S

ince the election of the new governor and deputy governor of Jakarta in 2012, the media has continued to expose several of the city problems, such as flooding and transportation. Actually, the Jakarta administration has been technically responsive to both problems. To deal with flooding, for instance, several actions have been taken including dredging the city'€™s rivers, resettling residents living along riverbanks, and preparing a development plan for a giant sea wall to solve the problems of sea tides in northern Jakarta, regardless of the controversy surrounding such policies and actions.

To deal with traffic congestion, the administration has started ticketing violators of busway lanes and also road-pricing plans. Many hope that these efforts will improve traffic conditions in the city. However, these measures will not be fully effective if entrusted only to the governor alone, as problems such as flooding and transportation extend beyond the city to surrounding regencies and cities. The central government has, in its own way, contributed to the mounting problems and should, therefore, be involved and take some responsibility in solving Jakarta'€™s problems.

In late 2013, it was suggested that Governor Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo'€ should assume sole responsibility for Jakarta'€™s problems, when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono spoke of his embarrassment when visiting foreign leaders highlighted the traffic problems in the city. The President explained to them that under regional autonomy, local leaders were responsible for such problems. This statement is misleading; though Jokowi is indeed the person principally responsible for addressing the problems in Jakarta, without support from regency and municipal administrations in the city'€™s neighboring provinces of Banten and West Java, the governor cannot deal with the problems effectively, if at all.

Some recent reports revealed the Jakarta administration'€™s plan to buy land along the banks of rivers flowing into Jakarta, including in Depok city, in order to avoid the misuse of riverbanks, which, it is suspected, intensifies flooding in Jakarta, especially during the rainy season. The Jakarta government argues that the plan is needed as most regency and municipal administrations have been unwilling to help the capital deal with flooding.

In this era of regional autonomy, Jakarta and other regional administrations face much more complex problems than in the past, especially given the wider authority and discretion of local governments, including the establishment of inter-local government collaborations to solve the major problems in Jakarta. It is understandable that several local governments in the area are asking why they should do something for the benefit of the capital, which is beyond their authority. In fact, it can be argued that Law No. 32/2004 on regional administrations actually encourages a selfish orientation on the part of many local governments, including in Jakarta, as their broader authority in their areas may lead them to be dismissive of the development of the wider areas in which they are located.

From the perspective of regional development, this '€œregional ego'€ attitude basically leads to regional fragmentation that is not conducive to regional development across regencies and cities, such as in Jakarta. This trend occurs in many places in Indonesia, especially in the new autonomous regions as a result of the proliferation of new regencies and municipalities, and even new provinces (pemekaran daerah).

Clearly, the development of Jakarta cannot be effectively undertaken by the respective administrations in Jakarta and its surrounding areas under their own authority, without considering that the region is essentially an agglomeration (clustering) of a compact urban area; that is, the metropolitan Jakarta area, in which the core city '€” Jakarta '€” intensively interacts with smaller cities in the region covering Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi. This reality requires integrated planning and implementation for development of the region as a whole.

 Given the above points, Greater Jakarta, or Jabodetabek, desperately needs a metropolitan development institution, specifically to manage development sectors that cross regencies and municipalities, such as the management of water resources, transportation systems, the disposal of waste water and solid waste and spatial development. This is necessary because the technical solutions for addressing the immediate problems in Jabodetabek will be ineffective without the presence of an institution that is charged with developing the region as a metropolitan area.

Since the mid-1970s, we have had an institution called the Greater Jakarta Coordination Board (BKSP), which is tasked with coordinating development in Greater Jakarta, but it has little authority. Meanwhile, the actual authority for development still lies with the respective provinces of Jakarta, West Java and Banten, as well as their respective regency and municipal administrations.

So, the question is, what kind of development institution should be adopted for Greater Jakarta in particular and for other metropolitan provinces in general? There are a number of possibilities including a metropolitan authority along the lines of those adopted and implemented in Tokyo, Bangkok and Manila. But this option may not be applicable for Greater Jakarta, as Indonesia'€™s Constitution recognizes only three levels of government, namely the central government, provincial government and regency/municipal administrations; it does not recognize metropolitan governments.

Another possibility would be a two-level or multi-level government option, comprising a metropolitan government, which is a metropolitan authority that manages several aspects and sectors of development that need to cross jurisdictions, and local governments to manage local services. Each level of government would also have its own legislative institution. This model has been successfully implemented in major metropolitan regions in Canada, including Vancouver and the Toronto metropolitan area.

For Greater Jakarta, it appears that the most suitable model may be a mixed model in which the central, provincial and regency/municipal administrations all have different roles and functions, and contribute to the management of the region, including its financing. The private sector should also be incorporated because the development and maintenance of infrastructure for Greater Jakarta will require substantial financial resources, of a level well beyond the capacity of local governments in the region.

The establishment and continued upon existence of the BKSP has been agreed by all the provincial and local administrations in the region. So, what is needed is to enhance the authority and functions of this board, especially in terms of the development sector, which crosses local government jurisdictions; while the management of public services would remain the authority of respective provincial, regency and municipal administrations, in accordance with the 2004 Regional Administrations Law.

Indonesia needs a model for metropolitan governance, and this proposed model is particularly suitable for Greater Jakarta.