4/12/2011

Structure
1 Context and
background
Can Indonesia Incrementally Reduce its
2 Questions
Disaster Risks? 7 Conclusion and research
methods
Jonatan Lassa
Indonesia Research Fellow 6 Enforcement: 3 Institutional
status and vulnerability
scenarios Framework
Harvard Disaster Management in Asia Seminar Series
Ash Center, Harvard Kennedy School, April 6, 2011
5 Present 4 Disaster
dynamics at management
local level policy reform
www.ash.harvard.edu

Introduction: disaster risk context World Map: Killed by Disasters

• 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 Global Risk Data Platform
• A total of 1.75m homeless since 1975 http://www.worldmapper.org
© Copyright 2006 SASI Group and Mark Newman

© Unesco.org

Laws and Risk-Related Laws Produced

Indonesia DRM System: A Reform During 1945-2009
243

190
169 166

108
97 100
91

58 61 57 58
51
42
26 31
7 3
12 10 9 12
4 3 6 1 5 6 2 2 1 2 4 - 1 - 1 1 5
Fitriani et al. 2004, Seldado et al. 2009
and Setneg Online Database 2009,
Lassa 2010

∑ total produced bills ∑ risk related bills ∑ decentralisation related bills

Source: Lassa 2010 Source: Lassa 2010. data source: Supreme Court Legislation Database

1
 4/12/2011

Volatility in governance: how can DRR

Missing links in vertical governance
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 Government Effectiveness
Regulatory quality Rule of Law
Corruption control Linear (Voice and accountability)
Linear (Regulatory quality) Linear (Rule of Law)

Adapted from Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2009

Source: Lassa 2010, Adapted from Sudarmo and Sudjana 2009

Research questions Conceptual Frameworks

1. Can Indonesia incrementally reduce disaster • Risk reduction as multi-level and poly-
risks? centric governance efforts: Hyogo
2. Given the missing links in the vertical Framework for Actions
governance in Indonesia and the volatility of
governance – what kind of enforcement • Institutional vulnerability concepts
scenarios for disaster risk management policy? • Disaster risk governance concept
3. What can network theory offer in explaining the
• New networked governance and
vision of risk reduction and the future of
Indonesia disaster risk management networked institutionalism

www.ash.harvard.edu www.ash.harvard.edu

Research methods
Indonesian DRR network 2006-2009 (N=87)
Simple statistical analysis Unstructured interviews
60
58
www.appleusers.org
50 52 Face
40
38 38
to face
30 32
Face to face
24
20 20 22 22 21 Facebook: wall and messangers
Unstructured telpon interviews
10 11 Mailing lists: facilitated discussions,
6
unfacilitated discussion
0
Skype
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Formal documents from 45 districts/provinces

Networks Analysis National level

6% Government
7%
International Institutions
17% 45%
NGOs/INGOs
Private funds/people
1 National 2 National 3 Other 4 Media 5 Academic/ 6 National/local 7 International 8 United
Disaster agency and national organizati research NGOs organizations Nations
management ministries level
25% ons institutes Mixed government-Int.
agenciesInst.
agency (old) organization

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%
30% Hyogo Priority IV
Hyogo Priority III
20% 20%
Hyogo Priority II
10%
Hyogo Priority I
0%
0%
Actual Actual Actual Plan 2010 Plan 2011 Plan 2012 Total Total Plan
Actual Actual Actual Plan 2010 Plan 2011 Plan 2012 Total Actual Total Plan 2007 2008 2009 Actual 2010-2012
2007 2008 2009 2007-2009 2010-2012 2007-2009

Hyogo Priority I Hyogo Priority II Hyogo Priority III Hyogo Priority IV Hyogo Priority V Hyogo Priority I Hyogo Priority II Hyogo Priority III Hyogo Priority IV Hyogo Priority V

www.ash.harvard.edu 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 Plan 2011 Plan 2012

4000 120%

100%
2000 20%
80% Hyogo Priority V
68% 63% Hyogo Priority IV
0 60% 88%
79%
Hyogo Priority III
81%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 40%
63% 64% 71%
Hyogo Priority II
Hyogo Priority I
National disaster management budgeted Other budgeted DRM related 20%
5%
0%
Actual Aceh Reconstruction and Rehabilitation (BRR)* National Disaster Management Office* Actual 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Plan 2010 Plan 2011 Plan 2012 Total 2007- Total Plan
2009 2010-2012
Source: National Action Plan 2007-2009;
www.ash.harvard.edu 15 2010-2012; Evaluation Report NAP 2007_2009

Evidence of DRR enforcement mechanism

Time asymmetry for enforcing DRR
regulations (average months)
City-district regulation on buildings

Level of Vertical Ministerial regulation on buildings

Enforcement Horizontal Enforcement at National
Name of Law Central government regulation on buildings
City/Distric Level
Province Substantive Guidelines on Spatial planning at local level (PW
t
Ministry)
Spatial Planning Law 6* 11* Enforced e.g. by GR 26/2008 - 10
Central government regulation on Spatial planning implementation
26/2007 Mar 2008 on Implementation of
Spatial Planning Law, followed by Village level DRR implementation
Ministry of Public Works Regulations
Real DRR implementation at city/district
18% 2% in 2007
Disaster Management 30** 250** Enforced by GR 21-23/2008 - all City-district regulation on DRR
Law 24/2006 signed on 28 Feb 2008, Presidential
Decree 08/2008 on National Disaster Provincial regulations on DRR

90% 50% Management Office Ministerial Guidelines for local govt

Building Law 28/2002 N.A.* N.A* Enforced by GR 36/2005
Government regulation on DRR implementation

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

3
 4/12/2011

Hyogo Framework Implementation in Indonesia

Exchange relevant information
Institutional frameworks and
practices
4.0 Financial resources
Network theory: DRR institutions
during hazard events/disasters,
Financial reserves and
3.5 Community participation and
contingency mechanisms are in
decentralization
place

DP plan and contingency plans

are in place, regular training drills
and rehearsals are held
3.0

2.5 Multi sectoral platform for DRR

• DRR laws and regulations as nodes
Strong policy, technical ^
institutional
2.0

1.5
National and local DRA based on
hazard & vulnerability information
• Established links between laws/regulations
capacities/mechanisms for DRR
1.0 as either reference, enforcement, vision of
SOP to assess the risk impacts of 0.5 Monitor, archive and disseminate
major development projects/
infrastructure
0.0
data on key hazards and
vulnerabilities risks reduction and operational framework
DRR are integrated into post
disaster-RR
Early warning systems are in
place for all major hazards, with
for legal enforcement.
outreach to communities

Planning and management with National and local risk

• Formal institutions as set of networked
DRR elements incl. enforcement assessments take account of
of building codes regional / trans boundary risks
laws/regulations spanning from national to
Relevant information on disasters
Local perception on sectoral
Economic development,
dev. And vulnerability reduction
constraints Sosial development and
is available and accessible at all
levels/stakeholders
School curricula, education
locals and vise versa.
material and relevant trainings
vulnerability reduction Countrywide public awareness
DRR integration with Environment include DRR/RR
and NRM & CCA
towards culture of disaster Indonesia 2009
resilience
Indonesia 2011
www.ash.harvard.edu 20

Micro level evidence: HFA Priority 4

1 Ministerial 2 Other local 3 Strategic 4 Internati 5 District-city 6 Provincial 7 Other 8 Govt. 9 Other 10 Disaster
regulation regulation documents onal DRR DRR Ministerial regulation- managem
national
on DRR s regulatio regulation regulation regulations president ent law
level laws
ns 24/2007

www.ash.harvard.edu

High effectiveness, low High effectiveness, high

institutional resilience institutional resilience

0.9
1 Central government DRR
implementation 2009
Central government DRR
Central government
regulation on DRR
Conclusion
implementation 2011

0.8 Central government regulation

on Spatial planning
• Institutional challenges: complexity,
City-district regulation Ministerial
decentralization, governance volatility,
Effectiveness of implementation

0.7 on DRR Ministerial regulation regulation on DRR

City-district regulation on
buildings
on buildings
Ministerial regulation
regulatory quality, implementation gaps, poor
Provincial regulations on DRR
0.6 on Spatial planning vision of risks.
0.5
City-district regulation on spatial
planning • Decentralization: (dis)incentives for DRR
0.4
City-district level spatial
• HFA demands broader and bolder actions
0.3
planning implementation City-district regulation on DRR
• Network theory: new understanding of
explaning complexity in disaster legislation
0.2 City-district level DRR
implementation
and regulations.
0.1 • New concept of networked institutionalism
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Low effectiveness, low Low effectiveness, high
institutional resilience
Institutional resilience and capacity 23 institutional resilience