‘Desirable’ and ‘Undesirable’ Urban Imaginaries
Surabaya, the second-largest city in Indonesia, plays a significant role in the regional and national level since it became the economic and industrial hub of East Java. Hence, the municipal government has an agenda to beautify the city to attract more investment to transform Surabaya as an international trade centre (Taylor, 2015). This vision has made the urban poor along the riverside were under the threat of eviction and possibly detached them from their livelihoods which rely on proximity to the city centre. In responding to this top-down development, an alternative approach was made by the informal settlement organisation, namely Paguyuban Warga Strenkali Surabaya (PWS or Riverside Community Organization). Their action embraces the feature of insurgent planning (Miraftab, 2009) that initiates collaborative actions planning to attain more socially just living conditions in the city. PWS works to re-imagine and contribute to urban production that predominantly exercised merely for the notion of ‘world-class city’. Hence, the actions need to be strategic to attain transformative changes towards social justice, amid the unequal power relations of decision-making processes.
Using the strategic action planning framework (Levy, 2007), this paper aims to outline the lesson learned from the grassroots-led movement that contributes towards social justice for their own neighbourhood and citywide scale. Taking the case of the PWS actions, this paper highlights that while it is possible for community movement of informal settlement in Surabaya to build synergy with external actors, the initiative has some critical challenges in scaling up and opposed a long term solution. The hypothesis put forward is that community-led action planning creates a platform for negotiation and achieve periodical consensus with the government. Nonetheless, its achievement only lasts for a short term while they continue to struggle and limbo depends on political situations.
Become Strategic Towards Social Justice
The marginalisation of urban poor in the city is tangible and reflects the social injustice situated in the globalisation that promotes the ‘world-class city’ (McFarlane, 2012). Social justice is the condition of just distribution of resources (Harvey, 1973), recognition without domination and oppression (Young, 1990), and parity participatory (Fraser, 1996). These key elements define the material distribution situated in the institutional arrangement where political difference and unequal power relations exist. The migrant urban poor tend to settle on the riverbank because they cannot purchase the private land (Taylor, 2015). Without any security of tenure, the area becomes an enclave of poverty with lack of public services. In Indonesia, the approach of planning for informal settlement tends to amplify their precarious conditions. The government uses a rational comprehensive planning approach and produces spatial plans to use it as a justification for eviction without any participation from the impacted communities. They also blamed the riverbank communities for the flooding and the river pollution. The condition demonstrates how the domination and oppression of bureaucracy have overlooked the rights of informal settlement dwellers to live in the city, while the communities struggle for just material distribution, recognition, and the control and access to make decisions for their own development. The condition reflects on Ananya Roy (2009) perspective of informality that does not “lie beyond planning; rather it is planning that inscribes the informal by designating some activities as authorised and others as unauthorised, by demolishing slums while granting legal status to equally illegal suburban developments.” (2009 p.10). To pursue a more social just condition, the action planning from the communities must accomplish the nature of ‘strategic’ to address the conflicting interest in the urban built environment and its underlying political challenge to mobilise collective action (Healey, 2009).
Many academics have explored the discussion of collaborative strategic planning in the urban context, including Levy (2007), Safier (2002), and Healey (2009). These works of literature have led the direction to how planning can contribute to social change and evolve to more socially just processes through strategic collective action planning. This paper draws on Levy (2007) further examination of three criteria to assess whether a grassroots-led action planning to claims their place in the city is strategic:
- Reinforcing synergy to make a communicative space where the communities and other stakeholders can reconcile the different perspectives and goals to mobilise (Healey, 2006). The synergy should be built among the community level and informal settlements in the city to tie a strong relationship so they have a shared common understanding of their problems and interests. The action planning requires opportunities, resources, and identities that are rooted in local spatial contexts (Padawangi, 2014) to ensure the communities mobilisation in active participation. The partnership among informal sectors allows sharing ‘best practices’ and knowledge (Brosnan and Cheyne, 2010). Besides, synergy with external actors such as NGO, academics, and the government itself is imperative to build periodic consensus in diverse conflicting interests.
- Creating a ‘multiplier effect’ and scaling up for project scale and citywide level to change the material and institutional change for improving their living conditions and retrieving recognition for their position in the planning of their own neighbourhood.
- Expanding the ‘room for manoeuvre’ or finding the ‘cracks’ of the power relation thus can make an institutional change that underlying the social injustice (Healey, 1997). She emphasises that ‘structuring power relations are continually re-negotiated and reformed. It creates the possibilities that the “way things are” could be transformed into something different’ (Ibid, p.58). In the context of this case, the ‘room for manoeuvre’ to promote the social change is by creating the space for mobilisation and participation in the plan, where negotiation among actors can happen (Safier, 2002).
From the lens of three criteria of strategic planning, the next section analyses the actions of PWS in fighting for their home along the riverbanks and try to challenge their relationship with several levels of government in Indonesia for more socially just conditions.
The Case of Paguyuban Warga Strenkali (PWS), Surabaya
Over the last 20 years, many migrant informal workers in Surabaya decided to inhabit the banks of Wonokromo River or Strenkali (Setiawan, 2010). The regulation of riverbanks management in Indonesia falls into overlapping authority which makes the responsibility on that area unclear (Taylor, 2015). In 2002, the municipal government of Surabaya announced an eviction plan in Bratang, one of the kampungs (urban neighbourhood) along Strenkali. The government made flooding in Surabaya as justification for clearing the riverside and blamed informal settlements as the cause of the flood and river pollution (Padawangi, 2015). The community displacement and priority of beautification development reflect the landscape of decision-making power in the urban production of Surabaya.
In response, the community of nine kampungs along Strenkali organised themselves to establish PWS (Paguyuban Warga Strenkali). PWS has a vision to empower the communities, advocate for their rights to stay and to participate in the development planning. Their initiatives include the process of negotiation and resistance that reflects on community-led development plan, communities learning and social cohesion building. Most of the members are low income neighbourhoods with around 3,000 families on the riverbank of Surabaya and Wonokromo River with precarious jobs like street vendors, scavengers, and domestic workers (Some et al, 2009). The first ‘fight’ they had was in 2002, a negotiation with the Minister of Public Works supported by Uplink Surabaya, a national network of 14 secretariats across Indonesia by the Urban Poor Consortium (UPC). Then, the minister agreed to ask the local government to stop the eviction plan. He established a team consisting of community and government to prepare an alternative development plan. However, the local government persisted in demolishing the houses with their plan. The case documented the efforts of PWS to challenge the status quo through their collective actions. The next section analyses the work of PWS in strengthening their community, negotiating for their rights, and networking through the lens of strategic action planning.
Evaluating the strategic action planning in PWS
PWS has built the synergy in two layers, internally within the members along the riverside and externally with NGOs, academics, and press media. They have the vision to claim their rights for their home and the basic services as their collective intents. This vision has mobilised the communities to re-imagine their place and made them aware of their problems and needs. PWS build their synergy through several planned and unplanned activities such as creating a savings group and conducting weekly cleaning. Each neighbourhood in PWS has a savings group mainly done by women. Each day, one household saves around US$0.11–0.50 initially to fulfil their daily needs. In 2005, the communities expanded their savings programme for housing renovations and to support their livelihoods in a short-term loans mechanism. The profit from these activities is distributed for the members once a year. This savings group has been a key supporter for improving their life in the kampung and become a foundation for their social cohesion in helping each other (Kusworo, 2009). Besides the monthly organisation meeting, the woman holds a weekly prayer for Muslim to keep in touch that leads to a stronger sense of unity and become a platform for them to discuss relevant developments for their communities (Ibid.). The organising process and partnership have become a platform for nine kampungs to share knowledge and learn from each other practices in improving their neighbourhood and livelihoods (Some et al., 2009). The organisation of collective intents and actions have mobilised PWS to improve their living conditions with the value of mutual assistance and actively participate in the development of their own neighbourhoods.
On another layer of synergy, PWS has grown its network with NGOs, national universities, and press media. The universities provide technical assistance and judicial guidance while NGOs support the negotiation process. PWS started a commission for a study of Surabaya River with Ecoton, an environmental NGO and the University of Gajah Mada. From this process, it is revealed that most of the river water pollution came from factories in the form of chemical contamination and solid wastes (Some et al., 2009). The study is the opposite fact to what the government has framed poor urban communities which are blamed for flooding and environment degradation. The study was then published through mass media and distributed to the government and provincial parliament. They also gain the public trust by winning a citywide Green and Clean Village competition in Surabaya. The success has motivated others kampung to maintain their environment and inspired other communities that they can fight for recognition from this moment. This action demonstrates that synergy enables informal dwellers to participate in the co-production of knowledge and development. Thus, the result strategically informs the decision-maker and shifts the public perspective towards informal settlement.
Besides improving the community upgrading, these collective actions also have shifted the political action made by the local government, which enters the criteria of creating a ‘multiplier effect’ in urban policy scale. Their community upgrading and networking have helped to shift the public’s perspective in order to alter government intervention towards the communities. PWS established a technical study and proposed an alternative plan with Uplink and the universities. They offer 3–5 metres setbacks from the river adding a space for inspection road, communal septic tank, and trees instead of 15 metres planned by the local governments (Laurens, 2012). However, in this process, it is challenging to build the synergy with the local government since the network of PWS works separately where the government has its own technical team. The conditions made the negotiation process face some difficulties since both of the actors have a different perspective and have not made a platform to reach a periodic consensus. It took four years to negotiate for the communities’ plan to be partially adapted (Taylor, 2015). Nonetheless, the process of communities-led development plan and the negotiation have enabled an arena for diverse knowledge in the cities to reproduce the built environment where the local communities have their perspective of spaces and contest the government’s rationality (Rydin, 2007). Not only were they able to attain material improvement in housing and sanitation infrastructure, but they also received recognition of their way to live and participate in the negotiation process for the development (Carrasco and Dangol, 2019).
The synergy among actors and community mobilisation has influenced the process of the negotiation. It helps to shift or extend the ‘room for manoeuvre’. The work of PWS has been succeeded to convince the provincial parliament. They admit that this settlement is a crucial element of the city where the communities are connected. When it is demolished, it will bring difficult social and political problems. From this process, PWS has changed the approach of the government to provide in situ improvement for their neighbourhood. On October 7, 2007, the East Java Provincial Parliament established a participatory and pro-poor regulation concerning the arrangement of Surabaya Strenkali Settlements, the essence of this law is protected citizens who remain at Strenkali with upgrading as a requirement (Kusworo, 2009). Their strategic action has demonstrated that it extended the institutional reforms (Safier, 2002).
However, building a sustainable synergy with the government was challenging. Taylor (2015) examined in the particular context of Indonesia institutional arrangements on riverbanks that “.. part of the problem in dealing with this area is that the riverbanks of Surabaya fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial water department, although they are managed by the city government. This is one example of murky law in the decentralisation process that has caused more problems than it has solved. As a result, it is unclear which government is technically responsible for the area.” (Taylor, 2015 p.629). Thus, the movement was situated under the complicated overlapping authorities where one regulation from a certain level would not guarantee to make a transformative change. Despite the agreement and new regulation framework, in 2009, the local government still sent eviction notice for the communities.
In addition, the actions faced a limitation in scaling up to a broader project because they rely on the funds from saving groups. There was no process of negotiation in accessing the public budgeting or private sector channelling. Hence, the improvement remains on a neighbourhood scale with small projects such as pavement road, communal septic tank, and trees planting. The case documents the community’s struggle negotiating with the government and offers a precautionary example of how the synergy might reiterate depends on the political dynamics (Some et. al., 2009; Taylor, 2015)
Conclusion
The case has shown that grassroots-led actions can build a space for more inclusive development that engages the community itself and diverse actors. Their movement has created a space for negotiation between the communities and government for a periodic consensus to provide alternatives other than eviction. Their co-production actions which reflect synergy with NGOs and universities have produced a platform for public learning from the communities to the external actors and vice versa. This also led to the success of the setback negotiation for the riverbank development where the space remained sufficient for inspection of roads, septic tanks, and trees. The process of community-based development, such as renovating the house and cleaning the neighbourhood environment, has changed the current relationship between the communities and the government. Thus, shifting the way of government intervention to informal settlements. They also demonstrate that the communities can plan and propose alternative solutions for their own development (Some et al., 2009).
In conclusion, the synergy building made by PWS has become a key factor for social change towards social justice. It led to a certain degree of multiplier effect in changing the urban policy, but not necessarily for their ‘room for manoeuvre’. The grassroots-led actions in Surabaya, however, should face complex government authorities that lie on the riverbank and need to expand the negotiation on financing accessibility. The condition prevents the actions from scaling up and lasts for the long term. Nonetheless, PWS result is unprecedented achievement to challenge the status quo that has been in a long time dominated and oppressed the institution of informal dwellers in Indonesia. Hence, the actions have bring them to more socially just conditions.
References
Brosnan, B., & Cheyne, C. (2010). Stronger communities? Changing prospects for community-led strategic planning in New Zealand. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, 22–44.
Carrasco, S., & Dangol, N. (2019). Citizen-government negotiation: cases of in riverside informal settlements at flood risk. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 38, 101195.
Fraser, N. (1996). Social justice in the age of identity politics: redistribution, recognition and participation — The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. [Online] Available at: https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/lecture-library.php#f
Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. University of Georgia Press. Retrieved January 11, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46nm9v
Healey, P. et al (1997) Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in Europe London: UCL Press
Healey, P. (2007). The collaborative planning’project in an institutionalist and relational perspective: A note. Critical Policy Analysis, 1(1), 123–130.
Healey, P. (2009). In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. Planning theory & practice, 10(4), 439–457.
Kusworo, Y., 2009. Stren Kali, Surabaya: Contoh Untuk Jakarta. [online] Rujak. Available at: <https://rujak.org/sunan-jogokali-gotong-royong-hijaukan-kampung/> [Accessed 1 May 2020].
Laurens, J. M. (2012). Changing behavior and environment in a community-based program of the riverside community. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 372–382.
Levy, C. (2007). Defining collective strategic action led by civil society organisations: The case of CLIFF, India. In 8th N-AERUS Conference, September 6th-8th 2007 (pp. 1–29).
McFarlane, C. (2012). Rethinking informality: Politics, crisis, and the city. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(1), 89–108.
Miraftab, F. (2009). Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the global south. Planning Theory, 8(1), 32–50.
Padawangi, R. (2014). Reform, resistance and empowerment: constructing the public city from the grassroots in Jakarta, Indonesia. International Development Planning Review, 36(1), 33–50.
Padawangi, R., & Douglass, M. (2015). Water, water everywhere: Toward participatory solutions to chronic urban flooding in Jakarta. Pacific Affairs, 88(3), 517–550.
Roy, A. (2009). Strangely familiar: Planning and the worlds of insurgence and informality. Planning Theory, 8(1), 7–11.
Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning theory, 6(1), 52–68.
Safier, M. (2002). On estimating ‘room for manoeuvre’. City, 6(1), 117–132.
Setiawan, R. P. (2010, October). Penggusuran Permukiman Liar di Stren Kali Jagir: Sebuah Tinjauan dari Sisi Hukum dan Humanisme. In Seminar Nasional Perumahan Permukiman Dalam Pembangunan Kota (Vol. 1, pp. 0–12).
Some, W., Hafidz, W., & Sauter, G. (2009). Renovation not relocation: the work of Paguyuban Warga Strenkali (PWS) in Indonesia. Environment and urbanization, 21(2), 463–475.
Taylor, J. (2015). A tale of two cities: comparing alternative approaches to reducing the vulnerability of riverbank communities in two Indonesian cities. Environment and Urbanization, 27(2), 621–636.
Young, Iris Marion, (1990) Justice and the politics of difference, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press