COMMUNIT Y SELF-RELIANCE ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT
Acknowledgement
In its attempts to better understand what has been achieved in community resilience and community based disaster risk management in Indonesia, the Australia-Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction (AIFDR) supported a study into community resilience and self-reliance in November- December 2012. While the study does not capture all of the stories and best practice in this field, due to the limited research time, we were extremely lucky to work with two dedicated and professional consultants, Annelies Heijmans and Saut Sagala, who planned and crafted the research, undertook field investigations, developed CBDRM models and completed the analysis that we are presenting to you now.
AIFDR would like to thank all of the communities visited for contributing their time, and for sharing their stories and experiences with us. We are also grateful to our interviewees from the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), particularly Ir. Bernardus Wisnu Widjaja M.Sc and Drs. Muhtaruddin, BNPB consultant Chasan Ascholani, M.Si, Togu Pardede from Bappenas, Wayne Ulrich and Robert Sulistyo from IFRC, Irina Rafliana from LIPI, Lukman Hakim from Oxfam in Indonesia, Ari Nugroho, Dame Manalu and Dian Lestariningsih from Karina, Amin Magatani from Plan International, Abby Mamesah from World Vision, Prih Harjadi from BMKG, Avianto Muhtadi from Nahdlatul Utama, and academics Jonatan Lassa and Eko Teguh Paripurno.
Our utmost appreciation also goes to our interviewees in East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) for their generous and frank contributions and insights, including Ellen and Poli from Caritas Maumere, Eko from Wetlands International, Sylavanus Tibo from BPBD Sikka, Anton from LPTP, Yayo and Ruslan from BPBD Ende, and Roni and Vincent from the Flores Institute for Resource Development (FIRD). From West Sumatra we particularly thank Simon Matakupan from Mercy Corps, Turmizi from SurfAid International, Patra Rina Dewi from Kogami, Jefriyanto, Rumainur and Richard from the West Sumatra BPBD, Zainir Koto and Syafrimen from the Padang Pariaman BPBD, Nurhayati and Fatmiyeti from Limbubu NGO, Budhi Erwanto and Hermansyah from the Kota Padang BPBD.
In West Aceh, we particularly like to thank Pak Aria and his colleagues from IBU-Foundation- Meulaboh for their contributions and for arranging the interviews with village heads and CBDRM- teams in Desa Langung, Desa Gampung Pasir, Desa Kautumbang, and with FORMASIBAB. We highly appreciated the insights shared by H. Teuku Ahmed Dadek, head of BPBD West Aceh, and for explaining the achievements in West Aceh since the tsunami in 2004.
In East Java there are many people to whom we are grateful. First of all to Pak Darmawan, head BPBD East Java Province and Pak Sugeng, Director Preparedness and Mitigation BPBD East Java, to Buju Gunjoro, secretary of BPBD Blitar and Kaltian, Emergeny and Logistics BPBD Blitar, Bapak Wiyono, head BPBD Banyuwangi, Pak Suhardi and Ibu Nadif Ulfia from BPBD Bojonegoro, to Akhmad Junaida, Mas Polo, DC and Mita from Yayasan Indonesian Cerdas, to Arif Santoso of Jawa Pos, to Mas Oni from Walhi-Surabaya, Djoni Irianto from PMI-East Java, Abdul Habdi Rashid from Jangkar Kelud, Gendon from Kappala, to the preparedness teams from desa Besowo, Desa Satak, Desa Widang and Desa Solo all in Blitar, to PMI staff in Banyuwangi, CBAT-PMI in desa Sumberagung, Pesanggaran sub- district, and to Jainal Anis from FPBI Banyuwangi.
Finally we are grateful to Dian Octarina for her professional translation skills, patience and pleasant company.
We further like to thank AIFDR’s provincial DRM consultants, Didik Mulyono (East Java) and Wawan Budianto (West Sumatra), for their insightful contributions to discussions and analysis. Also the invaluable inputs and feedback on interim reports from Ben O’Sullivan, Jeong Park, Piter Edward, and Allan Bell of DFAT’s Disaster Response Unit were highly appreciated.
Special thanks is due to the staff of AIFDR especially to Rina Amalia, Trevor Dhu, Tini Astuti, Widya Setiabudi and Elia Surya for managing the field work logistics, for their teamwork during and after field visits, and for their continuing support to improve the quality of this study. We hope that the experiences, insights and ideas from this study will inspire others to contribute to Indonesia becoming safer and more resilient.
Please enjoy, On behalf of AIFDR Team:
Jason Brown Training & Outreach Manager
Disclaimer: The views presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of AusAID/AIFDR or our partners
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement 3 Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 Overarching aim and specific objectives of the Community Self-Reliance Analysis
1.2 Definition of concepts
1.3 Research questions
1.4 Conceptual framework
1.5 Scope and methodology for the analysis
1.6 Structure of the report
2. Situational analysis of CBDRM in Indonesia – challenges, gaps and needs
2.1 The broader political and institutional context of Indonesia related to DRM
2.2 Local level DRM practices in Indonesia
2.3 Capacity of NGOs to work with government and to link communities with government 23
2.4 Challenges, gaps and needs
3. Overview of key findings and observations from the field visits
3.1 How is CBDRM defined and operationalized in practice?
3.2 How do the various actors view and interact in the (CB)DRM spaces to realize their interests?
3.3 Effective strategies to achieve community resilience and building partnerships
3.3.1. CBDRM as empowering process towards institutional development
3.3.2 CBDRM as a project to establish disaster-preparedness teams linked to CBO-network and BPBD
3.3.3 Project-oriented and school-based CBDRM approach
3.3.4 Inter-sectoral approach to CBDRM integrating disaster preparedness with livelihood concerns and institutional development - Partners for Resilience
3.3.5. CBDRM through faith-based organizations and networks
4. Developing a theory of change for achieving community resilience in Indonesia
4.1 A road map for achieving community resilience taking various entry-points and pathways
4.2 Rationale for area selection
4.3 Rationale for the various entry points to communities
4.4 Entry-points at district and provincial level: BPBDs
4.5 Existing NGO-CSO networks at district, provincial and national level as entry-points
4.6. Constraints to the envisioned change
4.7 AIFDR’s role and added value in achieving this change
4.8 Other DRM actors’ roles in achieving this change
5. Evidence-based approaches to CBDRM
5.1 School-based CBDRM approach
5.2 NGO/CSO facilitates community disaster preparedness and linkage building with CBOs and BPBD
5.3. Relief and livelihood recovery as entry-point for comprehensive CBDRM addressing root causes of people’s vulnerability
5.4 Inter-sectoral partnership approach to CBDRM contributing to institutional development 67
5.5 Key strategies for achieving community resilience
1. Effective CBDRM involves a change in mind-sets
2. Effective CBDRM seeks inclusiveness during the process
3. Effective CBDRM recognizes local people’s perspectives, priorities and their knowledge to deal with adversity with a focus on livelihood resilience
4. Mobilization of social action and effective civil society led advocacy for DRM is effective for making government accountable and a responsible actor in DRM
5. Effective CBDRM builds on different bodies of knowledge
6. Effective CBDRM is linked to, seeks cooperation with, and involves different actors, including government departments towards establishing formal GO-CSO DRR Coordination Bodies
7. Institutionalizing CBDRM in national development planning: further up-scaling
8. CBDRM approaches remain effective and relevant through continuous real-time learning and systematizing knowledge
9. Effective CBDRM seeks creative and innovative funding and support strategies
References 79 List of abbreviations
84 List of interviews
Executive Summary
This Community Self-Reliance Analysis aims to provide a broad assessment of how different civil society organizations, international and local non-governmental organizations, government agencies, community networks, the private sector and media interact and engage in the disaster management spaces in Indonesia. The analysis is expected to produce evidence-based approaches to CBDRM that are effective and sustainable, and can be considered for AIFDR’s new DRM programme.
This analysis conceives CBDRM in the broader political and institutional context of Indonesia and pro poses to use the notion of ‘community resilience’ instead of ‘community self-reliance’. Community resilience recognizes the continuous changing nature of disasters in the future, and communities’ abilities to effectively anticipate, respond and adapt to disasters and to transform interactions with government into functioning institutions and good DRM governance.
Based on CBDRM literature review, field visits to East Java, Nusa Tenggara Timur, West Aceh, and West Sumatra, and interviews with Jakarta-based organizations, we developed a theory of change for achieving community resilience. The analysis indicates that this may happen through:
n Changing mind-sets about how DRM actors interpret disasters, perceive other DRM actors and practice CBDRM. Focus is on transformational learning and critical reflection instead of education.
n Change as a result of contradictions in society. We observed that many laws and regulations on DRM exist that favour community resilience, but that these are not implemented due to constraints within government and between government and vulnerable people. Efforts to make government policies congruent with practice will be target of the change agenda by improving both CSO organisational capacity and GoI organisational capacity through their critical interaction as opposed to viewing them as two parallel isolated tracks.
A way to influence and change government performance in DRM is to mobilize social action through strong CSO/NGO networks which engage with government, private sector, knowledge centres at various levels.
n To achieve the three points above, creation of DRM dialogue spaces is required where the different DRM actors meet, share experiences, coordinate DRM efforts, negotiate and decide about DRM resource allocation. Different strategies are possible ranging from informal workshops towards lobby and advocacy in more formal DRM platforms or in district/provincial parliaments.
We see this change happening by fostering community resilience on one hand (bottom-up approach) 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, (I)NGOs, faith-based organisations, local government, media, the private sector and knowledge centres. These interactions promote mutual understanding and contribute to the democratization of DRM resulting in evidence-based DRM planning and decisions that are context-specific, relevant and appropriate for local communities.
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 entry-points pulled together in a road map. We recommend to select:
(1) Coastal communities at high risk for tsunami and earthquake taking a multi-hazard perspective (2) Communities frequently affected by hydro-meteorological hazards without excluding other
hazards (3) Select communities cluster-wise affected by the same hazard-type taking a landscape approach.
Chapter 5 presents four evidence-based approaches to CBDRM that foster community resilience at the local level and have the potential to contribute to institutional development at district/ provincial levels. The four approaches are not exclusive and shouldn’t be perceived as blue-prints. They can be combined, blended or applied in a sequential manner depending on local settings, needs and abilities of the DRM actors involved. The four approaches are based on effective strategies that we observed in Indonesia during the conduct of this analysis and previous research and can be labelled as follows:
1. School-based CBDRM approach
2. NGO/CSO facilitates community disaster preparedness and linkage building with CBOs and BPBD
3. Relief and livelihood recovery as entry-point for comprehensive CBDRM addressing root causes of people’s vulnerability
4. Inter-sectoral partnership approach to CBDRM contributing to institutional development The second part of this chapter summarizes the nature of effective and sustainable CBDRM
practices through nine key-strategies that should be considered in each of the four approaches to CBDRM mentioned above to achieve community resilience:
1. Effective CBDRM involves a change in mind-sets
2. Effective CBDRM seeks inclusiveness during the process
3. Effective CBDRM recognizes local people’s perspectives, priorities and their knowledge to deal with adversity with a focus on livelihood resilience
4. Mobilization of social action and civil society-led advocacy for DRM is effective for making government accountable and a responsible actor in DRM
5. Effective CBDRM builds on different bodies of knowledge
6. Effective CBDRM is linked to, seeks cooperation with, and involves different actors, including govern ment departments towards establishing GO-CSO coordination bodies
7. Institutionalizing CBDRM in national development planning
8. CBDRM approaches remain effective and relevant through continuous real-time learning and systematizing knowledge
9. Effective CBDRM seeks creative and innovative funding and support strategies
Introduction
Dihilangkan dan diganti dengan: Community Self-Reliance Analysis is commissioned by the Australia- Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction (AIFDR). Community self-reliance refers to the ability of communities to effectively prepare for and mitigate disaster risks. This is assumed to be achieved through partnerships between district disaster management agencies (BPBDs) and CSOs to facilitate community knowledge and behavioural change”. This Community Self-Reliance Analysis aims to provide an in-depth analysis on approaches that foster community self-reliance. The analysis will provide a broad assessment of how different CSOs, NGOs, INGOs, government actors and community networks interact and engage in the disaster management space. The analysis is expected to produce recommendations regarding approaches that the DRM program should trial.
1.1 Overarching aim and specific objectives of the Community Self- Reliance Analysis
This Community Self-Reliance Analysis is being commissioned to provide an in-depth analysis on approaches that foster community self-reliance. The analysis will provide a broad assessment of how different CSOs, NGOs, INGOs, government actors and community networks interact and engage in the disaster management space. The analysis is expected to produce recommendations regarding approaches that the DRM program should consider for funding.
The recommended approaches and pre-requisites for building community self-reliance should
be placed within the DRM strengthening Government of Indonesia’s preparedness to respond to disaters should go hand-in-hand with the strengthening of community self reliance.. These two tracks shouldn’t be regarded as separate approaches; the analysis will look beyond the binaries of bottom-up and top-down approaches to reduce risks, and attempt to understand how government, CSOs and communities interact and engage with each other in the various DRM spaces. The specific objectives of the analysis are three-fold as stated in the Terms of Reference:
Explore existing approaches for building linkages between government, CSOs and communities These include approaches of the Indonesian Government like e.g. BNPB’s Resilient Villages Programme, and approaches of CSOs and their networks. Particularly the sustainability of approaches will be analysed, and how these approaches could be funded in the future and potentially replicated on a larger geographic scale across Indonesia. These approaches will be described in detail referring to how the approach can be implemented, key factors that may contribute to the success or failure of the approach, and the pros and cons of each approach.
Explore how CSOs implement CBDRM and how they interact in DRM spaces The CSOs and networks in Indonesia that implement CBDRM will be mapped with a particular interest in those CSOs and networks that build linkages with government and other DRM actors. This analysis will identify which key capacities are required to link government, CSOs and communities, to create networks and to implement CBDRM in a sustainable way. Based on this analysis, CSOs and networks which have the capacity and interest to lead or participate in building linkages between local government, CSOs and communities will be identified for the purpose of building community self-reliance.
Identify effective approaches and pre-requisites for building community-self reliance
This section will bring together the insights from the two sections above and makes sense of each actor’s role and responsibility in building self-reliant communities. Approaches and pre-requisites for building community self-reliance will recognize political barriers that might exist between relevant DRM actors and strategies to overcome these. The analysis will look for ‘institutional homes’ for DRM and building community self-reliance.
1.2 Definition of concepts
The Disaster Risk Concept Note (AusAid, 2012: 2) defines community self-reliance as the ability of com munities to effectively prepare for and mitigate disaster risks. This is assumed to be achieved through partnerships between district disaster management agencies (BPBDs) and CSOs to facilitate community knowledge and behaviour change. This definition highlights DRM related support to local communities to enhance their abilities particularly to improve their knowledge and change their behaviour. The term ‘self-reliance’ has the connotation that communities – equipped with sufficient and appropriate know how and able to prepare and mitigate disasters in their locality – can rely on their own in times of disasters. This may not be realistic and implies a rather one- way interaction from outsiders to local people. The definition has further a static view on disaster events. We like to propose a different term and definition for the kind of community abilities and relationships with outsiders that we are looking for considering that this analysis conceives CBDRM in a political and institutional context.
Communities affected by disasters not only want to be better prepared and mitigate negative impacts, they also want to recover from past disaster events and adapt to new circumstances. The environment in which people live and the nature of disasters change continuously, due to climate change and the mounting vulnerability to which communities are exposed. Communities alone can’t solve all their risk problems. Disasters are complex problems that require collective and multi- sectoral responses from different agencies and institutions. Therefore local communities need to engage with other DRM actors to influence government’s policy and performance and to demand for safety and protection. Instead of the notion ‘self-reliance’, it is more appropriate to use the notion ‘resilience’ instead, emphasizing that multiple actors have a role and responsibility in providing security and safety before, during and after disasters strike. Community resilience would then be defined as “ability of communities to effectively anticipate, respond and adapt to disasters and transform interactions with government into functioning institutions and good DRM governance ”.
As said earlier, strengthening community resilience should go hand-in-hand with the Government of Indonesia’s preparedness to respond to disasters. Bringing these two tracks together, is expected to foster resilience at provincial levels and probably even at the national level. In this light resilience means “the ability of institutions – considering the hierarchy of institutions including government policy and practice – to take on roles and responsibilities to provide security and safety in a changing environment’ (after Schoch-Spana, 2008).
AIFDR is particularly interested in replicable and sustainable CBDRM approaches. Concepts like ‘sustainability’, ‘replication’ and ‘up-scaling’ require further explanation and definition to arrive at
a common understanding and to steer the analysis. ‘Replication’ refers to reproducing, repeating or transferring something to somewhere or somebody else. In the context of CBDRM approaches to achieve community resilience, ‘replication’ occurs first in terms of expanding the geographical coverage – e.g. from four villages to adjacent villages, and from one district to other districts. This happens through mobilizing social action and establishing CBO-networks. When increase in geographical coverage is combined with institutional embedding – e.g. when CBO-networks link with functioning BPBDs and coordination among BPBDs exist, then we of speak of ‘up-scaling’. Up-scaling transpires when organizational performance of BPBDs and BNBP improves as well as their DRM-related interactions. Up-scaling refers to replication both in terms of spatial coverage and government’s accountability from local to national level until CBDRM is institutionalized in the national socio-economic and spatial development planning and implementation.
The notion of ‘sustainability’ - like in ‘sustainable develop ment’ - originally referred to reconciling environmental, social and economic demands. But what sustainabi lity is, what its goals should be, and how these goals are to be achieved are all open to inter pretation. Sustainability is studied and managed over many scales of time and space, and in many contexts of environmental, social and economic organization. In the context of this analysis, we refer to ‘sustainable CBDRM approaches’, meaning embedding (CB)DRM into ‘institutional homes’ and establishing mechanisms that sustain human and financial resources locally and nationally to support (CB)DRM. ‘Institutional homes’ refer to the wide variety of institutions and actors at local, district to national level that take on their roles and responsibi li ties before, during and after disasters. ‘Institutional homes’ also refer to people’s and government’s mind-sets promoting a culture of safety, and to the performance of DRM actors towards reducing disaster risks and people’s vulnerability to future hazards. The process of embedding CBDRM into institutional homes is referred to as mainstreaming.
Replication - expanding the geographical coverage of CBDRM practice from one community to another through mobilizing social action and establishing CBO-networks (horizontal linkage building)
Up-scaling – increase in geographical coverage combined with institutional embedding through horizontal and vertical linkage building between CBO-networks, NGOs and government from district to national level
Mainstreaming – embedding (CB)DRM into ‘institutional homes’ and make them functioning by sufficient human and financial resources as well as by political support from the local to the national level
1.3 Research questions
The overall aim for the Community Resilience Analysis is to identify and describe effective and sustainable approaches that link government, CSOs, communities and private sector efforts in DRM
with the aim to build community resilience. From the scope of the analysis 1 and the literature review on CBDRM in Indonesia we arrived at the following research questions:
How is CBDRM defined by different actors and operationalized in practice? This question investigates how the various actors like local people, religious leaders, government agencies, private sector, and other actors conceive, negotiate, and implement (CB) DRM policy, and determine which choices for risk management are made. This question deals with the CBDRM process and explains why different interpretations of CBDRM exist.
How do the various actors view and interact in the (CB)DRM spaces to realize their interests?
This question investigates what kind of (CB)DRM spaces exist, the power relations among the various actors, how they view each other, and the different approaches they take and capacity they have to engage and interact with one another. This question deals with policy processes which are political and non-linear in nature, driven by diverse interests and incentives. It looks into the obstacles and opportunities for cooperation, for transforming power relations and institutions in favour of marginalized groups to build com muni ty self-reliance. This question deals with CBDRM key-outcomes considering social inclusion and gender.
What are effective approaches and the pre-requisites for building community resilience? The findings from the previous two questions will steer further analysis into the potential roles and responsibilities in DRM of different actors at the various administrative levels to build community resilience and into effective strategies and approaches to ensure that the different actors take on these roles and responsibilities to make DRM a sustainable effort.
In answering above questions, both internal and external process factors will be considered. Internal process factors refer to the mandate, scope and capacity of communities, CSOs and government. External process factors refer to the governance context, institutions and state-society relationships in the selected areas. Communities and CSOs interact with other stakeholders in a particular local institutional setting and governance context. It is through these interactions that interventions and outcomes get shaped. In this light, an actor-orientation is chosen because it offers an analytical framework for studying policy, implementation and its outcomes. It further offers a framework to study both the specificities of particular local settings, and the broader forces and processes of institutional and societal change. The latter is crucial to assess whether or not approaches that are effective in one context are replicable in another context.
1.4 Conceptual framework
An actor orientation helps to clarify how DRM policies and interventions are shaped by the various actors involved in CBDRM. The actor-oriented approach starts from the premise that all actors are able to reflect upon their experiences and what happens around them, and use their knowledge and capabilities to interpret and respond to their environment (Long, 1992). People devise ways of coping with life, even under the most extreme forms of coercion. They use their knowledge, skills, influence, aspirations and organizing capacities in their problem-solving, survival and development strategies.
1 AusAID, 2012, Terms of Reference Consultant Team for Community Self-Reliance Analysis
Although people have alternative options to shape their coping strategies and to formulate their objectives, these strategies are culturally embedded in different perceptions, interests and power relations. This implies that people’s options are favoured or constrained by their social position in society and prevailing cultural norms. Local people’s perspectives on risks and disaster events therefore vary greatly across regions, within villages, and between men and women among others. This results in competing risk and knowledge claims.
In the light of building community resilience, this analysis aims to assess how CBDRM interventions add to people’s capability to realize safety and protection by engaging with the broader institutional environment. Communities alone cannot solve all their risk problems and village authorities do not operate at the appropriate administrative level to address all urgent risk problems nor the underlying risk factors. Therefore local people need to engage with the broader institutional context, working across scales and in partnerships. Horizontal linkages with other Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) can be instrumental for early warning, sharing the lobbying workload, portraying shared concerns and for greater legitimacy as local representatives, and it supports in settling disputes and reducing tensions between communities. Vertical connections with authorities and power- holders have the potential that local voices are heard at district, provincial and national level, and to access financial resources for disaster risk reduction. These forms of linkage building refer to ‘social action’, to the ability of local people to make a difference to pre-existing state of affairs or course of events. In this process, four key principles, namely ‘social action’, ‘working across scales’, ‘reworking institutional arrangements’ and ‘partnership approach’ play an important role to foster community resilience through CBDRM. ‘Social action’ rests on the emergence of a network of actors, whether formal or informal, through routines or new organizing practices, and is bounded by prevailing norms, values and power relations.
This analysis is not limited to local realities of communities and households. It equally focuses on the constraints put upon ‘social action’ to understand the larger structures in society, which is needed to assess the potential of CBDRM interventions in the proper context (Booth, 1994). The larger structures and constraints are referred to as ‘institutions’. Institutions include traditions, social norms, values, laws and regulations, policies and judicial systems regulating power relations, which are influenced by histori cal trajectories. Consequently, particular institutional arrangements work in one context but fail in another (Jutting, 2003). Institutions are crucial in regulating – for the better or the worse – access to resources, social protection, livelihood security, the maintenance of social order, and the handling of disputes at the local level (Alinovi et al, 2008). Institutions include power relations, and it is important to understand who benefits from the institutions, who sets the rules, and who is excluded. Disaster out comes can change these institutions and re-order power relations, the rules and interaction between people (Hilhorst, 2007).
What do (CB)DRM interventions do? Governmental and Non-Governmental aid agencies and their interventions are part of the institutional context as well. Local governments, NGOs and their donors do not operate in isolation, but are embedded in their respective context. To improve the conditions of disaster-affected populations, aid agencies formulate policy to express what they want to do and what results they intend to achieve. This section aims to provide analytical tools to study policy processes and interventions.
Policy is first of all about ‘objectives’ and the way to achieve them. Usually aid agencies put their inter ventions in logical frameworks, translating policy into the implementation of activities followed by certain results, assuming a linear relationship between policy and results. However, policy implies more than an expression of what people want to do. Policy is for a large part about ‘framing’: this Policy is first of all about ‘objectives’ and the way to achieve them. Usually aid agencies put their inter ventions in logical frameworks, translating policy into the implementation of activities followed by certain results, assuming a linear relationship between policy and results. However, policy implies more than an expression of what people want to do. Policy is for a large part about ‘framing’: this
Logical frameworks do not problematize the relationships between the different actors and assume that programme activities are implemented in isolation from local contexts. CBDRM interventions shouldn’t be viewed as planned projects with a defined time-space setting that starts in a village on
a blank page. Instead, interventions can best be regarded as part of the flow of events, as a series of encounters where different actors pursue, negotiate, debate and struggle for their interests and agendas to deal with multiple realities (ibid; Bakewell, 2000; Colebatch, 2002). Quarles van Ufford (1993) refers to the ‘political arena model’ as opposite to the ‘logical framework model’. As stated earlier, actors interpret and define the circumstances differently, and risk perspectives vary greatly. As a consequence CBDRM interventions are continuously re-defined and re-shaped according to those actors who can best negotiate their risk solutions. Therefore, interventions
inherently produce unpredictable outcomes. ‘Political arenas’ or ‘DRM dialogue spaces 2 ’ are social locations or situations where DRM actors confront each other, resist ideas, debate issues, resources and values, and try to resolve discrepancies in value interpretations and incompatibilities between actor interests. This analysis will reflect on how policy intentions are implemented in practice, how different perspectives on risk and risk reduction shape interventions, and how the various actors use their power to attain their goals. This ‘push and pull’ result in differing CBDRM practice and cooperation outcomes locally.
Studying ‘DRM dialogue spaces’ Disasters are events to which political systems must respond, and therefore “within minutes after any major impact, disasters start becoming political” (Olson, 2000:266). The way governments manage disaster risk, respond to and explain disasters, influences their interactions and relationships with their citizens. DRM is an area of public policy, but one that differs a lot from sectoral areas like education or health. DRM is not a sectoral issue but requires the involvement of a range of public sector agencies at different levels of government (Wilkinson, 2012). Governments not only provide goods and services to reduce disaster risks like early warning, shelters, first aid or mangrove belts, they can also engage in activities to influence the performance of others. To examine the institutional influences on DRM policy and practice, it is useful to divide government measures into categories
and roles they can play in DRM 3 :
(1) Governments as providers of DRM goods and services; (2) Governments as risk avoiders, meaning refrain from actions that generate risks
2 ‘DRM dialogue spaces’ will be used further in this report, as this term may be more acceptable to government actors
(3) Governments as regulators of private sector activity to reduce and avoid risks (4) Governments as promoters of collective action and private sector activity (5) Governments as coordinators of multi-stakeholder activities
These different roles involve public sector agencies that are not used to work collectively on cross- cutting issues. The nature of collaboration depends on how power is dispersed horizontally and
vertically across government 4 . Decentralization reforms in Indonesia have given greater authority and responsibi lity to local governments, but not necessarily with the corresponding budgets resulting in so-called unfunded mandates. In addition, local governments have strong incentives to support the interests of local business and other private groups, which are often in opposition to the interests of vulnerable groups. Understanding disaster politics, power relations and incentives is key to assess the ‘room for manoeuvre’ of different DRM actors and approaches to work together to build community self-reliance.
DRM is not just the responsibility of governments; resources are also distributed by (I)NGOs, corporations, religious organizations, media, universities, unions and other institutions. These actors interpret disaster events, their circumstances and what is happening around them differently. Local people, NGOs and state-actors use their agency to convince the other of their explanation of events, their risk definitions, whom to blame and how to allocate resources when they negotiate, confront each other about issues, values and resources. They further attach different meanings to CBDRM and to ‘doing CBDRM’. For some, CBDRM means developing technical solu tions to improve early warning systems and emergency shelter at the local level, while for others CBDRM is a governance and human rights issue (Wisner & Walker, 2005b). A review of the origins of CBDRM traditions since
the 1970s reveals that the CBDRM approach does not exist 5 . CBDRM practices are embedded in
a broader institutional context of state-civil society relationships which constrain or enable local actors to advance their risk solutions. CBDRM is a contested approach with different interpretations and divergent practices. Figure 1. shows the implicit interpretations and worldviews behind the UN-promoted CBDRM tradition laid down in the Hyogo Framework for Action on the left side of the arrows, and the home-grown CBDRM traditions on the right side. In reality, CBDRM practice switches between the two CBDRM extremes as visualised through their features in the continua in Figure 1.
Although the UN has recognized the importance of involving local communities in disaster risk reduction, its CBDRM-tradition still resonates a lot with top-down, short-term and isolated responses. In particular, the political connotation that was essential to the original con ception of CBDRM has become marginal to mainstream CBDRM practice. Behind a shared CBDRM language, home- grown and mainstream CBDRM-traditions represent different origins that attach radically different meanings to CBDRM and the related concepts. The home-grown CBDRM views disasters as the outcome of weak governance, while the mainstream CBDRM views disasters as external events disrupting and undermining development investments (Bankoff & Hilhorst, 2009). Both CBDRR- traditions support people to build their resilience to disasters. The mainstream CBDRR does so through risk awareness raising, disaster preparedness, physical measures, safety-net mechanisms and institutional reforms, among others, while the home-grown CBDRM regards disasters as an opportunity for social change, therefore viewing CBDRM as a long-term community empowering process to enable vulnerable groups to demand safety and protection. CBDRM is a contested approach, not simply because people cannot agree on a common definition, but because they have different worldviews and intentions in mind that determine their actions.
4 See Draft Political Economy Analysis of DRM in Indonesia 5 Chapter 4 in Heijmans, A. (2012) Risky Encounters: Institutions and interventions in response to recurrent disasters
and conflict, PhD thesis Wageningen University
Figure 1: Nature of CBDRR traditions expressed through their primary features on the continua
Origin
Internationally negotiated
Home-grown, locally negotiated
View on disasters
External event
Matter of vulnerability – Opportunity for social change
Purpose
Reduces people’s physical Social transformation exposure to hazards
Focus
Natural hazards Integrates everyday livelihoods, restoring normalcy security concerns with preparing for
disruption/disaster/conflict Priority in
Physical measures, early Strengthening community
intervention
warning, awareness raising institutions, mobilizing collective action
life-saving actions
Participation
Consultation, project-focus Empowering, process-focus
Levels involved
Multi-level partnerships, Multi-level, multi actor collaboration harmonious cooperation in power force field
Community
Administrative unit of local Most vulnerable groups, recognizing government, “common good” local elite approach
Resources
External funds Locally generated resources,
volunta-rism, political commitment, external funds
Longevity
On-off through platforms Dynamic and adaptive to changing
institutional context
The community resilience analysis seeks to understand what meaning different DRM actors attach to CBDRM, which intentions they have that determine their actions, and in what way CBDRM processes reduce, produce or reproduce people’s vulnerability to disasters. This is important to make informed decisions about which processes of building linkages and partnerships should be supported by donors and in what way, and which undesired processes need to be addressed.
1.5 Scope and methodology for the analysis
This research involves different levels of analysis, stakeholders and areas. The focus is on CBDRM practices in Indonesia, and its potential and limitations to build community resilience in partnership with government. The field visits zoom into CBDRM practices in West Aceh, East Java, Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) and West Sumatra and how disaster-affected populations deal with disaster risks and relate to CSOs, government and the private sector.
Levels of analysis Community level : CBDRM efforts are supposed to generate change at the village level in terms
of vulnerability reduction, sustainable livelihoods and community resilience. Village authorities and CBOs were interviewed to discuss the local risk context, causes of risks, coping mechanisms and initiatives taken by the community, relations between village authorities and CBOs, nature of risk reduction measures necessary and implemented, effect of these measures, community initiatives to engage with other actors to reduce risk, integration of risk reduction measures into Village Development Planning (Musrenbang) are among key issues. The findings of community level discussions will serve as concrete reference cases for the interviews with stakeholders at higher administrative levels.
District level : CSO field staff and managers interact with each other and with other CSOs, government officials, knowledge centres, media and the private sector from the local to the district and even higher administrative levels. This level of analysis draws lessons and insights regarding processes, structures, collaboration, interaction, effectiveness and relevance of multi-stakeholder processes in DRM and fostering community resilience with the district BPBD as key actor.This analysis will further reveal how the actors at district levels perceive CBDRM.
Provincial level : At this level, lessons and insights are drawn regarding political decision-making and resource allocation regarding DRM and CBDRM in particularly from national to local levels. Where do top-down and bottom-up DRM approaches meet and what are the constraints to embed CBDRM in government’s mainstream development policies and planning processes.
Since the focus is on fostering community resilience and reducing risk at the local level, this research puts local people’s risk perspectives as the entry point and the centre of analysis. This means that the interviews and analysis started at the local level followed by a ‘study up’, mirroring local priorities and risk solutions to policies and DRM practices from district level to provincial and national levels. This reveals disconnects and opportunities in matching DRM policy and responses with local realities. On the other hand, it maps the various expectations and assumptions the different actors have about each other regarding roles and responsibilities in DRM.
The research team consisted of two external consultants (one international and one Indonesian) and AIFDR staff who participated in the field visits for data collection and analysis. The consultants bring with them previous research experience on CBDRM policy and practice in different parts of Indonesia like Aceh, Central Java, West Java, West Sumatra, Yogyakarta, Kalimantan, NTT and Maluku which is also used in the analysis.
Desktop review In preparation to the field visits, different documents were reviewed: those related to CBDRM policy and practice in Indonesia, and those related to AIFRD’s efforts to design a new DRM programme in Indonesia. AIFDR commissioned several other studies which are relevant for this
Analysis of the DRM sector in Indonesia, a Rapid Organisational Assessment of the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) and of a sample of Sub-National Disaster Management Agencies (BPBD), a Study on Social Inclusion and Gender, and a CBDRM Realist Review. Insights and conclusions from these studies were considered in our interviews and analysis. In addition, a desktop review was conducted on international best practices in CBDRM with a focus on sustainable approaches and/or evidence of CBDRM replication.
Field visits and semi-structured interviews Qualitative methods for data collection and analysis were applied like participatory observation, ocular visits and face-to face meetings with key actors using semi-structured interviews. Key informants for focus group discussions and interviews were identified among community representatives, non-government and government institutions at different levels, in collaboration with AIFDR team. We further had interviews with media, faith-based organizations and the private sector.
At the village level we talked to CBOs and disaster preparedness teams (youth, women, farmers, fishermen, teachers and health workers), village authorities and informal leaders and religious organizations. At the provincial and district level interviewees come from BPBD, Bappeda, NGOs, media, schools, and university (research centre).
The first field visits to West Aceh, East Java and Nusa Tenggara Timur took place from 11-19 December 2012 while the second field visits to East Java and West Sumatra occurred from 21-25 January 2013.
1.6 Structure of the report
Chapter 2 presents the state of affairs of CBDRM in Indonesia based on a desktop review and interviews conducted with Jakarta-based organisations.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of the key findings collected during the field visits with an emphasis on effective strategies to achieve community resilience that we observed in the field and which we compared with case studies in relevant literature.
In chapter 4 we formulated a theory of change and a roadmap based on empirical data and literature that may assist AIFDR to find appropriate entry points and strategies to build linkages among different DRM actors and for creating DRM dialogue spaces to enhance DRM governance in selected provinces. This section elaborates on the rationale for area selection, criteria for community selection , and on the kinds of partnerships that would be most effective in achieving this change. The roadmap will assist AIFDR to identify its role and added value in achieving this change.
Chapter 5 will then present various evidence-based approaches to CBDRM that seek interaction and partnerships with other DRM actors and that encourage institutional development. It will detail the nature of strategies and interventions to implement the four tracks to foster community resilience. This section will end with an overview of key strategies for effective and sustainable CBDRM.
2. Situational analysis of CBDRM in Indonesia – challenges, gaps and needs
In 2011, AIFDR commissioned a review of existing CBDRM initiatives in Indonesia to get an understanding of ‘who does what and where’ in the CBDRM space in Indonesia, what the challenges are, gaps and needs are, and to get a clear idea about where AIFDR should position itself. This review forms the basis for this analysis. This situational analysis put CBDRM in the broader institutional and political context of Indonesia to understand the nature of relationships between the government and civil society – particularly at the local level - from a historical perspective. It is based on CBDRM literature review, various NGO reports and on interviews with Jakarta-based organizations conducted in January 2013. The analysis provides an overview of the DRM-landscape in Indonesia since the tsunami in 2004, the progress made regarding CBDRM practices and their key-outcomes, NGO capacities to engage with government, and forms of networks that exist. The chapter ends with the challenges, gaps and needs for the future.