4/12/2011
Structure
Can Indonesia Incrementally Reduce its
Disaster Risks?
1 Context and
background
2 Questions
and research
methods
7 Conclusion
Jonatan Lassa
Indonesia Research Fellow
6 Enforcement:
status and
scenarios
Harvard Disaster Management in Asia Seminar Series
Ash Center, Harvard Kennedy School, April 6, 2011
3 Institutional
vulnerability
Framework
5 Present
dynamics at
local level
4 Disaster
management
policy reform
www.ash.harvard.edu
Introduction: disaster risk context
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Merapi eruption 2010: >350,000 IDPs
West Sumatra 2009: >100,000 IDPs
IOT 2004: 550,000 IDPs
Jogja earthquake 2006: 700,000 IDPs?
Aceh Flood 2006: >100,000?
Flores tsunami/Eeq. 1992: 70,000 IDPs
A total of 1.75m homeless since 1975
World Map: Killed by Disasters
Global Risk Data Platform
http://www.worldmapper.org
© Copyright 2006 SASI Group and Mark Newman
© Unesco.org
Indonesia DRM System: A Reform
Laws and Risk-Related Laws Produced
During 1945-2009
243
190
169
166
100
97
108
91
∑ total produced bills
Source: Lassa 2010
6
12
2
2
58
57
42
31
26
7 3
6 1
5
3
Fitriani et al. 2004, Seldado et al. 2009
and Setneg Online Database 2009,
Lassa 2010
4
61
58
51
1
2
∑ risk related bills
4
-
1
-
10
9
12
1
1
5
∑ decentralisation related bills
Source: Lassa 2010. data source: Supreme Court Legislation Database
1
4/12/2011
Missing links in vertical governance
Volatility in governance: how can DRR
be independent from it?
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
GR 38 2007
20%
10%
0%
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
-10%
Voice and accountability
Regulatory quality
Corruption control
Linear (Regulatory quality)
Government Effectiveness
Rule of Law
Linear (Voice and accountability)
Linear (Rule of Law)
Adapted from Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2009
Source: Lassa 2010, Adapted from Sudarmo and Sudjana 2009
Research questions
1. Can Indonesia incrementally reduce disaster
risks?
2. Given the missing links in the vertical
governance in Indonesia and the volatility of
governance – what kind of enforcement
scenarios for disaster risk management policy?
3. What can network theory offer in explaining the
vision of risk reduction and the future of
Indonesia disaster risk management
www.ash.harvard.edu
Simple statistical analysis
40
Face
to face
52
38
38
www.appleusers.org
32
30
24
20
20 22 22 21
11
10
6
0
1995
Indonesian DRR network 2006-2009 (N=87)
Unstructured interviews
58
50
• Risk reduction as multi-level and polycentric governance efforts: Hyogo
Framework for Actions
• Institutional vulnerability concepts
• Disaster risk governance concept
• New networked governance and
networked institutionalism
www.ash.harvard.edu
Research methods
60
Conceptual Frameworks
1997
1999
2001
2003
Networks Analysis
2005
2007
Face to face
Facebook: wall and messangers
Unstructured telpon interviews
Mailing lists: facilitated discussions,
unfacilitated discussion
Skype
Formal documents from 45 districts/provinces
National level
Government
6%
7%
International Institutions
17%
1 National
Disaster
management
agency (old)
2 National
agency and
ministries
45%
3 Other
national
level
25%
organization
4 Media
organizati
ons
NGOs/INGOs
5 Academic/
research
institutes
Private funds/people
6 National/local
NGOs
7 International
organizations
8 United
Nations
agenciesInst.
Mixed government-Int.
2
4/12/2011
National level Spending/Allocation
National level Spending/Allocation
100%
80%
90%
80%
60%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Hyogo Priority V
40%
Hyogo Priority IV
30%
Hyogo Priority III
20%
20%
Hyogo Priority II
10%
Hyogo Priority I
0%
0%
Actual
2007
Actual
2008
Hyogo Priority I
Actual
2009
Plan 2010
Hyogo Priority II
Plan 2011
Hyogo Priority III
Plan 2012 Total Actual Total Plan
2007-2009 2010-2012
Hyogo Priority IV
Hyogo Priority V
Actual
2007
Actual
2008
Actual
2009
Hyogo Priority I
Plan 2010 Plan 2011 Plan 2012
Hyogo Priority II
www.ash.harvard.edu
Total
Total Plan
Actual 2010-2012
2007-2009
Hyogo Priority III
Hyogo Priority IV
Hyogo Priority V
www.ash.harvard.edu
HFA 4 Planned activities in IDR Billions
Other data on Spending: MoF
PNPM in Urban (WB loan)
Flood defense (tens of …
WB loan road project (WINRIP)
12000
Emergency Dredging …
Other infrastructure and …
Building codes policy …
10000
DRR sensitive Spatial…
Env. Management and vul. …
Structural mitigation
8000
Risk Identification …
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
6000
Plan 2010
4000
Plan 2011
Plan 2012
120%
100%
2000
20%
Hyogo Priority V
80%
68%
0
60%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
63%
Hyogo Priority IV
79%
88%
81%
40%
Hyogo Priority III
63%
71%
64%
Hyogo Priority II
Hyogo Priority I
National disaster management budgeted
Other budgeted DRM related
Actual Aceh Reconstruction and Rehabilitation (BRR)*
National Disaster Management Office*
www.ash.harvard.edu
15
Evidence of DRR enforcement mechanism
20%
5%
0%
Actual 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009
Plan 2010
Plan 2011
Plan 2012
Total 20072009
Total Plan
2010-2012
Source: National Action Plan 2007-2009;
2010-2012; Evaluation Report NAP 2007_2009
Time asymmetry for enforcing DRR
regulations (average months)
City-district regulation on buildings
Name of Law
Spatial Planning Law
26/2007
Disaster Management
Law 24/2006
Building Law 28/2002
Level of Vertical
Enforcement
City/Distric
Province
t
Ministerial regulation on buildings
Horizontal Enforcement at National
Level
6*
11*
18%
2%
30**
250**
90%
50%
Enforced e.g. by GR 26/2008 - 10
Mar 2008 on Implementation of
Spatial Planning Law, followed by
Ministry of Public Works Regulations
in 2007
Enforced by GR 21-23/2008 - all
signed on 28 Feb 2008, Presidential
Decree 08/2008 on National Disaster
Management Office
N.A.*
N.A*
Enforced by GR 36/2005
Central government regulation on buildings
Substantive Guidelines on Spatial planning at local level (PW
Ministry)
Central government regulation on Spatial planning implementation
Village level DRR implementation
Real DRR implementation at city/district
City-district regulation on DRR
Provincial regulations on DRR
Ministerial Guidelines for local govt
Government regulation on DRR implementation
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
3
4/12/2011
Hyogo Framework Implementation in Indonesia
Network theory: DRR institutions
Institutional frameworks and
practices
Exchange relevant information
during hazard events/disasters,
Financial reserves and
contingency mechanisms are in
place
4.0
Financial resources
Community participation and
decentralization
3.5
3.0
DP plan and contingency plans
are in place, regular training drills
and rehearsals are held
Multi sectoral platform for DRR
2.5
2.0
Strong policy, technical ^
institutional
capacities/mechanisms for DRR
National and local DRA based on
hazard & vulnerability information
1.5
1.0
SOP to assess the risk impacts of
major development projects/
infrastructure
Monitor, archive and disseminate
data on key hazards and
vulnerabilities
0.5
0.0
Early warning systems are in
place for all major hazards, with
outreach to communities
DRR are integrated into post
disaster-RR
Planning and management with
DRR elements incl. enforcement
of building codes
National and local risk
assessments take account of
regional / trans boundary risks
Relevant information on disasters
is available and accessible at all
levels/stakeholders
School curricula, education
material and relevant trainings
Countrywide public awareness
include DRR/RR
towards culture of disaster
Indonesia 2009
resilience
Economic development,
Local perception
on sectoral
dev. And vulnerability reduction
constraints
Sosial development and
vulnerability reduction
DRR integration with Environment
and NRM & CCA
• DRR laws and regulations as nodes
• Established links between laws/regulations
as either reference, enforcement, vision of
risks reduction and operational framework
for legal enforcement.
• Formal institutions as set of networked
laws/regulations spanning from national to
locals and vise versa.
Indonesia 2011
www.ash.harvard.edu
20
Micro level evidence: HFA Priority 4
1 Ministerial
2 Other local 3 Strategic
regulation
on DRR
regulation
s
4 Internati 5 District-city
documents
onal
regulatio
ns
6 Provincial
DRR
regulation
7 Other
DRR
regulation
Ministerial
regulations
8
Govt.
regulationpresident
level
9 Other 10 Disaster
managem
national
ent law
laws
24/2007
www.ash.harvard.edu
High effectiveness, high
institutional resilience
High effectiveness, low
institutional resilience
1
Central government DRR
implementation 2009
Central government DRR
implementation 2011
0.9
Effectiveness of implementation
0.8
Central government
regulation on DRR
Central government regulation
on Spatial planning
City-district regulation
Ministerial
on DRR
regulation on DRR
Ministerial regulation
0.7
City-district regulation on
buildings
0.6
on buildings
Ministerial regulation
on Spatial planning
Provincial regulations on DRR
City-district regulation on spatial
planning
0.5
0.4
City-district level spatial
planning implementation
City-district regulation on DRR
0.3
0.2
City-district level DRR
implementation
0.1
Conclusion
• Institutional challenges: complexity,
decentralization, governance volatility,
regulatory quality, implementation gaps, poor
vision of risks.
• Decentralization: (dis)incentives for DRR
• HFA demands broader and bolder actions
• Network theory: new understanding of
explaning complexity in disaster legislation
and regulations.
• New concept of networked institutionalism
0
0
0.1
0.2
Low effectiveness, low
institutional resilience
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Institutional resilience and capacity 23
0.8
0.9
1
Low effectiveness, high
institutional resilience
4