Annex - Pro People City Development SOLO

Annex

.
SETTING THE EXAMPLE

Solo City’s urban development is a testament
about the importance of forward‐looking
Issues within Solo’s
Development Plan are:
leadership. The Mayor in power, Joko Widodo,
strongly believes in ‘Pro‐People City
• Economic improvement and Development’, and encourages community
investment participation in the planning and implementation
• Street‐vendor relocation and
of Solo BERSERI Tanpa Korupsi’ (Solo Bersih Sehat
improvement of slum areas
• Development of traditional
Rapi dan Indah – Solo as a Clean, Healthy, Tidy
markets and Beautiful City without Corruption) since 2005.
• Quality education for all Solo’s pro‐people approach in city development is
levels of society reflected in the way the municipality address
• Quality health services
issues like informal sector, local economy, and
• Development of
infrastructure
slum settlements. The programs highlighted in
• Achieving municipal this articles are: (a) the street vendor
governance dedicated management; (b) slum and substandard house
towards professional and upgrading; (c) Riverbank Settlement Relocation
quality public services
and Urban Forest; and (d) Development and
Revitalization of Traditional Market; and e) Solo
Pilot Mapping Project. Through these programs,
the municipality is maintaining inclusive community’s participation, forwarding
people’s rights and needs, whilst at the same time, making city liveable and
supporting good governance.

Pro‐People City Development – SOLO ‐ Annex | 1

STREET VENDORS MANAGEMENT
What is the background of this program?
Like most cities in Indonesia, informal sectors in Solo have increased in the
aftermath of 1997’s monetary crisis. By 2006, there were estimated 5,817 street
vendors in Solo, who most of them originated from the surrounding area and
provinces, occupying sidewalks and public spaces. The amount of vendors were
so massive that it disrupted traffic and was considered an eyesore to the city’s
order, especially since the waste of their activities were dumped carelessly.

Past efforts to relocate the street vendors had always failed and often ended
with conflicts between the local government and the street vendors. Yet, the
newly elected Mayor, at that time, adopted a personal approach in managing
the street vendors, viewing the sector as an asset for the city’s local economic
development.
How was the funding arrangement?
The budget for this initiative was shared between the local annual budget
(Anggaran Pemerintah untuk Belanja Daerah/APBD) and self‐help funds from
the street vendors. The municipality allocated around IDR 9 billion (1 USD = ±Rp.
9,000) to invest in the new market’s construction. The new market place covers
more than 11,950 square meters and able to accommodate up to more than one
thousand kiosks. This budget was also used to:
• Social and institutional preparation, construction of relocation sites,
stalls, carts and tents.
• Relocation costs and free license fee
• Research and training
• Start‐up/ignition capital for street vendors.
• Promotion of the new marketplace

What are the steps in this program?
Step One. The Preparation Stage:

2 | Annex ‐SOLO ‐ Pro‐People City Development

• Collecting data of street
vendors’ profiles (citizenship,
What are the strategies applied in
style of trades, type and size of
this program?
stalls and so forth) by
Four strategies adopted in the program
researches from a local
were:
university. The three‐month
a) building better communication
research was conducted to get
amongst stakeholders,
the in‐depth information about b) creating space for streets vendor
street vendors’ behaviour and by relocation, umbrella‐tents and
ability; what was the best carts or in modified shelters,
design for the relocation place c) providing legal status to the street
vendors’ business and
and what training should be
d) conducting capacity building for
given for them. street vendors on managerial and
• Conducting official meetings enterpreneurial skills.
with local parliament to meet
the suitable budget and
political support, and formulation of objectives and strategies. The local
parliament was also involved to give suggestion on the social investment
strategy and two‐way consultative approach to minimize the possibility
of social conflict
• Meetings with relevant stakeholders, which included the parking
officers, street vendor association, city planning institutions, and public
markets authority in which intensively discussed the planning, designing,
budgeting, and coordinating of the initiatives.

Step two. Building Better Communication Stage:
To ensure better communication amongst stakeholder, the Mayor encouraged
an inclusive approach in policy formulation by ensuring that every relevant
stakeholder were involved. To do this, below are the three strategies:
• Increasing public consultation at each stage of development
• Involving NGOs in the mediation process and in empowering
communities which are: Consortium for Monitoring and Empowerment
of Public Institutions (Konsorsium Monitoring danPemberdayaan Institusi
Publik – KOMPIP) and Solidary of Marginal Societies in Surakarta
(Solidaritas Masyarakat Pinggiran Surakarta – SOMPIS) to assist in the
empowerment of street vendors as community facilitator
• Facilitating discussions with local communities at the official residence
of the mayor, Loji Gandrung, which was considered as a sacred place


amongst Solo community due to its prominent guests, establishing the
residence as a centre for communication and information. On many
occasions, the mayor also visited the street vendors and invited their
leaders and representatives the association or paguyuban for lunch and
dinner. The mayor listened to the street vendors’ concerns and was
willing to negotiate. After more than 50 meetings, a Memorandum of
Understanding was signed between the Solo Municipality, Association of
Monjari Traders, and SOMPIS. The Municipality agreed to provide
incentives such as free kiosks, working capital, free trading licenses and
grace period of trade tax for first six months. To maintain marketability, a
weekend festival market will be held at the new market place.

Step Three. Market Construction and Social Development of the Human
Resources:
Market construction: The design of the new marketplace was a contribution of a
local university (Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta). The market place area
covered 11,950 m2 and able to accommodate 1,018 kiosks, with the total cost
IDR 9 billion (approx. USD 1 Million). b) social development of the human
resources: To ensure sustainability of the program, activities within this program
were aimed to improve the well‐being of the street vendors. Managerial and
entrepreneurial trainings were given, discussions were held, and supporting
infrastructure were provided, including promotion to attract buyers.

Step Four. Rellocation
The relocation process adhered to a traditional relocation procession (referred
to as Kirab), with 989 traditional rice offerings and a parade of horse carts with
city government leaders. The procession reflected that the movement was based
on the street vendors’ consent and how municipality stood by its citizens.

Step Five. Ensuring Sustainability (and exit strategy):
To ensure sustainability, the street vendors association was merged into the
Masyarakat Mandiri Cooperative to be routinely trained and followed to
capacity building programs provided on business and market management.
During the first three months, no fees were incurred on the traders, thus
allowing the traders a period of financial relief thus able to adapt in the new
environment better. In addition, capacity building trainings were also provided
for the traders in the area of financial management by local NGOs.


What are the impacts?
There are several impacts in this program. First, is the newly‐built trust and
acceptance of citizens, in particular the informal sector, towards municipality
government. The government’s inclusive approach has provided better access to
all institutions and the opportunity to negotiate decisions concerning the
livelihood of the informal sector.

Second, increased livelihoods of the street vendors. The new market place is
now a major trade area for automotive, motorcycles, electronics, cell phones and
second‐hand goods and provided more than one thousand traders with secure
tenure, since they all have licenses to trade (SIUP) and occupation permits (SIP).
Informal sectors in the city now have a better place to work, not only at the
Semanggi Market Place (where the automotive vendors have been able to
increase their revenue by 200%‐ 400%), but also at the clusters provided along
major streets and the Solo City Walk. The new vendor carts are more attractive
and able to create a unique traditional atmosphere for citizens and tourists. The
marketplace has also provided job opportunities to the former parking
attendants at Monjari and street hustlers.

Third, increased city’s revenue to be allocated for public facility. The city has
been able to increase revenue from street vendors and have been able to gain
back the Monjari urban park (where the street vendors previously hawked). New
trees were planted, playing facility for children were built and community now
have another open green‐space.

Fourth, established a sustainable approach in addressing informal sectors. To
maintain inclusive community participation in city development, the municipality
continues its capacity building program and improving the management of
market operation and had received funding from the State Ministry of
Cooperatives (Rp. 5 Billion) to support the empowerment of cooperatives, in
which part of the budget was allocated to support the market operation of
Klithikan Notoharjo Market.

Fifth, open possibility for replication in other cities. The Street Vendor
Relocation Program and Development and Revitalization of Traditional Markets in
Solo are good examples of best practice in leadership and participation in city
development and had been documented in various articles nationwide and local


newspapers, government newsletters and bulletins, as well documentation in
VCDs. The Mayor also had been invited to speak in various seminars, national
and international, having many people inspired with his leadership and want to
work closely with the local communities of Solo. The two programs are proofs
that relocation can done without violence and with support of the stakeholders.
What makes this program sustainable?
There are several reasons to call this initiative as a sustainable project:
• It applies social investment principle− the parliament, local government
and community learnt on the logic of and the return of investment
through higher tax/levy. This is a testament that the government
intervention is not always about ‘cost’ but could also be about
‘investment’ that yields in return of higher tax income and increase urban
economic activities.
• Good communication requires participatory involvement− consultative
and participatory approach will create a more sustainable development
in social, politics and economy.
• Demand will look for supply−the former trading behaviour of the street
vendor was usually to approach consumers. After the relocation, the
consumer will come to them in the new market place or cluster.
• Cost recovery −After three months, the street vendors were able to pay
tax and became obedient taxpayers, which contribute to the increase of
local revenue.
• Trickle down benefit effects− in the relocation site, new economic
activities were generated, such as communities surrounding markets
were employed in performing kiosks, as parking operators, market
operation and management, etc.
• Obedience to the Laws/Regulations− as of mid 2007, the municipality
has able to integrate most of the informal sector (around 51%) into their
development plan. This initiative was guided by the regulation of the city,
such as city mayor decrees to legitimate the investment and make the
parliament approved the budget, officially acknowledging informal sector
within the city development plan.
• Traditional Javanese culture and local values were honoured and
incorporated throughout the program, such as informal approaches with
community and local religious leaders, traditional discussion groups and
organizations (Pagayuban) and grouping at the new relocation area,


traditional Javanese procession (kirab) and rice offerings (tumpeng), the
design of vendor carts, etc

RIVERBANK SETTLEMENT RELOCATION & URBAN FOREST
Heavy rain at the end of 2007 resulted in floodings in Solo, with water level
reaching up to two metres high. Kelurahan Semanggi and Pucang Sawit were
areas that most severely hit, since they were located by the riverbanks of
Bengawan Solo. Their community had been facing disaster regularly yet unable to
relocate due to lack of funds and alternative sites. In response to this, the
municipality viewed that the area is best to converted into urban forest.
What is the objectives of this program?
The objectives of the program are first, to relocate the most affected
community due to the annual flood disaster into a more safer locations; second,
to gradually convert the riverbank area—especially the settlement in the most
severe locations —into urban forest.
The Municipality of Solo had asked the local legislative (Dewan Perwakilan
Rakyat Daerah/DPRD) to allocate budget for the relocation program. For the
first pilot project of urban forest (200 meters length and five to thirty meters
wide) in the riverbank, the Municipality of Solo invested approximately Rp.296
million into this programme from its own local budget.

What are the strategies applied?
Since community participation is a key element of such program, involvement
of community in every steps of the program is pivotal. This strategy prevents
possibilities of social conflicts due to community’s resistances as their aspirations
were heard and adhered to in the formulation of program.


What are the steps of this program?
Here are the important steps in the programme:
• Conducting community dialogue to gain better understanding of the
importance of relocation for both their lives as well as for the city.;
• Formulating follow‐up plan. After the negotiation process completed,
the municipality started formulating follow‐up plan, which includes
inventorizing available lands for relocation and all necessary preparations
for housing construction in the new locations. The alternative sites were
Solo Elok and Ngemplak Sutan in Kelurahan Mojongsono. The
municipality also provides affordable flats in Semanggi area.
• Undertaking Pilot Project for Urban Forest. After collecting inputs and
references from experts in the field as well as relevant agencies, the
municipality—through Badan Lingkungan Hidup Kota Surakarta or
Environment Agency of Surakarta City—formulated the DED (Detailed
Engineering Design) for the pilot project of urban forest in 2009 and will
kickstart in the current year.

What are the impacts?
The newly relocated housing settlements were free from flood risks, and
establishing Bengawan Solo riverbanks as a sustainable urban landscape which
allows integration of ecosystem function with social dynamics (public space).

SLUM & SUB‐STANDARD HOUSE UPGRADING
The municipality has a vision that by 2015 the city will be slum free and
implement 3I(s) concept (institution, infrastructure, and intervention). To
institutionalize the vision, since 2006 the municipality implemented a program
referred to as slum and substandard house upgrading or Rumah Tidak Layak Huni
(RTLH) under its division for community & women empowerment, children
protection and family planning (BAPERMAS) to target 6,612 substandard houses
in the city.


The program aims to prioritize cluster‐based poor communities living in slum
areas by improving the area’s basic infrastructure and stimulating substandard
house owners to invest in their home improvement. It also aimed to use this
program as an effective instrument not only to manage the city planning and
unite slum settlements as part of city development plan but also to empower the
community to manage itself out of poverty and slum condition
The municipality provides grants to improve the area’s basic infrastructure
(such as access to clean water and sanitation, paving road, legal electricity
connection, streetlights, and green community parks) and to stimulate
substandard house owners to invest in their home improvement. The grant is
USD 225 for each eligible substandard house and disbursed through community
action plan (CAP) ‐ prepared by community working group (POKJA) via bank
transfer to the group to enact accountability of the grants and to reduce the
potential of misappropriation of the Funds by government officers on the
frontlines.

The program also attracts corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds from a
consortium of local banks organized by Bank Indonesia (Indonesia Central Bank
Solo branch) and local utility companies. These funds focus on financing the
construction of community meeting facilities and sanitation infrastructures. By
mid‐June 2010, this city‐wide program has served 75.2% of the total 6,612
substandard houses.

What are the strategies applied?
The municipality employed the 3I(s) concept (institution, infrastructure, and
intervention) which emphasis those three elements and implemented them
throughout the whole process of the programme. This concept and its
operations manual are supported by City Mayor’s decree to ensure that the grant
disbursement is legitimate and the geographical and cluster intervention is
prioritized to the poorest.
Here are some important steps that had been taken to carry out the programme:


• Establishment of POKJA or community working group and facilitates the
Community Action Plan (CAP). The City actively facilitates the
formulation process of CAP and improves the capacity of POKJA to
manage the program effectively. Through CAP, the most needing among
the community members is ensured to get maximum supports from the
city and the POKJA.
• Collaboration and partnership with relevant stakeholders. Whenever
possible, the Municipality get together with the local branch of National
Land Authority facilitates the community to secure their land tenure and
to exercise land consolidation. Ketelan and Stabelan areas are the case in
point. The program also attracts corporate social responsibility (CSR)
funds from a consortium of local banks organized by Bank Indonesia
(Indonesia Central Bank Solo branch) and local utility companies;
• Provision of relevant trainings. To complement the substandard house
upgrading program, the Municipality also offers to the community
members free of charge training program on livelihood improvement and
job‐search skill for productive youngsters and women
• Establishing BLUD to increase accessibi9lity to local financial
institutions. The Municipality establishes a new working unit called
Public Service Agency for Decent Housing (Badan Layanan Umum Daerah
Griya Layak Huni‐ BLUD GLH) that functions to provide public services to
assist the community living in slum areas in preparing business plan,
designing affordable financing schemes, and opening access to local
banks through credit enhancement facility. The BLUD is run by recruited
professionals and managed its financial matters independently using the
latest management best practices;
• Providing necessary technical assistance and credit enhancement.
BLUD is providing technical assistance and credit enhancement for
Kratonan’s land consolidation and substandard house and livelihood
improvements;
What are involved in this program?
The programme had involved many agencies/parties/stakeholders throughout
the whole stages, such as below:
• Solo Municipality: Office for Street Vendors (Kantor PKL), Agency for
Markets (Dinas Pasar), and Agency for Parks (Dinas Pertamanan), Agency
for City Development (Dinas Penataan Kota)


• Non‐Government Organisations (NGOs): KOMPIP (Konsorsium
Monitoring dan Pemberdayaan Institusi Publik – Consortium for
Monitoring and Empowerment of Public Institutions), SOMPIS (Solidaritas
Masyarakat Pinggiran Surakarta – Solidarity of Marginal Societies in
Surakarta).
• Community‐based organizations (CBOs): local trader cooperatives and
pagayuban (informal community organizations) that were active in
discussions, negotiations and organizing their members to participate in
the program, and in particular the decision‐making process.
• University: Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret Surakarta (UNS) assisted in
the research of the street vendors at Monjari and design of new market
place.
• Professional: Local consultants designed the new markets in the
Development and Revitalization of Traditional Marketplaces.
What are the Program Results?
• By mid‐June 2010, this city‐wide program has served 75.2% of the total
6,612 substandard houses.
• BLUD has provided technical assistance and credit enhancement for
many low‐income
Kratonan’s land consolidation and substandard house and livelihood
improvements (33 of 1058 low income families), Sabrang Lor’s riverbank
resettlement (targeting1,700 substandard houses), Purwodiningratan’s
infill house development within Central Business District (29 families),
Pringgolayan’s mixed use vertical development for 77 low income but
productive shuttle cocks producers living in slum area ex‐public
cemetery, and Kadipiro’s community‐based Real Estate Investment Trusts
(c‐REITs) for housing 150 families of city firefighters that are still living in
slum areas;
• The program had attracted private institutions involvement through
CSR element;
• The program had implemented a more participation of the slum
dwellers; enable them to be involved within the process of upgrading
their own houses and environment. Such involvement could affect not
only to the physical matters (decent housing) but also to their
understanding on decent settlement. This also improves their capacity of
dealing with slum upgrading and related issues.


DEVELOPMENT & REVITALIZATION OF TRADITIONAL
MARKET
For almost 25 years the traditional market has provided the highest income to
the municipality (Rp. 9 billion in 2005), however little attention has been given
by the local government to the condition of these traditional markets. As a
centre of trade, Solo has 35 traditional markets with 3,336 kiosks and 4,949
traders without kiosks (referred to as pedagang oprogan) occupying the
sidewalks and parking area surrounds the traditional markets.

The development of new shopping malls, hyper‐marts and supermarkets in Solo
posed a threat to the traditional market as more people preferred to shop at
malls, hyper‐marts and supermarkets, rather than shop at traditional markets,
even though prices at the traditional market were much lower. The Mayor was
concerned that if traditional markets were not improved, the economy of the
lower‐income society would be affected.
The Development and Revitalization of Traditional Markets Program aims to
improve the building condition of traditional markets and re‐arrange the kiosks,
to attract consumers to shop at the market.

The funding was coming from the Municipality budget, and later on was
supported by grants from Ministry of Trade and Industry. Budget. In 2006, the
Solo Municipality allocated Rp. 18 Billion for the development and revitalization
of 8 traditional markets: Nusukan, Mojosongo, Harjodaksino, Gedhe, Kadipolo,
Klewer, Legi, Rejosari, Depok and Kembang. In 2007 the Solo Municipality
allocated Rp. 11 Billion for the renovation of 6 traditional markets: Nangka,
Jebres, Umbil, Sidadai, Elfabes (electronic market) and Legi (fish market). Such
revitalization was considered as a model for traditional market management and
development in Indonesia that attracts appreciation from the Ministry of Trade
and Industry which then donated Rp. 8 Billion to assist in the development and
revitalization of traditional markets.


• Dissemination of information (referred to as ‘socialization’ of the
program)Æ through consultations and discussions with kiosk owners and
traders, as well as local traders association (paguyuban) and
cooperatives, from the planning and design stage (including layout of
kiosks), till the construction stage and utilization of the market. In this
program, no investment is made by the kiosk owners other than their
time and participation in the decision making process;
• Making the local market comfortable to shop in. Through new
architectural design which still takes into account the elements of
traditional building such as roof shape, building materials and landscape.
The new market has accommodated all the previous kiosk owners and
traders into zones based on the characteristic of their goods, and
provided space for car and motorcycle parking. The local government has
provided uniforms for workers and kiosk traders, to create a tidy
appearance of the market .
What are involved in this program?
• Solo Municipality: Office for Street Vendors (Kantor PKL), Agency for
Markets (Dinas Pasar), and Agency for Parks (Dinas Pertamanan), Agency
for City Development (Dinas Penataan Kota)
• Non‐Government Organisations (NGOs): KOMPIP (Konsorsium
Monitoring dan Pemberdayaan Institusi Publik – Consortium for
Monitoring and Empowerment of Public Institutions), SOMPIS (Solidaritas
Masyarakat Pinggiran Surakarta – Solidarity of Marginal Societies in
Surakarta).
• Community‐based organizations (CBOs): local trader cooperatives and
pagayuban (informal community organizations) that were active in
discussions, negotiations and organizing their members to participate in
the program, and in particular the decision‐making process.
• University: Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret Surakarta (UNS) assisted in
design of new market place;
• Professional: Local consultants designed the new markets in the
Development and Revitalization of Traditional Marketplaces.
• More buyers, resulting in increase of sales and higher profit,


• Tenure security for kiosk owners and traders;
• Involving kiosk owners and traders gain in city policies

SOLO PILOT MAPPING PROJECT
What is “Solo Kota Kita” initiative?
‘Solo Kota Kita’ pilot project was an initiative to collect and analyze data in
order to make it available to local residents to assist discussion and
prioritization of projects for the Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan
(Musrenbang) process, an annual participatory planning and budgeting cycle.
This initiative is taking place in kota Solo, a city of 600,000 residents in Central
Java, Indonesia, which is also the historic capital of Javanese culture and a center
of batik production for over 500 years.

The objective of this initiative is two‐fold. First, it aims to generate community
awareness to participate in local planning by increasing access to information
about their communities and how they relate to the rest of the city. Secondly it
encourages people to think about community issues as planning issues, and
challenges them to think about how their surroundings can be changed for the
better. In order to do this the initiative offers a tool, called the Mini Atlases,
which would be created in collaboration with residents, community facilitators
and local university students. These atlases will represent information about each
neighbourhood’s social and physical character in an accessible format. It is
designed to serve as tool to facilitate the engagement of local communities in the
city’s participatory budgeting process with the target of having fifty‐one (51)
neighbourhood mini atlases completed.
What is the Mini Atlas?
The Mini Atlas presents information about housing, poverty, sanitation, and
other issues in an accessible, non‐technical way. Community Facilitators train
residents how to interpret this data and use it for participatory budgeting
processes – such as Solo’s musrenbang and the World Bank’s PNPM program.
The atlases are comprised of indicator data which presents Solo’s social and


physical characteristics for the first time. This decentralized data‐gathering
process connects with hundreds of local leaders and the data will the mapped
with geographic information systems to illustrate the residents assets and issues
in the neighbourhoods which will all can be found in the mini‐atlases.
Who inisiate the programme?
It was launched in March 2009 as a voluntary initiative together with support
from two local NGOs COMBINE and Solo Consorcium, students from the local
university (Universitas Sabelas Maret), with interest and support from Mayor
Joko Widodo. It then gained support from UN‐HABITAT to fund the continuation
of activities in eighteen (18) neighbourhoods, or two kecamatans.
How was the funding arrangement of the program?
The results were then shown to the Mayor of Kota Solo and gained his approval.
The mayor then forwarded the proposal to the US Government for larger
financial support which resulted in USAID agreeing to continue to fund the
project through to the end of the year, in order to complete the mapping and
collection of urban data for the rest of the city. In this subsequent phase
particular attention is placed on ensuring that the the Local Planning Agency
(Bappeda) can run this system by themselves in the future.

There are five main components of this initiative, data collection, data analysis,
socialization training and monitoring and evaluation:
1. Data Collection
The City of Solo consists of fifty‐one (51) neighbourhoods or Kelurahan, each
with different levels of public services, economic, social and demographic
characteristics. The data collection activity focuses on collecting information
from all of the 51 neighbourhoods.
Initially data is collected in each Kelurahan by one trained facilitator who
makes contact with local government officials and distributes the
questionnaires. The facilitator’s role is to explain to the RT leaders the
importance of filling in the questionnaire with accurate information the
facilitator collects the surveys. The facilitators will subsequently input the
data into Excel spreadsheets. Physical information (such as areas of flooding,
community assets and infrastructure) will be noted on maps. In a second


phase (September to October ’10) data collection will be carried out by local
neighborhood government units, with advice and monitoring support given
by facilitators. This will help train them to be able to collect data in the future
alone, without outside assistance.
2. Data Analysis
Once information has been gathered and organized into a neighbourhood
and district level database it will be analyzed. The process of analysis is able
to achieve many things, the most important of which is:
• Map information through GIS to generate visual documents describing

how indicators are distributed and change in the territory.
• Generate proportional data and area averages that allow a clear

comparison of relative magnitudes of different indicators.
The analytical phase involves database management, mapping, data analysis and
Mini‐atlas design:
a) Database management: Inputting data and ensuring that it is of good
quality. Wherever data is missing or inaccurate a further round of data
collection will be necessary.
b) Mapping: When information is ready to be mapped it must be coded and
geo‐referenced to produce GIS maps. Maps are produced for each
indicator, both in absolute and relative terms. The maps are then
discussed amongst the team in order that the understanding of each map
is grasped.
c) Data analysis: Information from the database is processed in order to
generate relative values (such as percentage of houses with land titles,
and ratio of population to domiciles). This new data is important to
support mapping and observational data collected on the ground, to
‘complete the picture’. A session follows in which maps, processed data
and observational information are discussed with the technical team and
conclusions formulated. Analysis includes: neighbourhood context
analysis, demographic analysis, community facilities and neighbourhood
form mapping, sectoral analysis – statistical and GIS – Education, Water,
Sanitation, Housing, Poverty, Health, and Assets and Issues Analysis
d) Mini‐atlas design: The last stage of Analysis is the design of the Mini‐


atlases. This requires the synthesis of discussions, conclusions, data and
maps into one clear and succinct document. The graphic design and
representation of data is a very important part of this activity.
3. Socialization
The overall goal of socialization is: To ensure that as many people as possible
are aware of and able to use and understand the Mini‐atlases in order to
participate more actively in the participatory planning/ budgeting process in
their communities.
The specific goals are:
• Promote the participatory budgeting process (the musrenbang) as a vital
part of one’s civic duties.
• Give as much access as possible to information about local communities
in a way in which it can be understood and used to inform planning and
budgeting decisions.
• Increase understanding and raise awareness about the information

contained in the Mini‐atlases to make it a more powerful tool for shaping
local development and planning.
The socialization activities consist of disseminating the Mini‐atlases to all
kelurahan level local offices and to community groups within those
neighborhoods, the design of a website where people can access the information,
workshops about how to understand it, a promotional campaign to raise
awareness of the musrenbang process and encourage citizens to actively engage
in it.
4. Training
In order to ensure that the information collected is properly utilized and that
its relevance is understood a process of capacity building is required for
government officials. During the UN HABITAT supported phase of this project
(August 2009 – January 2010) a capacity analysis was performed to
understand what levels of technical capacity different levels of local
government have, as well as gauge their interests in and uses of data. The
training activities will build off this study, using it to design appropriate
mechanisms, tools and exercises (for example easy to use software and
training exercises) to increase their technical capacities to manage and use


data. Training will focus on how to ensure sustainability, and so emphasis is
given to build skills that allow easy replication in the future.
Training will focus upon how data is collected, managed and organized,
so that in coming years the process is easily repeated. Training activities
will emphasize the importance of sustaining information systems and
optimizing their use. The objectives of training activities are:
• Ensure that the relevance of local information is understood.
• Ensure that local government staff have a clear understanding of the
process of community data gathering.
• Ensure familiarity with data collection and management techniques,

including inputting data and database management.
• Guarantee that they can collect one round of community data at the city
level and manage and input this themselves.
5. Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation will accompany the length of the process to
ensure that high standards are maintained and to monitor the effectiveness
of the project. Monitoring and evaluation activities will focus on all above‐
mentioned activities, in particular: the quality of data collection, data
management, analysis,
By May 2010, there are already eighteen (18) mini atlases from Kelurahan or
neighbourhoods of Kecamatan Serengan and Laweyan. This work was completed
by community facilitators, local leaders and a team of local univesity students.


Source: Solo KotaKita Field Result, an example of Mini Atlases from Kecamatan Laweyan,
Solo.
What are the obstacles?
Technical challenges. First, assembling a lot of
information about the city requires a lot of fieldwork
and organization to deploy facilitators and researchers,
map and then organize the information in a database.
Following the collection of data GIS maps have to be
created which is also a time consuming process. Second,
the execution of the initiative initially was not able to align with the timeline of
the Musrenbang so only three atlases were ready in time to present to the
Musrenbang discussions at the Kelurahan level for 2010.
Cultural challenges. The process of socializing to the community the importance
of participating in Musrenbang and utilizing the Mini Atlases as a tool might be
one of the most critical activities in this process; it relates to community’s
sceptics and lack of familiarity with the planning process. It requires team of
facilitators that could translate this notion in a language that the community
comprehends and also engaging local leaders in every neighbourhood to fully on
board with this initiative, thus gaining community’s trust and willingness to
participate. Perhaps a greater challenge is to be able to convince local
government officers how to make use of the information presented in the data
base and persuade them to integrate it into decision making activities. This would
ensure that participatory planning decisions formulated by communities are
recognized, but this may be a difficult process in changing internal budgeting
processes.

LESSON LEARNED
Vendor Street, Riverbank and Traditional Market Management
There are four lessons learned from the preparation and the implementation of
the vendor street, riverbank management and establishment of traditional
market;
1. City development without forced eviction. With innovative approach using
local wisdom, values and knowledge, the development program of a city does


not necessarily end up with forced eviction especially for migrants that in
many cases are marginalized in the development. The former action
examples from other cities had taught that the forced evictions is not only
costly but also would not give sustainable results. In this case, the
Municipality of Solo had made a more humane approach that other cities
failed to do. Eviction is not the answer to deal with informal economy (street
vendors) problems.
2. Effectiveness in consultative and participatory approach. The proper
implementation of consultative and participatory approach had
demonstrated that the method can be used comprehensively between the
government and the community to get a better understanding of the
aspirations and needs. Furthermore, this approach would likely to create a
more win‐win solution.
3. Good governance results in good environment. The relocation of street
vendors had resulted in a better governance system of Solo municipality such
as better coordination, quick, well‐informed and transparent decision
making, institutionalize of good initiative, professionalism of government
officers under the strong leadership of the city Mayor.
4. Investment‐Approach in Utilizing Budget Use. The initiative project should
be seen as an investment of multi‐stakeholders. The process has taught the
government, community and the small business owners in how to overcome
problems and seeking alternative solutions through better communication.

Slum Upgrading
Lessons learned from slum upgrading program is that there is a mindset changing
in addressing slum settlements is pivotal:
• Work delegations and arrangement should no longer be ‘top down’ but
‘participatory and ‘based on partnership’;
• Approach in increasing local economic development should no longer be
‘bureaucratic’ but has to be ‘entrepreneurial’;
• The way program is handled should no longer be ‘procedural’ but
oriented to the end results instead.
• Issues, conditions, benefits, stakeholders involved and components in

programs should not be viewed partially, but integratively


Solo Pilot Mapping Project
There are three lessons learned identified in this initiative, which are:
1. The support from the high‐ranked officials (the Mayor, Bappeda and
Kecamatan and Kelurhan officers) in the political and bureaucratic spheres
to integrate the information system with the current system of Solo’s
Bappeda. This support was highly effective in ensuring that the initiate
received the funding it needed as well as the full cooperation of staff to
participate in this initiative, in the form of training and utilizing this new data
base system.
2. The capacity of the facilitators to bond with the community to evoke their
participation and trust toward this initiative. The most successful method
was to go to every head RT (community cluster within every
kelurahan/neighbourhood) which requires a large amount of time,
considering there are eighteen kelurahans.
3. The use of comparison methods was also significant in convincing the
community that this tool could be use to create changes at the city level,
even though it starts at the very local level. This leads to a change of mindset
when the community realized that these local and basic planning issues could
make an impact at the way their city is developed.

REFERENCES

Street Vendor Management
Solo Pos (23 May 2006) Awu Anget TSTJ dan Upaya Penyelesaiannya (Hot Issues
on City Parks and Solutions), article written by Ir. Joko Widodo, Mayor of
Solo.
Solo Pos (6 June 2006), Refleksi 60 tahun Pemkot Solo: Reformasi Kebijakan
Pelayanan Publik (Reflection of 60 years Solo Municipality: Public Service
Policy Reform), article written by Joko Widodo, Mayor of Solo.
Republika (2 October 2006), Soal PKL, Jakarta bisa Belajar dari Kota Solo (About
Street Vendors, Jakarta can learn from Solo), Article written by Indira
Rezkisari.
Solo Berseri (Tabloid of Solo Municipality, edition VII, 2006), PKL Manahan
Direlokasi (Street vendors of Manahan Relocated)


Solo Berseri (Tabloid of Solo Municipality, edition IV, 2006), PKL Banjarsari
Boyongan (Street vendors Relocate)
Solo Berseri (Tabloid of Solo Municipality, edition IV, 2006), Apa kata warga Solo
tentang Penataan PKL (What Solo Community says about the Street
vendors Relocation Project)
Solo Berseri (Tabloid of Solo Municipality, edition IV, 2006), Telah lahir: Pasar
Klithikan Notoharjo (Newly born: Klithikan Notoharjo Market)
Museum of Records Indonesia (MURI, July 2006), Award from MURI to the Mayor
of Solo for The Largest Number of Voluntary Relocation of Street Vendors
and Kirab Procession (http://www.muri.org/news.html)
Kompas (24 July 2006). Penataan Pedagang Klithikan, Kirab Boyong PKL.
“Nguwongke Wong Cilik” (Street Vendors empowerment, Street Vendors
Relocation Procession, “to Pay Respects on Human Being to Low Income
People)”.
Kompas (1 March 2008). Joko Widodo dan Misi Mengorangkan Wong Cilik (Joko
Widodo and the Mission in respect on human being to low income
people)

Riverbank Settlement Relocation & Urban Forest
Harian Joglo Semar (8 May 2010), Pemkot Desak Dewan Anggarkan Dana
Relokasi Rp.35 M Harus Masuk APBD‐P (Solo Municiplaity Pushed Local
Legislative to draw out a budget Rp 35 Billion in Local Budget )

Others
Kompas (30 July 2007) Menggagas Solo Kota Manusiawi (Initiating Solo as a
Humane City), article written by Zakiyuddin.
Kompas (20 July 2007): CITY WALK – Pembangunan Kawasan Dibantu APBD
Jateng (CITY WALK – Development assisted by Central Java Budget)
Kompas (20 July 2007) Solo jadi Kota Layak untuk Anak Indonesia, Perlu
Komitmen akan Kesejahteraan dan Perlindungan (Solo as a Decent City
for Indonesian Children: requires commitment for welfare and safety),
article written by Son/HRD.
Kompas (20 July 2007), Ketika Tiada Batas antara Anak‐anak dan Para Pejabat,
Peringatan Hari Anak Nasional 2007 di Kota Solo (When there is no
Boundary between Children and Bureaucracy, Celebration of National


Childrens Day 2007 in Solo), article written by Sonya Hellen Sinombor and
Hariadi Saptono.
Solo Berseri (Tabloid of Solo Municipality, edition VII 2007), 2 tahun Jokowi –
Rudy (two years of Jokowi and Rudy).
Solo Pos (18 January 2007), Mengimpikan Solo yang Berkarakter (Envisioning Solo
as a City with Character), article written by Joko Widodo, Mayor of Solo.
Badan Informasi dan Komunikasi Kota Surakarta (2006), Relokasi 989 PKL, dari
Banjarsari ke Semanggi (Relocation of 989 Street Vendors, from
Banjarsari to Semanggi).
Tempointeraktif (9 December 2006), Kota Solo Diproyeksikan jadi Kota Pohon dan
Bunga (Solo is Projected as City of Trees and Flowers), article written by
Anas Syahrul –
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/nusa/jawamadura/2006/12/09/brk,
20061209‐89190,id.html
Republika (2 October 2006), Soal PKL, Jakarta bisa Belajar dari Kota Solo (About
Street Vendors, Jakarta can learn from the city of Solo), Article written by
Indira Rezkisari.
Solo Pos (29 July 2006), Setahun Menata Gerak, Mengayun Lebih Cepat (One Year
Arrangeing Steps for Quicker Pace) article written by Ir. Joko Widodo,
Mayor of Solo.
Solo Pos (6 June 2006), Refleksi 60 tahun Pemkot Solo: Reformasi Kebijakan
Pelayanan Publik (Reflection of 60 years Solo Municipality: Public Service
Policy Reform), article written by Joko Widodo, Mayor of Solo


Annex - Pro People City Development SOLO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annex - Pro People City Development SOLO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

• Map information through GIS to generate visual documents describing

• Generate proportional data and area averages that allow a clear

• Increase understanding and raise awareness about the information

• Ensure familiarity with data collection and management techniques,

• Issues, conditions, benefits, stakeholders involved and components in

You might also like