Recent development of legal system ondisaster management in Indonesia andits function:
The role of law to support sustainabilityof society under the disasterAt 8th Asian Law Institute Conference, 26 May 2011, Kyushu University
SHIMADA, Yuzuru
Associate Professor, Graduate School of International Development
Nagoya University, Japan.

Earthquakes struck densely populated areas in Indonesia
2004-2009

Aceh, Dec. 2004

Padang, Sep. 2009

Yogyakarta, May. 2006

Location of law in Disaster (Risk, Hazard, Vulnerability)
Root causes

Limited Accessto•power•structures•resources
Ideologies•political systems•economicsystems

Dynamic pressures

Lack of local
institutions•training•appropriate skills•local investments•local markets•press freedom•ethical standards
in public life
Macro-forces•rapid population
growth•rapidurbanization•arms
expenditure•debt repayment
schedule•deforestation•decline in soil
productivity

Unsafe conditions

Disaster

Fragile physicalenvironment•dangerous
locations•unprotectedbuildings andinfrastructure

Earthquakes

Fragile local
economy•livelihoods at risk
•low income
levelsVulnerablesocietyHigh winds(cyclone/hurricane/typhoon)

RISK=Hazard+Vulnerability•special groups atrisk•lack of local
institutions

Flooding
Volcanic eruption
LandslideDrought
Virus and pests

Public actions•lack of disaster
preparedness•prevalence ofendemic disease

Hazardlaw plays
importantrole.

Source: Weisner, Ben; Blaikie, Piers; Cannon, Terry and Davis, Ian, At Risk: Natural Hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (second edition), Routledge, 2010, p.49.

Disaster management law
 Comprehensiveness• Vulnerability exists before a disaster• Legal system for reducing vulnerability should cover pre-disasteras well as post-disaster.
 Independence• Vulnerability comes from various sectors.
• There should be inter-sectoral efforts.
• Necessity of administrative and financial independence tocoordinate various government organs.
 Empowerment• Enhancement of local institution• Extension of social capital• Participation and chance of accessdevelopment of these factors in
disaster management laws

Aceh (2004)
CentralGovernment

Coordinate?

BRRInternational
agencies/ NGOs

Housesvictimvictimvictimvictim highindependence
 no decentralization
 low empowerment

Central Java (2006)
CentralGovernment

MoU
budgetnegotiation

Localgovernments

Facilitators

PokmasPokmasPokmasPokmashouseshouseshouseshouses de facto

independence of
local government
 highempowerment

Law no.24/2007 on disastermanagement
CentralGovernment

budgetBNPB

 highBPBD
Local
Government

PJOK

Facilitators

PokmasPokmasPokmasPokmashouseshouseshouseshousesindependence highempowerment
 emphasis on
decentralization

West Sumatera (2009)
CentralGovernment

budget

Local
Government

BNPB high

BPBD
PJOK

TPM
Facilitators

PokmasPokmasPokmasPokmashouseshouseshouseshousesindependence highempowerment
 lessdecentralization
 Insufficient daily
supervising or
inefficientmonitoring?

Problems in West Sumatera Damage evaluation
 Quality of facilitator Lack of monitoring and checking
 Personal connection in community

Damage evaluation
 Primary survey by community leader• No clear criteria on damage level• Possibility of data manipulation
 Validation by facilitator• Criteria provided by government agency• Heavier damage to lighter damage• Reduction of subsidy Æ trouble with people Role of TPM (Accompanying People Team)• Representative of administration and community, community
member with expertise knowledge, security sector• Actually, insufficient knowledge on particular community

Quality of facilitator Insufficient capacity, corrupt and irregularbehavior.
• Unlawful deduction of allocated subsidy• Facilitator requests extra payment• Irregular deduction is a rule rather than exception.
 Institutional reasons• Tight and rigid budget schedule• Must execute 3 trillions rupiah in a half year.

• Government’s slow response• Those problems had already been recognized before, butgovernment failed to correct it.

Case 1: Urban area
 Fictive data

• Some victims are excluded from subsidy
program.
• Personal relation with community leadership(trouble on corruption in village administration etc.)• Fictive damage• Get subsidy, but already ruined before the quake• In residential quarter under construction, empty
plots recorded as damaged.
• Collusion among leaders, plot owners and developer

According to data made bycommunity leader, there shouldbe 35 heavily damaged houseson this empty area.

A ruin of traditional wooden house.
This ruin is recorded as acollapsed in validated data (nohabitant since before the quake) .

Case 2: Remote area
 Earthquakes in 2007

• No clear criteria on damage evaluation.
• Arbitrary data survey by particular persons who close tovillage leadership.
• Government also recognized the problem.
 Earthquake in 2009

• Relation between village leader and facilitator• primary data is not checked by facilitator.

• Data manipulation• Primary data by leader’s family Æ 158hh• Data by university teamÆ 181hh Æ discarded• Fettered by “harmony”• Villagers afraid to have trouble with village leadership.

Implications
 Limitation of local wisdom (gotong-royong)• Necessity of impartial check and monitoring to avoid
negative aspects of personal social relation.
 Enhancement of civil society• Padang government considers NGOs as opposition.
• Minimum participation of NGOs
• Smaller stock of civil society (academic and business)
 Formalism in disaster management• Execution of budget• Lack of flexibility