Compiler: Rinto Andriono, Director of the Institute for Development and Economic Analysis (IDEA)
It is estimated that 83% of Indonesia's territory is a high disaster risk area. Indonesia is located at the intersection of four tectonic plates, making it highly vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis. A total of 383 out of 440 districts in Indonesia are areas with a fairly high disaster risk. And, worse, 98% of Indonesia's 220 million population are people who do not yet have awareness of disaster risk reduction. The same disaster has different impacts on different people. In general, it is the weak who feel the most suffering from disasters. They are children, the elderly, women, the disabled, the poor and those who are marginalized by politics, religion and/or culture.
The high poverty rate results in a high risk of disaster in Indonesia and of the 224,177 million population of Indonesia, there are 15% who are still below the poverty line where the poverty line is marked by consumption capacity below Rp 166,697.00 per capita per month and unfulfilled access to basic services. With the poverty line above, there are approximately 34 million families in Indonesia living in conditions vulnerable to disaster due to poverty.
A. Disaster Budget Policy in the Regions
“Every $1 of public spending on disaster mitigation and preparedness can save $7 in disaster damage,” United States Geological Survey (USGS).
“Every $1 of public funds spent on disaster mitigation and preparedness saves $2 in emergency response,” The Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Budget policy has functions, namely allocation of public resources, stabilization in the event of a crisis, redistribution of welfare to reduce inequality, control to protect citizens' rights, politics to segregate stakeholder interests in the public area and management and supervision functions for the bureaucracy. If the above functions can run optimally, the APBD policy will be able to contribute to disaster risk reduction (hereinafter abbreviated as PRB) in the region.
However, the facts show that the APBD policy is not in sufficient capacity to carry out its function so that disaster risk reduction is not managed well in the region. One example is the policy of collecting local government levies that can play a role in reducing vulnerability. For example, the policy of Building Permit levies, C Mining Levy or Business Permit Levy. These levies, if implemented with a firm disaster risk reduction orientation, will be able to contribute to reducing vulnerability. With the IMB levy mechanism, the government can enforce building codes so that houses and public facilities that are built can reduce the risk of casualties if a disaster occurs. Through the C mining levy mechanism, the local government can regulate the exploration of River Basins that are safe for the environment and the community. With business permit levies, the government should be able to protect residents from the threat of environmental degradation due to pollution or disasters caused by industry. Unfortunately, in current practice, these taxes and levies are only seen as income-generating to contribute to Regional Original Income. In addition to the revenue aspect, the Regional Budget policy has expenditure and financing aspects. On the expenditure side, budget policies can allocate public expenditures that can reduce threats and increase citizens' capacity to respond to disasters.
The experience of residents who were victims of the 2008 landslide disaster in Karanganyar shows that residents in disaster-prone areas do not have adequate knowledge to live side by side with the threat. Signs captured by residents that appeared before the disaster occurred should have been able to save residents from greater loss of life. Unfortunately, a series of events such as prolonged rain, small landslides and hills that emitted murky water were not understood by residents as signs that they had to evacuate. By looking at the Disaster Management Law number 24 of 2007 that the community has the right to obtain information and skills related to disaster management, it can be concluded that the government has neglected to allocate an adequate budget to improve residents' understanding of disaster risks.
The policy of spending the physical development budget for public facilities should be safe enough to be able to serve as shelter for residents when a disaster occurs. However, the experience of the earthquake in Indonesia shows that public facilities such as schools and health centers are not enough to be a safe shelter for residents when a disaster occurs. The allocation of budget spending for DRR in disaster-prone areas is more focused on reducing threats, which means that more spending is allocated for the construction of physical facilities such as embankments, dams, sabos and so on. Meanwhile, other disaster risk variables such as vulnerability are actually left alone. In fact, some development projects actually increase the vulnerability of residents.
For example, the construction of a bridge in Kulonprogo which has implications for changing river flow patterns, thus impacting the drying of irrigation channels. Or the cementing project of the lake in Gunung Kidul which has an impact on the drying of the lake more quickly during the dry season.
The aspect of community capacity is an aspect that is always forgotten in the Regional Budget spending policy. Local governments have almost no adequate programs to increase community capacity against disasters. This capacity aspect includes strong social institutions, adequate understanding of DRR and other social capital that can be managed well through government programs that strengthen it. Examples of horizontal conflicts during the implementation of post-earthquake housing rehabilitation and reconstruction funds in Bantul and post-tsunami in Aceh show that post-disaster recovery programs can have two impacts at once. Namely, reduced vulnerability due to increased house resilience to earthquakes and reduced community capacity due to horizontal conflicts.
Table 1. Budget Policies Contributing to Increased Disaster Risk
B. Disaster Risk Reduction and Budget Politics
Public funds in the APBD are public resources that are limited in amount. This limitation causes scarcity so that power is needed to access it. The regional budgeting system and policies in Indonesia are regulated by Law No. 25 of 2003 and Law No. 17 of 2001. In this system, there are four approaches to regional planning and budgeting. The four approaches are the political approach, the bureaucratic approach, the technocratic approach and the participatory approach.
The political approach is represented by the direct election mechanism for regional heads and DPRD. In this approach, regional heads and DPRD have strong authority to determine the direction of budget policy. The bureaucratic approach or top-down and bottom-up approach is manifested in the requirement for regional governments to refer to central government policies. As SKPD must refer to the policy of the regent as the regional head. The technocratic approach is represented by the authority of BAPPEDA to formulate regional development planning policies. Or it is also seen in the authority of SKPD to formulate the SKPD Strategic Plan. Finally, there is a participatory approach represented by the existence of musrenbang from the village to the district.
In practice, these four approaches often cancel each other out. And, with different levels of power, the access and control of each actor from the four approaches to public funding sources in the APBD are also different. The participatory approach is usually the most marginalized approach in determining the direction of APBD policy. Given that each disaster risk is distributed differently in society. Where vulnerability as a complex concept is influenced by many factors, one of which is access and control over public resources. Differences in access and control over public resources also shape citizens' resilience to disasters.
As each disaster risk is distributed differently in society and vulnerability is a complex concept influenced by many factors, one of which is access and control over public resources. Differences in access and control over public resources contribute to resilience before and after a disaster.
Women, the elderly, indigenous peoples, children and other gender minorities are part of the society that has the weakest access and control over public resources, so their vulnerability to disasters is also high. The lack of participation of gender minorities in budgeting policies will result in public spending and collection policies actually increasing the vulnerability of the weak to disasters.
C. Budgeting and Disaster Risk Reduction Policies
a. Ideal Framework for Mainstreaming PRB in Planning and Budgeting Policies
Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management has been enacted. New regulations as derivatives of this law have also begun to be prepared. This Disaster Management Law is an adoption of the Hyogo Framework of Action, an international consensus on disaster management strategies. As an international consensus, the Hyogo Framework of Action is universal and worthy of being adopted by all countries. However, its weakness is that it is top-down and will require many adjustments for its implementation. One of the challenges is how to build synergy with the budgeting system and policies in Indonesia.
The synergy of Law No. 24 of 2007 with the budgeting system and policies in Indonesia is very important. Especially to ensure the mainstreaming of DRR in budgeting policies in Indonesia and also to ensure the completeness of the Disaster Risk Reduction Action Plan (RAD-PRB) can be funded properly by the public budget in the regions. Ideally, the synergy of Law No. 24/2007 on Disaster Management with Law No. 25/2004 on the National Development Planning System will be seen in the chart above. While the chart below is the ideal format for DRR synergy in mandatory and optional affairs that must be implemented by the regional government.
Chart 3. Work Plan and Funding
b. Development Planning and PRB
The ideal framework above is still difficult to implement because there are still many incompatibilities between disaster management regulations and development planning and budgeting. In addition to the incompatibility of regulations between disaster law products, development planning and budgeting, derivative regulations from Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management have not been fully issued. The matrix below shows a picture of the conflict between these legal documents.
Table 2. Legal Documents for Disaster Management Versus Development Planning and Budgeting
Based on Article 9 of Law No. 24 of 2007, the authority of regional governments in implementing disaster management includes determining disaster management policies in their regions that are in line with regional development policies. The determination of this policy also includes the creation of development plans that include elements of disaster management. However, the problem is that most regions do not yet have adequate awareness to mainstream disaster risk reduction in their development planning policies. Meanwhile, as a reference in mainstreaming DRR, regional governments need disaster risk maps consisting of threat maps, vulnerability maps and capacity maps. Observations show that very few regions have adequate maps.
Several disaster areas with technical assistance from international NGOs have formulated a Regional Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction (RAD-PRB), but the plan has differences with the Regional Disaster Management Plan as mandated in PP No. 21 of 2008 concerning Disaster Management. Reports from these areas also stated that the Regional Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMD) and the Regional Government Work Plan (RKPD) have not been sufficiently inspired by the RAD-PRB. The reason is because the RAD-PRB does not have sufficient legality to be referred to even though this document is valid and adequate as a regional multi-stakeholder plan document for PRB.
c. Budgeting of Regional Work Units and PRB
Disaster risk reduction has also not become the mainstream in budgeting at the Regional Government Work Unit (SKPD) level. This means that the revenue and expenditure policies of SKPDs responsible for certain sectoral affairs do not yet have a DRR nuance. In addition to being caused by the inadequate level of understanding of DRR, one of the main factors is because the strategic orientation of SKPD program policies is not yet DRR sensitive. SKPDs consider that DRR matters are the affairs of special SKPDs for emergencies such as Satpol PP or Kesbanglinmas.
Meanwhile, specifically, DRR affairs are not adequately accommodated in Government Regulation No. 38 of 2007 concerning Division of Government Affairs and Government Regulation No. 41 of 2007 concerning Regional Apparatus Organization. These regulations do not specifically include DRR affairs as one of the mandatory regional affairs. This makes it difficult for regional governments to carry out the mandate of Law No. 24 of 2007 concerning the Regional Disaster Management Agency which will be an agency that specifically handles disaster affairs in the region. In short, Disaster Risk Reduction is not included in the mandatory affairs of regional governments and BPBD is not recognized in regional apparatus organizations.
PP No. 22 of 2008 concerning Funding and Management of Disaster Assistance mandates the types and sources of funding for disaster management in Indonesia. This regulation defines disaster management funds as funds used for disaster management for the pre-disaster, emergency response and/or post-disaster stages. Disaster management funds in the pre-disaster stage are allocated for activities in situations where there is no disaster and there is potential for a disaster. Meanwhile, disaster management funds in the post-disaster stage are used to fund rehabilitation and reconstruction activities.
(klik untuk memperbesar)
The funding scheme above has its own problems for each disaster phase. In the non-disaster phase, contingency funds reserved to deal with certain disaster possibilities provided for preparedness activities in the pre-disaster stage will have high accountability problems if the management scheme is similar to contingency funds. This fund is a central government fund implemented by the regional government through a task assistance mechanism so that supervision and accountability of this fund are directly to the central government. With low supervision intensity and a fund volume that is not too large for the central government, this fund will not receive adequate attention in supervision. Problems of incompatibility of contingency fund projects with community needs will also arise because the participation mechanism in the implementation of this program is constrained by significant structural levels and distances.
In the emergency response phase, ready-to-use funds have a problem in the form of the absence of a budget nomenclature for spending these funds. The absence of this nomenclature means that ready-to-use funds can only be disbursed through an unexpected spending account, the nature of which is that this account has low accountability because the procurement of goods and services is without going through a tender according to Presidential Decree No. 80 of 2003. Disbursement of funds for the unexpected fund account will also take a long time because BPBD must request permission to disburse to the Regional Financial Management Work Unit and then the Regional Head must obtain permission from the DPRD to disburse these funds. Another problem with these funds is their inability to be sterile from the vested interests of regional authorities.
D. Disaster Risk Reduction Paradigm
Disaster studies are indicated by the presence of two main paradigms, namely the behavioral paradigm and the structural paradigm. The first paradigm dominated disaster studies in the 1950s, characterized by a technocratic approach that was evident in the disciplines of geology, morphology and seismology, which emphasized monitoring and predicting hazards. This hazard-centred paradigm is integrated into modern capitalist discourse, which is evident from the view that nature is a separate part of humans and is a commodity that can be managed with a modern knowledge and administration approach. Because disasters often occur in developing countries, disasters are considered part of non-modern life that leads to vulnerability and danger. This approach is also in line with and goes hand in hand with disaster management through militaristic organizations and approaches.
In addition to the behavioral paradigm above, disaster studies are also colored by the structural paradigm that emerged in the 1980s, where anthropology, sociology and geography studies presented challenges to this highly technocratic hazard-centered approach. This challenge is evident in a paper written by Kenneth Hewitt in 1983. In his radical paper entitled "Interpretations of the Calamity from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology", he explained that disasters are not only caused by geomorphological processes. Especially in developing countries, structural factors such as increasing poverty, debt traps and social change issues affect human and community vulnerability to disasters. An introduction to social vulnerability is at the heart of understanding disasters. This is what then gave rise to an understanding of the relationship between hazard and vulnerability, which then emerged in a formula that is very well-known today, namely Risk = Hazard + Vulnerability.
Along with the presence of this new paradigm, several new perspectives have also become part of the study and work on disasters. One of them is studying the gender dimension in disasters and at the same time how to integrate this perspective in disaster management work. Women's lives, like men's, are colored by gender relations in a particular cultural context, as well as by many things, ranging from age, physical capacity, ethnicity, race, economic conditions and status, and many other things. Disaster studies using a gender perspective emphasize that women tend to be more vulnerable, because gender injustice is indeed everywhere. Women's daily lives can increase exposure in all forms to unsafe conditions and hazardous events. Women also tend to have less power in decision-making at the family level, as they are also relatively unrepresented in political decision-making at the public level. When their voices are not heard, their needs in the medium or long term are not considered. Several trends in change at the community level also affect women, as can be exemplified in state policies for the privatization of public services, and increasing poverty rates which also mean increasing the number of women who become poor, and also become more vulnerable to disasters.
However, in a study exploring gender perspectives in disasters, Enarson and Meyreles said that throughout the world, both at the level of paradigm and theory, methodology, and also population selection in disaster studies, the perspective used is dominated by the male perspective. Changes in perspective by using gender analysis as a basis have begun to appear in disaster studies in the last two decades. Initially, these studies were colored by issues of social and health differences, and women's responsibilities and their correlation to the high death rate of women in disasters. In this series, there is also a study of cultural barriers that hinder women's access to assistance in patriarchal societies as shown by the experience of South Asia, to the experience of female social workers in gender-biased environments in the United States.
In their research, Enarson & Meyreles also show that studies on gender and disasters view gender as a social construct, emphasizing power differences between men and women, and reflecting a social vulnerability approach in studying disasters. But unfortunately, some of these studies fail to make a systematic analysis in examining the relationship between gender and class, caste, race, ethnicity, age and physical ability.
E. Disaster Risk Reduction and Development
In one of DFID's policy briefs entitled "Disaster Risk Reduction: A Development Concern", it is expressed that on a large scale, disasters are the result of development failures that increase vulnerability to hazards. Development failures can be found at all levels, from local and national levels, to institutions at the global level that are heavily influenced by superpowers. In the policy brief, it is explained that the development process can increase exposure to hazards. For example, the rapid and poorly managed growth of urban areas can trigger high vulnerability to hazards such as floods and earthquakes. Acute poverty in urban areas makes many families unable to build houses that are safe from hazards due to economic pressures and weak environmental carrying capacity. Poverty and marginalization in the policy process also increase vulnerability because many policies do not take into account the conditions and needs of the poor. In the same situation, the weakness of the state's social protection scheme on the one hand, and the decline in informal safety mechanisms on the other, increase vulnerability. These are portraits of development failures that correlate with increased exposure to hazards.
Disaster is the impact of potential threats that become real and affect the community so that death, damage and loss of life and property occur. The impact of a disaster is determined by the level of vulnerability that the community has to the threat of the disaster itself. Vulnerability is the human dimension of disaster. To understand the aspects that make a community vulnerable to disaster, one must look at the economic, social, cultural, institutional, political and even psychological factors that shape the lives of the community and form the environment in which the community is located. In other words, as stated by John Twigg, vulnerability is socially constructed.
Therefore, the same disaster has different impacts on different people. Studies have shown that in general, it is the weak who suffer the most from disasters. They are children, the elderly, women, the disabled, the poor and those marginalized by politics, ethnicity, race or caste.
A community may have high disaster vulnerability. But why is that? It could be due to impoverishment and demographic processes such as population growth, urbanization and migration. Or because of economic, legal and political problems that eliminate people's rights to land. Or because of the failure to enforce regulations to protect conservation areas. What is clear is that this happens because the state and civil society institutions fail to protect the community. The link between development and vulnerability in the third world is so high that disasters are often referred to as 'unsolved problems of development' or even more sharply, disasters are referred to as 'development failures'. The following diagram shows that disasters cannot be separated from the development process.
Chart 4. Development and Disaster Risk
(klik untuk memperbesar)
Budgeting policy is a policy that cannot be separated from the development process in developing countries. Budgeting policy that has both allocation and political functions helps shape the distribution of public resources in regions that can have two impacts at once for citizens, namely incentive and disincentive impacts for citizens with different political capacities. Budgeting policy interventions, especially in post-regional autonomy regions in Indonesia, help shape citizens' vulnerability and capacity to disasters because as explained in the model above, development policies cannot be separated from their impact on disaster risk.
F. Conclusion
Budget advocacy should be sensitive to the issues of community citizens. Budget advocacy sensitive to disaster risk reduction is part of the effort to increase that sensitivity. This is triggered by several strategic issues, namely the high risk of disaster in Indonesia, the rampant corruption of disaster budgets and the fact that development projects funded by the budget can also increase the risk of disaster.
Currently, the government of the Republic of Indonesia has ratified Law No. 24 of 2007 concerning Disaster Management. This law has been followed by its derivative regulations. However, there are still policy conflicts with regulations governing regional budgeting. These facts make the disaster budget prone to corruption and prone to increasing disaster risks due to budgeting policies that are not PRB sensitive.
(1) Keith Smith 1999, sebagaimana dikutip dalam Hilhorst, D, “Unlocking Disaster Paradigms : An Actor-oriented Focus on Disaster Response”, abstract submitted for session 3 of The Disaster Research and Social Crisis, Network Panels of the 6th European Sociological Conference, tanpa tahun, sebagaimana dimuat dalam http://www.erc.gr/English/d&scrn/murcia-papers/session3/Hilhorst_III_Original.pdf
(2) Blaikie, et.al, 1993, sebagaimana dikutip dalam paper yang sama.
(3) Enarson, et.al, (2003), “Working with Women at Risk : Practical Guidelines for Assessing Local Disaster Risk”, International Hurricane Center, Florida International University, June, sebagaimana dimuat dalam http://www.gdnonline.org/resources/WorkingwithWomenEnglish.pdf
(4) Enarson, E & Meyreles, L, “International Perspectives on Gender and Disaster : Differences and Possibilities”, tanpa tahun, sebagaimana dimuat dalam http://www.erc.gr/English/d&scrn/murcia-papers/session2/Enarson_Meyreles_II_Original.pdf
(5) Disaster Risk Reduction as Development Concern, DFID, Policy Brief, 2004, sebagaimana dimuat dalam http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/disaster-risk-reduction.pdf
(6) John Twigg 2001, Physician, Heal Thyself? The Politics of Disaster Mitigation, Benfield Greig Hazard Research Center, University College London.
(7) John Twigg 2001, Physician, Heal Thyself? The Politics of Disaster Mitigation, Benfield Greig Hazard Research Center, University College London.
English 
Bahasa Indonesia