Redefining Community Resilience in Indonesia

Transcription

1 Redefining Community Resilience in Indonesia A Research Report submitted as part of the input for the preparation of ISDR publication, The State of DRR at the Local Level Prepared by Lilik Kurniawan, Chasan Ascholani, Valentinus Irawan, Yusniar Nurdin and Domenicus Wermasubun Indonesian National Agency for Disaster Management Abstract This research contributes to understanding of community resilience in a volcanic hazard setting. Through an analysis of local people, government and NGOs responses in dealing with repeated volcanic eruptions, nine aspects critical for resilience were found in several villages in three districts surrounding Merapi Volcano in Indonesia. These aspects included protection of lives, economic livelihoods, public infrastructure and facilities, social capital, education and training, physical and psychological health, natural resource management, coordination and network, and institutionalization of disaster risk reduction. Although this validates findings from other community resilience research, this research suggests that community resilience is a complex process that is tied to specific hazard, place and livelihoods circumstances. Hence, interventions from the government and other external actors have to be aligned with the specific situations faced by the community. Key Words: community resilience; disaster risk; volcanic hazard; economic livelihoods, government 1. Introduction Government institutions and non-government organizations alike in Indonesia have recently been keen on developing community-based initiatives to build the resilience of people living in hazard-prone areas in the country. These initiatives may take many forms, from providing a simple warehouse, emergency logistics and two-three day emergency response training, to the whole process of engaging community members in risk mapping and other risk reduction and preparedness activities, and eventually formulating village disaster management regulations and/or plans. Various different approaches have been employed, although most have basically been based on a preparedness approach, in which the programs are mostly geared towards enhancing the emergency response capacity of the people. Several organizations, however, have drawn up inspirations from Twigg s Characteristics of a Disaster Resilient Community/CDRC (2009) in implementing their resilience building programs. This guidance note proposes a framework for building resilient community based on the HFA. It has five thematic areas: Governance, Risk Assessment, Knowledge and Education, Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction, and Disaster Preparedness and Response. The five thematic areas and their components of resilience are meant to be pursued as elements that might be required in developing an ideal resilient community. The Government of Indonesia in 2012 passed a ministerial decree titled Guidelines for Developing Resilient Villages. Using components of resilience from CDRC, the bylaw proposes six components, which include Legislation at village level; Planning that integrates DRR into village development plans; Institutional Development that includes set-up of DRR forum and mechanisms for stakeholder engagement; Funding through government as well as non-government resources; Capacity Building for emergency preparedness and response; Mitigation and Risk Reduction through physical and non-physical measures. This regulation has been used extensively by different stakeholders working on resilience building at the local level. While programs to build resilience are mostly implemented by actors external to the community, communities in hazard-prone areas have developed their local wisdoms and practices that have enabled them to live in harmony with risks. It would be interesting to see 1

2 whether resilience building programs implemented by external actors have really matched elements considered critical by the communities for their resilience. This research gathered information from three districts that have been regularly affected by Merapi Volcano s eruption. It tried to understand what has helped or hindered the affected communities resilience, and identify components of resilience that are perceived as essential by community members. It is expected that the results of this study will inform future resilience programs. 2. Research Design The research is a case study that used focused-group discussions, in-depth interviews with selected respondents and desk study of relevant literature. It attempted to identify elements that build resilience to disaster in a volcanic hazard setting. Focused-group discussions were conducted in the district of Magelang, Klaten and Sleman in Central Java and Yogyakarta Provinces. The respondents were 127 persons, including residents from villages at Merapi Volcano (110 persons), district government officials from various sectoral offices (9 persons), and representatives from local NGOs working with people affected by Merapi eruption (8 persons). Mount Merapi is a very active volcano that has regular eruptions with an interval of between 1-18 years; ranging from minor eruption (with Volcanic Explosivity Index/VEI 1-2) approximately every 4 years, eruption with VEI 3 with an interval of between years, VEI 4 between years and catastrophic eruption with VEI 5 between years (Subandriyo 2011). Respondents of the study had experienced several eruptions including the 1994 eruption with 64 lives lost and the latest, the 2010 eruption with VEI 4, which ejected more than 100 million m 3 of volcanic materials, killing 386 people and displacing permanently or temporarily more than 303,233 people. Three focused-group discussions were conducted in three target districts, involving community members from villages at the upper part of the volcano. Another focused-group discussion was organized to gain inputs from government officials and representatives of NGOs working in the three districts. In-depth interviews were conducted on separate occasions. A desk review was done on relevant research papers and guidelines for resilience building. There were actually four districts that had often been affected by Merapi volcanic eruptions, but due to time constraint the study had only been done in three districts closest to Yogyakarta. Of the 127 respondents, 99 were men and 28 women. The majority of the villager respondents worked as farmers, farm laborers, sand miners, household industry owners, or petty traders. The age of the respondents was in the range of years old. The key respondents mostly came from villages near the top of the volcano, which were within the hazard-prone areas as determined by the authority. They were the people being hardest affected by eruptions because their livelihoods mostly depended on the volcano and its natural resources. The respondents were selected on the basis of their close exposure to hazards and experiences in dealing and adapting with the risks posed by the volcano. Respondents from government and NGOs were mostly people that had been directly or indirectly working on risk reduction or preparedness programs and post-2010 Merapi eruption rehabilitation and reconstruction programs in the three districts. Throughout the focused-group discussions and in-depth interviews researchers engaged respondents to discuss the impacts of eruptions on their life and livelihoods. The respondents were then asked to recount how the communities have responded to the adverse impacts of eruption, and how local government officials and NGOs have prepared communities to deal with disaster impacts prior to, during and after disaster events. At the same time respondents were also encouraged to identify and discuss the gaps that still exist in relation to the roles that have been played by the different stakeholders and communities in building resilience to disaster. All the discussions and interviews were recorded and analyzed for the issues and topics that had been most talked about and considered as important by respondents. Key elements of resilience as perceived by affected communities were then deduced from the data obtained and the analysis. 2

3 3. Understanding Community Resilience In Indonesia, community resilience has commonly been associated with Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) programs initiated by NGOs in mid 1990s, which was often considered as the period of the emergence of CBDRM in Indonesia (Nugroho and Yon, 2011). After the Merapi eruption of 1994, some NGOs initiated some works with communities with the ultimate purpose of building resilience toward forthcoming eruptions. This program, among others, gave birth to a community-based organization, the Pasag Merapi, which was a relatively established social institution that promoted community resilience building in villages close to Mount Merapi (Liputan6.com, 19 September 2013). Issues related to community resilience became more popular after the Indian Ocean Tsunami hit Aceh, Indonesia in Subsequent to the mega catastrophe, many organizations, from local, national to international organizations, came to Aceh and Nias Island, the two most affected areas, to help with their recovery and reconstruction. Throughout the process some of these organizations developed programs that were aimed at building community resilience. Many training programs were organized to teach community members how to know their risks and develop measures to become communities better prepared to face disasters. Such community resilience concept was also then applied to many hazard prone areas in Indonesia, such as areas frequently affected by drought in Nusa Tenggara Islands and flood prone areas in Sulawesi Islands. Many of the above-mentioned organizations employed the widely accepted definition of community resilience from UNISDR (2009), which states that resilience is the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions. For practical reasons, these organizations also used Twigg s (2009) Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community, as it provides detailed indicators for designing and implementing their resilience building activities. Some organizations modified Twigg s resilience indicators to measure the results of project interventions at the community level. The UNISDR s definition uses system and community or society as the basis of analysis to understand resilience, although the resilience could also be used at the household level. Mitchell (2013), for instance, defined resilience as the ability of households, communities and states layers of society to absorb and recover from shocks, whilst positively adapting and transforming their structures and means for living in the face of long-term stresses, change and uncertainty. This definition also adds an important component of resilience that is transformation of structures to deal with risk of long-term stresses and uncertainty, not only preserving and restoring structures during disaster. As resilience is a system and as it should transform the existing structure to better reduce risks, some authors consider resilience as a process, rather than an outcome (e.g. Mitchell and Harris, 2012). Consequently, it is related more to the process of learning, participation, relation among actors, leadership, the functioning of institutions, and the like. Community s adaptation to shocks due to natural disaster, for example, is part of resilience in the process of restoring community members well-being and becoming better off. In this case, successful efforts to prevent loss of development gains from disaster, especially in hazard prone areas, could also be considered as resilience. These may include successful protection of education, health services, and economic growth as they contribute to human and economic development indicators. As a process, people s agency is a critical factor in determining community resilience (Pain and Levine, 2012). The community is mostly not homogenous, with its members coming from different educational, social strata, livelihood strategies, and life style background and perspective. Within the community, some group of people may be affected gravely by disaster and become poorer while others have sufficient capacity to cope with disaster impacts. Some people may even be able to gain benefits from disaster occurring in their villages. Therefore, power relations, politics, social system, and the many different actors are important factors that need to be taken into account in building community resilience (Heijmans, 2012). 3

4 Related to this, Béné et al (2012) added adaptive and transformative capacities, in addition to absorptive coping capacity, to the concept of resilience. These three capacities are the manifestation of the community s capacity to survive during disaster event and bounce back subsequent to the event, and even transform themselves into better social, political, and economical structures that might be able to reduce better future disaster risks. In this case, Béné et al. gave clear conclusion that is Good Resilience is the ability of a system to accommodate positively adverse changes and shocks, simultaneously at different scales and with consideration of all the different components and agents of the system, through the complementarities of its absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities. However, as a system that may have three key capacities mentioned above, resilience is not easy to measure. These capacities need to be translated into specific and more detailed indicators, because all development and humanitarian agencies, and also government institutions, would like very much to see the results of their program interventions on building the resilience of the people and communities. To address this issue, some researchers have come up with a number of optional elements as indicators of resilience. By employing the five HFA priorities, Twigg (2009) defined resilience into 28 specific components. Twigg has the biggest number of components that explain the concept of resilience compared to others that at the maximum have just ten elements. Colten (2010), for instance, summarized resilience into five components, namely community engagement, leadership, communication and coordination, ongoing preparations and training, and flexibility. IFRC (2012), deriving conclusions from its many programs in disaster areas including in Indonesia, offered six elements of community resilience, namely knowledgeable and healthy; organized; connected; having infrastructure and services; having economic opportunities; and can manage its natural assets. These components reflect what community needs to do and to have in order for building its resilience. These views still combine the understanding of resilience as a process and an outcome. A number of more recent literatures also propose several components of resilience. Used mostly by international NGOs, Turnbull et al. (2013) provides seven key sectors of disaster and climate change resilience. Those are food security, livelihoods, natural resource management, water-sanitation and hygiene, education, health, and protection. As these are sectors, we still need to break them down into more detailed indicators. For this purpose, Turnbull et al., knowing that it is a guideline for practitioners, also provides key groups, key contexts, program cycle management and enabling environment for better implementing these in practice at community level. Another concept was proposed by Oxfam GB (2013), which focuses more on the community level. Oxfam GB recommended five elements of community resilience, namely livelihood viability, innovation potential, contingency resources and support access, integrity of natural and built environment, and social and institutional capacity. Many components of resilience mentioned by authors and organizations above are mostly extracted from experiences from implementing field-level projects. Others are generated from research conducted in several areas frequently affected by disaster and climate change risks. Considering the Indonesian specific disaster context and the country s experiences in building resilience (BNPB, 2013), Indonesia considered resilience as more a system that should be applicable beyond administrative boundary and village level. In this case, the summary of the main characteristics of resilient systems as concluded by Bahadur et al. (2010) after explaining and comparing 16 concepts of resilience will help to better understand the degree of resilient systems in hazard prone areas. The ten characteristics are as the following: 1. A high level of diversity in groups, economic opportunities, resilience-building policy process, partnerships, natural resources etc. 2. Effective governance and institutions which may enhance community cohesion. 3. The inevitable existence of uncertainty and change is accepted. 4. There is community involvement, ownership and the appropriation of local knowledge in any resilience-building activities. 5. Preparedness activities aim not at resisting change but preparing to live with it. 4

5 6. A high degree of social and economic equity exists in systems. 7. The importance of social values and structures is acknowledged. 8. The non-equilibrium dynamics of a system are acknowledged. 9. Continual and effective learning is important. This may merge with the concept of adaptive capacity. 10. Resilient systems take a cross-scalar perspective of events and occurrences. Resilience is built through social, political, economic and cultural networks that reach from the local to the global scale. 4. Findings 4.1 Community Perspective on Prioritized Elements of Resilience In-depth interviews were conducted with group of farmers, livestock farmers, petty traders, sand miners, women, people with disability and head of women-headed households. The interviews were designed to build an understanding of the specific aspects of resilience considered as critical by these community groups. The focused-group discussions and interviews explored the most important impacts of Merapi Eruption on respondents life, how they overcame them and how they dealt with those challenges to increase their resilience to future disaster. Among the most important aspects affected by Merapi Volcano eruption, loss of lives was the first thing mentioned by most community members from the three districts. Many respondents had experienced eruption events more than once and as most of them came from villages at the higher part of the volcano, many people had seen their relatives or neighbors fall victims to eruption or secondary disaster such as mudflows or debris flow. To deal with this challenge, most villagers living in villages directly affected by eruption had involved themselves with preparedness training and equipped their families with measures and tools to face emergency situation such as communication equipment and emergency kit. Sand miners considered rescuing oneself as a priority issue, in addition to salvaging valuables and evacuating their cattle. Miners usually worked collecting sands from rivers that came from the top of the volcano. In the event of heavy raining in the higher part of the volcano, they might be hit by flash flood of volcanic materials. It was only logical that sand miners emphasized preparedness measures such as set-up of early warning system, repair of evacuation roads, and the conduct of evacuation and emergency response simulations as the way of strengthening their resilience. People with disability put rescuing their own lives as the most important priority issue, with the other priority issues being similar to the other groups. This might probably be caused by the fact that they faced limitations especially during emergency situation. People with disability usually dealt with this challenge by joining emergency training and simulations conducted by people or organizations working on disability issue in their areas. The second aspect mentioned by respondents as most affected by eruption was the loss of livestock, like cows, goats, chicken, and fish. Many villagers raised dairy cows and goats as their main livelihoods. When eruption happened, in addition to the loss of livestock that may be caused by contact with pyroclastic materials, the grazing field from which villagers taking grass to feed their cows and goats might also be inundated with lava materials. Thus, there would be some disruption in their cattle raising activities that provided the main source of income for these affected people. The temporary inability to engage in raising livestock activities may extend between several weeks to more than six months like in the latest big eruption in Respondents adapted to this situation by evacuating their livestock to other villages at lower grounds. While being away from their villages in evacuation, some people made arrangement concerning the continuity of their animal raising activities with communities receiving them. Respondents also made a common saving scheme to pay for cattle evacuation in the event of eruption in the future. The next aspect most affected by eruption was damaged crops due to volcanic ash or lava flow. Affected villagers dealt with damaged crops by replanting their land with short-term cash crops or vegetables or grass that might easily be sold quickly. However, this did not apply with farmers who solely cultivated Salak fruit (Zalacca), as nearly all Salak fruit plants in the 5

6 target areas had been destroyed by volcanic ash and it took around 1.5 to 2 years to make the land productive again after replacement of damaged plants with new Salak fruit saplings. In the case that farmers could not immediately cultivate their farmlands again after returning from evacuation, they usually took odd jobs as farm laborers, sand miners or bricklayers. For respondents in the three districts, damaged farmlands also constituted aspect of their livelihoods that had been significantly affected by eruption. Farmlands located close to volcano s crater or rivers that have their sources at the volcano had often been damaged and inundated by pyroclastic materials or debris flow. The build-up of materials was sometimes too dense that the affected farmlands were permanently destroyed and could not be restored. Farmlands that still had clear boundaries, or whose perimeters had not been erased by dense pile of materials, could still be used to plant grass for cattle by the owners, but the earnings would not be as much as when they were used to cultivate other more profitable crops and perennial plants like before the eruption. Respondents mentioned that they tried to adapt to this situation by clearing their farmlands from rocks and planting them with grass, cassava, banana, or whatever crops that might still be able to grow on inundated farmlands and could be harvested quickly. The following aspect most affected according to respondents was people s housing. Throughout its eruption history Merapi volcano has damaged thousands of houses, with the latest eruption of 2010 damaging heavily 2,856 houses and hundreds more with varying degrees of damage, with a total loss of approximately USD 6.93 million. 1 To deal with this, the affected people looked forward to government s helping hands or assistance from other external parties, because the majority of houses that had been totally damaged were located in areas in Sleman District that had been hit directly by lava flow. These areas had since been declared as forbidden zones, and villagers had been advised to relocate to safer areas at the lower ground. For respondents that have suffered only minor damage to their houses, they usually organized mutual help to clear ashes and debris, and repair their houses together. Many respondents stated that loss of regular livelihoods, be it from livestock raising, farming or other economic activities, was an aspect important to them. This was related to the previously-mentioned loss of cattle and farmlands and proceeds from farming activities. When their cattle did not perished in the eruption, villagers had often been forced to sell it due to animal feed shortage or the need to meet basic needs during evacuation in temporary shelters as they had exhausted all their savings. For those who still had some resources to depend on, they evacuated their livestock to temporary sheds in villages at lower grounds. Respondents dealt with loss of livelihoods by engaging in alternative livelihoods activities such as sand mining and producing hand-made crafts. Some people engaged in various training for new skills like entrepreneurship to prepare for future eruption. For villagers living mostly from farming, issues that needed to be prioritized, in addition to the common concern of saving lives, and salvaging important certificates and land deeds, included recovery of farming activities, such as land rehabilitation, replanting, and providing water for crops, which was scarce after eruption damaged water sources and irrigation canals. Farmers strived to finance these activities by selling their cattle, working as farm laborers with more affluent neighbors, or taking loans. Resuming incomes from farming activities seemed to be among the most important things for people living from farming. Livestock farmers considered that loss of income from dairy cow breeding, finding places for cattle during their stay in evacuation shelters, difficulty in getting grass and animal feed, and scarcity of water during and after disaster as issues that needed to be prioritized. As a temporary arrangement, livestock farmers often supplemented their lost incomes with proceeds from selling cattle, savings specifically predesigned to cope with eruption situation and daily wages obtained from sand-mining activities. They mentioned that they still faced challenge in planning for and conducting animal evacuation because of the unavailability of ready animal evacuation centers and the lack of early warning system. 1 Action plan for the rehabilitation and reconstruction after Merapi Volcano eruption

7 People living from petty trading mentioned that they suffered damage to their commodities and the local market had been disrupted. Hence, loss of income from trading activities became a priority issue for them. From the issues discussed by traders, however, it seemed that villagers engaged in small trading did not rely solely on trading, as they also mentioned that they were still involved in raising livestock and farming activities. People in this group tried to adapt to the challenge of lost income by setting-up savings and loans cooperatives and cooperatives that sell goods and wares for daily needs that could be paid at a later time. Women felt the double burdens of looking for incomes as well as taking care of the family. Issues considered as priority by women included resumption of economic activities for family s incomes, preparation for family s evacuation, salvaging of existing assets, children s education and well-being, and repair of damaged houses. Women mentioned that they replaced lost family incomes by selling livestock, taking loans and engaging in alternative income-generating activities such as small-scale home industries. In addition to these issues, women single parents strongly highlighted the issue of financial difficulty, as they probably had only limited options for income-generating activities after eruption. The next aspect was damaged public infrastructure and facilities such as clean water, irrigation, evacuation roads, dams and bridges. Although data from the government mentioned that the loss in this sector only accounted for 19.5 percent of the total damage and loss, for the community, damaged infrastructure and facilities had clearly disrupted their economic activities. Damaged market, for instance, hampered local trade activities and induced price increase at the local level. Damaged irrigation system further worsened farming activities, which had earlier been affected by lava or mudflows. Damaged bridges and roads made transportation difficult and increased transportation costs. Damage to public infrastructure and facilities had in general contributed further to the deterioration of affected households economy. Usually the affected people repaired themselves facilities that might still be rehabilitated, while for major infrastructures they expected government s intervention. Health problems and psychological trauma also became aspects considered as important to deal with by respondents. Water shortage and poor sanitation management in evacuation shelters had often led to diarrhea and other related diseases. Volcanic ashes caused eye discomfort and irritation, and often also respiratory problems. Long time spent in temporary evacuation shelters, in the event of 2010 eruption some respondents had to stay in these places for more than six months, had led to change in behavior among many affected people. Children and the elderly were especially vulnerable to health problems and psychological trauma during and after eruption event. Women had particularly experienced difficulty in enjoying their privacy in shelters. According to respondents, in addition to psychological trauma and health problems, eruption had also caused social jealousy between community members from the same sub-village and among sub-villages. Conflict emerged in shelters where people felt that relief goods had not been distributed fairly among all community members. The necessity to stay for a long time in temporary shelters made people more sensitive, more emotionally unstable, and suspicious towards others. When the affected people had returned to their home or been relocated to semi-permanent housing, it was observed that it became more difficult to conduct village activities together. People were likely to be more self-centered and tend to care for their own needs and interests. This was particularly seen in relocation villages, where the houses and facilities had been arranged like modern urban housing estate. The last aspect mentioned by respondents was disruption in children s education. Children often experienced difficulty in continuing education due to the longer distance they had to take from evacuation shelters to their old schools. Many displaced students did not feel comfortable attending schools close to their shelters, as they were sometimes abused or ridiculed for being displaced children. Lack of financial means had also contributed to difficulty in continuing education. In several evacuation centers parents enrolled their children in government-provided special learning tents that employed teachers from schools in the affected areas. 7

8 4.2 Humanitarian and Development Actors Contribution on Building Community Resilience To reduce disaster-related casualties, the government implemented several physical measures such as passing of spatial plan regulation, set-up of EWS, and repair of evacuation roads. Risk mapping, evacuation planning, contingency planning, emergency response training and disaster simulations were also conducted in hazard-prone areas. The government also encouraged villages to engage in Sister Village program, where villages in the affected areas fostered collaboration with villages in the lower grounds, including in arrangements for future emergency situations. To deal with the issue of protection of lives, non-government actors supplemented efforts by the government, for instance by building evacuation shelters, conducting risk assessments, preparing evacuation roads, organizing emergency simulations and exercises, and introducing savings program for villagers to prepare for emergency situation. The government addressed the issue of loss of livestock by distributing cows, goats, chicken and fish as replacement to families that mainly live from livestock farming. It also supported communities with construction of communal barns for cattle and fish ponds. NGOs complemented this by providing additional paraphernalia for communal barns and also additional barns and feeding stocks. For damaged crops, the government provided seeds and fertilizers for farmers, as well as supplying them with tree saplings. Meanwhile, NGOs organized training to encourage farmers to diversify their crops and look for alternative incomes. Nothing had been done by the government to recover damaged farmlands, as most had been inundated by volcanic materials and the government believed that areas directly affected by pyroclastic materials had to be vacated. To accommodate displaced residents, the government built temporary shelters and later permanent shelters in resettlement areas for those who had their homes and farmlands completely destroyed by the eruption. For houses with minor and medium damages, the government provided some funds to help repair houses. NGOs did not work on the issues of damaged farmlands and housing as it was too capital intensive to them. To address the issue of loss of regular livelihoods, the government organized training for alternative incomes, such as development of variety livestock products. It also provided capital assistance and equipment to start business as well as training on entrepreneurship. NGOs also provided assistance similar to what the government administered, but they further developed the communities by establishing small business groups and women s loans and savings groups. With regards to damaged public infrastructure and facilities, the government rehabilitated damaged roads and bridges, irrigation canals, and water and sanitation facilities. It also distributed tree saplings for re-greening of the slopes of the mountain. NGOs helped communities with the provision of water tanks. Related to health problem and psychological trauma, the government organized mobile health centers and free medical treatment for the affected people. It also tried to provide health counseling and distribute health-related information for the people. NGOs, on the other hand, complemented this by providing trauma healing activities for villagers who suffer psychological problems. In relation to the loss of privacy for women, particularly during their stay in temporary evacuation centers, neither the government nor NGOs had addressed this issue. To address the issue of social jealousy and decline in the social lives of the affected people, the government encouraged and supported the set-up of Forums for Disaster Risk Reduction at the sub-district and village levels. NGOs also supported this and further encouraged community members to revitalize mutual-help activities to support each other in recovering from disaster impacts. 8

9 To solve the problem of disruption of children education, the government relocated schools in the hazard-prone areas to safer areas, or regrouped schools from the upper part of the volcano with those at the lower grounds. In addition, the government also introduced DRRrelated subjects into the local curricula and organized disaster simulations and exercises at schools. It also supported the set-up of forum for teachers concerned with DRR and supplemented schools with emergency school tents. NGOs supported communities by conducting guidance and counseling sessions for school children throughout their stay in the temporary evacuation shelters. 5. Discussion 5.1 Aspects Considered as Important to Build Resilience by Community A number of aspects critical to building disaster resilience emerged from discussions with community members. The following aspects discussed in this part were not in the order of the degree of importance, as the research did not try to assess the degree of importance of the aspects identified. However, the aspects were listed on the basis of what was mostly mentioned first by respondents. These aspects included protection of lives, economic livelihoods, public infrastructure and facilities, social capital, education and training, physical and psychological health, natural resource management, coordination and network, and institutionalization of disaster risk reduction. Protection of lives constituted the aspect that had been first mentioned by many groups. Most affected people considered that their lives must above all be prioritized because all efforts to build resilience would be futile if the goal of protecting their lives was not achieved. This opinion had not been expressed by people who had been directly affected by eruption only, but also by those who were not hit directly by eruption but probably saw the impact of eruption from the media or hearing it from their neighbors. Turnbull et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of protection of lives in times of crisis, although they expanded the concept to also include upholding of human rights and the protection of people s dignity and integrity. The next aspect was economic livelihoods. Economic sustainability and protection of assets were the second aspect mentioned by respondents. Many disaster survivors lost their houses, farmlands and incomes at the same time. Therefore, regaining economic opportunities and making their assets more resilience to future shocks became the people s priority. The same opinion was shared by IFRC (2012) and Twigg (2009) who considered that a resilient community had to possess economic opportunities and financial services to support sustainable livelihoods. Oxfam GB (2013) was also of the opinion that a resilient community had to have livelihood viability that it can thrive in spite of shocks, stresses, and uncertainty. Turnbull et al. (2013) considered food security and livelihoods as aspects that build resilience to disaster and climate change. One of the characteristics of a resilient system as described by Bahadur et al. (2010) is a high level of diversity. In this case, many people living in Merapi area did not have various income sources as economic opportunities. The majority of their livelihood strategies, i.e. cattle farming, vegetable cultivation, and zallaca plantation, were affected and located at high risk area of the eruption. As long as they depend merely on those income sources, they will always be vulnerable, in terms of livelihoods shock caused by eruption. Therefore, as a characteristic of a resilient system, villagers need to have other income sources that are not located at areas exposed to risks and potentially affected by the eruption. Example of petty traders who have several income sources is one option for better resilience. Development actors may significantly contribute to address this issue. The following aspect was public infrastructure and facilities. Respondents believe that infrastructure and facilities that were resilient might support their economic activities and their well-being in times of crisis. This belief was shared by Twigg (2009) who stated that to be resilient communities need to be supported by physical protection through structural and technical measures, early warning systems and emergency resources and infrastructures. IFRC (2012) also considered that a resilient community had to be supported by infrastructure 9

10 and services, such as housing, transport, power, water, and sanitation systems, as well as having the ability to maintain, repair, and renovate these facilities. The next aspect was social capital. Strengthening social capital, including the leadership capacity of local communities, referring to the agency concept (Pain and Levine, 2012), became the subsequent priority for the survivors of Merapi eruption. This was supported by Twigg (2009) who mentioned that partnership, community participation, social security, volunteerism and accountability as among the ingredients of a resilient community. Colten (2010) also believed that community resilience requires engagement of the people to utilize their knowledge and experiences in adapting to risks. This correlates with the importance of social values and structures as a characteristic of resilient system (Bahadur et al., 2010). In this case, social value is an important factor for reducing potential conflicts amongst villagers and between villages, especially during and after emergency, as described by some respondents above. Education and training constituted the next aspect considered important by respondents. This was in line with IFRC (2012) that saw that a resilient community needed to be knowledgeable and have the ability to assess, manage, and monitor its risks, as well as learn new skills and build on past experiences. Colten (2010) highlighted that resilience was a process that needed to be prepared for a long time through education, training on mitigation and response, and dissemination of information to all members of the community. Meanwhile, Turnbull et al. (2013) were of the opinion that education in all its forms, including mentoring of children and young people in the family and community might contribute to building resilience. Education is also meant to build and strengthen adaptive and transformative capacities as a way to attain resilience (Béné et al, 2012). In doing so, education need to be a continual and effective learning process, so that communities may have strong ownership of preparedness and resilience building activities. The next aspect was physical and psychological health. Safeguarding physical and psychological health, particularly for children and the elderly, had been considered as a critical aspect of resilience by respondents. This was in line with IFRC (2012) that regarded healthy as a trait of a resilient community; Turnbull et al. (2013) who believed water, sanitation, hygiene and health as elements that contributed to resilience to disaster; and Twigg (2009) who mentioned health and well-being as among the prerequisites of a resilient community. The subsequent aspect was natural resource management. Good natural resource management was considered as an aspect important for respondents resilience. Twigg (2009) also mentioned environmental and natural resource management as a key component of resilience. IFRC (2012) maintained that a resilient community has the ability to protect, enhance and maintain its natural assets. Oxfam GB (2013) believed that soundness of natural resource management practices contributed to community s resilience. Good management of natural resources could lead to social and economic equity in the communities and provide diversity of income sources for them. These are part of a resilient system (Bahadur et al., 2010). The following aspect was coordination and network. Twigg (2009) agreed that organizational capacity and coordination contributed to disaster resilience. IFRC (2012) explicitly mentioned that a resilient community was connected; it had relationships with external actors that could support it in times of emergency. Meanwhile, Colten (2010) highlighted the aspects of communication and coordination as part of resilience. Oxfam GB (2013) also emphasized the importance of network that might provide contingency resources and access to back up resources and assistance in times of crisis. Coordination and network is also a requisite for building a resilient system (Bahadur et al., 2010); and working through landscape approach, as proposed by Heijmans (2012), will force to strengthen coordination and network along the landscape having common risks to face. The last aspect considered as key was institutionalization of disaster risk reduction. Institutionalization of DRR at the village level was discussed by Twigg (2009) who suggested the integration of DRR into the local regulatory, policy and planning framework, and into all 10

11 aspects and phases of disaster management. IFRC (2012) maintained that a resilient community had to be organized. Oxfam GB (2013) highlighted the importance of social and institutional capability of formal and informal institutions to reduce risk, support adaptation, and ensure access to essential services. Colten (2010) was of the opinion that effective and trusted leadership at all levels is vital to prepare for and respond to a disruptive event. Institutionalization has also been needed to ensure effective governance and institutions for developing a more resilient system. 5.2 Efforts by Community and External Actors to Build Resilience In building resilience to disaster, the community had mostly been engaged in efforts to protect their lives and their economic livelihoods and assets. People in hazard-prone areas had long been involved in programs and activities to assess risks, reduce or adapt to risks, and various emergency response oriented programs. The majority of these programs had usually been introduced by NGOs and other external actors, which were then continued by people in hazard-prone villages. Efforts had also been initiated by communities to protect productive assets and increase the resilience of their economy, for instance by making arrangement for animal evacuation with external actors and starting savings and loans scheme for a crisis situation. Affected communities had also been engaged in institutionalizing DRR through the set-up of community emergency response teams and similar other initiatives. Some more active members had initiated mutual-help programs to revitalize their social capital and strengthen coordination and network. A number of people had also encouraged their neighbors to implement good natural resource management through re-greening and good sand mining practices. The community, however, had seldom been involved in the rehabilitation of public infrastructure and facilities and other programs that were within the domain of the government. The government had mostly focused their efforts in physical structural projects, such as the rehabilitation and reconstruction of housing and public infrastructure and facilities. Probably due to limited financial resources, the national as well as local governments believed that they had to prioritize budget allocation for physical-structural projects first. The following table detailed the loss caused by 2010 eruption and the need for recovery as estimated by the government. The need for recovery might indicate government s priorities in allocating funds, although the amount actually allocated did not necessarily reach the figures stated. Table Estimated Loss and Need for Recovery of 2010 Merapi Eruption 2 No. Sector 1 Productive Economy Estimated Loss Need for Recovery Million USD Percentage Million USD Percentage % % 2 Infrastructure % % 3 Housing % % 4 Cross-sectors % % 5 Social ,38% % As could be seen, the government estimated that USD million was needed for recovery in the infrastructure and housing sectors. This constituted 49.22% of the total need for recovery, while the estimated losses in the two sectors only accounted for 36.76% of the total recovery need. In contrast to this, the productive economy sector, which reported a loss of 46.64% of the total, was estimated as only needed USD million or 16.51% of the total need. 2 Action Plan, ibid. 11

12 In general the government had been involved in nearly all aspects of resilience through its various local sectoral offices, although with various degrees of intensity. Non-government organizations had also been engaged in addressing all aspects of resilience like government offices, but they basically complemented what the local governments did at a smaller scale or in some cases collaborated in the same projects with local government sectoral offices. Nevertheless, unlike the government, NGOs employed strategies that were more participatory in nature. NGOs also paid more attention to the development of the human aspects of the communities. 5.3 Remaining Gaps There were still remaining gaps in addressing the aspects needed to build resilience. In terms of protection of lives, many evacuation roads were still in disrepair due to the latest eruption and the enormous number of trucks passing to transport sand from the areas. Although government s efforts had mostly been focused on physical structural development, rehabilitation and reconstruction of roads, bridges and water canals had not been done comprehensively in all the affected villages. Efforts to reduce destructive sand-mining in hazard-prone areas had also not been so effective. Also, related to natural resource management, re-greening efforts had not covered all areas and the tendency of community members to cultivate horticulture reduced the presence of hard trees that might hamper pyroclastic flow. With regards to economic livelihoods and protection of assets, the efforts to increase people s economic resilience had not been comprehensive, as they only provided training programs for individuals, not addressing the issue of opportunity loss in the framework of the longer sustainable livelihoods of the people as a group, including through the mechanisms of risk transfer. Plans to protect livestock and animal products as well as commodity like Salak fruit had not been devised. Savings and loans mechanism developed by the communities had not been widespread in all the affected villages. Meanwhile, alternative sources of income, for example from sand-mining, might only work for a limited number of people. Concerning the development of social capital, although efforts had been made to create sister village programs, the relations between sub-villages had not been successfully developed into strong social capital. Network among communities, between villages, with the government and non-government partners, and with the concerned private sector organization, had not been developed appropriately. The sister village program had not been applied widely. Related to education and training, efforts to regroup schools during evacuation had not been widespread. Regarding the physical and psychological health of the people, the trauma healing activities had only been done during emergency response, while psychological trauma persisted long into the post-disaster recovery. Finally, concerning the institutionalization of DRR, more efforts would be needed to implement it in all villages in Merapi-affected areas. 6. Conclusion Protection of lives, economic livelihoods, public infrastructure and facilities, social capital, education and training, physical and psychological health, natural resource management, coordination and network, and institutionalization of disaster risk reduction constituted the most important aspects of disaster resilience. For the community, these nine aspects of resilience had been proved critical to their survival and dignity as human beings, with the economic livelihoods and protection of productive assets as the aspects that were mostly mentioned first in the FGDs and in-depth interviews. The government, on the other hand, focused their post-disaster intervention and DRR activities on physical structural development rather than capacity development for the people. Community groups like women viewed aspects that needed to be prioritized differently with the other groups. Women were inclined to discuss household-related issues first, while petty traders considered disruption of market activities as the most damaging issue. Farmers were 12