Apa Beda Mitigasi dan Adaptasi Perubahan Iklim?

Secara singkat bedanya adalah:

Mitigasi adalah upaya menurunkan emisi gas rumah kaca sebagi respon isu-isu perubahan iklim, contohnya penggunaan sepeda sebagai moda transportasi, penghitungan emisi carbon

Adaptasi adalah upaya meningkatkan ketahanan terhadap dampak perubahan iklim, contoh: meningkatkan kualitas infrastruktur, meningkatkan kualitas pelayanan dan lain sebagainya.

referensi:

KAJIAN IDENTIFIKASI SUMBER-SUMBER PENDANAAPERUBAHAN IKLIM DALAM MENDUKUNG PROGRAM PERUBAHAN IKLIM SEKTOR TRANSPORTASI 2014 BAPPENAS

Contoh gambar upaya mitigasi:

DSCN2225

DSCN2236

DSCN2223

KAMPONG IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM VS BAAN MANKONG

Related to the program of housing provision for low income people, Indonesia had had the program before the others, called as “Kampung Improvement Programme” (Darrudono and Mulyadi, 1974). This program emerged as a response of the housing condition in Jakarta’s kampung which is generally overcrowded, averaging two families of five members each per single dwelling that consists of bamboo matted walls, tempered clay floors, and thatched roofs. The lack of infrastructure such as the solid-waste disposal facilities, posed few environmental or public health hazard. In spite of the lack of infrastructure provision and environmental degradation, kampung remains socially stable communities which have a diverse mix of income groups. Kampung Improvement Programme became the world’s first urban slum upgrading project. Initially the city government had three alternative approaches to improvement. The first called for building new, single-family houses on relatively inexpensive land in the outlying areas of the city. A second approach considered was modeled after the “urban renewal” concept of redevelopment. Under this suggestion the city government would acquire existing kampongs and in their place construct new, multistory residential buildings. KIP became a model program which is able to transform slums, from illegal settlement into a part of urban fabric by providing basic urban service such as roads, footpaths, water, drainage, and sanitation as well as health and education facilities. The third approach was involving the community in improving their residential area. In initial, this program is located in Jakarta (Kota Bambu). The KIP at Kota Bambu was emerged in purpose to improve the living environment mainly in physical conditions and also improving the quality of life mainly in socio-economic conditions of Jakarta poor people as a kampung’s residents. These purposes were expected to have a wider impacts such as increasing the poor people’s income and to encourage their involvement in the development. The Kampung Improvement Programme in Kota Bambu was started in 1975 to 1976. In this program, the KIP focused on improving the access roads, bridges and footpaths. They also focused on improving water supply and sanitation, public taps, drainage canals, and solid and human waste disposal facilities. Not only for the physical building, KIP also improved the social building such as schools and health clinics. In order to run the program, it was needed 3 involved parties. They were the city government (DKI), in particular KIP Technical Unit, The Kampung Committee (LKPMDK), and Local contractors who compete in open tenders to construct the project. KIP also needed the community participation. All planning and design activity was done by the KIP Planning Division and they were used for all kampongs even though a few modification of plan had been made for more flexibility in response to individual kampung conditions. In construction step, it was undertaken by local contractors. However, the function of local government became as important as local contractors in construction step. Camat, as a head of district became a connector between the KIP technical staff and the residents of the host kampung. The function of Camat was shared to Lurah as a head of sub-district and all negotiation regarding the selection of access routes and alternatives sites for schools or health clinics or other facilities are conducted through them. The Lurah was appointed as the site manager to keep the cooperation of the kampung community and the smooth implementation of the program was insured. In the role distribution for each stakeholder, LKPMDK also had the function for establishing priorities for improvement, reflecting resident’s views, responding to the KIP Unit’s proposals and instructing residents in maintenance and use of facilities. Since the level of community involvement is a function of the camat, it could obviously be seen that the community participation was essentially limited and it could obstruct proposed interests of poor people. In purpose to run the program, there were several criteria for the kampung that can be improved by the program. The age of the kampung, highest density, lowest income people, and worst environmental condition are the criteria to the kampung could be improved by the KIP. In upgrading a particular kampung, it took approximately two years. By the criteria, the selected kampung would be improved by The KIP Technical Unit after the proposal was approved by a Steering Committee which consisted of Deputi Governors, Mayors, and Directorate Heads. After it had been approved, the agreed-upon plan was transformed into engineering drawings and tender documents and contracted out to local contractors. In achieving the purpose, it also needed the funds. The first KIP (1969 – 1974) was entirely funded by the city government of Jakarta. In the second (1974 – 1976) and third phase (1976 – 1979) of KIP, the city acquired a World Bank Loan to cover approximately fifty percent of the KIP budget, thus doubling the rate of kampung improvements. In funding the construction, residents were required to contribute without compensation so that no funds were collected in the form of a tax on improved kampongs. After construction, the responsibility of the operation and maintenance of the KIP components were passed onto the Kampung Committee (LKPMDK) who was supposed to organize a maintenance squad from among community members and they were paid out of voluntary community funds. Individual households had the responsibility to maintenance the footpaths and drains directly in front of their house (Darrudono and Mulyadi, 1974)..

In terms of the urban development, Kampung Improvement Programme and Baan Mangkong have the similarities and differences. Both of Baan Mangkong and Kampung Improvement Programme, they are the program which was initiated by the government. In achieving purpose, both Baan Mangkong and Kampung Imrovement Program had resulted significant impact in upgrading large areas of residential communities in a relatively short period of time and with limited resources. In financial aspect, between Baan Mangkong and Kampung Improvement Programme also have the similarity. They have been funded by the government. The government provided the loans to the poor without compensation such as tax. Even though both of KIP and Baan Mangkong have similarities in running the program, Kampung Improvement Programme and Baan Mangkong have the differentiation in terms of community participation. In Kampung Improvement Programme, the community participation was limited since Camat and Lurah became the liaison in representing the poor people’s needs. The community participation in KIP is not fully applied as a self-empowerment. In planning process, as it mentioned earlier, all the planning and designing activity were done by the local government. It means that the community wasn’t involved in arranging and designing the plan of their area. It happened also in construction phase which people weren’t involved in building their own house and upgrading their environment. The government had chosen the contractor to do the construction and let the people just in monitoring and maintenance their built facilities. This condition was caused by the influence of politics. In that time, Indonesia had a top-down approach in the development which this approach made less possibility to the people to be involved in the development such as proposing their needs. In the record, Kampung Improvement Programme successfully improved the slum area in many cities in Indonesia. However, the Kampung Improvement Programme were not supported by the political condition in Indonesia since the changing period of president would lead to changing the development program. Comparing to Kampung Improvement Programme, in Baan Mangkong (Bang Bua area) had better community participation. Even though Thailand has a kingdom system in their government system, the government still let the people to propose their needs. They put the people to be main actor of the development. In case of Baan Mangkong in Bang Bua area, the poor people were involved in the development process which is started from the planning and designing the plan then the constructing the houses. The government, CODI, the university became facilitators. CODI became the facilitator in providing the funds to the programs while the government became the only fund provider for the program. The universities and other experts have become as a partner in consulting the construction. All the development process is conducted by the people itself.

Based on the explanation of Baan Mangkong and Kampung Improvement Programme in upgrading the slum area, it can be seen that public participation become the most important thing to be considered in the development. In case of Kampung Improvement Programme, the public participation was looked like a tagline since they didn’t have the two-ways of communication to the government as an initiator of the program. The people had become spectators of the development so it would not be surprising when the Kampung Improvement Program had been completed, the people didn’t have any responsibility to keep their improved environment. In vice versa, in case of Baan Mangkong, the public participation become the most important in the development. They planned, designed, and constructed their housing area. The public participation in Baan Mangkong represented the public willingness in order to be participated in the development. It will also influence to the sustainability of the development. If the public willingness was considered in the development, it will lead to create the ownership of development for the people and it can automatically make the development sustained.

 

 

References

Darrudono and Pik Mulyadi. 1974. Kampung Improvement Programme. Jakarta: Jakarta City Government

 

(kusumaningrumratna@gmail.com)

Bersepeda dengan Velib

Kota Paris di Perancis mulai melirik penggunaan sepeda sebagai solusi permasalahan lalu lintas pada tahun 2007. Kota ini memulainya dengan melakukan kampanye penggunaan sepeda berjudul ‘vélo libre’ yang berarti bersepeda gratis. Pemerintah Paris menyediakan ribuan sepeda untuk disewakan kepada masyarakat. Sepeda ini tersedia di 750 titik berjarak 300 meter. Setiap penduduk berusia lebih dari 14 tahun dapat menyewa sepeda ini selama 24 jam, penyewa haruslah membayar deposit sebesar 150 euro sebagai bentuk jaminan.

Program ini cukup berhasil di Paris terlihat dari banyaknya peminat serta pengguna fasilitas ini. Tercatat pada juli 2007 terdapat empat juta pengguna serta tujuh juta kilometer perjalanan di sekitar Kota Paris. Setiap hari sebanyak 50 hingga 70.000 sepeda disewakan. Dengan keberhasilan ini pemerintah Paris merencanakan penambahan titik persewaan menjadi 1451 titik di Kota Paris. Penyewaan sepeda ini juga diperuntukkan bagi para wisatawan yang berkunjung ke Kota Paris.

Pada awalnya velib merupakan sebuah upaya untuk mengkampanyekan penggunaan sepeda sebagai salah satu pilihan transportasi. Namun sekarang, velib telah tersebar hampir di seluruh sudut Kota Paris. Sepeda ini memiliki sistem penggunaan yang unik dimana masyarakat dapat menggunakan sepeda untuk mencapai tempat tujuan. Sepeda ini disewakan untuk seluruh masyarakat yang memiliki kartu transportasi navigo atau imaginer dan juga kartu bank. Masyarakat memiliki waktu penggunaan gratis selama 30 menit, penggunaan lebih dari 30 menit diwajibkan untuk membayar. Setelah penggunaan selesai velib harus dikembalikan pada titik-titik yang telah disediakan. Apabila velib tidak dikembalikan maka pengguna akan mendapatkan denda sebesar harga sepeda yang digunakan.

Penggunaan velib sekarang ini telah menjadi salah satu pilihan masyarakat. Namun sayangnya velib masih memiliki beberapa kelemahan yang sebaiknya diperbaiki, diantaranya adalah kurangnya perawatan pada sepeda yang disewakan. Kondisi beberapa sepeda velib telah mengalami kerusakan sehingga kurang nyaman apabila digunakan. Umumnya kerusakan terjadi pada kursi tempat duduk dan setir kemudi.

Kurangnya pengetahuan letak-letak titik pengembalian sepeda menjadi kendala tersendiri. Letaknya yang tersebar di titik-titik tertentu membuat masayrakat yang tidak sering menggunakan velib kesulitan dalam menentukan lama tempuh serta lokasi yang akan dituju. Lama tempuh amat mempengaruhi biaya perjalanan yang akan dikeluarkan oleh pengguna untuk itu hal ini merupakan point krusial yang harus diperhitungkan. Signase berupa peta akan sangat amat membantu, namun sayangnya belum terdapat signase peta untuk velib.

Jalur sepeda di Paris juga tidak merata di seluruh penjuru kota, hanya terdapat pada jalan-jalan tertentu saja. Akibatknya banyak pengguna sepeda harus berbagi tempat dengan para pejalan kaki. Kurangnya kehati-hatian ketika mengendarai sepeda dapat beresiko bagi penggunanya. Penggunaan velib juga tidak aksesibel bagi wisatawan yang datang. Layanan ini hanya bisa digunakan ketika memiliki kartu bank setempat, sedangkan kebanyakan wisatawan tentunya tidak memiliki hal tersebut. Wisatawan juga tidak memiliki kartu transportasi navigo ataupun imaginer sehingga cukup menyulitkan. Velib sebenarnya dapat dikebangkan menjadi salah satu wisata yang menarik di Paris. Bersepeda mengelilingi kota akan memberikan kenikmatan tersendiri. Namun belum ada pengembangan menuju ke arah wisata.

Image

Image

Image

Image

 

Sumber:

http://www.eltis.org

TA Ratna Kusumaningrum, URP UNDIP 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lib%27

Bike Track, Sustainable Transportation Concept

Image

Mobility or movement is one of the biggest challenges that faces by many cities in the world. A city must able to provide efficient public services so that the society could comfortably enjoy the city by working, shopping, or travelling (Rubini, 2010). In line with the rapid movement development of the urban people, the business of providing the new transportation innovation to support the mobility grows fast. Transportation mode provider now becomes one of the most interesting and beneficial business. Efficiency and affectivity is the main concern of the modern people especially related with time and money. Indeed, transportation gives big contributions on the city development especially in economic, but in environmental aspect transportation more gives negatives impact. Environmental degradation and global warning are the main issues that caused by air pollution.

Sustainable transportation could be one of the most suitable solutions on the effort process to tackle environmental degradation in general and reducing the use of private car especially. Sustainable transportation suggested using public transport as the main choices for people to support their activities. Public transport development could be integrated with the use of non-motorize transportation such as bicycle. Bicycle as eco friendly transportation could use as a feeder from the origin location like house to the closest public transport shelters.

Here is some example of bicycle track around the world:

Semarang City, Indonesia

Image

Surakarta City, Indonesia

Image

Image

Paris, France

Image

Image

Image

Amsterdam, Holland

Image

Image

geneva, switzerland

Image

Image