing confidence in decided: (1) Land of the people is said to be state both community and self. Relocation leads to mar- land; (2) to the land and building of citizens shall not ginalization, especially in cases where the affected be given compensation; and (3) instead of residents person is not reassembled within the same commu- granted the right to lease over Rusunawa (Vera et al. nity, in which case a community-based break-even 2017). Relocation and resettlement packages offered breaks out in the community (Patel and Mandhyan for citizens change their ownership status over their 2013). Displacees are unhappy with the community residence from having to be rented. that is with them in the new relocation area and Home for displacees is not only a place to live, but becomes self-disbelieving. also an independent place of business. As eviction One ofthe biggestexpensesofdisplaceesisthe and relocation, these two functions are lost, leaving obligation to pay rent every month, which is still uncertainty and reliance on aid. With the high cost of considered too high for displacees, since most of living and lack of government assistance, most of the them are workers in the informal sector. Interviews people have difficulty paying rent Rusunawa. As show that there is an increased cost of rents and many as 56% of displacees are in arrears paying home care for displaced displacees. In older homes, rent fee up to more than three months, and only 66.7% displacees pay rental and maintenance fees 29% of displacees who can afford to pay the rent on at a maximum cost of Rp 100,000, – in fact most are a regular basis. In addition, 23% displacees are asked free becausethe placeis home. Aftertheyare relo- for illegal fees from unscrupulous households or cated, there is an increase in rental costs. From the other third parties claiming to ask for charges related original maximum of Rp 100,000, – to a minimum of to the cost of managing Rusunawa. Whereas the Rp 300,000, – . In addition displacees are also bur- government explained that the cost of maintenance, dened with increased costs of water, electricity, and maintenance and repair of Rusunawa is borne by the transportation bills (see table 3). The location of flats Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta, any damage to that are relatively farther away from the city center, Rusunawa public facilities is the responsibility of the compared to the old displacees, displacees cost Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta (Vera et al. more to access their daily needs, such as delivering 2017). Although these events occur in some displa- school children, shopping in the market, or leaving cees, this kind of experience certainly complicates for work. displacees’ life by forcing themselves to incur addi- Significant change in transportation costs per tional costs for living in Rusunawa. Furthermore, dis- month, the increase in transportation costs is due placees are only allowed to rent for a period of to the distance of the apartment from where the 2 years in Rusunawa with the note that the ordinary citizens move. Although TransJakarta 272 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN Table 3. Increase of consuming in electricity after relocation and will earn a prosperous life. They are given free public resettlement (In thousand Rupiah). facilities for education, health, and transportation. In Before After fact, this facility does not affect the welfare directly. Relocation Relocation Because basically the rights of education and health Monthly water charge 0–100 79% 32% are already free by the government before they are fee 100–200 11% 38% relocated. After being relocated and resettled, fewer 200–300 5% 17% displacees have social security. > 300 5% 13% Electricity billing fee 0–100 51% 37% per month Food insecurity 100–200 30% 42% 200–300 9% 10% Displacees other than burdened with rental costs are > 300 10% 11% Transportation costs 0–100 40% 14% also burdened with increased consumption costs. per month Increased spending on displacees in the consumption 100–200 19% 24% sector is the result of the difficulty of access to low-cost 200–300 12% 13% > 300 29% 49% food and daily necessities in Rusunawa. In Rusunawa environment does not have many alternative options to buy consumer goods, displacees have to travel long transportation is provided free of charge by the distances to buy cheaper goods, and this resulted in Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta, they tend to the addition of transportation costs. Additionally, the prefer not to use it because it is considered ineffi- price of food and daily necessities were much cheaper cient. The distance of the distant locations from the before relocation. Reduced income and rising prices flats to the displaced workplaces makes them prefer (for the same type and amount) are one form of food motorcycles because it makes it easier to move from insecurity from this case. one place to another and save more money because The loss of livelihoods makes displacees lose there is no need to change public transport routes their independence and become more dependent many times to reach their destination. on aid, particularly government aid. Prior to reloca- This significant increase in expenditures is con- tion therewere64% displacees receivingRASKIN(a fronted by the harsh realities of a decrease in conditional cash transfer program administered by revenue. If before the relocation, 45% of displaces the Government of Indonesia in the form of selling areableto earnaboveRp 3millionpermonth, rice below market price to certain recipients), but then after relocation to, Rusunawa, only about 21% after relocation there were only 5% displacees of displacees will be able to earn above Rp 3 receiving this benefit. million per month. Displacees after being relocated to Rusunawa in addition to being reduced in rev- Increased morbidity and mortality enue, instead also became increasingly burden pri- marily on transportation costs, utility bills and Displacees disability groups do not get facilities in maintenance costs Rusunawa. Some of them even new relocation sites. Displacees of disability groups lose their jobs because their skills do not match experience mobility difficulties because Rusunawa is the jobs available in the new location. Regarding a high-rise house and does not provide lift facilities the new residence, in general displacees states that in all buildings, especially for disabled displaces Rusunawa is more feasible in terms of availability, who use wheelchairs. Even if there are elevators, however, this alone is not sufficient to ensure the they are usually busy because the building manage- well-being of displacees due to difficulties in acces- ment does not enable all available lifts. The high sing jobs and public facilities, which leads to a Rusunawa is also dangerous for people who have decline in their economic welfare conditions. mental disability because of the difficulty in control- The displacements welfare rate decreased as ling the activities of the residents. In addition, many expenditures increased after they were moved to Rusunawa also do not provide a marker on the Rusunawa. The city administration itself promised sidewalk or tile to facilitate people with blind dis- that the victims of evictions transferred to the flats ability. In addition to the disability group, similar INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 273 problems also occur to displacees of elderly groups. school access is always reachable on foot. Accessibility These elderly groups in their neighborhoods prior to displacees also become farther away from shopping being relocated are those who have a place to rent, and recreation. but after being evicted and relocated, and no com- pensation they become unhappy, stressed and con- Social disarticulation fused, in the absence of income, unable to work again due to age and location of work place. For Displacement separates community social life includ- instance, a job that previously took 15 min to get to ing spatial, temporal, and cultural factors (Cernea M, by motorcycle can take about 1.5 h due to displace- 200b; Downing 1996). There is support for connec- ment. Some of these displacees are prone to road tions and conditions in each other and every com- accidents because they usually have to travel a long munity that has a strong role for community distance by motorcycle after a hard day’swork. relationships such as help-helping, childcare, borrow- In addition these displacees get little or no compen- ing and sharing food, funerals, social activities sation because they are considered to be occupying together, relaxing and playing chess together etc. state land. Whereas previously the government men- (Beegom 2014). When neighborliness is divided, the tioned that will provide compensation to the chicken social groups are separated. Their grief increases coop, which is one source of income for displacees. because among these social groups has formed a Although displacees are exempted from Rental costs sense of kinship rather than administrative alliances for 3 months (after which displacees have to pay Rp (Cernea 2000a). Such a situation is called the loss of 300,000 per month as an Environmental Management structured social relationships from natural, physical fee, up to now there are still many displacees in arrears and human capital. This loss cannot be detected, due to the deteriorating economic conditions. These countless, and unconstructed, but has long-term displacees end up flouting the law because they either consequences (Cernea 2000a, Seregeldin 2006). can’t afford to or refuse to pay the rental fee for living in Social Disarticulation leads to vulnerability, incapa- Rusunawa (Pebrianto and Isbandi 2017). city, and dependency. Displacement and resettlement in addition to having a bad influence on social capital, also results in breakdown in the routine culture Loss of access to the common property and (Downing and Garcia-Downing 2008). Cultural habits services in this context mean the same people (groups/ The human rights standard provides that the fulfill- paguyuban) who repeatedly occupy the same place ment of the right to adequate housing, in addition to at the same time. Routine culture increases the com- infrastructure, also needs to provide accessibility for its munity’s predictability and the ability of individuals to inmates to basic rights such as the right to health, the build livelihoods, as their questions and difficulties right to work, and the right to education. Ease of encountered are always answered in routine culture accessibility can be measured from various sides, (Downing and Garcia-Downing 2008). When displa- such as the proximity of the distance, the ease of cees families are transferred to foreign environments, transportation to reach that distance, the price of jobs and new neighborhoods, they will feel isolated goods associated with the rights, and so forth. For and disordered. This can lead to instability, insecurity access to health, houses of worship and community, and unpredictability of daily life, and harass health displacees get a replacement, in other words the situa- and well-being. This is related to health risks and tion, location, and distance are the same, as they still marginalization; therefore it should also be considered inhabit their old homes. However, the place of worship in policy formulation. Social Disarticulation is intangi- is not the main building like a mosque, but generally ble and invisible (Moser 1998). It takes time to study only a room that serves as a mosque. At school points, and analyze these parameters, so the findings are displacees have additional costs for transportation due usually in theoretical explanations. to the location of their school away from the new In the relocation of slum areas in Jakarta, displa- relocation site. Some Rusunawa provide free school cees have been deprived of at least two cultural bus facilities, however the scheduled departure or elements. First, displacees are deprived of their com- return does not fit with the school schedule. This is in munity system of living where housing structures are contrast to the conditions prior to relocation, where closely linked together to Rusunawa where housing 274 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN structures are scattered and more individualistic. Similar to those mentioned above, this study also Displacees are usually not accustomed to this indivi- aimed to contribute to the IRR risk list model for the dualistic system of living in flats and terraced apart- DIDR case primarily involuntary urban displacement. ments. Understandably many displacees are unhappy after being compensated for the flats even though Human rights violations their former homes are shabby, rickety and semi- permanent. Secondly, concerning economic system Human rights abuses also imply an impoverishment and livelihood. Displacees living in coastal slums and risk for affected communities. Downing (1996)quoted fish markets have professions as fishermen and jobs in Cernea (2004) suggests human rights violations as around the fish market. However, due to the displa- one of the risks to be considered in the IRR risk list. DIDR cement relocation process that are forced to change affected persons should be provided with human professions because their new home is now far from rights protection and this protection can also be a the location of their livelihood. Switching professions tool to ensure that the relocation and resettlement is not an easy task considering the majority of their process is carried out properly without violating skill that is accustomed and shrewd at sea. human rights. In other studies it is also mentioned that there is usually a human rights violation for affected persons and/or communities in the implemen- Michael Cernea’s IRR and its critical review tation of development projects (Cohen and Deng 1998) The IRR model in the last three decades has become .The evictions and resettlement in Jakarta are consid- a model used everywhere as a research grounding ered not to meet the standards adopted by United for understanding forced and/or involuntary displa- Nation in the process (Basic Principle and Guideline cement, including DIDR. The application of this on Development Based Evidence and Displacement), model has been the main framework for the estab- in the second part of the general obligation of chapter lishment of development policies and strategies to III Prior to Evictions Number 37: overcome the impoverishment of involuntary reset- “Urban or rural planning and development processes tlement. These developmental policies under the should involve all those likely to be affected and should guise of creating a better life for slum dwellers results include the following elements: (a) appropriate notice to in further impoverishment. Therefore, to develop sus- all prospective individuals considered for eviction with allotted times for public hearings on the proposed plans tainable development policies, government organiza- and alternatives; (b) effective dissemination of informa- tions, communities, researchers and other relevant tion by authorities in advance, including land records organizations are still adjusting and improving the and proposed comprehensive resettlement plans, spe- model in the hope of analyzing, refining and resol- cifically addressing efforts to protect vulnerable groups; ving issues that may arise thoroughly. (c) a reasonable time period for public review of, com- ment on, and/or objection to the proposed plan; (d) The IRR model itself is actually intended as the opportunities and efforts to facilitate the provision of dominant model to certify and to assess the impact legal, technical and other advice to affected persons of the involuntary mainly development projects that about their rights and options; and (e) holding of public result in displacement. Eight main elements place this hearing(s) that provide(s) affected persons and their model on four functions: predictive, diagnostic, pro- advocates with opportunities to challenge the eviction decision and/or to present alternative proposals and to blem resolution and planning, and research metho- articulate their demands and development priorities.” dology (Cernea 2004). However, although this model (United Nations 2007) has been approved and used throughout the world, Cernea still opens the opportunity for additional risk in Displacees mention that a parallel process of delib- the list. Researchers such as Scudder (1997), Feleke eration almost never happens when they are relo- (1999), Gizachew (2015), have contributed to adding cated. The deliberations were only seen as formal another risk-relevant research into Cernea’s Risk, such procedures by the government. Although residents as: risk of loss of resilience and risk of migration attended meetings held by government representa- respectively, loss of education or constrained access tives to provide feedback on relocation and structur- to education, cattlelessness, physical barrier con- ing, the opinions were often not heard and the strained community mobility, loss of human rights, government chose to evict slum dwellers. It is rather loss of resilience (Kassahun 2001;Gizachew 2015). unfortunate that there are no forum deliberations for INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 275 dialogue between government officials and displa- balanced dialogue with the government without any cees. Government representatives always determine form of threat. Affected persons acknowledge wit- solutions unilaterally. After these meetings, people nessing the use of violence, both physical and verbal, usually only get information about when the dead- in cases of eviction and relocation. According to the line should be immediately evacuated from their results of the study, 56% of displacees acknowledged dwellings. According to the results of the study the existence of physical violence that occurred dur- only 16.5% displacees acknowledged that govern- ing the eviction and relocation process, and 47% ment representatives held a deliberative discussion displacees explained the existence of verbal violence. with affected persons during the relocation process. Whereas in UN Human Right Fact Sheet no 25/Rev 1 While the remaining 13.5% displacees stated that the on Forced Evictions it is clearly mentioned that in the government representatives had never held a process of relocation of funds or tau relocation balanced deliberation. This is in sharp contrast to should not use violence both physical and verbal the Declaration of the UNI General Assembly on the (United Nations 2014). point of Right of Development, which states: The human rights standard provides that evictions and relocation times cannot take place in adverse “Every human person and all people are entitled to weather and should also pay attention to the protec- participate, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social tion of property of displacees (LBH, 2017). In practice, cultural and political development, in which all human however, it was found that 30.8% displacees sug- right and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized” gested that evictions were carried out in severe (IDMC 2009). weather (rain or cloudy), while with property, 39% With this declaration, the importance of protection of displacees suggested that their property was human rights, in this context, individuals relocated damaged or lost during eviction and relocation. In due to developmental projects. Though it usually addition to human rights standards, in relocation of pointed out that the developmental projects are for affected people, the provision of legal aid is one form the benefit of the general public, the fact that the of protection that the government should provide for human rights of other vulnerable groups are being displacees, providing legal assistance intended to violated. There are four identifiable human rights and ensure that none of the rights of displacees are social justices to protect displacees from human violated during the relocation process. The presence rights violations: the right to participate, the right of legal guardianship also provides an opportunity to life and livelihood, the right to vulnerable people for citizens who want to demand compensation if and the right to be resettled (Gizachew 2015). citizens judge that the compensation provided by In this case, in some of the slum-dwelling areas the party who did the eviction is not appropriate. evicted like Pulo and Kampung Bukit Duri, if given As many as 89% of displacees do not get access to the right to be involved in the formulation of solu- legal aid, making people unaware of what they are tions. These bi-lateral deliberations are likely to result entitled to relocation so that displacees can only take in displacees willingly moving from the riverbanks to action with any decision of the relocating party. the newly relocated areas. The process of evictions Citizens who do not have access to legal aid from and relocation is even tinged with unrest in the the government are finally seeking access to legal aid military apparatus in the execution of evictions. In from various organizations, such as Legal Aid addition, TNI (Indonesia National Army) involvement Institutions, Non-Governmental Organizations, Social in evictions is considered to violate the rules. TNI Organizations, or even Political Parties. surpassed its authority for violating Law No. 34 of 2004 on the TNI stating that TNI’s involvement was Conclusion limited to the defense and security of Indonesia from the threats of other countries. In the process of relo- Urban development cannot be avoided from devel- cation affected person felt intimidated by the pre- oping countries like Indonesia, especially to encou- sence of apparatus TNI, POLRI (Indonesian National rage infrastructure development and address urban Police), and Municipal Police. The involvement of issues, some of the urban projects implemented in uniformed apparatus also prevents displacees from displacements in bigger meetings are mainly those conveying their aspirations, whereas citizens expect a with affected middle class economies. These 276 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN displacement activities also affect their livelihoods, new poverty with a higher degree of depth. This which in this sense is the risk of impoverishment. process of impoverishment occurs because the com- Post-eviction life that decreases the welfare of dis- munity has never been included in the formulation of placees is a form of impoverishment. Remote access the resettlement program itself. The Jakarta Provincial from markets, factories, offices, schools, and even Government’s resettlement program failed to restore other housing leads to a reduced livelihood of dis- livelihood displacees, particularly the distribution of placees. This is different from the initial land location adequate economic resources to enable citizens to that has been occupied for decades, which is con- build capabilities for improved welfare. sidered a strategic area that gives them many eco- DIDR has sociological, economical and psychologi- nomic opportunities. Factories, offices, markets, and cal influence on displacement relocations and resettle- residential areas are the driving forces of the econ- ment of slum dwellings and also on the other hand omy in the old locations that are the source of dis- raises questions about the distribution of benefits from placement productivity. If communities are excluded implementation of program development. Thus, and do not have access to live in areas with sufficient research is needed to understand the urban DIDR and economic support capacity, then the community’s find indicators of the consequences of the application opportunities to be visible in development activities of development. It is true that all compensation is such as employment and livelihood will be severely calculated and done in detail at the request of each limited. This condition does not bring the community individual; maybe the development program becomes to be productive and improve their quality of life. too expensive undertake, especially for a developing This is why the resettlement of government evictions country like Indonesia. However, this does not mean is even considered an impoverishment. that development can be used as an excuse not to pay The impact of resettlement from displacement on attention to the lives of people affected by this devel- the displacees to which this study is based on is a opment program. Referring to the results of this study, portrait of how the mechanisms take place. Although it is expected that the government will be wise in previously occupied areas have been stigmatized as formulating policies, which can provide benefits for slums and vulnerable to flood and disease disasters, development programs without impoverishing the displacees choose to make them not only places of people affected by the program. residence but also a source of livelihood for many years. For displacees who are the subject of this Disclosure statement research, all physical building facilities offered by Rusunawa do not make them comfortable. For displa- No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. cees, Rusunawa is not a solution, because it is not a property right. Displacees on the typical of this have Notes on contributors the opinion that the government is better to give Rusunami (public apartment units, with ownership Puput Ichwatus Sholihah has been doing Resettlement arrangement) so they can have a flats rather than Sciences research in Indonesia under National Research rent the flats. Most displacees (74%) said they would Center for Resettlement in Hohai University China. Apart of that, she had published several papers on finance, entrepre- prefer to live in the old area they consider more neurship, business and management. promising than the economic sector. That is why most of displacees (79%) do not have long-term Chen Shaojun is Professor in Public Administration School and her main research interests are social assessment of investment plans to live in Rusunawa, although they are not projects, sociology of resettlement and migration, population well prepared to live outside Rusunawa. From here it migration and mobility, research on population and sustainable can also be seen that the resettlement program pro- development. vided by the city government of DKI Jakarta is con- sidered ineffective. The government program that seeks to improve the city’s order and provide a more References decent life to the former residents of this slum dweller is nothing but a structural impoverishment. The Arimbi R 2015. Nelayan muara angke digusur tanpa kompen- offered resettlement program has also resulted in sasi rumah baru [Muara angke fishermen are evicted INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 277 without compensation for a new house]; [accessed 2017 Country Report Indonesia. 2012. Upgrading of slum and infor- Dec]. http://properti.kompas.com/read/2015/11/12/ mal settlements. Government of Indonesia for the 4th Asia 100000021/Nelayan.Muara.Angke.Digusur.Tanpa. Pacific Ministerial conference on housing and urban devel- Kompensasi.Rumah.Baru opment. Amman Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Bagheri M. September 2012. The challenge of slums: socio- Djaja M. 1963. Jakarta will build a massive housing. No.59. economic disparities. Int J Soc Sci Humanity. 2(5):410–414. Downing T. 2002. Avoiding new poverty: mining induced dis- Beegom BRK. 2014. Impoverishment risk and reality: the case of placement and resettlement. London: IIED and World ICTT project, kerala. East Anthropol. 67:1–2. Business Council for Sustainable Development. Bhan G. 2009. ‘This is no longer the city I once knew’: evictions, Downing T. 1996. Mitigating social impoverishment when people the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi. are involuntarily displaced. In: McDowell C, ed. understanding Environ Urban. 21(1):127–142. impoverishment: the consequences of development-induced Boedi H. 1999. Hukum agraria Indonesia: sejarah pembentukan displacement. Oxford: Berghahn Books; p. 33–47. undang-undang pokok agraria isi dan pelaksanaanya Downing TE, Garcia-Downing C. 2008. Routine and dissonant [Indonesian agrarian law: history of the establishment of cultures. In: Oliver-Smith A, Red.. Development & disposses- the basic agrarian law content and implementation]. sion: the crisis of forced displacement and resettlement. Jakarta: Djambatan. Santa Fe: SRA Press. p. 22–27. Boyce C, Neale P. 2006. Conducting in-depth interviews: a Elitha T 2015. Ahok tak jamin warga korban penggusuran di guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews Radjiman diberi rusun. [Ahok did not guarantee that the evic- for evaluation input. Pathfinder International. Washington tion victims at Radjiman were given a flat]; [accessed 2017 Nov DC. 16]. http://www.rmol.co/read/2015/08/06/212513/Ahok-Tak- Breetzke GD, Landman K, Cohn EGJ. 2014. Is it safer behind the Jamin-Warga-Korban-Penggusuran-di-Radjiman-Diberi-Rusun- gates? Crime and gated communities in South Africa. Feleke T. 1999. The impact of urban development on a peasant J Housing Built Environ. 29:123–139. community disposed bt the ayat real estate development Cernea M. 1996. Understanding and preventing impoverish- project in the vicinity of Addis Ababa. (Unpublished MA ment from displacement. In C. McDowell (Red.), thesis). Department of social anthropology, Addis Ababa Understanding impoverishment: the consequences of devel- University. opment induced displacement. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Gaber J. 1993. Reasserting the importance of qualitative meth- Cernea M. 1997. The risks and reconstruction model for reset- ods in planning. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 26. tling displacement populations. World Development. 25 Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.; p. 137–148. (10):1569–1587. Gass SM, Mackey A. 2013. Stimulated recall methodology in Cernea M. 2000a. Impoverishment or social justice? a model second language research. London:Routledge. for planning resettlement. In: Cernea M, Cernea M, Gizachew A. 2015. Refining the impoverishment risk and recon- McDowell C, Red.. risks and reconstruction: experiences of struction (IRR) model: a study of the model’s “Overlooked” resettlers and refugees. Vol. b. Washington DC: The World risks, evidences from the impacts of Tekeze Dam, Nort East Bank. p. 13–26. Ethiophia. J Dev Agric Econ. 9(4):66–79. Cernea M. 2000b. Risks, safeguards and reconstruction: a model Hoadley M 2004. Development-induced displacement and for population displacement and resettlement. In: Cernea M, resettlement–impoverishment or sustainable development? Cernea M, McDowell C, Red.. risks and reconstruction: Opgehaald van. http://www.csmi.co.za/l/papers/ experiences of resettlers and refugees. Vol. b. Washington Displacement_resettlement_feb04.pdf DC: The World Bank. p. 11–55. IDMC. 2009. Development-induced displacement, prepared by Cernea M 2004. Impoverishment risks, risk management, and internal displacement monitoring center. reconstruction: a model of population displacement and Johnston RJ, Gregory D, Pratt G, Watts M. 2000. The dictionary resettlement, keynote address, session on social aspects of of human geography. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers hydropower development United Nations symposium on Limited. hydropower and sustainable development; Beijing, China. Kassahun K. 2001. Relocation and dislocation of communities of Cernea M. 2006. Resettlement management: denying or con- communities by dam development: the case od Gilgel Gibe fronting risks. In H. M. Mathur (Red.), Managing Dam in Southwest Ethiopia. (Unpublised MA thesis). Addis Resettlement in India: approaches, issues, experiences. New Ababa University. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kirchherr J, Charles KJ. 2016. The social impacts of dams: A new Cernea M. 2008. Compensation and benefit sharing: Why reset- framework for scholarly analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev. tlement policies and practices must be reformed. In Water 60:99–114. science and engineering. 1(1): 89–120. Koestoer RH. 2001. Dimensions of spatial city: theory and case. Cernea M, Kanbur R. 2002. An exchange on the compensation Jakarta: UI Press. principle in resettlement. New York: Cornell University. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 Year 2011 on Clark D. 2003. Urban World/Global City. 2nd ed. London: Housing and Settlement Area Routledge. Meyer SE, Christopher J. 1989. Growing up in poor neighbor- Cohen R, Deng MF. 1998. Masses in flight: the global crisis of hoods: how much does it matter? Science. 243:1441–1445. internal displacement. Washington DC: Brookins institution Minister of Health RI. 2006. National guidelines for tuberculosis press. control. 2nd ed. Jakarta: Gerdunas TB; p. 4–6. 278 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN Morimoto R. 2013. Incorporating socio-environmental consid- Singh BN. 2016. Socio-economic conditions of slums dwellers: a erations into project assessment models using multi-criteria theoretical study. Kaav Int J Arts, Humanities Soc Sci. 3 analysis: A case study of Sri Lankan hydropower projects. (3):77–91. Energy Policy. 59:643–653. Smith O. 2009. Development and dispossession: the crisis of Moser C.O. 1998. Theassetvulnerability framework: reassessing development forced displacement and resettlement. Oliver- urban poverty reduction strategies. World Development. 1 Smith (Red.). School for Advanced Research (SAR) Press and (26):1-19. James Currey: Santa Fe and London. Nachmias D, Nachmias CF. 1992. Research methods in the Sosromatmojo S. 1981. From rimba raya to Jakarta Raya: an social sciences. Guildford and King’s Lynn: Biddles LTD. Autobiography. Jakarta: Gunung Agung. Oliver Smith. 2009. Development and dispossession: the crisis Subasinghe W. 2015. Quality of life study on slum dwellers of development forced displacement and resettlement. (with special reference to Sri Lanka). Int J Scientific Res Santa Fe and London: School for advanced research (SAR) Innovative Technol. 2(3):36–65. Press and James Currey. Sufaira C. 2013. Socio economic conditions of urban slum Pandawangi R, Doughlass M. 2015. Water, water everywhere: dwellers in Kannur Municipality. IOSR J Humanities Soc Sci. toward participatory solutions to chronic urban flooding in 10(5):12–24. Jakarta. Pac Aff. 88(3):517–550. UN-HABITAT. 2002. Expert group meeting on slum indicators: Patel S, Madhyan R. 2014. Impoverishment assessment of slum secure tenure, slums and global sample of cities. Nairobi: dwellers after off-site and on site resettlement: a case of UN-HABITAT. Indore. Commonw J Local Governance. 104–127. UN-HABITAT. 2006. Slums: some definitions. Nairobi: UN- Patel S, Mandhyan R 2013. Impoverishment assessment of slum HABITAT. dwellers after in situ and off-site relocations: a case of UN–HABITAT. 2003. Guide to monitoring target 11: improv- Indore. N-AERUS XIV; Enschede. ing the lives of 100 million slum dwellers: progress Patel S, Sliuzas R, Mathur N, Miscione G. 2012. Impoverishment towards the millennium development goals. Nairobi: UN- risks in urban development induced displacements and HABITAT. resettlements in Ahmedabad.Environment & Urbanization United Nations. 2007. Basic principles and guidelines on devel- 27(1):231–256. doi: 10.1177/0956247815569128 opment base evictions and displacement. Annex 1 of the Pebrianto S, Isbandi RA. 2017. Relokasi berdampak terhadap kese- report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a jahteraan dari sisi kondisi ekonomi warga Kampung Pulo. component of the right to an adequate standard of living A/ [Relocation Impacts on Welfare of Residents of Kampung HRC/4/18 Pulo]. Jurnal Ilmu Kesejahteraan Sosial. 12 (2):124–138. United Nations. 2014. Forced evictions fact sheet no. 25/rev. 1. Puti L, Dinda S, Nadia K, Yustina RM. 2015. Adolescent behavior New York and Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Office in slum area. Jakarta:Trisakti University. of the High Commissioner. Ratu A 2011. Permukiman Kumuh di Bantaran Ciliwung. Ursula F 2017. Angka Penggusuran di Jakarta Meningkat pada [Slums in the Ciliwung River] [master’s thesis]. Universitas 2016.[Eviction Numbers in Jakarta Increased in 2016]; Indonesia. [accessed 2018 Jan 20]. https://www.rappler.com/indone Sajjad H. 2014. Living standards and health problems of lesser sia/berita/166890-data-lbh-penggusuran-paksa-jakarta fortunate slum dwellers: evidence from an Indian city. Int J Van Voorst RS 2011. Get Ready for the Flood! Risk-handling Styles Environ Prot Policy. 2(2):54–63. in Jakarta, Indonesia [Dissertation]. University of Amsterdam. Sampson RJ, Jeffrey M, Felton E. 1999. Beyond social capital: www.uva.nl/binaries/content/. . ./summary-voorst-van.pdf spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. Am Sociol Van Voorst RS, Pandawangi R 2015. Floods and forced evictions Rev. 64:633–660. in Jakarta; [accessed 2018 Feb 2]. http://www.newmandala. Seregeldin I. 2006. Involuntary resettlement in world bank org/floods-and-forced-evictions-in-jakarta/ financed projects: reducing impoverishment risks for the Vera WS, Handika F, Kristian F. 2017. Politik hukum rusunawa affected people. In H.M. Mathur (Red.), Managing dalam penggusuran paksa warga bukit duri studi kasus Resettlement in India: Approaches, Issues, Experiences. rusunawa Rawabebek [Legal politics of rusunawa in forced New Delhi: Oxford University Press. eviction of Bukit Duri residents case study of Rawabebek Scudder T. 1997. Social imoacts of large dams. In Dorcet, T. rusunawa]. Jakarta: Yayasan Ciliwung Merdeka. (Ed.), Large dams; learning from the past. IUCN. Gland. WHO (World Health Organization). 2018. Indonesia tuberculosis Switzerland. profile; [accessed 2018 Jul 28]. https://extranet.who.int/sree/ Shah N 2012. Characterizing slums and slum-dwellers: explor- Reports?op=Replet&name=/WHO_HQ_Reports/G2/PROD/ ing household-level Indonesia data. Department of EXT/TBCountryProfile&ISO2=ID&outtype=pdf Economics University of California, Irvine; [accessed 2018 World Bank. 1994. Resettlement and development 1989–1993. Jan 22]. http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~nilopas/slums_Shah.pdf Washington: The World Bank. Singer J, Watanabe T. 2014. Reducing reservoir impact and Wu Z, Margaret JP, Weihong Z, Shuzhou L, Neena LC. 2016. improving outcomes for dam-forced resettlement: experi- Relocation and social support among older adults in rural ences in Central Vietnam. Lakes Reservoirs. 19(3):225–235. China. J Gerontol. 71(6):1108–1119. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Taylor & Francis

Impoverishment of induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) slum eviction development in Jakarta Indonesia

Download PDF
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/impoverishment-of-induced-displacement-and-resettlement-didr-slum-OBxmTND076

References (72)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
ISSN
1946-3146
eISSN
1946-3138
DOI
10.1080/19463138.2018.1534737
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2018, VOL. 10, NO. 3, 263–278 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2018.1534737 ARTICLE Impoverishment of induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) slum eviction development in Jakarta Indonesia Puput Ichwatus Sholihah and Chen Shaojun National Research Center for Resettlement (NRCR), Public Administration School Hohai University China, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 2 April 2018 The Government of DKI Jakarta plans to free the city from slum dwellings by 2020. In Accepted 8 October 2018 the quest to mitigate floods from Jakarta, the government relocated about 25,533 people; 5,725 households and 5,379 business units from 12 slum areas between KEYWORDS 2014 and 2016. With the intention of moving slum dwellers from a highly congested DIDR; impoverishment; IRR; and poor environment to a more decent one, this policy looks like one that helps resettlement; slums the poor earn a better life, at first glance. Nevertheless, this policy is still considered ineffective because it results in the impoverishment of most of the displaced population. This study attempts to analyze the risk of impoverishment resulting from displacement and resettlement using the IRR model and also append another factor that emerged as a risk-specified relocation development and resettlement program of slums in Jakarta Indonesia. insecurity and declining community interactions, the Introduction main end is inevitable (Cernea and Kanbur 2002). In the IRR model Cernea (2000b) specifies eight Impoverishment is defined as a situation where wel- resulting effects of displacement; landlessness, home- fare and livelihoods are worsening as a result of inter- lessness, joblessness, marginalization, food insecurity, vention, in this case a relocation that causes social loss of access to common property, morbidity and and economic displacement of the affected people. mortality, and social disarticulation. These eight ele- Cernea (1997) introduced the Impoverishment Risk ments have been confirmed and validated by the and Reconstruction (IRR), which explain the eight World Bank Review and a plethora of other studies impoverishment risks of displacement. Eviction and especially for rural displacements (World Bank 1994; relocation projects have resulted in displacement, Morimoto 2013; Kirchherr and Charles 2016;Wu etal. especially in the livelihood of directly affected dwell- 2016; Singer and Watanabe 2014; etc.). However, exist- ers, to a large extent. Displacement always raises ing literature have focused largely on rural displace- questions about policies and implementation pro- ment. Urban displacement and the consequences of cesses that the government considers to be of mutual affected persons are still rarely studied. In India, for interest. Some authors have also pointed out that example, research on urban displacement and its displaced individuals have great social, economic, impact on resettlements in poor urban areas has and cultural risks, raising the issue of justice (Cernea only been examined by Patel and Mandhyan (2013), 2000b, Downing 1996). Only a small percentage of the Patel et al. (2012) and Bhan (2009). In Indonesia itself, affected persons have a better life after the displace- assessment research using IRR models is still very rare, ment process, the rest experience severe living condi- mainly for the issue of Development Induced tions, especially with regards to financial constraints, CONTACT Puput Ichwatus Sholihah puputichwatus@gmail.com National Research Center for Resettlement (NRCR), Public Administration School Hohai University China, 8 West Focheng Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210098 China © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 264 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN Displacement and Resettlement (DIDR) in urban areas. mentions that adolescents living in slums tend to This study attempts to analyze the risk of impoverish- engage in some deviant behaviors such as the attach- ment resulting from displacement and resettlement of ment of life in unattended peers group which easily slum residents in Jakarta using the IRR model, and by leads to juvenile delinquency in the form of inter- knowing these risks is expected to be a reference for group fighting, narcotics, theft, robbery, prostitution, the provision of solutions even for the formulation of and other forms of antisocial behavior, or even in the sustainable development programs in Greater Jakarta form of undisciplined acts such as disposing of gar- in future. bage and dirt haphazardly. Nevertheless, because The slum environment has become a priority for the crime is not a result of any single factor or combina- Jakarta government and several other organizations in tion of factors, some studies also show that there are Indonesia since 1960s. In the 1960s, Indonesia’sfirst several other opposing causes which are also consid- president, Soekarno embarked on a Mercusuar (light- ered as triggers for crime such as: the growth of gated building) project such as the preparation of the 1962 communities due to reasons such as the need for Asian Games infrastructure development and flood- privacy, exclusivity, convenience, and the growing prevention projects in Jakarta (Sosromatmojo 1981), desire of citizens to be separated from other sectors which subsequently made many residents homeless. of society as a rational response to rising crime levels On the other hand, as the population of Jakarta con- (Breetzke et al. 2014). tinues to increase, (Koestoer 2001) the city government Slum settlements located in the center of the city is trying its best to put in place the right policy to in Indonesia are close to the central business district overcome slums. Governor Soemarno (1960–1964) and are indigenous settlements, riverbanks, along tried to provide a decent settlement by building mass the railroads, the area around the industry and housing in Kalibata on eight hectares of land (Djaja warehouses, ports, terminals, and railway stations 1963). Followed by the Muhammad Husni Thamrin (Shah 2012). In the central and suburbs, slums are Project (MHT) commonly known as the Kampung commonly found behind the upper middle class Improvement Program (KIP) initiated by Ali Sadikin housing parallel to the outer city lane (Ratu 2011). (1966), which has been successfully underway until Slum dwellings in Jakarta are characterized by very 1999. KIP then progressed with a new concept known low quality housing, buildings made of non-compli- as the ‘dedicated-program’ in 2006, however, this pro- ant materials, sometimes consisting of all kinds of ject no longer contributes to becoming an alternative used materials while sanitation and water supply is solution for slum settlement problems. This is due to generally unavailable or inadequate (Country Report the rapid development of the capital city of Jakarta, Indonesia 2012). Though these slum dwellings are which creates high urbanization, especially for low- of low quality and not conducive for living, people income groups and the narrowness of settlements continue to live there because of its proximity to the and high housing prices. city center, their work places, and other social ame- In Jakarta, slum settlements increased by 60 ha per nities. As some of these slums are on the banks of year (Ciputra, 2009). Besides causing many urban pro- the river, slum settlements in Jakarta also cause the blems (because it can be a source of various deviant loss of drainage basins, narrowing of rivers, and behaviors, such as crime and other sources of social river pollution, resulting in the capital city of diseases), poor visual effects, public health levels that Jakarta becoming flooded during the rainy season are inconsistent with health standards and have poor (Van Voorst 2011; Pandawangi and Doughlass 2015; socioeconomic impacts (Bahjeri 2012;Sufaira 2013; Van Voorst and Pandawangi 2015). Sajjad 2014; Subasinghe 2015;Singh 2016). The close The Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta has correlation between crime and slums is explained by plans to free the city from slum dwellings by 2020 the classic studies of Meyer and Christopher (1989). in the program: Structuring the Slum Area, KOTAKU This study suggests that in a bad environment, envir- (the national program upgrading slum) and other onmental structural barriers can hinder the develop- policies which are geared towards mitigating floods ment of environmental social organizations, these in Jakarta. Programs funded by State Budget (APBN) environmental social organizations can increase the and supported by the donor’soverseas lending, risk of crime and violence (Sampson et al. 1999). World Bank, Islamic Development Bank (IDB), Asian While in Indonesia, research from Puti et al. (2015) Development Bank (ADB) and Asian Infrastructure INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 265 Investment Bank (AIIB) have proposed policies to households, and 5,379 business units (Ursula 2017). address slum areas, and promote relocation from This relocation project has a main intention of slums and rehabilitation rather than mere replace- improvingthe qualityoflifeofslumdwellers.To ment of housing. Theobjective of therelocation further improve the quality of life of relocated slum and rehabilitation program in Jakarta is to imple- dwellers, the government also provides them with ment Law No. 1/2011, Law No. 17/2017, and Law no education subsidy, that is, Jakarta Smart Card (KJP- 4/1992. Law No. 1/2011, which focuses on housing Kartu Jakarta Pintar) for displacees from elementary and settlement areas, states that slum improvement to high school age. This smart card also provides for can be conducted through restoration, renewal, and free public transportation (Transjakarta). Displacees relocation. Law No. 17/2017, which is aimed at the are also given a healthcare insurance cards (Jakarta Long Term National Development Plan (RPJP) Healthy Card/KJS-Kartu Jakarta Sehat) to cater to whose primary objectives are to meet the needs of their health care needs. At a glance, this policy housing and infrastructure and to free the city from looks like a policy that helps the poor to earn a the slums, providing houses with the necessary better life. Nevertheless, this policy is still consid- facilities and infrastructure. Finally, Law no 4/1992 ered ineffective; instead, it increases the rate of on housing and resettlement sections 5 states that impoverishment for most of the displaced every citizen is entitled to inhabiting in a decent population. house with a healthy, safe, harmonious, and orderly environment, and it also does not diminish the pur- Conceptual discussion pose of normalizing the river (for slums on river- banks) in an effort to cope with flood problems in Definition of slums settlements Jakarta. Moreover, this program is believed to pre- While UN-HABITAT defines a slum as vent people from ARI, DHF, Muntaber (Vomiting and Diarrhea), Diarrhea and Tuberculosis, a very crucial “A slum is a contiguous settlement where the inhabi- development, as Indonesia is currently the second tants are characterized as having inadequate housing and basic services. A slum is often not recognized and world’s largest country affected by Tuberculosis addressed by the public authorities as an integral or (WHO 2018). Tuberculosis cases in Indonesia are equal part of the city” (UN-HABITAT 2002, 2003). A more about poor communities living in slums. The slum household as a group of individuals living under immune systems of people living in these impover- the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of ished communities are likely to be weak due to poor the following: 1. Durable housing of a permanent nature that protects against extreme climate conditions. 2. nutrition and inadequate environmental sanitation Sufficient living space which means not more than (MOH 2006). three people sharing the same room. 3. Easy access to In this regard, the work plan of Jakarta provincial safe water in sufficient amounts at an affordable price. government for 2010–2030 and the implementation 4. Access to adequate sanitation in the form of a private of the government itself have shown a preference or public toilet shared by a reasonable number of peo- ple. 5. Security of tenure that prevents forced evictions for community housing projects. This planning gen- (UN-HABITAT 2006). erally involves the destruction of slums and com- munity transfers to Rusunawa (public apartment Indonesian Law defines slums as units, with rental arrangement). Until 2016, there “Uninhabitable settlements due to building irregularity, have been 18 Rusunawa, which have been used high building density, and quality of buildings and facil- for residential areas by the Provincial Government ities that do not meet the requirements. Slum housing is of DKI Jakarta for evictions and relocation of slums a housing that has decreased the quality of function as in Jakarta. The eviction and relocation of slums has a shelter both physically, socio-economic and socio-cul- tural, which does not allow the achievement of a decent been conducted since 2009, but it has become one life for its inhabitants” (Law of the Republic of Indonesia of the project highlighted in the era of government Number 1 Year 2011 on Housing and Settlement Area). governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama. Recorded in the 2 years of leadership of Governor Basuki Tjahaja Looking at the two definitions above, it is clear that the Purnama, there has been 12 evictions and relocation definition of both includes low-income settlements and in DKI Jakarta. The number of individuals relocated poor living conditions. Slum settlements in this context from 2014–2016 reached 25,533 people; 5,725 also include illegal (informal) settlements, which are 266 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN housing areas created by people who have no land ● Loss of access to common resources: away from ownership and largely in contravention of officially previous school, the difficulty of access to tradi- applied building codes. Unclear land ownership is unli- tional markets, away from fair price shops, away kely to be opposed or prevented by the authorities; from access that can provide additional income, such settlement conditions arise due to the inability of away from recreational areas. the conventional housing market to cope with the ● Social Disarticulation: loss of community, rela- demand arising from rapid urbanization (Johnston tives and neighbors scatteredness. et al. 2000; Clark 2003). Background/context policy discussion on poverty and slums in Jakarta IRR model for urban displacement There have been many eviction slum programs since DIDR was originally aimed at generating economic the independence of the Indonesian people with the growth and improve general welfare. However, displa- aim of reducing slum settlements in Jakarta; how- cees are always traumatized and struggled to rebuild ever, slum settlements still continue to be rampant their livelihoods, social life, and the ties of communities in the city. Data shows that about 13.52% of Jakarta’s in new places (Oliver 2009). In the case of Rusunawa in total size is still a slum settlement. Government that Jakarta, displacees also change the habit of living in is unable to provide affordable housing for slum horizontally aligned housing, to living in vertically residents and flooding migrants’ urbanization have aligned housing. In this study, the Impoverishment been used as the main reason for this source of Risk and Reconstruction (IRR) model developed by failure. Although the government has implemented Cernea (1996, 2006 and 2008) in which the elements the concept of the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Area of the risk of poverty consist of: landlessness, jobless- to distribute and build suburban housing in Jakarta, ness, homelessness, marginalization, loss of general slums settlement still remain in the city. As an alter- property resources, morbidity and mortality, food inse- native, various improvement programs have also curity, and social disarticulation. This model is already been carried out to improve the quality of life in widely used for rural displacement, especially for indi- slums, such as the KIP program in the 1960s–1990s, viduals affected by projects such as the construction of and the Thematic and Row House Program in 2010s. dams. For this model to be suitable for urban displace- The programs that have been proposed are still ment, it has been adjusted as follows: unable to eradicate slums in Jakarta. The experience of these programs shows that set- tlements will continue to exist despite ongoing eco- ● Landlessness: The loss of land, which has been nomic development. In addition, the limitations of the occupied for years, even generations. For slum results of these programs prove that all parties who settlements on state land (without land owner- have an interest in this matter must understand the ship), landlessness is defined as increasing dis- resettlement of slums is more than just their physical tance from initial livelihood sources, markets form. It is very understandable if the focus of programs for shopping, social access, etc. to diminish slum settlements in Jakarta is only limited ● Joblessness: loss of work, loss of ownership to physical features, because slum areas are always assets, additional expenses, and job changes. identical with legal status and limited resources for ● Homelessness: Loss of being with neighbors housing development. Slum areas always look messy, that make the displacees feel like strangers in unorganized, and unhealthy; however, it is very impor- their new environment, insufficient house tant to understand that slum dwellers also have the space given to the family, loss of home. value of social capital, support, social organization, ● Marginalization: job skills that are not suitable hope, innovation, etc. that also needs to be considered. in a new location, reduced income, loss of social position such as the head of the commu- nity, and loss of political influence. Methods ● Morbidity, mortality, and food insecurity: stress, anxiety, lack of access to clean water, distress for This research uses both a quantitative and qualitative disability and elderly to live in vertical housing. combined method with IRR model approach for INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 267 cases of eviction of slums that occurred between Secondly, this study is more qualitative research 2014–2016. In that time frame there has been 12 study, supported by quantitative data, especially evictions and relocation in DKI Jakarta. Respondents from the perspective of displacees. The comparison in this study came from 12 eviction areas in Jakarta, between quality of life in Rusunawa before and after including: relocation is collected quantitatively and qualitatively through a survey based on experience and the recall (1) Underpass Prof Sedyatmo Penjaringan, North of displacees. Quantitative recall such as distance, Jakarta. income, and so on, while their qualitative recall of (2) Kampung Pulo, East Jakarta. community bonding, mutual help, communal har- (3) Bidaracina, East Jakarta. mony, and so on are based on memories allowing (4) Bukit Duri, South Jakarta. for limitations to remember such as contaminated or (5) Pinangsia, Jakarta Barat. decayed memory (Gass and Mackey 2013). (6) Kemayoran, Central Jakarta. The interviews conducted in this study followed a (7) Waduk Pluit, North Jakarta. series of questions in accordance with the framework (8) Menteng Dalam, South Jakarta. of this study. The survey was designed to corroborate (9) Kali Krukut, Central Jakarta. findings as well as to discover new information relat- (10) Bukit Duri Tebet, South Jakarta. ing to the lives of displacees after being relocated to (11) Pasar Ikan, North Jakarta. Rusunawa. The questionnaire given has been formu- (12) Kalijodo, North Jakarta. lated to find out aspects of displacement before and after resettlement such as household details, educa- tion, hygiene and health, income and expenditure There are two qualitative methodologies for iden- patterns, social networks, food security, marginaliza- tification and analysis in this study, they are field tion, loss due to relocation, productivity in terms of research and structured in-depth interview. Field time utilized at work, education, public amusement research is a prototype of qualitative research and park, access to social services, dispersion of relatives can be used to gather qualitative data because it and neighbors, social disarticulation, etc. which pro- takes holistic perspective and analysis of real-life pro- vide conclusions on social and economic impoverish- cesses (Nachmias and Nachmias 1992). In the field ment risks of respondents. research, contexts are mapped for the understanding Jakarta government until May 2016 has built 23 of subject interpretations and finally produce an Rusunawa in various regions in the city. Nevertheless, explanation that reflects the social realm. Field according to the head of Jakarta Housing and Building research is mainly used to uncover the process of Agency, Ika Lestari Aji, from the 23 Rusunawa, only 18 social life (Gaber 1993), while structured in-depth Rusunawa have been used for residential areas affected interviews can provide more detailed information by the relocation program due to slum demolition and involving systematic and intensive observation of the normalization of rivers or reservoirs. 17 out of the sightings or social processes based on a list of ques- 18 Rusunawa were selected for the surveys since 1 tions that have been compiled in this study (Boyce Rusunawa is known to be a case of successful displace- and Neale 2006). The quantitative technique used in ment with fewer complains about welfare issues as this study is quantitative comparison, which is a compared to the 17 Rusunawa, where displacees comparison of such data as income, distance, and often complain about a decline in their welfare after so on before and after relocation. being relocated. The peculiar nature of the Rusunawa This study has limitation on several factors. First, not researched in this study will be considered in future the process of eviction, relocation and resettlement is research. a fairly complex process; the length of the process Any information obtained from the survey results can reach yearly and involves various kinds of will be explored more deeply by interviewing meth- approval, planning, financing, and execution. The ods with community representatives. The survey in survey in this study was conducted for 5 months. this study was conducted on 550 apartment resi- With limited time, this study focused only on the dents with the characteristics of the head of the factors of negative consequences and the implication family (the main breadwinner in the family, both of risks that arise after relocation and resettlement. 268 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN Figure 1. Slum dwelling and Rusunawa location. male and female) and victims of forced evictions prevent impoverishment and rebuild the affected per- prior to becoming apartment dwellers. Respondents son’s livelihood. These risks may not entirely appear in were selected randomly from the list obtained from DIDR projects, each case study has its own uniqueness the Rusunawa Management Unit (UPRS) of Rusunawa (Hoadley 2004; Patel and Mandhyan 2013); however residents (slum evictees) who had been delinquent the main line is the risk for communities to become (more than 3 months). The survey was conducted poorer and have a crisis because of the loss of eco- from 3 September 2017 to 17 January 2018 in 17 Rusunawa inhabited by the affected person of DIDR Table 1. Rusunawa location and number of respondents. in DKI Jakarta. The spread of the location of 17 No Rusunawa Respondents Rusunawa, which is the location of this research 1 Waduk Pluit (Muara Baru) 30 survey, are presented in figure 1 while the number 2 Penjaringan 21 3 Kapuk Muara 24 of respondents each of rusunawa presented in 4 Sukapura 39 table 1. 5 Tambora 26 6 Flamboyan 26 7 Karang Anyar 34 Empirical study impoverishment risk 8 Jati Rawa Sari 23 9 Cipinang Besar Utara 28 DIDR is intended to promote economic growth and 10 Jatinegara Kaum 20 11 Daan Mogot 19 improve mutual prosperity; policies related to DIDR 12 Komarudin 35 are usually involuntary to affected persons. Therefore 13 Rawa bebek 52 these people usually have trauma and distress to 14 Pinus Elok 47 15 Cakung Barat 29 restore their livelihood, including social and commu- 16 Pulo Gebang 50 nity bonding (Smith 2009). The IRR was developed by 17 Jatinegara Barat 47 Cernea M. (1996, 2006, and 2008). It addressed eco- TOTAL 550 nomic, cultural and social impoverishment in order to INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 269 nomic, social, and cultural resources. Losing land is formorethan20years areallowed to obtain aland one of the tangible evidence of crisis, but it only certificate for occupied land; except those who live accounts for 10–20% of the risk of impoverishment on government land such as river banks (Legal Aid (Downing T 2002). Impoverishment at a very severe Institute Jakarta, 2016). From the results of the level may result in the affected person losing civil and study, DIDR affected person in KOTAKU program human rights, being so poor that there is no ability to and the slum settlement has occupied most of this claim such rights (Hoadley 2004). land for more than 20 years. In a study of 550 household heads, about 47.5% of households occu- pied over 20 years, 20.6% occupied for 10–20 years, Analysis 14.4% occupied for 5–10 years, and 17.5% of the This section will analyze how impoverishment occurs residents of the flats occupied old houses for less in DIDR Slum Eviction Jakarta using eight elements of than 5 years. To elaborate further, the villagers of the IRR model as a benchmark. All elements will be PuloKampong onlyhaveevidenceofcustomary used to explain in detail how the DIDR Slum Jakarta ownership of their land (girik and verponding/non- affected person experiences a post slum eviction certificated proof of ownership of land rights, Land impoverishment. These risks will not occur in each and Building Tax receipt, and land trading letter). Rusunawa, elements that appear relative to each This evidence is actually recognized in the adminis- other and can change, and different settlement pro- trative law of registration of land rights pursuant to jects may also influence others (Hoadley 2004). In this Article60paragraph(2)letterfof theRegulationof study the differences in Cernea’s IRR elements occur- the Minister of Agrarian Affairs/Head of BPN ing in each rusunawa are presented in table 2.The Number 3 of 1997 concerning Provisions on the real risk is that displacees are pushed deeper into Implementation of PP. 24 years 1997. Land verpond- crisis and poverty by the loss of land, economic, ing Indonesia is a land of indigenous property rights social, and cultural resources. imposedonIndonesianverpondingtax,inother words the land according to the law is the land of citizens (Boedi 1999). Landlessness It is also mentioned in the Law on Land Acquisition In accordance with article 1963jo.1967 Civil Code for public interest (Law No. 2/2012) and Presidential and Article 24 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation no. 71/2012 has the following stages: (1) Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land before the development of the development project Registration stated that people who occupy a land is established, the government should consult the Table 2. Cernea’s IRR Element occurring in each Rusunawa. Increased Loss Food Morbidity of Social Landlessness Joblessness Homelessness Marginalization Insecurity &Mortality Access Disarticulation Waduk Pluit (Muara Baru) ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Penjaringan ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Kapuk Muara ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Sukapura ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Tambora ✔✔ ✔ ✔ Flamboyan ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Karang Anyar ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Jati Rawa Sari ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Cipinang Besar Utara ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Jatinegara Kaum ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Daan Mogot ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Komarudin ✔✔ ✔ ✔ Rawa bebek ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Pinus Elok ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Cakung Barat ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Pulo Gebang ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Jatinegara Barat ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 270 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN community of land and house owners; (2) if the economic status, most of who work in the informal affected person refuses, the government cannot con- sector such as scavengers, footpads, factory workers, tinue the development project; (3) if the affected per- fishermen, small businessmen, domestic workers, and son agrees to determine how much the compensation traders. During the relocation some people lose their is worth for the land and the building of the residents. jobs due to displacement of residential locations, and Both parties must approve this determination. If the their qualifications may not match the jobs that may affected person does not agree with the price set, then be available in newly relocated places. For instance, the affected person is given an opportunity to file a casual workers like laundry operators will likely not price fixing to a state court; (4) before the agreed value find employment in their newly relocated areas since is received by the affected person, the government their customers are usually residents living around cannot evict the affected person from his or her home the previous residential location. and land. For example in the normalization case of In addition, displacees who own their own busi- Ciliwung River, Jakarta Provincial Government and nesses such as operating food stalls and boarding Head of Central Ciliwung Cisadane River Region houses are the ones most affected by DIDR. Self- (Kepala Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai CIliwing Cisadane/ employed disclosures with the type of restaurant BBWSCC) must pass through these steps. However, the and boardinghouse business no longer have enough city administration mentioned that the affected per- space and human resources to open similar types of sons on the riverbank as residents of squatters, villagers businesses in the relocated apartment. The workers of state land, poor people who reclaimed the river, and at these food stalls may no longer have a source of all negative stamps were given to the affected persons income because their owners have been relocated so the Jakarta Provincial Government did not need to and are no longer able to pay them. Meanwhile, provide proper compensation. room-rent entrepreneurs who are relocated lose Land is the main foundation of livelihood, eco- their larger homes when they are relocated to smal- nomic activity, social life and productivity and its ler flats, which are not large enough to contain his takeover is one of the basic factors for creating household let alone to be rented out. The findings in impoverishment (Cernea 2000b). Land has a major this study also indicate that the employment status, role in tackling quality of life by providing jobs, social which was previously 34%, declined to 17%. At the networks, and facilities for health and education same time, the displacees that became laborers (Patel and Mandhyan 2013). The role of the land itself increased from 24% to 36%. Additionally, unemploy- differs between the city and the rural. Location as the ment increased to 13%. main benchmark in urban area because the location provides an opportunity and when the location Homelessness changes it will greatly affect the livelihood and life. In this study the compensation provided (which was The loss of a home can mean loss of ownership, as moved to an economically nonstrategic location) has well as culture and identity. The loss of his dwelling failed to recover the ownership and use of the land and his community may result in him feeling alie- for the affected person. nated, deprived of social status, and impoverished (Cernea 2000b). In this case homelessness can be explained in the phenomenon of the existence of Joblessness several heads of families whose homes were Loss of employment in this sense is intended as a destroyed but these families did not receive replace- major job loss or additional financial burden as a ment facilities, as they did not meet the require- result of relocation. Massive losses can also result in ments to receive the compensation package. For a state of financial disability and in some cases can example the government firmly stated that those also result in death (Patel and Madhyan 2014). Loss who own homes and rent in slum areas in the of income for day-to-day activities is always a major Radjiman area do not receive compensation, as the issue for DIDR’s affected person. Broadly speaking, government considers them to be middle to upper the main characteristics of displacees are low socio- class (Elitha 2015). Approximately 300 households of INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 271 evictees in the slum area of Muara Angke beach did government is entitled to either terminate or extend not get replacement resettlement package. The the rental period of the displace unilaterally. evicted house is mostly a hut and has no ownership Displacees living in rented homes are subject to certificate. These people are forced to return home or security guarantees. With a delinquent unit sealing live with relatives and neighbors (Arimbi 2015). While policy, as many as 72% displacees live in anxiety due the fishermen who used to work around the Pluit to uncertainty of residence. Reservoir and moved to Rusunawa, also in addition to losing their jobs also lost their homes. Marginalization Displacees from Kampung Pulo stated that they obtained their homes in the slums first through a The risks of marginalization can threaten personal legitimate purchase process. In addition displacees and community displacements as they become less also pay Land and Building Tax (PBB). Nevertheless economically viable. The study mentions that mar- they remain relocated and are perceived to have ginalization is usually accompanied by loss of self- failed to have their place of residence legally because esteem, especially when displace becomes foreigners they do not have a certificate of ownership which in and entrants to host communities (Downing T 2002). the presentation of the certificate displacees is not Marginalization can also be interpreted as losing available due to bureaucratic obstacles or illegal human capital, lowering socio-economy status in a levies during the registration process at the land new place, losing privilege of political power/influ- agency. In its socialization, the government finally ence in the community, and losing confidence in decided: (1) Land of the people is said to be state both community and self. Relocation leads to mar- land; (2) to the land and building of citizens shall not ginalization, especially in cases where the affected be given compensation; and (3) instead of residents person is not reassembled within the same commu- granted the right to lease over Rusunawa (Vera et al. nity, in which case a community-based break-even 2017). Relocation and resettlement packages offered breaks out in the community (Patel and Mandhyan for citizens change their ownership status over their 2013). Displacees are unhappy with the community residence from having to be rented. that is with them in the new relocation area and Home for displacees is not only a place to live, but becomes self-disbelieving. also an independent place of business. As eviction One ofthe biggestexpensesofdisplaceesisthe and relocation, these two functions are lost, leaving obligation to pay rent every month, which is still uncertainty and reliance on aid. With the high cost of considered too high for displacees, since most of living and lack of government assistance, most of the them are workers in the informal sector. Interviews people have difficulty paying rent Rusunawa. As show that there is an increased cost of rents and many as 56% of displacees are in arrears paying home care for displaced displacees. In older homes, rent fee up to more than three months, and only 66.7% displacees pay rental and maintenance fees 29% of displacees who can afford to pay the rent on at a maximum cost of Rp 100,000, – in fact most are a regular basis. In addition, 23% displacees are asked free becausethe placeis home. Aftertheyare relo- for illegal fees from unscrupulous households or cated, there is an increase in rental costs. From the other third parties claiming to ask for charges related original maximum of Rp 100,000, – to a minimum of to the cost of managing Rusunawa. Whereas the Rp 300,000, – . In addition displacees are also bur- government explained that the cost of maintenance, dened with increased costs of water, electricity, and maintenance and repair of Rusunawa is borne by the transportation bills (see table 3). The location of flats Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta, any damage to that are relatively farther away from the city center, Rusunawa public facilities is the responsibility of the compared to the old displacees, displacees cost Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta (Vera et al. more to access their daily needs, such as delivering 2017). Although these events occur in some displa- school children, shopping in the market, or leaving cees, this kind of experience certainly complicates for work. displacees’ life by forcing themselves to incur addi- Significant change in transportation costs per tional costs for living in Rusunawa. Furthermore, dis- month, the increase in transportation costs is due placees are only allowed to rent for a period of to the distance of the apartment from where the 2 years in Rusunawa with the note that the ordinary citizens move. Although TransJakarta 272 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN Table 3. Increase of consuming in electricity after relocation and will earn a prosperous life. They are given free public resettlement (In thousand Rupiah). facilities for education, health, and transportation. In Before After fact, this facility does not affect the welfare directly. Relocation Relocation Because basically the rights of education and health Monthly water charge 0–100 79% 32% are already free by the government before they are fee 100–200 11% 38% relocated. After being relocated and resettled, fewer 200–300 5% 17% displacees have social security. > 300 5% 13% Electricity billing fee 0–100 51% 37% per month Food insecurity 100–200 30% 42% 200–300 9% 10% Displacees other than burdened with rental costs are > 300 10% 11% Transportation costs 0–100 40% 14% also burdened with increased consumption costs. per month Increased spending on displacees in the consumption 100–200 19% 24% sector is the result of the difficulty of access to low-cost 200–300 12% 13% > 300 29% 49% food and daily necessities in Rusunawa. In Rusunawa environment does not have many alternative options to buy consumer goods, displacees have to travel long transportation is provided free of charge by the distances to buy cheaper goods, and this resulted in Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta, they tend to the addition of transportation costs. Additionally, the prefer not to use it because it is considered ineffi- price of food and daily necessities were much cheaper cient. The distance of the distant locations from the before relocation. Reduced income and rising prices flats to the displaced workplaces makes them prefer (for the same type and amount) are one form of food motorcycles because it makes it easier to move from insecurity from this case. one place to another and save more money because The loss of livelihoods makes displacees lose there is no need to change public transport routes their independence and become more dependent many times to reach their destination. on aid, particularly government aid. Prior to reloca- This significant increase in expenditures is con- tion therewere64% displacees receivingRASKIN(a fronted by the harsh realities of a decrease in conditional cash transfer program administered by revenue. If before the relocation, 45% of displaces the Government of Indonesia in the form of selling areableto earnaboveRp 3millionpermonth, rice below market price to certain recipients), but then after relocation to, Rusunawa, only about 21% after relocation there were only 5% displacees of displacees will be able to earn above Rp 3 receiving this benefit. million per month. Displacees after being relocated to Rusunawa in addition to being reduced in rev- Increased morbidity and mortality enue, instead also became increasingly burden pri- marily on transportation costs, utility bills and Displacees disability groups do not get facilities in maintenance costs Rusunawa. Some of them even new relocation sites. Displacees of disability groups lose their jobs because their skills do not match experience mobility difficulties because Rusunawa is the jobs available in the new location. Regarding a high-rise house and does not provide lift facilities the new residence, in general displacees states that in all buildings, especially for disabled displaces Rusunawa is more feasible in terms of availability, who use wheelchairs. Even if there are elevators, however, this alone is not sufficient to ensure the they are usually busy because the building manage- well-being of displacees due to difficulties in acces- ment does not enable all available lifts. The high sing jobs and public facilities, which leads to a Rusunawa is also dangerous for people who have decline in their economic welfare conditions. mental disability because of the difficulty in control- The displacements welfare rate decreased as ling the activities of the residents. In addition, many expenditures increased after they were moved to Rusunawa also do not provide a marker on the Rusunawa. The city administration itself promised sidewalk or tile to facilitate people with blind dis- that the victims of evictions transferred to the flats ability. In addition to the disability group, similar INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 273 problems also occur to displacees of elderly groups. school access is always reachable on foot. Accessibility These elderly groups in their neighborhoods prior to displacees also become farther away from shopping being relocated are those who have a place to rent, and recreation. but after being evicted and relocated, and no com- pensation they become unhappy, stressed and con- Social disarticulation fused, in the absence of income, unable to work again due to age and location of work place. For Displacement separates community social life includ- instance, a job that previously took 15 min to get to ing spatial, temporal, and cultural factors (Cernea M, by motorcycle can take about 1.5 h due to displace- 200b; Downing 1996). There is support for connec- ment. Some of these displacees are prone to road tions and conditions in each other and every com- accidents because they usually have to travel a long munity that has a strong role for community distance by motorcycle after a hard day’swork. relationships such as help-helping, childcare, borrow- In addition these displacees get little or no compen- ing and sharing food, funerals, social activities sation because they are considered to be occupying together, relaxing and playing chess together etc. state land. Whereas previously the government men- (Beegom 2014). When neighborliness is divided, the tioned that will provide compensation to the chicken social groups are separated. Their grief increases coop, which is one source of income for displacees. because among these social groups has formed a Although displacees are exempted from Rental costs sense of kinship rather than administrative alliances for 3 months (after which displacees have to pay Rp (Cernea 2000a). Such a situation is called the loss of 300,000 per month as an Environmental Management structured social relationships from natural, physical fee, up to now there are still many displacees in arrears and human capital. This loss cannot be detected, due to the deteriorating economic conditions. These countless, and unconstructed, but has long-term displacees end up flouting the law because they either consequences (Cernea 2000a, Seregeldin 2006). can’t afford to or refuse to pay the rental fee for living in Social Disarticulation leads to vulnerability, incapa- Rusunawa (Pebrianto and Isbandi 2017). city, and dependency. Displacement and resettlement in addition to having a bad influence on social capital, also results in breakdown in the routine culture Loss of access to the common property and (Downing and Garcia-Downing 2008). Cultural habits services in this context mean the same people (groups/ The human rights standard provides that the fulfill- paguyuban) who repeatedly occupy the same place ment of the right to adequate housing, in addition to at the same time. Routine culture increases the com- infrastructure, also needs to provide accessibility for its munity’s predictability and the ability of individuals to inmates to basic rights such as the right to health, the build livelihoods, as their questions and difficulties right to work, and the right to education. Ease of encountered are always answered in routine culture accessibility can be measured from various sides, (Downing and Garcia-Downing 2008). When displa- such as the proximity of the distance, the ease of cees families are transferred to foreign environments, transportation to reach that distance, the price of jobs and new neighborhoods, they will feel isolated goods associated with the rights, and so forth. For and disordered. This can lead to instability, insecurity access to health, houses of worship and community, and unpredictability of daily life, and harass health displacees get a replacement, in other words the situa- and well-being. This is related to health risks and tion, location, and distance are the same, as they still marginalization; therefore it should also be considered inhabit their old homes. However, the place of worship in policy formulation. Social Disarticulation is intangi- is not the main building like a mosque, but generally ble and invisible (Moser 1998). It takes time to study only a room that serves as a mosque. At school points, and analyze these parameters, so the findings are displacees have additional costs for transportation due usually in theoretical explanations. to the location of their school away from the new In the relocation of slum areas in Jakarta, displa- relocation site. Some Rusunawa provide free school cees have been deprived of at least two cultural bus facilities, however the scheduled departure or elements. First, displacees are deprived of their com- return does not fit with the school schedule. This is in munity system of living where housing structures are contrast to the conditions prior to relocation, where closely linked together to Rusunawa where housing 274 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN structures are scattered and more individualistic. Similar to those mentioned above, this study also Displacees are usually not accustomed to this indivi- aimed to contribute to the IRR risk list model for the dualistic system of living in flats and terraced apart- DIDR case primarily involuntary urban displacement. ments. Understandably many displacees are unhappy after being compensated for the flats even though Human rights violations their former homes are shabby, rickety and semi- permanent. Secondly, concerning economic system Human rights abuses also imply an impoverishment and livelihood. Displacees living in coastal slums and risk for affected communities. Downing (1996)quoted fish markets have professions as fishermen and jobs in Cernea (2004) suggests human rights violations as around the fish market. However, due to the displa- one of the risks to be considered in the IRR risk list. DIDR cement relocation process that are forced to change affected persons should be provided with human professions because their new home is now far from rights protection and this protection can also be a the location of their livelihood. Switching professions tool to ensure that the relocation and resettlement is not an easy task considering the majority of their process is carried out properly without violating skill that is accustomed and shrewd at sea. human rights. In other studies it is also mentioned that there is usually a human rights violation for affected persons and/or communities in the implemen- Michael Cernea’s IRR and its critical review tation of development projects (Cohen and Deng 1998) The IRR model in the last three decades has become .The evictions and resettlement in Jakarta are consid- a model used everywhere as a research grounding ered not to meet the standards adopted by United for understanding forced and/or involuntary displa- Nation in the process (Basic Principle and Guideline cement, including DIDR. The application of this on Development Based Evidence and Displacement), model has been the main framework for the estab- in the second part of the general obligation of chapter lishment of development policies and strategies to III Prior to Evictions Number 37: overcome the impoverishment of involuntary reset- “Urban or rural planning and development processes tlement. These developmental policies under the should involve all those likely to be affected and should guise of creating a better life for slum dwellers results include the following elements: (a) appropriate notice to in further impoverishment. Therefore, to develop sus- all prospective individuals considered for eviction with allotted times for public hearings on the proposed plans tainable development policies, government organiza- and alternatives; (b) effective dissemination of informa- tions, communities, researchers and other relevant tion by authorities in advance, including land records organizations are still adjusting and improving the and proposed comprehensive resettlement plans, spe- model in the hope of analyzing, refining and resol- cifically addressing efforts to protect vulnerable groups; ving issues that may arise thoroughly. (c) a reasonable time period for public review of, com- ment on, and/or objection to the proposed plan; (d) The IRR model itself is actually intended as the opportunities and efforts to facilitate the provision of dominant model to certify and to assess the impact legal, technical and other advice to affected persons of the involuntary mainly development projects that about their rights and options; and (e) holding of public result in displacement. Eight main elements place this hearing(s) that provide(s) affected persons and their model on four functions: predictive, diagnostic, pro- advocates with opportunities to challenge the eviction decision and/or to present alternative proposals and to blem resolution and planning, and research metho- articulate their demands and development priorities.” dology (Cernea 2004). However, although this model (United Nations 2007) has been approved and used throughout the world, Cernea still opens the opportunity for additional risk in Displacees mention that a parallel process of delib- the list. Researchers such as Scudder (1997), Feleke eration almost never happens when they are relo- (1999), Gizachew (2015), have contributed to adding cated. The deliberations were only seen as formal another risk-relevant research into Cernea’s Risk, such procedures by the government. Although residents as: risk of loss of resilience and risk of migration attended meetings held by government representa- respectively, loss of education or constrained access tives to provide feedback on relocation and structur- to education, cattlelessness, physical barrier con- ing, the opinions were often not heard and the strained community mobility, loss of human rights, government chose to evict slum dwellers. It is rather loss of resilience (Kassahun 2001;Gizachew 2015). unfortunate that there are no forum deliberations for INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 275 dialogue between government officials and displa- balanced dialogue with the government without any cees. Government representatives always determine form of threat. Affected persons acknowledge wit- solutions unilaterally. After these meetings, people nessing the use of violence, both physical and verbal, usually only get information about when the dead- in cases of eviction and relocation. According to the line should be immediately evacuated from their results of the study, 56% of displacees acknowledged dwellings. According to the results of the study the existence of physical violence that occurred dur- only 16.5% displacees acknowledged that govern- ing the eviction and relocation process, and 47% ment representatives held a deliberative discussion displacees explained the existence of verbal violence. with affected persons during the relocation process. Whereas in UN Human Right Fact Sheet no 25/Rev 1 While the remaining 13.5% displacees stated that the on Forced Evictions it is clearly mentioned that in the government representatives had never held a process of relocation of funds or tau relocation balanced deliberation. This is in sharp contrast to should not use violence both physical and verbal the Declaration of the UNI General Assembly on the (United Nations 2014). point of Right of Development, which states: The human rights standard provides that evictions and relocation times cannot take place in adverse “Every human person and all people are entitled to weather and should also pay attention to the protec- participate, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social tion of property of displacees (LBH, 2017). In practice, cultural and political development, in which all human however, it was found that 30.8% displacees sug- right and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized” gested that evictions were carried out in severe (IDMC 2009). weather (rain or cloudy), while with property, 39% With this declaration, the importance of protection of displacees suggested that their property was human rights, in this context, individuals relocated damaged or lost during eviction and relocation. In due to developmental projects. Though it usually addition to human rights standards, in relocation of pointed out that the developmental projects are for affected people, the provision of legal aid is one form the benefit of the general public, the fact that the of protection that the government should provide for human rights of other vulnerable groups are being displacees, providing legal assistance intended to violated. There are four identifiable human rights and ensure that none of the rights of displacees are social justices to protect displacees from human violated during the relocation process. The presence rights violations: the right to participate, the right of legal guardianship also provides an opportunity to life and livelihood, the right to vulnerable people for citizens who want to demand compensation if and the right to be resettled (Gizachew 2015). citizens judge that the compensation provided by In this case, in some of the slum-dwelling areas the party who did the eviction is not appropriate. evicted like Pulo and Kampung Bukit Duri, if given As many as 89% of displacees do not get access to the right to be involved in the formulation of solu- legal aid, making people unaware of what they are tions. These bi-lateral deliberations are likely to result entitled to relocation so that displacees can only take in displacees willingly moving from the riverbanks to action with any decision of the relocating party. the newly relocated areas. The process of evictions Citizens who do not have access to legal aid from and relocation is even tinged with unrest in the the government are finally seeking access to legal aid military apparatus in the execution of evictions. In from various organizations, such as Legal Aid addition, TNI (Indonesia National Army) involvement Institutions, Non-Governmental Organizations, Social in evictions is considered to violate the rules. TNI Organizations, or even Political Parties. surpassed its authority for violating Law No. 34 of 2004 on the TNI stating that TNI’s involvement was Conclusion limited to the defense and security of Indonesia from the threats of other countries. In the process of relo- Urban development cannot be avoided from devel- cation affected person felt intimidated by the pre- oping countries like Indonesia, especially to encou- sence of apparatus TNI, POLRI (Indonesian National rage infrastructure development and address urban Police), and Municipal Police. The involvement of issues, some of the urban projects implemented in uniformed apparatus also prevents displacees from displacements in bigger meetings are mainly those conveying their aspirations, whereas citizens expect a with affected middle class economies. These 276 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN displacement activities also affect their livelihoods, new poverty with a higher degree of depth. This which in this sense is the risk of impoverishment. process of impoverishment occurs because the com- Post-eviction life that decreases the welfare of dis- munity has never been included in the formulation of placees is a form of impoverishment. Remote access the resettlement program itself. The Jakarta Provincial from markets, factories, offices, schools, and even Government’s resettlement program failed to restore other housing leads to a reduced livelihood of dis- livelihood displacees, particularly the distribution of placees. This is different from the initial land location adequate economic resources to enable citizens to that has been occupied for decades, which is con- build capabilities for improved welfare. sidered a strategic area that gives them many eco- DIDR has sociological, economical and psychologi- nomic opportunities. Factories, offices, markets, and cal influence on displacement relocations and resettle- residential areas are the driving forces of the econ- ment of slum dwellings and also on the other hand omy in the old locations that are the source of dis- raises questions about the distribution of benefits from placement productivity. If communities are excluded implementation of program development. Thus, and do not have access to live in areas with sufficient research is needed to understand the urban DIDR and economic support capacity, then the community’s find indicators of the consequences of the application opportunities to be visible in development activities of development. It is true that all compensation is such as employment and livelihood will be severely calculated and done in detail at the request of each limited. This condition does not bring the community individual; maybe the development program becomes to be productive and improve their quality of life. too expensive undertake, especially for a developing This is why the resettlement of government evictions country like Indonesia. However, this does not mean is even considered an impoverishment. that development can be used as an excuse not to pay The impact of resettlement from displacement on attention to the lives of people affected by this devel- the displacees to which this study is based on is a opment program. Referring to the results of this study, portrait of how the mechanisms take place. Although it is expected that the government will be wise in previously occupied areas have been stigmatized as formulating policies, which can provide benefits for slums and vulnerable to flood and disease disasters, development programs without impoverishing the displacees choose to make them not only places of people affected by the program. residence but also a source of livelihood for many years. For displacees who are the subject of this Disclosure statement research, all physical building facilities offered by Rusunawa do not make them comfortable. For displa- No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. cees, Rusunawa is not a solution, because it is not a property right. Displacees on the typical of this have Notes on contributors the opinion that the government is better to give Rusunami (public apartment units, with ownership Puput Ichwatus Sholihah has been doing Resettlement arrangement) so they can have a flats rather than Sciences research in Indonesia under National Research rent the flats. Most displacees (74%) said they would Center for Resettlement in Hohai University China. Apart of that, she had published several papers on finance, entrepre- prefer to live in the old area they consider more neurship, business and management. promising than the economic sector. That is why most of displacees (79%) do not have long-term Chen Shaojun is Professor in Public Administration School and her main research interests are social assessment of investment plans to live in Rusunawa, although they are not projects, sociology of resettlement and migration, population well prepared to live outside Rusunawa. From here it migration and mobility, research on population and sustainable can also be seen that the resettlement program pro- development. vided by the city government of DKI Jakarta is con- sidered ineffective. The government program that seeks to improve the city’s order and provide a more References decent life to the former residents of this slum dweller is nothing but a structural impoverishment. The Arimbi R 2015. Nelayan muara angke digusur tanpa kompen- offered resettlement program has also resulted in sasi rumah baru [Muara angke fishermen are evicted INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 277 without compensation for a new house]; [accessed 2017 Country Report Indonesia. 2012. Upgrading of slum and infor- Dec]. http://properti.kompas.com/read/2015/11/12/ mal settlements. Government of Indonesia for the 4th Asia 100000021/Nelayan.Muara.Angke.Digusur.Tanpa. Pacific Ministerial conference on housing and urban devel- Kompensasi.Rumah.Baru opment. Amman Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Bagheri M. September 2012. The challenge of slums: socio- Djaja M. 1963. Jakarta will build a massive housing. No.59. economic disparities. Int J Soc Sci Humanity. 2(5):410–414. Downing T. 2002. Avoiding new poverty: mining induced dis- Beegom BRK. 2014. Impoverishment risk and reality: the case of placement and resettlement. London: IIED and World ICTT project, kerala. East Anthropol. 67:1–2. Business Council for Sustainable Development. Bhan G. 2009. ‘This is no longer the city I once knew’: evictions, Downing T. 1996. Mitigating social impoverishment when people the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi. are involuntarily displaced. In: McDowell C, ed. understanding Environ Urban. 21(1):127–142. impoverishment: the consequences of development-induced Boedi H. 1999. Hukum agraria Indonesia: sejarah pembentukan displacement. Oxford: Berghahn Books; p. 33–47. undang-undang pokok agraria isi dan pelaksanaanya Downing TE, Garcia-Downing C. 2008. Routine and dissonant [Indonesian agrarian law: history of the establishment of cultures. In: Oliver-Smith A, Red.. Development & disposses- the basic agrarian law content and implementation]. sion: the crisis of forced displacement and resettlement. Jakarta: Djambatan. Santa Fe: SRA Press. p. 22–27. Boyce C, Neale P. 2006. Conducting in-depth interviews: a Elitha T 2015. Ahok tak jamin warga korban penggusuran di guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews Radjiman diberi rusun. [Ahok did not guarantee that the evic- for evaluation input. Pathfinder International. Washington tion victims at Radjiman were given a flat]; [accessed 2017 Nov DC. 16]. http://www.rmol.co/read/2015/08/06/212513/Ahok-Tak- Breetzke GD, Landman K, Cohn EGJ. 2014. Is it safer behind the Jamin-Warga-Korban-Penggusuran-di-Radjiman-Diberi-Rusun- gates? Crime and gated communities in South Africa. Feleke T. 1999. The impact of urban development on a peasant J Housing Built Environ. 29:123–139. community disposed bt the ayat real estate development Cernea M. 1996. Understanding and preventing impoverish- project in the vicinity of Addis Ababa. (Unpublished MA ment from displacement. In C. McDowell (Red.), thesis). Department of social anthropology, Addis Ababa Understanding impoverishment: the consequences of devel- University. opment induced displacement. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Gaber J. 1993. Reasserting the importance of qualitative meth- Cernea M. 1997. The risks and reconstruction model for reset- ods in planning. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 26. tling displacement populations. World Development. 25 Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.; p. 137–148. (10):1569–1587. Gass SM, Mackey A. 2013. Stimulated recall methodology in Cernea M. 2000a. Impoverishment or social justice? a model second language research. London:Routledge. for planning resettlement. In: Cernea M, Cernea M, Gizachew A. 2015. Refining the impoverishment risk and recon- McDowell C, Red.. risks and reconstruction: experiences of struction (IRR) model: a study of the model’s “Overlooked” resettlers and refugees. Vol. b. Washington DC: The World risks, evidences from the impacts of Tekeze Dam, Nort East Bank. p. 13–26. Ethiophia. J Dev Agric Econ. 9(4):66–79. Cernea M. 2000b. Risks, safeguards and reconstruction: a model Hoadley M 2004. Development-induced displacement and for population displacement and resettlement. In: Cernea M, resettlement–impoverishment or sustainable development? Cernea M, McDowell C, Red.. risks and reconstruction: Opgehaald van. http://www.csmi.co.za/l/papers/ experiences of resettlers and refugees. Vol. b. Washington Displacement_resettlement_feb04.pdf DC: The World Bank. p. 11–55. IDMC. 2009. Development-induced displacement, prepared by Cernea M 2004. Impoverishment risks, risk management, and internal displacement monitoring center. reconstruction: a model of population displacement and Johnston RJ, Gregory D, Pratt G, Watts M. 2000. The dictionary resettlement, keynote address, session on social aspects of of human geography. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers hydropower development United Nations symposium on Limited. hydropower and sustainable development; Beijing, China. Kassahun K. 2001. Relocation and dislocation of communities of Cernea M. 2006. Resettlement management: denying or con- communities by dam development: the case od Gilgel Gibe fronting risks. In H. M. Mathur (Red.), Managing Dam in Southwest Ethiopia. (Unpublised MA thesis). Addis Resettlement in India: approaches, issues, experiences. New Ababa University. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kirchherr J, Charles KJ. 2016. The social impacts of dams: A new Cernea M. 2008. Compensation and benefit sharing: Why reset- framework for scholarly analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev. tlement policies and practices must be reformed. In Water 60:99–114. science and engineering. 1(1): 89–120. Koestoer RH. 2001. Dimensions of spatial city: theory and case. Cernea M, Kanbur R. 2002. An exchange on the compensation Jakarta: UI Press. principle in resettlement. New York: Cornell University. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 Year 2011 on Clark D. 2003. Urban World/Global City. 2nd ed. London: Housing and Settlement Area Routledge. Meyer SE, Christopher J. 1989. Growing up in poor neighbor- Cohen R, Deng MF. 1998. Masses in flight: the global crisis of hoods: how much does it matter? Science. 243:1441–1445. internal displacement. Washington DC: Brookins institution Minister of Health RI. 2006. National guidelines for tuberculosis press. control. 2nd ed. Jakarta: Gerdunas TB; p. 4–6. 278 P. ICHWATUS SHOLIHAH AND C. SHAOJUN Morimoto R. 2013. Incorporating socio-environmental consid- Singh BN. 2016. Socio-economic conditions of slums dwellers: a erations into project assessment models using multi-criteria theoretical study. Kaav Int J Arts, Humanities Soc Sci. 3 analysis: A case study of Sri Lankan hydropower projects. (3):77–91. Energy Policy. 59:643–653. Smith O. 2009. Development and dispossession: the crisis of Moser C.O. 1998. Theassetvulnerability framework: reassessing development forced displacement and resettlement. Oliver- urban poverty reduction strategies. World Development. 1 Smith (Red.). School for Advanced Research (SAR) Press and (26):1-19. James Currey: Santa Fe and London. Nachmias D, Nachmias CF. 1992. Research methods in the Sosromatmojo S. 1981. From rimba raya to Jakarta Raya: an social sciences. Guildford and King’s Lynn: Biddles LTD. Autobiography. Jakarta: Gunung Agung. Oliver Smith. 2009. Development and dispossession: the crisis Subasinghe W. 2015. Quality of life study on slum dwellers of development forced displacement and resettlement. (with special reference to Sri Lanka). Int J Scientific Res Santa Fe and London: School for advanced research (SAR) Innovative Technol. 2(3):36–65. Press and James Currey. Sufaira C. 2013. Socio economic conditions of urban slum Pandawangi R, Doughlass M. 2015. Water, water everywhere: dwellers in Kannur Municipality. IOSR J Humanities Soc Sci. toward participatory solutions to chronic urban flooding in 10(5):12–24. Jakarta. Pac Aff. 88(3):517–550. UN-HABITAT. 2002. Expert group meeting on slum indicators: Patel S, Madhyan R. 2014. Impoverishment assessment of slum secure tenure, slums and global sample of cities. Nairobi: dwellers after off-site and on site resettlement: a case of UN-HABITAT. Indore. Commonw J Local Governance. 104–127. UN-HABITAT. 2006. Slums: some definitions. Nairobi: UN- Patel S, Mandhyan R 2013. Impoverishment assessment of slum HABITAT. dwellers after in situ and off-site relocations: a case of UN–HABITAT. 2003. Guide to monitoring target 11: improv- Indore. N-AERUS XIV; Enschede. ing the lives of 100 million slum dwellers: progress Patel S, Sliuzas R, Mathur N, Miscione G. 2012. Impoverishment towards the millennium development goals. Nairobi: UN- risks in urban development induced displacements and HABITAT. resettlements in Ahmedabad.Environment & Urbanization United Nations. 2007. Basic principles and guidelines on devel- 27(1):231–256. doi: 10.1177/0956247815569128 opment base evictions and displacement. Annex 1 of the Pebrianto S, Isbandi RA. 2017. Relokasi berdampak terhadap kese- report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a jahteraan dari sisi kondisi ekonomi warga Kampung Pulo. component of the right to an adequate standard of living A/ [Relocation Impacts on Welfare of Residents of Kampung HRC/4/18 Pulo]. Jurnal Ilmu Kesejahteraan Sosial. 12 (2):124–138. United Nations. 2014. Forced evictions fact sheet no. 25/rev. 1. Puti L, Dinda S, Nadia K, Yustina RM. 2015. Adolescent behavior New York and Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Office in slum area. Jakarta:Trisakti University. of the High Commissioner. Ratu A 2011. Permukiman Kumuh di Bantaran Ciliwung. Ursula F 2017. Angka Penggusuran di Jakarta Meningkat pada [Slums in the Ciliwung River] [master’s thesis]. Universitas 2016.[Eviction Numbers in Jakarta Increased in 2016]; Indonesia. [accessed 2018 Jan 20]. https://www.rappler.com/indone Sajjad H. 2014. Living standards and health problems of lesser sia/berita/166890-data-lbh-penggusuran-paksa-jakarta fortunate slum dwellers: evidence from an Indian city. Int J Van Voorst RS 2011. Get Ready for the Flood! Risk-handling Styles Environ Prot Policy. 2(2):54–63. in Jakarta, Indonesia [Dissertation]. University of Amsterdam. Sampson RJ, Jeffrey M, Felton E. 1999. Beyond social capital: www.uva.nl/binaries/content/. . ./summary-voorst-van.pdf spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. Am Sociol Van Voorst RS, Pandawangi R 2015. Floods and forced evictions Rev. 64:633–660. in Jakarta; [accessed 2018 Feb 2]. http://www.newmandala. Seregeldin I. 2006. Involuntary resettlement in world bank org/floods-and-forced-evictions-in-jakarta/ financed projects: reducing impoverishment risks for the Vera WS, Handika F, Kristian F. 2017. Politik hukum rusunawa affected people. In H.M. Mathur (Red.), Managing dalam penggusuran paksa warga bukit duri studi kasus Resettlement in India: Approaches, Issues, Experiences. rusunawa Rawabebek [Legal politics of rusunawa in forced New Delhi: Oxford University Press. eviction of Bukit Duri residents case study of Rawabebek Scudder T. 1997. Social imoacts of large dams. In Dorcet, T. rusunawa]. Jakarta: Yayasan Ciliwung Merdeka. (Ed.), Large dams; learning from the past. IUCN. Gland. WHO (World Health Organization). 2018. Indonesia tuberculosis Switzerland. profile; [accessed 2018 Jul 28]. https://extranet.who.int/sree/ Shah N 2012. Characterizing slums and slum-dwellers: explor- Reports?op=Replet&name=/WHO_HQ_Reports/G2/PROD/ ing household-level Indonesia data. Department of EXT/TBCountryProfile&ISO2=ID&outtype=pdf Economics University of California, Irvine; [accessed 2018 World Bank. 1994. Resettlement and development 1989–1993. Jan 22]. http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~nilopas/slums_Shah.pdf Washington: The World Bank. Singer J, Watanabe T. 2014. Reducing reservoir impact and Wu Z, Margaret JP, Weihong Z, Shuzhou L, Neena LC. 2016. improving outcomes for dam-forced resettlement: experi- Relocation and social support among older adults in rural ences in Central Vietnam. Lakes Reservoirs. 19(3):225–235. China. J Gerontol. 71(6):1108–1119.

Journal

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development – Taylor & Francis

Published: Sep 2, 2018

Keywords: DIDR; impoverishment; IRR; resettlement; slums

There are no references for this article.