Local level DRM practices in Indonesia
2.2 Local level DRM practices in Indonesia
Community-based approaches to DRM are relatively new in Indonesia, compared to countries like the Philippines or Bangladesh where CBDRM has proven its value. In Bangladesh, cyclones today only cause a fraction of formerly experienced deaths, thanks to shelters, early warning mechanisms and evacuation, and in finding appropriate risk reduction measures. CBDRM in Indonesia is being
6 PLANAS consists of 3 government agencies, 4 academic institutions, 13 CSOs, 2 media, 5 private sector organizations, PMI and 6 faith-based organisations (Djalante, 2012) 6 PLANAS consists of 3 government agencies, 4 academic institutions, 13 CSOs, 2 media, 5 private sector organizations, PMI and 6 faith-based organisations (Djalante, 2012)
Key-outcome of this CBDRM approach is the creation of CBDRM-teams at village level which are able to warn their community-members and to safely evacuate vulnerable groups in times of disasters. The communities that are selected for this CBDRM approach have experienced disaster events in the past. Examples are volcano prone areas like Mt. Merapi and Mt. Kelud where recent eruptions happened, and in tsunami and earthquake affected areas in Yogyakarta, West Sumatra and Aceh. These communities are more likely to be motivated to invest in disaster preparedness than communities which have not yet experienced disasters. Local people are eager to learn skills and approaches that reduce the number of casualties and damage.
CBDRM as a project instead of community empowering process Looking at the different CBDRM-traditions in figure 1 (chapter 1), it can be concluded that most DRM actors in Indonesia view CBDRM as a project instead of a community empowerment process. NGOs use the logframe for measuring progress and success. For instance, when CBDRM-teams are formed and evacuation drills are conducted, the CBDRM-intervention is regarded as successful, stressing the usage of participatory tools, enhancement of community early warning systems and evacuation plans - which substantially led to increase community preparedness (Lassa, 2012; Hillman and Sagala, 2010). Viewing CBDRM as a community empowerment process and an approach for institutional development is still rare in Indonesia. The intended shift of the DM law to focus on the underlying causes of disasters and less on their impact has not yet transpired.
A key-element of CBDRM policy is that communities need to take an active role in the identification of their risk problems and in the decision-making of what should be done to solve these using terms like ‘participation ’and ‘local ownership’. The project-oriented CBDRM approach actually consists of preconceived activities without room for changes or adaptations based on local risk perspectives. ‘Participation’ rather means involving people in project activities which is assumed to make interventions more efficient, and people are mainly ‘empowered’ in terms of forming community organizations, a type and level of empowerment that poses no serious threat to prevailing power relations (Bebbington et al 2007: 598). ‘People’s participation’ is here not meant to question or confront power inequalities nor to transform institutional arrangements to reduce disaster
7 For example Indonesian Institute of Science, Institute of Technology Bandung and other universities in Indonesia play a role in raising awareness of communities through disaster education and public campaign (Sagala, 2010). These education and campaign are often carried out in partnerships with NGOs, development agencies and/or donors.
vulnerability, but that people act as volunteers to do the work on behalf of government to save resources. The project-oriented CBDRM approach largely ignores the social, economic and political origins of disaster vulnerability still ‘seeing’ disasters as sudden, external events. When CBDRM implementation gets delayed, NGOs attribute this to ‘communication barriers’ between facilitators and (in)formal leaders in the village. However, CBDRM interventions, like any intervention, involves negotiation, debates and struggles over resources and interests (see conceptual framework) which requires time to arrive at appropriate risk solutions. CBDRM interventions do not start on a blank page, isolated from the broader context.
But many NGOs assume they do: instead of exploring the capacities of CBOs, and other forms of social capital, new CBDRM structures are established. NGOs do not fully recognize existing community structures, institutions or local knowledge. Most rural communities in Indonesia understand very well the potential risks; they have their specific coping strategies to deal with threats from natural hazards. Yet, such strategies are not fully integrated in current CBDRM practices while these are crucial when searching for more sustainable CBDRM interventions. Particularly this is due to facilitators’ lack of capacity to contextualize the CBDRM text book into practice. Another weakness observed by Djalante (2012) is that DRM actors at the local level can’t access the abundance of material published on lessons learned, and also systematic learning from past practices is not developed locally by decision-makers.
Although communities are involved in the CBDRM process, they don’t seem to experience a shift in mind-set meaning that they still view their vulnerable position in society as unchangeable, accepting prevailing norms, values and institutions that legitimate current relationships and arrangements. Even when CBDRM-teams are linked to local government, it remains unclear how such partnership can guarantee sustainability or achieve community resilience. The CBDRM-teams are not equipped with leadership skills, like lobby and negotiation skills or speaking in public. They often don’t know where to go for additional DRM support. Nevertheless, there are a few good case studies that can
be referred to as empowering CBDRM approaches that improve community resilience, like CBDRM practices in Muria Region, Central Java, implemented by four local NGOs linked through the Muria Coalition 8 , while also the CBDRM approach applied by the Partners for Resilience seems promising. These approaches aim to rework and develop institutional arrangements with government, engage with BPBDs and relevant line departments in their lobby and dialogue efforts, which remains a challenge and require efforts beyond project-timeframes.
In Muria Region, Central Java, for instance, decentralisation of powers to the district level makes it difficult for flood-affected communities to address environmental issues and inappropriate land use in their watershed which covers three districts. Land use planning and watershed management are issues still being decided at higher levels. Provinces still have autonomy in spatial planning, public works, and environmental issues, among others, and the national level keeps the responsibility for natural resources. Whereas Pati district has a DRM plan and policy since July 2010, the adjacent districts lack any DRM policy or structure making inter-district cooperation almost impossible. Aside of the lack of knowledge and understanding of the new responsibilities at the various government levels and departments concerning DRR, the decentralization did not result in the decentralization of revenues. This implies that districts can set their priorities but are not sure whether they will have the funding for implementation. This is another constraint for the district government to not invest in big projects like river normalization. In the end, it remains unclear what exactly has been decentralised (Schulte-Nordholt, 2003) which prevent district governments to look beyond investments in
8 See http://www.kerkinactie.nl/site/uploadedDocs/CBDRManditstransformativepotential.pdf 8 See http://www.kerkinactie.nl/site/uploadedDocs/CBDRManditstransformativepotential.pdf
School-based approaches to reduce disaster risk School-based approaches are applied by NGOs that focus on children as their entry points, such as World Vision (2010), Plan International (2010) and Save the Children. The NGOs with their local partners normally incorporate teachers, children and their parents in the activities. School-based approaches also focus on disaster preparedness through simulations. Often this is supported by mainstreaming DRR into their curricula translated to the local context. Theoretically, this is ideal but it reveals that some teachers would like to have ‘ready-to-use’ materials rather than to develop the local content themselves. In terms of partnership, school-based management (manajemen berbasis sekolah ) is applied by involving the department of education, BPBD, the school committee and teachers which later approach and advocate to parliament members. Another approach is by having
a headmaster forum at district level where they can share information on school safety and DRM. The school- based approach to CBDRM could also be a stepping-stone to conduct disaster prearedness training in nearby communities.