PLANNING IN THE STATE-BORDER REGION: CHALLENGES AND CURRENT STATUS

Muhamad Yogie Syahbandar1, Adriadi Dimastanto2, Latifa Sitadevi3, Hendricus Andy Simarmata4
Student at Master program of Regional Planning Science, Institute of Agriculture Bogor 2 Student at Master program of Urban Design, University of Indonesia 3 Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning, Bandung Institute of Technology 4 Researcher at Urban Development Studies Postgraduate program, University of Indonesia
1

Abstract
The Indonesian archipelago region directly borders with 10 neighboring countries, both on land and sea. The borderline length reaches 2.914 km along Malaysia, Timor Leste, and Papua New Guinea, while the sea area borders includes 92 outermost small islands. The state-border region has a strategic role related to the integrity and sovereignty of the nation, so it requires a certain spatial management. However, the border area management in Indonesia faced wicked problems. The inward looking development approach resulted inadequate infrastructure services, low levels of social welfare, as well as the emergence of defense and security threats. Therefore, at this moment the border region is still less developed than other regions. To overcome this problem, since the early 2000s the government through various policies changed the way of development of border areas to be outward looking, to make the border region as the front porch of the nation, so that become one of the priority development areas. However, the policies has met difficulty to be implemented, so that the spatial condition of state borders does not get improved and in some cases has very slow acceleration. Spatial Planning as one of the policy instruments is expected to answer the question. However, a variety of spatial policy that exists today is still having business as usual mindset, and have not been able to capture the unique characteristics possessed by the border region, especially the characteristics of the interaction with neighboring countries. Consequently, it has not been able to provide the strategies to optimize existing resources in the border region, synergize the interaction with neighboring countries, as well as harmonize the socio-political relations and cooperation between the two countries. Through case studies in Sota (land border between Indonesia and PNG, Merauke District) and Miangas (sea border between Indonesia and the Philippines, Talaud District), this paper discusses the planning process and the challenges of planning practices based on empirical research in these locations in 2011. This paper demonstrates that the planning process needs to be improved; the institution need to be strengthened; and the capacity of planners need to be empowered. This paper intends to provide new knowledge on spatial planning processes and what challenges that must be answered, particularly related to the State-Border region.

Keywords: spatial planning, state-border area, regional development

I.

INTRODUCTION

Since the spatial planning has been added "geographical expression to the economic, social, cultural and ecological policies of society' (CEMAT, 1983), the field of spatial planning has been widened to include urban and rural planning, regional planning, environmental planning, and probably state-border planning. Nowadays, According to Nadin (2007), the spatial planning emphasizes both policy and practice required in and interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach to balanced regional development, and physical organization of space according to an overall strategy (Nadin, 2007 in Creamer et al 2009). It needs the horizontal and vertical integration of policies from the national level to local neighborhoods. Therefore,the processes are becoming increasingly complex. The cross-border region is an interesting place to be planned because of there is an interaction between: 1) different countries, 2) different government system, 3) different cultures in one places. It's not only about develop an area, but also about institution and cooperation between

two countries. Thus, planning in border area is not just planning the area itself, but needs to consider the interaction between two countries, whether economic, social, cultural, and interactions between institutions. Of course, Indonesia as an archipelagic State which borders directly with 10 countries, should pay great attention to border area development planning. According to Indonesia Law number 43/2008 on the territory of the State, the State Border Region is part of the territory of which lies on the inner side along the border of Indonesia and other countries. It consists of Land and Sea Border. In the context of its management, in 2010 the government established National Border Management Agency (BNPP) through Presidential Decree No. 12 of 2010. BNPP establishment aims to have border area development coordinator, so border areas development become mainstream in the programming and budgeting in each sectoral ministry. This is one of many efforts to accelerate border areas development. In other countries, cross-border area was managed by joint cooperation agency. For example, in developed countries in Europe, Norway and Germany have developed a cooperative mechanism of transport infrastructure development projects in Oslo-Berlin trans-border corridor, with the participation of stakeholders in both countries1. Then, since May 1999, European countries should develop regional policies (including the State border policy) with reference to the ESDP (European Spatial Development Perspective), which is an agreement by the member states to follow common objectives and concepts for the spatial development of Europe2. This can synergize border development policy in European countries. In the State of Ireland, The National Spatial Strategy (NSS) in the Republic of Ireland and the Regional Development Strategy (RDS) in Northern Ireland Borrowed Heavily on the language and concepts of the ESDP3. In Ireland, spatial planning is one of the integrating tools, both for institutional integration and the functional integration of border areas4. Through spatial planning initiative, they seek to realize functional and institutional integration. Therefore, this paper intends to discuss the status and challenges of spatial planning in Indonesia to contribute to the cross-border development. In particular, the role of spatial planning, the planning processes, and its institution. This paper will discuss them through case studies in Sota (Indonesia-Papua New Guinea Land-Border) and Miangas-Marore (Indonesia-Philippines Sea-Border), its current conditions, as well as challenges faced. II. INDONESIA'S BORDER AREA: THE CURRENT STATUS Indonesia, the largest archipelago country is located at the intersection of two oceans (Pacific and Indian Ocean) and two continents (Australia and Asia). Due to its geographical location, Indonesia has a lot of countries bordering either directly or indirectly, by land or sea. There are 10 land border areas and also 92 small outer island that become Indonesias border region. Land boundary region directly borders to Malaysia, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Timor Leste. While sea area directly borders to 10 countries, namely India, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, Republic of Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Timor Leste and Australia. The overall border region of Indonesia spread over 10 sites. Land Border region spread over 3 (three) areas, namely Indonesia-Malaysia in Borneo island, Indonesia-PNG in Papua, and Indonesia-Timor Leste in East Nusa.

1 2

The Application of the European Spatial Development Perspective, Anne Jensen & Per Homann Jespersen Multi-level spatial planning in a cross border context. Brendan Murtagh 3 Ibid 4 Spatial Strategies On The Island Of Ireland: Framework For Collaboration. John Driscoll & Jim Hetherington

The boundary line between Indonesia-Malaysia extends along 2.004 km, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) along 107 km, and Indonesia and Timor Leste along approximately 263,8 miles. Meanwhile, the sea border areas including small islands located in the outermost 7 region, namely: Sea Border Region of Indonesia-Thailand/India/Malaysia including two small outer islands in the province of Aceh and North Sumatra, Sea Border Region of Indonesia-Malaysia/Vietnam/Singapore including the 20 outermost small islands in the province of Riau and Riau Islands, Sea Border Region of Indonesia-Malaysia/Philippines, including 18 small outer islands in the province of East Kalimantan, Central Sulawesi and North Sulawesi; Sea Border Region of Indonesia-Palau including small outer islands in North Maluku, West Papua, and Papua, Sea Border Region of Indonesia-Timor Leste/Australia including the 20 outermost small islands in the province of Maluku and Papua; Sea Border Region of Indonesia-Timor Leste, including 5 small outer islands in East Nusa, Sea Border Regions with high seas including the 19 outermost small islands in the province of Aceh, North Sumatra, West Sumatra, Bengkulu. Lampung, Banten, West Java, Central Java, East Java and West Nusa.

The illustration shows the position of border area which are borders with the sea as well as small islands with 92 outer islands. Some of the islands are still in need of more intensive administration and management because of the tendency problems with neighboring countries. The position of the 92 islands are shown below.
Figure 1 Illustration Map of 92 Location of Small Islands

Rondo, Berhala, Salaut Besar, Salaut Rondo, Berhala, Salaut Besar, Salaut Kecil, Rusa, Raya, Simeulucut Kecil, Rusa, Raya, Simeulucut Sentut, Tokong Malang Biru, Damar, Mangkai, Sentut, Tokong Malang Biru, Damar, Mangkai, Tokong Nanas, Tokong Belayar, Tokong Boro, Tokong Nanas, Tokong Belayar, Tokong Boro, Semiun, Sebetul, Sekatung, Senua, Subi Kecil, Semiun, Sebetul, Sekatung, Senua, Subi Kecil, Kepala, Iyu Kecil, Karimun Kecil, Nipa, Pelampong, Kepala, Iyu Kecil, Karimun Kecil, Nipa, Pelampong, Batu Berhanti, Nongsa Batu Berhanti, Nongsa Sebatik, Gosong Makasar, Maratua, Sebatik, Gosong Makasar, Maratua, Lingian, Salando, Dolangan, Bangkit, Lingian, Salando, Dolangan, Bangkit, Manterawu, Makalehi, Kawalusu, Manterawu, Makalehi, Kawalusu, Kawio, Marore, Batu Bawaikang, Kawio, Marore, Batu Bawaikang, Miangas, Marampit, Intata, Kakarutan Miangas, Marampit, Intata, Kakarutan

Berhala Berhala Liki, Bepondi, Bras, Fanildo, Miossu, Liki, Bepondi, Bras, Fanildo, Miossu, Fani, Budd, Jiew Fani, Budd, Jiew

Simuk, Wunga Simuk, Wunga

Sibarubaru, Sibarubaru, Sinyaunyau, Sinyaunyau, Mega Mega Enggano Enggano Batu Kecil Batu Kecil

Deli Deli Manuk, Manuk, Nusakambangan Nusakambangan Sophialouisa Sophialouisa Panehan, Sekel, Panehan, Sekel, Barung Barung Dana (ada 2), Batek, Dana (ada 2), Batek, Alor, Mangudu, Liran Alor, Mangudu, Liran Wetar, Kisar, Leti, Wetar, Kisar, Leti, Meatimiarang Meatimiarang Masela, Selaru, Batarkusu, Masela, Selaru, Batarkusu, Asutubun, Larat, Batu Asutubun, Larat, Batu Goyang, Enu, Karang, Goyang, Enu, Karang, Kultubai Selatan, Kultubai Kultubai Selatan, Kultubai Utara, Panambulai, Karaweira, Utara, Panambulai, Karaweira, Ararkula, Laag, Kolepon Ararkula, Laag, Kolepon

Peta Ilustrasi Letak 92 Pulau Kecil Terluar (PPKT)

Source: BNPP, 2011

This pattern above has shown the wide variety of cross-border issues and implied to the difficulties in policy making, examples of problems in terms of policy making that happen is number of variations borders regions in Indonesia such as land borders, sea borders with several countries at once, borders with developed countries (Singapore, Australia) or with

other developing countries (the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste) require different policies - different but will have to complete the policy contained in a line or in a specific guideline. European countries already have specific guidelines (European Spatial Development Perspective) (ESDP)5 that can be used as a reference for the various cases. European Spatial Development Perspective objective is to define at Union level policy objectives and general principles of spatial development to ensure the sustainable balanced development of the European territory which respects its diversity. Although not completely identical, this can be compared with the situation in Indonesia because Indonesia is a vast country with a scope which is also wide variation in the border. Due to development of cross border region, Central Government has released the law to regulate and coordinate planning policies in the region, such as: Law Number 43/2008 on the territory of the State. This policy explain the authorities in regulating the management and utilization of State and Frontier Regions. The implication is that all activities related to the border area should refer to the rules of the competent authority, in this case the central government and local government and BNPP. Policy Regarding Border Regions is also contained in the Medium Term Development Plan (RPJM) and Long Term Development Plan (RPJP) which is mainstreaming state border area management and development into governments programs and budgeting. Government Regulation No.26/2008 on National Spatial Plan (RTRWN) set border region as the National Strategic Activity Center (PKSN). PKSN is an urban areas which is established to encourage the development of border area. PKSN determined by criteria: o urban centers that have the potential for cross-border checkpoints with neighboring countries; o urban centers that serve as international gateways that connect with neighboring countries; o urban center which is a major transportation node that connects the surrounding area, and / or o urban center that is potential to become economic growth center, that may encourage the development of its surrounding area. PKSN development is intended to provide the services needed to develop community activities in the border region, including service activities across borders. PKSN development done within the framework of a national system of urban centers so that urban centers can cling to function with different levels of service. Presidential Decree No. 12 of 2010 Concerning the National Border Management Agency (BNPP). This regulation describes the formation of National Border Management Agency (BNPP), duties, functions and responsibilities. Grand Design, Master Plans (Reninduk) and Action Plan (Renaksi) of Border Area Management, which directs border areas development both longterm, medium term, and short term.

The Application of the European Spatial Development Perspective, Anne Jensen & Per Homann Jespersen

Those law above certainly inadequate to manage the cross-border properly, there are still many regulation that need to be defined, such as planning the border region in different level. For example, in local government (province and district) level in Indonesia: Regional Regulation of East Nusa Tenggara Province Number 4, 2010. This policy explains about the organization and procedures of the border management agency in East Nusa Tenggara Province. Regional Regulation of Sanggau District Number 8, 2011. This policy explains about the procedures of the border management agency in Sanggau District.

To implement the management of state-border area, Central Government has established BNPP as a leading agency, which consists of 15 ministries / provincial government. In this case, BNPP become coordinator border areas development, which directs the policies and programs to 15 institutions. Thus, the determination of those institutions as BNPP member is expected to synergize the development of border areas. BNPP has the task of setting policy and development program, set a budget requirement plan, coordinate implementation, and conduct the evaluation and supervision. BNPP has similar duties and obligations with National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) which is also a member of the BNPP, but BNPP is an institution specialized to take care of border issues. In the implementation of its duties and functions, BNPP also coordinated with border management agencies at the local level. The relationship of coordination with the local level including coaching, facilitation and supervision. The new regime of BNPP has brought the implication to the discourse of spatial planning. Because of its function as the coordinator of cross border area, the growth and development of border areas can be improved. Priority District in border area (Lokpri) will be managed by BNPP for 3 years and three phases, namely an early stage, management, and stabilization. In addition, the builder is not only on infrastructure alone, but BNPP will perform a variety of comprehensive development which affect and boost the economy in border communities (Sutrisno, secretary of BNPP, 2012). This is a positive improvements compared when there was no BNPP, while border management is only part of one of the subdivision in Bappenas, The presence of BNPP in border areas development can be more focused, targeted and efficient. III. INDONESIA'S BORDER AREA: PLANNING AND INSTITUTION DIMENSION As a planning area, the cross-border area should seen both two sides, Indonesia and its neighbor, both land and sea. This is important because both parties share the same interest in the border area. Problem in this boundary can raise the issue or the other dimension. The other important dimension that need to be considered are: 1. Determination and Confirmation of Boundaries The issue, for example, there has been no agreement on the demarcation with Republic of Palau. The agreement of the maritime boundary delimitation shall be brought to the international courts or arbitrations. Agreement between the Spanish and French are a good example for the Testament of sea borders. In 1974, the two parties concluded a Convention on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Bay of Biscay. 2. Defense and Security The issue, for example, there are still violation in state border activities, by foreign ship entering Indonesian territorial. For comparison, Vietnam marine military is currently

conducting a new approach by incorporating elements of the fishermen as one of the border area supervisor. Maritime military acts as a controller and taught some basic of understanding to the fishermen, they also planned Vietnam fishing boat to be equipped with communications equipment. 3. Economic Issues The issues, for examples: Low share of regional income. The absence of productive economic activity and marketing support for valueadded production, in improving the economic production of society. On-site business activity is still a priority of each individual, means that the results obtained from business activities (agriculture, plantation, fishery) is only to be used for individual households needs. Less institutions and organizations role related to community economic development. Limited facilities and infrastructure to support production and marketing activities. The exploitation of marine resources by other countries. Fishing in Indonesias territory lead to reduce the income of local fishermen. Examples for agreement by economy that can enhance international cooperation, among others is promotion and facilitation of development of border economic zones in Thailand. Cooperation in border economies with countries involved several organization and agreement. The agreement is also mention that relating countries should promote the cross-bordes investment, promotion of tourism industries and environmental protection. 4. Human Resources Issues The issues, for examples: Lack of human resource Conflict of interest and potential socio-economic jealousy of each other The spread of population is uneven, causing a lot of land that has not been used optimally and efficiently

One of the succesful program in Europe that can improve the quality of human resources in the border region is Operational Programme 'Czech Republic - Germany', co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The aim of this program is to improve competitiveness in all economic by supporting innovation, entrepreneurship and better quality products and services, and by reducing barriers to exchanging information. Further aims include boosting the attractiveness of a successful labor market and lifelong learning by improving social integration and supporting culture, healthcare, social care, civic protection, risk prevention and network developments. 5. Problems of Natural Resources and Environment The issues, for examples: The potential of natural resources has not been used optimally, Farming still relies on raw materials, so it does not provide added value for improving the welfare of the population.

Conflict of interest between the use of natural resources (mining, forestry) and environmental conservation. The utilization of marine resources and fisheries are illegal and destructive. Such as illegal fishing that is increasing environmental damage and pollution. The regulatory framework has not fairly complete, as well as the law enforcement.

Approach taken can be modeled from the Caribbean islands for tourism development agreement which conducted border area-based development of tourism and fisheries. To develop and maintain the resources required three main actors of the border area. The actors divided into local community as an executor, an institution as the director of research programs and related information as well as private parties as implementers. This development model has to be supported by previous agreement between countries. The institution arrangement that should be paid attention is about coordinating multi level government. The interaction in state border area are vary from the lowest level into the highest level. The highest level is the interaction between the central government between the two countries, meanwhile the lowest is only between two sub-district in both countries. Examples of interaction for the border region in several district is KASABA. KASABA Border Area is a strategic area which has priority in spatial use management. The implementation of the spatial use management is coordinated by the central government together with the local government and involves community participation and private sector. Because of that the spatial use management of KASABA Border Area is in a united system of spatial structure with its position as: More detailed spelling out of space structure and space pattern policy direction of Kalimantan island region. Management direction of space structure and space pattern of provinces and regencies located in this region. KASABA Border Area covers five district regions or 15 sub-district areas in West Kalimantan Province and three district regions or 10 sub-district areas in East Kalimantan Province.

Examples of interaction for the sub-district level or the lowest level is Sota and MiangasMarore. This kind of interaction are different, it involve only two districts of two bordering countries. Stakeholders whose role are the stakeholders on the local level. On condition that stakeholders are able to represent all interested parties. It was not necessary to use a layered procedure in this kind of interaction. Issue on the sub-district level will be different with district level, Sota and Miangas-Marore have local issues that is more viscous because the two countries are in the same tribe and some of the resident still have a fraternal relationship with other country. From research that has been done can be seen that for the lowest level such as Sota and Miangas-Marore, stakeholders who have contributed in addition to local government and relevant private sector is a local traditional leaders, village chiefs and local communities. Methods used in the sub-district border region for any agreement between two countries are focus group discussions (FGD) and informal meetings to discuss issues between the two regions. This was done in order to local stakeholders such as the public can understand the contents of the agreement between the two countries and apply it on a local scale. The role of the stakeholders such as private companies and local NGO is to provide information, as a supplier of information regarding the situation on the ground, executing and controlling programs as well as those who maintain the sustainability of the programs by inviting the public to participate in fulfilling agreement or agreements between the two

countries on the scope of the district. The local NGO can checks every citizen who travelled in and out of neighboring areas and control it. This has been conducted in Miangas, Marore and Sota. However, by assistance and guidance and assistance from the central government, the sustainability of programs will be able to generate profit, such as economic transactions between the two countries, and connecting the infrastructure development agreement between the two countries to turn the economy. IV. SPATIAL PLANNING AS A TOOL FOR MANAGING THE STATE BORDER AREA Spatial planning document is a reference in development activities, as stated in Law 26/2007 on Spatial Management. Spatial planning documents serves to provide direction in the context of spatial development. Within the framework of spatial management in Indonesia, spatial planning document is divided in a hierarchical manner, as described in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Hierarchy of Spatial Planning in Indonesia
NATIONAL

Islands Spatial Plan

National Spatial Plan

reffered to

Spatial Plan of National Strategic Area

Provincial Spatial Plan

PROVINCE

Spatial Plan of Provincial Strategic Area

reffered to

Local Spatial Plan

Regency Spatial Plan

Detailed Spatial Plan Spatial Plan of Strategic Area Detailed Spatial Plan Spatial Plan of Strategic Area

City Spatial Plan

CITY / REGENCY

Source: translated from the Law no. 26/2007 on Spatial Management; Bappenas (2010)

In Indonesia, the spatial planning product that specifically regulates border region, located both on the macro and micro level. At the macro level, it is positioned in Spatial Plan of National Strategic Area, which regulate space utilization in the border line territory. While at the micro level, it is positioned on Detailed Spatial Plan, which regulates blocks utilization in the district that directly border to the neighboring countries, namely in the districts that have a border gate. Spatial Plan Products at the macro and micro level should be integrated and synchronized each other, as the linkages and the hierarchy shown in the figure 2. The product of this plan will result in programs, which became a main reference for space utilization. But to be implemented, the program in the spatial planning should be integrated in the development planning, because in Indonesia, the government program budgeting based on development plans. Development planning in Indonesia (including the border area) is based on development plan documents. Law 25/2004 on National Development Planning System sets out the mechanism of development planning in Indonesia from the national to local scale. Under the Act, there are five product development plans, which include: (1) Long Term Development Plan (RPJP), (2) Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJM), (3) Government Work Plan (RKP), (4) Ministries Strategic Plan (Renstra), and (5) Ministries Work Plan
8

(Renja). The product is on the national, provincial, and city / regency level, and covers all the sectors represented in the ministries and agencies. This development plan document is a reference in budgeting development program in Indonesia. Each document has a hierarchical relationship, as outlined in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Hierarchy of Development Plan Documents in Indonesia

Source: translated from the Law no. 25/2004 on National Development Planning System; Bappenas (2010)

Both the development plan documents and spatial planning documents, they are reference in development activities. As we have stated above, that in order to implement spatial plans, programs in the spatial plan needs to be integrated into development plans. Therefore, both must be synchronized, and should not be viewed as a separate reference for the development activities. Synchronization between the two needs to be done in terms of substance of the plan, implementing institutions, as well as the planning area. The linkage between development planning and spatial planning can be seen in Figure 4. These linkages meant that spatial planning has an important role in development planning, both at macro and micro level. That is, spatial policy directions contained in the spatial plan documents will become a reference in the preparation of government program budgeting. In addition, spatial planning is also a legal basis in the utilization of space, meaning that it is the form of legal certainty to the public on the use of space.

Figure 4 Linkage Between Development Planning and Spatial Planning

PROVINCE

NATIONAL

CITY / REGENCY

Source: translated from the Law no. 25 of 2004 and Law no. 26 of 2007; Bappenas (2010)

With its important role, the border area spatial plan can be used as a tool for managing and developing the state border region. It should be able to accommodate the border area development needs, according to its unique characteristics compared to other regions, as the border between countries. Therefore, starting from the planning process, the parties involved in the planning, as well as the supporting regulations, must be able to accommodate the needs of development and uniqueness of the border region, so that, it can be an appropriate tool for managing and developing the state border region. The Borders Spatial Plan on a macro level implied the role and functions of Lokpri and PKSN. The plan sets out each border point role and function, so that we can know development approach for each PKSN and Lokpri. Meanwhile, the micro-scale plan which is a derivative of macro-scale plan, organize blocks in Lokpri and PKSN. The plan in this document is detailed, so that it can be used as a basis for development permits in PKSN and Lokpri. Therefore, spatial plan at the micro level is very important, because it directly regulate space utilization on the front porch of the nation. In the next section, we outline the detailed spatial planning process at the micro level in Sota and Miangas-Marore. V. LEARNING FROM SOTA AND MIANGAS-MARORE CASES The previous section explained the importance of spatial planning in the border areas management and development, both macro and micro level. Next section, we will describe the spatial planning process in Miangas-Marore and Sota, based on our empirical research in 2011. In studying Miangas-Marore and Sota case, we identify how the planning process itself runs, its regulatory support, and the actors involved. In Sota and Miangas-Marore, since both

10

Local Spatial Plan

are located in the sub-district scale, the spatial plan conducted is a detailed spatial plan, as we have stated in the previous section above. We use the desk studies method to assess the spatial plan that is produced, and conducted interviews, both to BNPP, local governments, and planners who make the spatial plan, to know how the planning process was going. 5.1 Planning Process To understand the spatial planning process in Sota and Miangas-Marore, we observed the planning team involved, how the process of collecting and analyzing data, and how the planning process itself. So that we can analyze whether the spatial plan could answer the needs of spatial planning in border areas, particularly in detail scale. Planning Team. Based on our discussions with BNPP, the planning team involved in the preparation of spatial plans in Miangas-Marore and Sota is consultant team contracted by BNPP through tender mechanism. Consultant team is a private company consisting variety of expertise, from urban and regional planning expert (as a team leader), architecture expert, economic expert, urban infrastructure and facilities expert, environmental engineer, social and cultural expert, GIS expert, remote sensing expert, hydrology expert, law expert, international relations expert, and forestry expert. Various experts involved in the preparation of detailed spatial plan indicating that the plan has considered various aspects that can affect space utilization. Reviews from various experts become consideration in the making of space structure as well as its zoning. We interviewed the team leader, and he said, contained a variety of skills within a team, still need to be integrated into a comprehensive analysis, to produce a sharp issue, and it is his the task as a team leader.
"Although our team is made up of various experts, still need city planner which directs the team, because he/she can become the integrator of various science-based analysis, into a comprehensive spatial plan (Team Leader)

However, in the contract documents between BNPP with the consulting firm, there were no rules of passport ownership requirement for the planning team. There is no obligation for the planning team to visit neighboring countries to assess the spatial conditions there. This would then result in weakness of the data collection and analysis process, as well as the plan formulation itself.
"There was no passport requirements in the tender documents" (BNPP Auction Committee)

Data Collecting. Data and information collected includes geographic and administrative conditions, physical conditions, land use, economic, demographic and socio-cultural, infrastructure and facilities service, transportation systems, and institutional support. In addition to statistical data and documents, also conducted field surveys. Field surveys carried out through direct field observation to see existing condition in the border region, local interviews, local government interviews, so the potential aspect and the problems that occur in the border region can be mapped, as the basis for the plan formulation. However, based on our discussions with the planning team, the planning team tend to focus on collecting data and information in the planning area only. Only a few data and information related to Papua New Guinea and the Philippines. The planning team has not been optimally collect data and information in the neighboring countries, only rely on secondary data from literatures. In fact, field data and information cannot be simply captured than just relying on secondary data. Interview method that aims into a deeper information only done at the local government and local residents. There is no interview process carried out against neighboring
11

countries citizens, nor the neighboring countries government. The planning team did not make a visit to neighboring countries to collect data and information related to their border area. Though Miangas-Marore just 72 km from the Philippines, while Sota only 16 km away from Wereave (a nearby village in Papua New Guinea). This distance should be quite logical for a working visit. In short, the process of collecting data and information on Papua New Guinea and the Philippines is very minimal. As stated by the team leader:
"Davao in the Philippines is far, we had to use a boat, so we only collected data and information on Miangas and Marore only. Visiting the Philippines is necessary, because there is interaction between people here with the Philippines citizens. However, due to time constraints, we did not visit the Davao "(Miangas-Marore Team Leader) "We did not visit Wereave, just visit the border." (Sota Team Leader)

Data Analysis. Similarly with data collecting process, data analysis process was more oriented to the Indonesia planning area. Analysis about conditions in neighboring countries is very minimal. Analysis related to the neighboring countries only in the form of economic and social interaction between Indonesia and the Philippines and Papua New Guinea. In Sota detailed spatial plan, the planning team has analyzed Indonesia-Papua New Guinea local trade interaction at the border, as well as social kinship. While in Miangas-Marore spatial plan, the planning team has analyzed the interaction of interstate commerce in the port, export-import relations, and socio-cultural interaction. However, analysis of conditions in neighbor state itself has not been done. Though at least planning team should analyze potential aspects in neighboring countries that can be captured by Indonesia border region. The team leader state that:
" We obtained information about Papua New Guinea, especially Wereave, from the interviews with residents in the border Sota, as well as literature study from various sources and internet" (Sota Team Leader)

Plan Formulation. As a result lack of orientation towards neighbors in the data collection and analysis process, the plan was not sufficient to accommodate the needs of border areas development. At the time of plan formulation process, the planning team has not made a study about neighbor spatial plan. Supposedly, in Miangas-Marore case, the planning team should review the Philippines Sea Zoning Plan as well as its Islands, so Miangas-Marore can seize the opportunities arising from their zoning plan. Similarly, in Sota case, the planning team should have reviewed Papua New Guinea border region zoning plan. This is manifested in the spatial map generated in the document plan (both Sota and Miangas-Marore), it shows none information about neighboring zoning plan. Failure to examine the spatial plan in neighboring countries once demonstrated by the Paloh-Aruk (Indonesia-Malaysia) Border Area Plan. In the spatial plan, Indonesia set a golf recreation zoning in the border region, while Malaysia set as the industrial area. This indicates unsynchronized use of space, because we certainly do not want to inhale smoke while playing golf. Therefore, the study of neighboring countries spatial plan is an absolute must to be done in the formulation of border areas spatial plan. Figure 5 is Map of Sota Spatial Plan, shows lack of information about Papua New Guinea Border zoning plan. As stated by the team leader:
"We cannot display the zoning map of Papua New Guinea border region on our map, because we did not get the data. There arent any on the internet, and we didnt visit their Government too, so theres no such data" (Sota Team Leader)

Guidance in preparing a detailed spatial plan in Indonesia actually been issued by the Ministry of Public Works, in the form of Minister of Public Works Regulations No.20/PRT/M/2011. The regulation has been set up charge that should exist in a detailed spatial plan documents, as well as its drafting procedures. Referring to the Regulations, the

12

planning process conducted as we have described above has no flaws. However, we need to know that the border region has unique characteristics and different from other regions, where we are in contact with the interests of the two countries, then surely we need different special rules that complement these regulations. By simply referring to these regulations, the resulting spatial policy has not been able to accommodate the needs of the border region. Until now Indonesia does not have specific rules governing the spatial planning of border regions. 5.2 Rules and Actors

Figure 5 Map of Sota Spatial Plan

In addition to identifying the planning process, we also identify regulatory support, along with the actors involved in the planning process itself. Based on our identification, actors involved in the spatial planning process in Sota and Miangas-Marore are local actors, both local government and local communities. This was done to establish a mechanism for participatory planning. The methods used in building participatory planning is focused group discussion (FGD) forum. FGD forum in Miangas-Marore inviting 20 participants consisting of BNPP as the central government representatives, urban planners as expert representatives of the planning team, local government elements, as well as local community representatives. FGD aims to explore the potential aspects as well as its problems, by asking the opinions of each forum participant. Based on the description, that the stakeholders who were invited only from Indonesia, there was no representative from the Philippines in the FGD forum. That is, the planning process was lack of discussion and negotiation with the neighboring country. Thus, the spatial analysis becomes less sharp. This continued in the weaknesses of spatial plan which will be produced later. The resulting spatial plan loses its color as the State border, and only become a conventional spatial plan as in other areas. As stated by central government and local government:

13

"We didnt invite the Filipino people nor their government in FGD. Because we dont have any access to communicate with them. Never did any communication with the Philippine government to hold FGD together "(Talaud Government, Local Government of Miangas) "At present, communications with our neighbor only took place at the top level, diplomacy level. At the micro level such as FGD has never been implemented, especially in determining spatial policy at the border "(BNPP) "In the FGD, there was no representation at all from the Philippines, both citizens and government. FGD only involve local community and local government. Supposedly, we invited representatives from our neighbor, but we do not have access to communicate with them. "(Miangas-Marore Team Leader)

The planning process is still the conventional nature (as described in the paragraph above and also in part 5.1), also a consequence of the lack of supporting regulations to encourage the communication mechanism with neighboring countries. We consider that it was the result of a lack of legislation support: no law supports to talk to neighboring government no law supports to enter the neighbor area and observe the spatial potential aspects no law supports to invite the neighbor countries' stakeholders to the planning process no law supports for data collecting in the neighbor countries

"There are no statutory regulations governing how we communicate with neighboring countries in determining spatial policy in the border region" (BNPP)

As a result of the process, the spatial planning has not been able to capture the unique characteristics possessed by the border region, especially the characteristics of the interaction with neighboring countries. So that the spatial plan has not been able to provide the strategies to optimize existing resources in the border region, synergize the interaction with neighboring countries, as well as harmonize the socio-political relations and cooperation between the two countries. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that the spatial planning have not been able to answer the border areas management and development problems. VI. CONCLUSION From case studies in Miangas-Marore and Sota, we can see that the spatial planning process still less consideration and orientation to the neighboring countries. We still have an inward looking approach, instead of outward looking approach. According to Sohn, Reitel and Walther in "Cross-border metropolitan integration in Europe: the case of Luxemburg, Basel, and Geneva", we could infer that the planning process in Indonesia is still at the stage of "separation" and "ignorance". That is, not yet reached the institutional and functional integration. We are still far from that ideal conditions, as shown by Basel and Geneva, which has been integrated, both institutionally and functionally. Figure 6 illustrates this point.

14

Figure 6 Institutional and Functional Integration in Border Area Development

MiangasMarore Sota

Source: Sohn, reitel and walther. cross-border metropolitan integration in europe: the case of luxemburg, basel, and geneva, in spatial strategies on the island of ireland: framework for collaboration:mr. John driscoll & mr. Jim hetherington

Under these conditions, spatial planning in Indonesia has not been able to answer the problems in managing and developing border areas. Planning is still oriented to Indonesia, not much consider interaction with neighboring countries, so the spatial plan has not been able to provide the optimum strategies. To achieve functional and institutional integration with the neighbor, we need to know what the development goals of the two countries are, and then synergize them in the development of border areas in each countries. To achieve these objectives, the communication mechanism between countries is needed, both at the level of intergovernmental cooperation, and cooperation of local communities in the border region (which may have lasted since long time naturally, and unconstructed). In order to progress effectively, efficiently and produce the optimum benefits, then both countries should engage in an integrated planning process. The process of development planning in the border region cannot be done separately. Planning process and its institution must be integrated, linked, and matched. In short, the planning process needs to be improved, the institution need to be strengthened, and the capacity of planners need to be empowered.

15

REFERENCE BNPP. 2011. Sota Spatial Plan. BNPP. 2011. Spatial Data in Indonesia and Philippine border area, Marore and Miangas. Driscoll, John & Hetherington, Jim. Spatial Strategies On The Island Of Ireland: Framework For Collaboration. ICLRD.19-20 January 2012. Dundalk, County Louth. Jensen, Anne & Homann Jespersen, Per. From Corridor To Region: Trans-Border Cooperation On Infrastructure, Innovation And Research As Participative Planning In Practice. Centre for Transport Research, Roskilde University. Law Number 26/2007 on Spatial Management Law Number 43/2008 on the Territory of the State Law Number 25/2004 on National Development Plan System Murtagh, Brendan. Multi-Level Spatial Planning In A Cross Border Context. School of Environmental Planning Queens University Belfast. Sohn, Reitel and Walther. Cross-border metropolitan integration in Europe: the case of Luxemburg, Basel, and Geneva. Tsuneishi, Takao. 2008. Development Of Border Economic Zone In Thailand : Expansion Of Border Trade And Formation Of Border Economic Zones. IDE (institute of developing economy) discussion paper. United Nations-The Nippon Foundation Fellow Germany. 2005. Law Of The Sea Maritime Boundaries And Dispute Settlement Mechanisms. Zappino, Vincenzo. 2005. Caribbean Tourism and development: An overview. European Centre for Development Policy Management Centre. Paper No. 65. http://www.gatra.com/nasional-cp/1-nasional/3764-bnpp-rp-28-triliun-untuk-bangun-daerahperbatasan http://www.caricom.org/index.jsp http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/details_new.cfm?gv_PAY=CZ&gv_reg= ALL&gv_PGM=1278&LAN=7&gv_per=2&gv_defL=7

16