How is CBDRM defined and operationalized in practice?

3.1 How is CBDRM defined and operationalized in practice?

Community-level analysis: local risk perspectives and priorities

East Java - We visited four villages (Besowo, Satak, Widang and Soso) that are located on the slopes of Mount Kelud in East Java, which erupted in 2007. The government forced the villagers to evacuate because the BMKG predicted a severe eruption. The villagers reluctantly left their homes; “We have our own indicators for deciding whether to evacuate or not and who should be evacuated ”. “We were put in evacuation centers and treated as cattle”. “We just slept and waited to be fed ”. “Aid providers could have asked us to cook ourselves. We tried to organize ourselves to change the situation. But we were regarded as helpless victims while we are not” . The relief responses provided by the government were below humanita rian standards, chaotic and corrupt, according to the villagers, and they felt that this should change. These negative experiences formed their motivation to engage with Kappala, a Yogyakarta- based NGO, which acted as facilitator to organize the villagers in a more systematic way using their social and motivational capacities while promoting a culture of solidarity-fraternity.

Initially, interested people coming from 10 villages attended training on CBDRM which focused on organizing and mobilizing other villagers into Disaster Preparedness Teams. These teams founded Jangkar Kelud in 2008 – an independent, informal organization consisting of organized communities. At this moment 38 villages belonging to three districts (Kediri, Blitar and Malang) are part of Jangkar Kelud with 1820 active members. These members are responsible to replicate CBDRM training in other villages around Mount Kelud and to maintain a level of disaster preparedness through simulations, and sharing experiences through a radio-network. For Jangkar Kelud CBDRM means solidarity, helping each other beyond emergency periods, using their existing capacities and being organized in Disaster Preparedness Teams (Coordinator, Treasurer, Early Warning team (through radio and walky talkies), search and rescue team, training team (especially teachers), health team, kitchen team). Additionally, Jangkar Kelud – based on its negative experience in 2007 – considers its role to lobby and negotiate with districts government to have local villagers’ perspective included in DRM planning and decision-making, to change the mind-set of BPBDs and to enhance their coordina tion responsibility. A challenge for Jangkar Kelud is to reach the most vulnerable households who live in remote places and who lack resources or time to attend training or meetings. It is Jangkar Kelud’s long-term effort to expand to these areas and to look for people with the capacity to become a local facilitator.

We further visited flood-affected villages in Bojonegoro district along the Bengawan Solo River. The We further visited flood-affected villages in Bojonegoro district along the Bengawan Solo River. The

2. When the water level will rise higher, this measure will not be effective, but it may just be enough to protect the fields till the rice is harvested. The farmers did not relate the floods to climate change nor did they observe changes in weather patterns. These villages were selected by PMI to implement its CBDRM program aimed to form CBAT-teams and a school-based DRM program to increase DRM awareness among children from grade 4, 5 and 6. The CBAT-teams focus on disaster prepared ness in case flood affect the residential area, while the CBDRM program does not consider measures to mitigate flooding of paddy fields which is the priority of the farmers.

In Banyuwangi district we visited a coastal community (desa Sumberagung, in Pesanggaran sub- district) which was hit by a tsunami in 1994 which killed 194 people. Since then communities have become more vulnerable to tsunami as mangroves have been cut, hills were flattened – due to resource extraction – reducing escape routes to higher locations, and the number of houses increased from 100 houses in 1994 to 1000 houses currently. However, fishermen stressed that tsunami is not the only risk to which they are exposed. Coastal erosion and floods increasingly affect people’s livelihoods in a negative way. A physical construction to break waves was ill-designed and intensified coastal erosion instead of mitigating the process. In combination with floods the construction further caused sedimentation in the river mouth, hampering fishermen to get their boats in the sea during low tide. Local people, including fishermen, prioritize risk reduction measures that protect the coast from erosion and reduce sedimentation. They proposed DRM measures in the Village Development Plan which were not approved. They tried to access PNPM funds but many proposals compete to access this fund. It is clear from the short visit that people are exposed to

a broader risk landscape than tsunami only, and that people prioritize mitigation measures over disaster preparedness (early warning and evacuation).

In West Aceh, we visited three villages: two coastal villages (Desa Langung and Desa Gampung Pasir) near Meulaboh affected by the 2004 tsunami, and one village in the uplands affected by recurrent floods (Desa Kautambang). The people we met in the coastal villages shared their experiences during the 2004 tsunami, but regularly they also referred to traumatized experiences during the past conflict which ended a few months after the tsunami. Compared to Jangkar Kelud in East Java, local people in Aceh Barat were not very critical about the nature of emergency response after the tsunami provided by (I)NGOs and the government. They seem to have a more passive attitude regarding

what happens around them and accept solutions and decisions offered by outsiders 9 . They explained that they are very religious and believe that when they pray, that they will be protected. Only in Desa Gampung Pasir, the village head was critical and disappointed in how district government (land issues) and national government (housing) dealt with their request for re-allocation and to move out of the ‘red danger zone’. They still face acute risk to lose their houses due to coastal erosion. Also right after the earthquake and a tidal wave in 2007, discussions about re-allocation resumed but the government couldn’t provide land elsewhere. Meanwhile they invest in tree planting and installing concrete structures to mitigate coastal erosion. However, these measures only prevent sand to enter the village not the erosion. The village head thinks that ‘wave breaks’ could reduce coastal erosion but these are costly and beyond the capacity of local villagers. Coastal erosion and tidal waves are

9 This impression is based on a very short visit and needs to be validated through other sources 9 This impression is based on a very short visit and needs to be validated through other sources

In both coastal villages, people stated that their livelihoods are still not fully recovered since the tsunami. Many fields disappeared or turned into rivers. The soil has been mixed with sand resulting in less harvest and in lesser quality of rice fields. The fields are lower now and easily flooded. Many farmers became fishermen but not all have their own boat. They further mentioned that more extreme weather events (during the ‘east season’) result in shorter periods of good fish catches. This may be attributed to climate change. The CBDRM program implemented in their villages by IBU Foundation did conduct vulnerability assessments (physical, social, economic, motivational) but not much was done with the data collected. CBDRM focused on establishing Disaster Preparedness Teams and formulation of Action Plans, while livelihoods and underlying risk factors did not get full

attention 10 . The Disaster Preparedness Teams and regular simulations are appreciated since people don’t panic anymore and know what to do when they are hit by an earthquake or tsunami (like during earthquake last April 2012).

Desa Kautambang in the uplands, is affected by floods annually. It is situated in between two big rivers, and floods last from 5 hours till two days. The floods have a strong current and are therefore dangerous. The villagers observe an increase in frequency of floods. They attribute floods to logging upstream by a company. In neighboring villages the harvest of peanuts was lost, but in Desa Kautambang no major losses or damages occurred; only houses get flooded at a height of 1 meter. People use the school as evacuation centre where they can stay overnight and cook. The DPT/CBDRM team further mobilized community labour to construct ‘bronjong’ (gabions) to stabilize riverbanks and slopes. Resources were generated through the PMPN. The villagers are aware that gabions will not be sufficient to address flooding, but they have no long term plan or ideas.

Disaster Preparedness Teams or CBDRM-teams currently exist in 41 villages in 3 districts (all IBU initiated) and members became certified volunteers under the BPBDs. Further, DRR/DisPrep is integrated in school curriculum since many teachers are also member of the DPTs and have knowledge and skills to teach children about what to do when disasters strike. Each CBDRM-team has a coordinator who is member of FORMASIBAB - a network among the 41 villages and initiated by

IBU Foundation in October 2010 11 . Most representatives come from the coastal zone. FORMASIBAB meets monthly and mainly exchanges information among members and collects petty cash from each village for times of emergency. However, mostly flood-affected villages consume the petty cash and consequently the coastal villages complained. They formulated policy that a village can only receive ER funds every two years. FORMASIBAB is not yet aware of the added value such network can have or potential roles it can play. It is also not very clear how it will ensure its functioning in the future.

In NTT, we visited Sikka and Ende District. In Sikka, we visited two villages (Wolofeo and Reroroja) which were hit by Flores Tsunami in 1992. Wolofeo is located in the uplands and affected by flash floods and drought, while Reroroja is facing severe coastal erosion. Apart from the impact from tsunami, local people refer to previous flooding that affected their villages back in 1970s and 1980s. Together with drought that largely affect their agriculture production, they also expressed their concern on pest attack on their harvests. The district agency for agriculture unfortunately could not

10 IBU Foundation mentioned that ‘Strengthening Livelihoods’ was not part of the project logframe, but dealt with in a separate UNDP programme.

11 Reason for forming FORMASIBAB was because the project ended, and it was assumed that such network would keep the CBDRM teams active. It was part of the donor’s logframe (theory of change).

provide much assistance to reduce the impact of the pest attack. It is clear that local people are very concerned about their livelihood problems and impacts due to disasters. In Wolofeo village, the local people that were involved in CBDRM are also a group of people that were active in Gapoktan (Farmer Group Association) established by district government. Gapoktan is also a national program by Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, they are familiar on how to mobilize people and be involved in community activities. They were still at the initial stage of CBDRM activities assisted by Caritas Keuskupan Maumere and Karina NGO. When we visited their village, they were still making plans of “jebakan air” (water trap) and “sumur resapan” (infiltration well) in order to cope with droughts and flash floods. The process of making the plan was assisted by Caritas Keuskupan Maumere which took almost half a year. The trust of the local community to follow the process was strengthened by the fact that Caritas Keuskupan Maumere is part of the Catholic Church Network in which most of the community holds Catholic belief. In the Reroroja Coastal Village, the local people planted mangrove assisted by Wetlands International (WI) that helps as a means against the coastal erosion that largely hit the coastal villages in Sikka. The community tends to be passive in identifying their needs, however they welcome the NGO assistance to them to plant mangrove. The program was providing micro financing – loan program to several households in the village with an obligation for them to raise and take care mangrove on the coasts. The seeds were provided by WI. If the community can raise mangrove successfully, the loan to the community will become a grant and the community does not need to return the money. It is not yet convincing whether the local people could sustain the program without outside assistance. Local people were able to produce a village law on coastal and marine protection in their village. The role of Musalaki (cultural leader) is still influential in the decision making, including in predicting when the planting season starts. However, in the last decade the condition become less predictable since a rainy season could stop abruptly followed by no rain that cause the planted seeds are not able to grow.

In Ende, we visited two villages, Watuneso village and Kelurahan Tanjung-Paupanda. Watuneso is located in the uplands and prone to floods, droughts and volcanic eruption. Watuneso is assisted by Lembaga Pengembangan Teknologi Perdesaan (LPTP), a NGO within the Partners for Resilience (PfR) programme. The local people admitted that they were not very clear about the concept of disaster. They mention that the program by LPTP is quite different with what was earlier conducted by other NGOs, since they are trained how to understand hazard and vulnerability and to see risk in a broader sense. In previous NGO programs the communities were only involved in the implementation of the program with little understanding of the context and the purpose of the program. In this village, the role of Musalaki is also influential. They believe that when something happens to their harvest or any disaster occurs, it is due to their inobedience to adhere to cultural norms. Musalaki will know and decide what will happen by identifying the signs from nature. For example, if rains arrive from the low lands, there will be no flooding in their village, while rains from the opposite direction will cause floods. In terms of CBDRM activities, the communities understood and developed community prepared ness teams. This is also urged by the district policy on TSBD (Tim Siaga Bencana Desa / Village Disaster Preparedness Team). However, they have not yet formulated any community action related to disaster preparedness. Interestingly, the community and the NGO agreed to install a simple system of biogas from pig husbandary faeces which is very much appreciated by the community. The community identified that pig faeces could cause environmental problems which are solved now by using it as energy source for cooking which they also needed.

Desa Kelurahan Tanjung-Paupanda is located in the coastal area of Ende. While the community identifies earthquake, tsunami and flooding as hazards, coastal erosion was the most significant disaster they face. Local people expressed that they were empowered by the CBDRM programme assisted by Flores Institute for Resource Development (FIRD). Previously, in any flooding event, they were just passive, evacuated and waited for government assistance. The local NGO, approached Desa Kelurahan Tanjung-Paupanda is located in the coastal area of Ende. While the community identifies earthquake, tsunami and flooding as hazards, coastal erosion was the most significant disaster they face. Local people expressed that they were empowered by the CBDRM programme assisted by Flores Institute for Resource Development (FIRD). Previously, in any flooding event, they were just passive, evacuated and waited for government assistance. The local NGO, approached

In West Sumatra, we visited Kota Padang, Padang Pariaman and Agam Districts. Komunitas Siti Nurbaya (KSN), a CBO, was established by MercyCorps and the Sub-District Batang Arau in August 2010. They are considered to belong to the active KSNs in Padang. After the program ended, KSN has been able to maintain its activity. KSN is most concerned with raising awareness and preparedness for tsunami and earthquake. They received training on first aid and emergency response. However, this CBO also understands that they are at risk to other hazards, such as flooding and landslides. They were able to use PNPM budget to fix an alley that collapsed due to a landslide. With community self-help, they constructed steep stairs uphill which functions as a vertical evacuation route in case of a tsunami. While the stairs are very steep, slippery and look dangerous, it shows people’s awareness of the risks they face. This CBO has strong back-up by village officials, particularly from the village chief while the members of the CBO are mostly head of neighborhoods. So far, even without sufficient funding, the CBO could use a room in the village office provided by the village chief. The CBO involves men, women and youth as their members. The CBO utilizes community-radio to communicate to each other, including communities upstream. When it rains heavily upstream, they can get prepared. On the other hand, when floods affect upstream communities, the CBO send its members to help the upstream community. In the previous flash flood of Padang City, the CBO joined other volunteer groups to evacuate people and assisted in the emergency response. Radio communication (RAPI) is also a network of this community.

In Pariaman District, we visited Nagari Balai Naras, Pariaman Utara Sub-District assisted by Limbubu,

a local NGO in Pariaman. This coastal community has been trained in tsunami simulation and earthquake preparedness. Limbubu was a partner of a national NGO IDEP and Plan International. The program ended in 2010 which was part of the earthquake response to the West Sumatra in 2009. The community preparedness was conducted with an elementary school located in the same village. A disaster preparedness team (KSB) was formed as part of the program. The KSB members are fishermen, housewives, youth and teachers of the school (who live in a same village). While the members express their interest to participate in any simulation, the KSB seems less active now since there is no more programme by Limbubu or any other NGO. The community was not clear whether they are at risk to other types of hazard. This could be due to the limited focus of the previous programme on tsunami and earthquake. Livelihood concerns were not considered in the program, while the community is concerned with the diminishing fish availability. They don’t know yet what solution they should look for. Partnership with local BPBD or CSO network does not exist.

In Agam District, Komunitas Jorong Tiku Selatan is a coastal community that is prone to earthquake, tsunami, floods and strong winds. We met with the KSB of Jorong Tiku Selatan. While the KSB mentioned that there have been many NGOs active in their hamlet since the 2009 West Sumatra Earthquake, KSB was not clear whether these programmes are connected to each other. Furthermore, KSB told that it did not have a partnership with the local BPBD. This hamlet has been selected as one of BNPB Desa Tangguh Programmes in West Sumatra. Under the Desa Tangguh Programme, BPBD and the hamlet leader formed a new KSB, which differed from the previous KSB that was established by a West Sumatra based NGO (Jemari Sakato) which is a local partner of Oxfam. Consequently, double KSB structures exist in this hamlet causing confusion to the community. The community attribute this to the top-down approach that local governments normally take in program implementation. Another example is the recent construction of public toilets by the local government which occurred without consultation with the local community. Three days after the In Agam District, Komunitas Jorong Tiku Selatan is a coastal community that is prone to earthquake, tsunami, floods and strong winds. We met with the KSB of Jorong Tiku Selatan. While the KSB mentioned that there have been many NGOs active in their hamlet since the 2009 West Sumatra Earthquake, KSB was not clear whether these programmes are connected to each other. Furthermore, KSB told that it did not have a partnership with the local BPBD. This hamlet has been selected as one of BNPB Desa Tangguh Programmes in West Sumatra. Under the Desa Tangguh Programme, BPBD and the hamlet leader formed a new KSB, which differed from the previous KSB that was established by a West Sumatra based NGO (Jemari Sakato) which is a local partner of Oxfam. Consequently, double KSB structures exist in this hamlet causing confusion to the community. The community attribute this to the top-down approach that local governments normally take in program implementation. Another example is the recent construction of public toilets by the local government which occurred without consultation with the local community. Three days after the

Conclusions

1. Disaster-affected people are not passive victims but willing and able to take on responsibilities to respond to disasters and to invest in longer-term mitigation measures. They are aware of disaster risks, but may not necessarily know what to do during emergencies or to mitigate negative impacts (require access to scientific knowledge for designing appropriate mitigation measures).

2. Entry-points for CBDRM are people’s real experiences with disasters which highly motivates them to learn new skills and organize themselves into CBDRM-teams to avoid panic and to help each other during emergency without being dependent on immediate outside aid.

3. Local people are exposed to multiple hazards and prioritize those that threaten their everyday livelihoods.

3. The most vulnerable groups are identified and categorized as pregnant women, disabled, elderly, the sick and children. Their conditions are recognized during evacuation procedures by CBDRM-teams which consist mostly of the less vulnerable groups (village officials, teachers, local business persons, housewives) who have time and resources to be part of CBDRM-teams. This is in itself not proble matic as long as the specific risk perspectives and livelihood needs of the most vulnerable groups are understood and recognized. Unfortunately that doesn’t yet happen (see point 5).

4. In several instances, we observed that CBDRM interventions did not match with people urgent felt livelihood needs to reduce disaster risk, particularly recurrent flooding and coastal erosion, because emphasis was put on tsunami preparedness. Additionally, existing community structures, local knowledge and risk perspectives are not fully recognized.

5. In some areas CBDRM-teams replicated their skills and knowledge for Disaster Preparedness to other communities and formed CBO-networks that linked to district BPBD. This differs from the Desa Tangguh approach where government officials train others based on CBDRM theory, while CBDRM-teams have real-life experience and have ‘how to do’ skills. However, not all CBO-networks are aware yet of their added value to change and influence the mind-set and performance of district governments while being a critical partner (bottom-up). Some CBO- networks rather act as a channel of the BPBD to reach government’s services and goods at the community level (top-down).

6. In other areas, CBDRM-teams were left on their own without a clear exit strategy.

7. Local communities face many challenges to get support for their urgent structural DRM measures (e.g. gabions, wave-breaks, or reforestation). CBDRM-teams try to include DRR measures in Village Development Plans or use other government programs to access resources (e.g. PNPM). When this is not successful they approach BPBD for institutional support e.g. for endorsement letters to specific government departments or generate petty cash through CBO-networks.

9. Involvement of formal leaders, such as village chiefs vary from one community to the other. The reasons for not involving formal leaders at the start of a programme could be to reach vulnerable groups in a community which is not part of the elite. However, it is crucial at a certain point in time to link CBOs with village authorities in order to utilize formal links to local BPBD or other government agencies.

District level analysis: meaning attached to CBDRM by different actors The ‘Desa Tangguh’ programme is implemented by BNPB through BPBDs in 21 provinces (per province 2 pilot villages are selected). Priority areas are coastal villages prone to tsunami and abrasi (coastal erosion).The aim of ‘Desa Tangguh’ is to better prepare communities for disasters.

A BPBD officer in Blitar framed the programme as ‘establishing a first aid kit for the community and know where to evacuate to help themselves before outside assistance arrives’. Emphasis is on disaster preparedness rather than on the full range of disaster risk reduction interventions. People trained through this programme are volunteers on whom local government can rely during crisis events. Indicators for a ‘desa tangguh’ reflect the programme’s activities rather than outcomes like community abilities. The ‘desa tangguh’ programme is not a holistic programme but developed as an addition to already existing ‘community resilience’ programmes of other line ministries like fishery, coastal and marine department, Health and Social Affairs assuming that coordinated action is happening. The BPBD in West Aceh attempts to continue the CBDRM programmes that were initiated by NGOs but which have left. The BPBD lacks the capacity to conduct CBDRM training at village level and therefore it trains students from the Teuku Umar University for that purpose and hopes that NGOs will continue their work. The BPBD in Blitar, West Aceh and Banyuwangi do not prioritize tsunami or earthquake, since 50-60% of the district’s area are affected by recurrent floods/ landslides while coastal erosion is also a major risk. BPBDs don’t consider Climate Change Adaptation as part of their mandate. They view BMKG as the responsible agency for CCA.

Kappala (East Java) views CBDRM as ‘learning through fraternity, helping each other, changing values, norms, mindsets, and attitudes towards active and critical citizenry’. Disaster-affected people are not perceived as victims, beneficiaries or target groups, but as active citizens. Kappala doesn’t view CBDRM as assistance or a project. Instead Kappala encourages people to become aware of disaster risks and what they can do themselves in order to educate others and to expand people’s preparedness networks but with a critical mindset. The focus of their strategy is hazard-focused and on preparedness sustained by community self-mobilization of human, financial and motivational resources. According to Kappala’s philosophy Jangkar Kelud is also part of Kappala, as are the Merapi community networks.

Partners for Resilience (PfR) take a landscape approach to CBDRM linking short-term preparedness to long-term DRR measures working across geographical, administrative and timescales. Three goals are being targeted in PfR interventions: disaster risk reduction, climate change and ecosystem manage ment. Short-term preparedness capacities have been established through a process that aims to make local people aware about what they can do to reduce disaster risks using their capacities. They rely upon different processes: Caritas Keuskupan Maumere (CKM), a church group, approaches the community through Catholic Church networks at the lowest unit level. CKM stressed that it took several months before they could start making community action plans for DRR and CCA since it requires time and efforts to arrive at a common understanding about CKM’s intentions and aims. Wetlands International (WI) supports communities to plant mangroves which are important to mitigate coastal erosion and to strengthen coastal livelihoods through making the environment conducive for breeding fish and crabs. LPTP in Ende made the community aware of the risks that they face and encouraged them that they are able to deal with the risks with their capacities. PfR Partners for Resilience (PfR) take a landscape approach to CBDRM linking short-term preparedness to long-term DRR measures working across geographical, administrative and timescales. Three goals are being targeted in PfR interventions: disaster risk reduction, climate change and ecosystem manage ment. Short-term preparedness capacities have been established through a process that aims to make local people aware about what they can do to reduce disaster risks using their capacities. They rely upon different processes: Caritas Keuskupan Maumere (CKM), a church group, approaches the community through Catholic Church networks at the lowest unit level. CKM stressed that it took several months before they could start making community action plans for DRR and CCA since it requires time and efforts to arrive at a common understanding about CKM’s intentions and aims. Wetlands International (WI) supports communities to plant mangroves which are important to mitigate coastal erosion and to strengthen coastal livelihoods through making the environment conducive for breeding fish and crabs. LPTP in Ende made the community aware of the risks that they face and encouraged them that they are able to deal with the risks with their capacities. PfR

Ibu Foundation views CBDRM as a planned project to raise people’s awareness on how they can prepare for disasters, and as a way to overcome aid dependency. When project and funding ends, Ibu states it can’t continue activities and assumes that networks of CBOs will remain active and sustain activities. Focus is on village level DRR activities with an emphasis on establishing CBDRM- teams consisting of volunteers linked to village authorities. Head of CBDRM-team is often the village head. The CBDRM approach is donor-driven rather than bottom-up although in Kautambang (flood- prone village) the team managed to get funds from other sources for small mitigation measures like ‘bronjong’. The CBDRM-teams are certified volunteers for the BPBD and organized in a CBO-network FORMASIBAB.

FIRD (Flores Institute for Resource Development) is actually a forum of different NGOs. They see CBDRM as community engaged activities and community ability to access resources in reducing disaster risks in their environment. Their strategies are based on networks of NGOs in Flores to achieve the basic needs of the communities. In order to strengthen the community, they try to link the community with the BPBD in carrying out DRM. The program has a hazard-based approach. In communities prone to coastal erosion they encouraged the community to build dikes on the coast with cement bags filled with sands. FIRD promotes the view that the community can reduce risk by themselves as opposed to relying on government assistance. Government lacks sufficient budget to reduce risk and its response mainly consists of relief assistance. Therefore, CBDRM programmes are crucial to fill a gap in government support.

The Indonesian Red Cross (PMI) views CBDRM as a shift from emergency relief to open-ended community disaster preparedness. PMI stresses that local people should get an active role in DRM and aims to establish community-based disaster preparedness teams that formulate contingency plans in coopera tion with the BPBD, and a community action plan. PMI supports 1 or 2 activities from the risk priority list, while the community is responsible for finding resources for the remaining activities. These can be integrated in the Village Development Plan or through other means. However, the time frame for implementing this CBDRM process is just one year, which is too short according to PMI staff. PMI considers emergency relief as too limited to address disaster risk, but it struggles to make a shift towards DRM because its organizational capacity and structure do not match yet with the requirements for imple menting CBDRM since it was considered a challenge to translate a national CBDRM policy into a localized one.

LSM Limbubu is a local NGO in Padang Pariaman that originally started its programme on women and children issues, including trafficking and rape victims. Since 2004 it started with CBDRM with a focus on community disaster preparedness for tsunami. The founder of Limbubu is a nurse in Bukit Tinggi and therefore the NGOs CBDRM has an emphasis on health and first aid during emergencies but also other DRM related activities. Limbubu functions further as a disaster watchdog at district level by monitoring BNPB’s budget allocation for recovery and where the budget has been spent and who benefits from it. However, communities are not involved in this function. Limbubu approaches the community through informal local ways: by talking to people in coffee shops, through Women Quran Recital Groups (majelis taklim) or lottery events (arisan). Limbubu operates an amateur radio. The advantage a local NGO, is that communities can always pass by and ask support when needed. Even when programmes end, the NGO still meets the community through informal meetings in the district. Limbubu runs various programmes for fishermen, disaster preparedness programmes, and

a school-based DRR programme through curricula development and imulations involving children, their parents and community people living near the school. Its view on CBDRM is unclear.

Conclusions

1. Government and different NGOs attach different meanings to CBDRM varying from increasing people’s capacities in disaster preparedness at village level towards changing mind-sets and performance of district/provincial government to make them responsible actors in DRM, towards addressing the underlying risk factors taking a landscape approach.

2. For some actors CBDRM is a project that implements the activities mentioned in the logframe assuming that the outcomes and impact are achieved (Ibu Foundation, ‘Desa Tangguh’ e.g.). For others CBDRM is an empowerment process changing mind-sets, performance and institutions without a concrete time and space setting.

3. Communities, NGOs and district governments all take a multi-hazard perspective and do not focus on one specific hazard. However all interventions could benefit from a more thorough vulnerability and capacity assessment that includes livelihood strategies, power relations and institutional arrangements that produce vulnerability at the village level. Such an analysis of underlying root causes could be compared with the long-term development plans of local government to identify entry points for lobby and negotiations.

4. The role of NGO facilitators is initially to systematize what people already did in an unorganized way especially when people experienced hazards in the past. The role of government in CBDRM is different: it has the responsibility to protect its citizens and offer protection before, during and after disasters happen. Village authorities and BPBDs can’t do this task on their own. An institutional and legal framework for DRM is being developed but in practice it is still far from ideal. DRM is multi-sectoral in nature and requires the involvement and commitment of many stakeholders and line departments at different administrative levels. This is one of the major challenges of local communi ties to realize their action plans. It is relatively easy to get funds for training and sometimes a simulation, but for more structural measures (wave breaks, reforestation, re-allocation of houses, coastal protection, etc) it is more difficult (see next section).

Provincial level analysis: meaning attached to CBDRM by provincial actors Provincial BPBD in East Java : The BPBD in Surabaya regards the ’Desa Tangguh’ programme as an opportunity to bring the different line ministries together, by engaging those agencies that run a ‘Desa Tangguh’ programme on their own (Health, Social Affairs, Fisheries, etc). BPBD aims to synchronize the different ‘Desa Tangguh’ programmes in the same place to increase the effectiveness at community level and efficiency by making better use of scarce resources. Currently there is no structure in place and no clarity exists about who is responsible for what concerning the implementation of BPBD’s Desa Tangguh programme.

FPBI – Indonesian Disaster Concern Forum . FPBI started as an informal group of students in 1992 in Surabaya (two years before the 1994 tsunami). Some environmental activists founded FPBI in 1998 while they got officially registered in Surabaya in 2008 (after 2004 tsunami and passing of 2007 DM law). The mission of FPBI is to educate students on DRM with the intention that after completion of their studies they could become ‘agents of change’ by sharing their knowledge with local government and vulnerable communities. FPBI espoused to train volunteers in communities at risk on disaster preparedness. FPBI consists of individual members who are professionals and students, and who spend around 20% of their time to FPBI work. Although we asked clear questions, we couldn’t get a clear picture of FPBI’s CBDRM-related work in terms of actual activities, coverage, outcomes, funding sources and network capacity.

Climate Change and Disaster Management Institution of Nahdlatul Ulama (LPBI NU) . NU is a religious organization established in 1926 in Surabaya. Since 2004, NU is pioneering with CBDRM which takes a holistic approach. LPBI-NU integrates environmental issues and climate change adaptation into its DRM agenda through lobby and advocacy from the community level. LPBI-NU supports the drafting of DRM regulations in 8 districts in East Java. These DRM regulations are drafted by CSOs not by the government and aim to make a shift from relief to DRM. LPBI-NU further initiated implementation regulations aimed to allocate more budget for DRM. Each district can draft context-specific regulations according to hazard-type.

Mercy Corps in West Sumatra sees CBDRM as a programme that involves and organizes the commu- nity through five steps: overcoming resistance, contemplation for change, prepare for change, take action and maintaining change. ‘Change’ implies a transition from community at risk towards a resilient community. These steps resonate with the CBDRM Handbook of ADPC viewing CBDRM as

a project. Mercy Corps admits that prior to the 2009 West Sumatra Earthquake, communi ties were more concerned with floods which happen regularly. Triggered by the earthquake, most of NGOs working in West Sumatra, including Mercy Corps, focused on tsunami and earthquake pre pared ness. While Mercy Corps realized that multi-hazard perspective is important, they focused on tsunami and earthquake because of donors’ preferences. Climate change adaptation is also a concern of Mercy Corps which is considered in its ‘strengthening livelihood programme’ in rural areas.

SurfAid focuses its CBDRM program on coastal communities like Mentawai Island, Siberut Island, Nias Island and Singkil (Aceh). SurfAid invites local government when starting a CBDRM programme to a workshop to socialize the programme to government, other NGOs and the community. However, this initiation does not evolve into a partnership or network between communities and local government (BPBD). Although SurfAid targets coastal communities on islands, it utilizes a number of ways to reach wider communities, including radio talk-shows and educational video showing to communities. Like other NGOs, SurfAid provides small grants to construct evacuation routes and evacuation shelter. SurfaAid further tries to connect downstream and upstream communities through mobile phone when there is rain or flooding. However it was not clear how effective this approach is since mobile phone signals are limited in remote areas.