The folly of bridging Sunda Strait

The Jakarta Post ,  Jakarta   |  Mon, 10/15/2007 10:57 AM  |  Opinion

Otto Soemarwoto, Bandung

The Sunda Strait bridge project from Merak in West Java to Bakauheni on the southern tip of Sumatra island has been revived. The governors of Banten and Lampung, and the representatives of the consortium that will build the bridge, signed a memorandum of understanding last Thursday. The pre-feasibility study will be completed in 2009 and the feasibility study in 2012, after which construction of the bridge would start in the same year. The cost is estimated at US$10 billion.

This is a huge amount of money. Does the bridge merit to be accorded such a high priority?

Indonesia is still facing serious poverty issues. A Millennium Development Goals (MDG) report revealed that by 2015 -- the target date for the MGD -- the proportion of poor people (those living below $2 per day) will be 35.5 percent.

Indonesia is not a good performer in the UNDP Human Development Program. Hence, wouldn't it be better to spend the money on poverty alleviation programs and on programs that aim to improve human development indices?

Of course, the bridge project would create new employment. But who would get the jobs? Experience from other large projects indicates the jobs would most likely be given to migrants with previous experience in construction work elsewhere. Local people would probably be given the most menial jobs with the lowest pay. The further away from the project, e.g. in Malimping in Banten, the fewer benefits they would be given. Hence, the bridge project would not help Banten and Lampung much in combating poverty and improving human development indices.

Sea transportation is more energy efficient than land transportation. In Canada, boats are (on average) 9.7 times more efficient than trucks. Moreover, trucks emit 7.6 times more air pollution than marine transportation does. At a time when the world is concerned about reducing oil consumption and climate change, the higher energy efficiency and lower emissions of marine transportation should be given serious consideration in our transportation policy.

The concept of building the bridge is typically a land-based orientation. NKRI (the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia) usually gives high priority to developing roads, but neglects marine transportation. We seem to be following the example of the U.S., where the country is crisscrossed by roads and superhighways.

But Indonesia is an archipelago, consisting of more than 17,000 islands, while the U.S. is a continent. We look at our seas and straits as barriers between islands and not as sea-lanes that connect the thousands of islands. The Sunda Strait should be viewed as a natural road created by God for us.

We don't have to build it. Nor do we have to maintain it. We only need to build good and efficient terminals. It can be argued the bridge would improve transportation. But experience has shown that construction of toll roads in Jakarta and its surrounds, extending all the way to Merak in the west and to Bandung in the southeast, has not solved traffic congestion problems.

On the contrary, traffic has become worse. An increase in the rate of car ownership, which is higher than the rate of growth of the capacity of roads, has been further stimulated by the construction of new roads.

By changing our worldview from that of land-based to marine-based, we should aim to improve sea transportation from Merak to Palembang and beyond, and better still from Jakarta to these destinations in Sumatra -- as many trucks and cars do not stop or start their journey in Merak and Bakauheni, but have their origins and destinations in Jakarta and Palembang.

Bakauheni should also serve as a transshipment point for other destinations in Sumatra, southern Java and beyond. We should develop an intermodal, interconnected and inter-operational transportation system using all modes of transportation from bicycles to motorized vehicles, trains, marine and air transportation.

Developing the sealanes throughout Indonesia would unite the islands into one unitary state; the NKRI. Development could be more evenly distributed throughout the country. Jealousy among the provinces would be reduced, minimizing the sentiment of separatism.

We should learn from our history. During the times of the ancient Hindu-Budha kingdoms of Mataram, Sriwijaya and Majapahit, the worldview was marine-oriented. We were seafarers, plying the seas as far north as China and as far west as India and East Africa.

The Borobudur Samudraraksa boat expedition in 2003-2004 demonstrated that our forefathers could have reached the east coast of Africa and even as far as Ghana. We were a great and respected nation. But when we turned our orientation to land, we became a ""pygmy"" nation respected by no one. Clearly, we must change our worldview: Let us again be a great nation of seafarers. We still have the spirit. Look at the Buginese, the Makassarese, the Bajos and the Madurese.

The writer is professor emeritus of environment at Padjadjaran University, Bandung. He can be reached at ottosoe@attglobal.net.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.