Common Disasters and Uncommon Responses
Shamima Khan
Common Disasters and Uncommon Responses
Shamima Khan
February 24, 2011Knowledge Series – Emerging IndonesiaMC 9-401
Key Messages
1. Indonesia remains vulnerable to disasters with high risks and high costs - prevention is increasingly important
2. Indonesia has developed successful responses – a result of government leadership and broad partnerships
3. There are many lessons learned from the Indonesia experience – effective models can be replicated globally, and challenges remain
1. Indonesia remains vulnerable to disasters with high risks and high costs – prevention is increasingly important
Indonesia’s Disaster ContextIndonesia’s Earthquake RiskIndonesia’s Tsunami RiskIndonesia’s Flood RiskIndonesia’s Landslide Risk
For all of Indonesia, exposure to disasters is high
Probability/Risk: varies significantly Climate change: increases risksExposure: high Preparedness: reduces vulnerability,
reduces losses
2000-08, 20% of total humanitarian aid spent on disaster relief; prevention support increased from 0.1% to 0.8%
Costs and Financing Small disasters also contribute to huge costs
Aceh Tsunamii US$ 4.45 bn
Yogyakarta earthquakeUS$ 3.13 bn
Damage and Losses of Disasters
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Events
Percentage of D&L in 5 Key Sectors
Productive-LProductive-DOther Social-LOther Social-DEducation-LEducation-DTransport-LTransport-DHousing-LHousing-D
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Events
Percentage of D&L in 5 Key Sectors
Productive-LProductive-DOther Social-LOther Social-DEducation-LEducation-DTransport-LTransport-DHousing-LHousing-D
Divine intervention?
Human intervention… Quality of Construction (Prevention reduces losses)
Focused Interventions Can Reduce Vulnerability: Schools
Legend:: Very High: High: Moderate: Low: Very Low
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Jakart
a
W. Java
C. Java
Yogya
karta
E. Java
Aceh
N. Sumatr
a
W. Sumatr
aRiau
Jambi
S. Su
matra
Lampung
W. Kali
mantan
C. Kalim
antan
S. Kali
mantan
E. Kali
mantan
N. Sulaw
esi
C. Sulaw
esi
S. Su
lawesi
SE. S
ulawesi
Maluku Bali
W. Nusa Te
nggara
E. Nusa
Tenggara
Papua
Bengkulu
N. Malu
ku
Banten
Bangka Belitu
ng
Gorontalo
Kepulauan Riau
W. Papua
W. Sulaw
esi
Senior High
Junior High
Elementary
Schools- Earthquake Risk Index
2. Indonesia has developed successful responses – a result of government leadership and broad partnerships
10/16/08
MDTFs for Reconstruction and Rehabilitation
10/16/08
The Multi Donor Fund for Aceh and Nias (MDF): Established April 2005; 15 Donors; US$678 million Support post-tsunami rehab/recon. of Aceh and Nias Open menu approach, six focus areas
The Java Reconstruction Fund (JRF): Established 2006; 7 Donors; US$ 94 million Support post-earthquake rehab/recon. of Central
Java/Yogyakarta and tsunami affected West Java Providing Housing and Livelihoods recovery
MDF Focus Areas of Support
Recovery of Communities(Rekompak)
Large Infra. & Transport(IRFF)
Governance and Capacity Blding
(ILO Roads)
Economic Devt. And Livelihood(EDFF)
Sustaining the Environment(AFEP) Enhancing Recovery Process
(DRR-A)
JRF Focus Areas of Support
Recovery of Livelihoods(IOM)
Recovery of Communities(CSRRP/Rekompak)
Innovations in Design and Structure
• Government • Institutional structures matched to nature of
reconstruction needs• Agenda and priority setting
• MDF-JRF• Inclusive Governance Structure• Forum for policy dialog and coordination• Flexible Funding – gap filling• Range of Partner and Implementing Agencies• Builds on Existing Mechanisms and Programs
Govt. leads, partners support Gap filling, in key phases
3. … many lessons learned from Indonesia –effective models can be replicated globally, but challenges remain
Replication: Models and Lessons Learned
• Models: Community Based Housing – ownership, transparency, cost-effectiveness Mainstreaming DRR – Existing WB-Govt partnerships a key asset (e.g. in
Indonesia PNPM, BOSKITA, DAK) Aceh – linkages of recon, post-conflict programming and broader devt.
• South-South Exchanges: Indonesia emerging as regional resource on post-disaster recovery
• Lessons Learned: Govt: strong institutional capacity, specialized authorities, policy and
strategy Partners: pre-existing programs, multiple PAs/IAs, internal emergency
processes Programs: Adapting to changing needs, sequencing, timelines geared
for speed and closure, exit strategy Financing: Mix of prevention/response, Incentive for prevention
A New Framework: IMDFF
1. Challenges:• High Disaster Risk• Also related to Climate
Change
2. Desired Attributes: • Ownership• Speed• Quality/ Oversight• Flexibility
Proactive, not Reactive
IMDFFStanding FundInclusive Governance2 Windows
Activities• Preventive
• DRR • Financing• Capacity
Building
• Response• Housing• Infrastructure• Livelihoods
Challenges to Address
Internal:• Bank’s processes (procurement, safeguards)• Risk aversion to complex engagements • Working with different partners
External:• Climate change and increasing vulnerability• Changing mindsets to prevention, preparedness • Government’s institutions and systems
Conclusions and Questions
Some Open Questions: Rapid Response policies and procedures for governments? Quality, speed, ownership – where’s the balance for acceptable
levels of losses? Before or After Disasters – how to match needs to partners? Can we design a “Callable Resources” model?
Summary: Indonesia can benefit from global experience on prevention Indonesia has lessons to offer on response Indonesia is well positioned to manage disasters on both
prevention and response Development partners can support by strengthening the relevant
institutions who have the mandate
Terima Kasih!Thank You!
Top Related