A road map for achieving community resilience taking various entry-points and pathways

4.1 A road map for achieving community resilience taking various entry-points and pathways

Based on the field visits, existing CBDRM literature, and the recent studies commissioned by AIFDR on organisational capacity of BNBP/BPBD and a political economy analysis of DRM in Indonesia, we see change happening by fostering community resilience on one hand (bottom-up) and building the capacity of government DRM related agencies on the other hand. These two tracks need to be brought together so they will benefit from one another through building linkages, creating dialogue spaces and forging partnerships between communities at risk, CSOs, (I)NGOs, local government, media, private sector and knowledge centres. These interactions promote mutual understanding and contribute to the democra tiza tion of DRM resulting in evidence-based DRM planning and

decisions that are context-specific, rele vant and appropriate for local communities 16 . Interactions are encouraged to take place at different localities and administrative levels where

we want change to happen. Therefore we arrived at criteria for area selection and different institutional entry-points . These can be pulled together into a ‘roadmap’ (maybe more a rotary than a highway) to enhance community resilience on one hand, and good DRM governance on the other hand. Figure 4.1 visualizes the roadmap using various entry-points and pathways at different administrative levels. Over time the different pathways and actors will increasingly interact in the dialogue spaces where they form partnerships for coordination, negotiate and improve institutions, lobby and advocate for sustainable DRM. The figure doesn’t show a linear model since interactions, dialogues and partnerships are complex and unpredictable. We rather promote an iterative process of interaction whereby the quality and nature of interactions improve due to continuous reflection and learning that lead to evidence-based decision-making, policy formulation and institutional development (Knowledge-to-Policy Strategy).

DRM dialogue spaces or platforms aim to create space for the empowerment and active participation of stakeholders who intend to search solutions to a shared problem. This can be differentiated into three key strands: “mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution, for adaptive management and as

a vehicle for democracy and emancipation (Warner, 2006). It is expected that DRM Platforms result in more acceptable decisions than when stakeholders do not engage with each other (ibid).

Of course, creating DRM dialogue spaces also have to deal with several challenges that influence the functioning of these platforms like power relationships, platform composition, stakeholder representa tion and capacity for meaningful participation, mechanisms for decision-making and the cost of creating a platform (time, energy and funds) (Faysse, 2006). Table 4.3 present possible outcome indicators for the nature of interactions in these dialogue spaces.

16 Evidence that interactions and dialogues between government and civil society lead to good DRM governance is taken from the Philippines where CBDRM has been embedded in development and spatial planning processes, but there are plenty of more local examples like the Watershed Management Forum in NTT, and Jampi Sawan in Pati district, Central Java.

Table 4.3 Outcome indicators for the nature of interactions in dialogue spaces

Interactions and relationships between CBOs, CSO, BPBDs and line ministries

‘Needs to change’ outcome indicators ‘Trying to change’ outcome indicators

• BPBDs or NGOs organize workshops, roundtable • Dialogue spaces function to allow different DRM discussions on DRM related matters with CBOs to create

actors to express their views and pose questions that understanding on DRM needs and roles.

elicit reflective and critical thinking on DRM • NGOs are no longer seen as anti-government, while

• Dialogue spaces are used to facilitate, discuss and legislative barriers that hinder GO-NGO cooperation are

develop DRM plans, regulations, and ways to better taken away