TOWARDS COMMUNITY RESILIENCE : Lesson from Village Planning Recovery in Aceh

1. 7th Annual International Workshop and Expo on Sumatera Disaster & RecoveryTsunami (AIWEST_DR 2012) University of Syah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 3-5 Desember 2012 Lab Meeting International Development & Regional Planning Unit The University of Tokyo, 3 June 2010 Photo: BRR/ArifAriadi June 2007 December 2005 TOWARDS COMMUNITY RESILIENCE: Lesson from Village Planning Recovery in Aceh ToguSantosoPARDEDE Hazard Prones Areas Division National Development Planning Agency/BAPPENAS PhD Candidate International Development and Regional Planning Unit (Onishi and Kidokoro Lab) Department of Urban Engineering University of Tokyo STATE MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANINNG AGENCY/BAPPENAS 1

2. Self Introduction • I was motivated to conduct the disaster study because during working in BAPPENAS (National Planning and Development Ministry) starting 2005 I involved directly in the disaster recovery planning of ： • Aceh tsunami (2005) in first 3 months –damage assessment, Recovery plan • Alor Earthquake (2005) damage assessment, Recovery plan • Yogyakarta Earthquake (2006), damage assessment, Recovery plan • Hot mud eruption Sidoarjo-LAPINDO (2006),damage assessment • Jakarta flooding (February 2007)damage assessment • During studying PhD in Tokyo 2007-2010 disaster eventsincreasing : • 26 March 2007 Noto Peninsula-Ishikawa earthquake (landed in Tokyo), • 17 July 2007 Niigata earthquake • the large scale disaster is continuing destroyed the cities: • 12 May 2008 Wenchuan-China, • 30 September 2009 Padang-Indonesia, • 12 January 2010 Haiti, • 27 February 2010 Chile • 11 March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami • …?

3. Aceh –Sumatera Tsunami 2004 • Don`t know what to start and what to build and where • Planning and Implementation are parallel • It is dilemmatic: • Speed vs deliberation (quality) • Quick action vs broad participation • It is a good opportunity to engage activity that will increase level of development and reduce vulnerability to future disaster INTRODUCTION: POST DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING Great Kanto Earthquake 1923 Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake 1995 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami 2011 • Human interest vs political interest • Complexprocess, compressing all aspect of urban development in short time period • Place-based and people-based Katrina New Orleans 2005

4. Literature Review : Cross countries review on post disaster recovery planning Lesson from Kobe-Great Hanshin Awaji Reconstruction post earthquake : Importance of community (and volunteers) engagement not only in emergency/relief phase but also in reconstruction activity Importance of urban planning (land use, building code, urban redevelopment /land readjustment project): a two-step /layer system of decision-making in planning.1st step by government (overall framework),2nd step after discusses with residents (detail element,road, park, etc)-machizukuri Importance of human recovery beside physical and economic recovery: kodokushi (solitary death after 2 years) , broke the original community(lottery system) US Disaster Recovery Policy: Federal role has increased overtime (more top-down) but still maintain policy that responsibilities for response and recovery start from the “bottom up” (local government for primary responsibilities) Lesson Learned from Tsunami effected countries: While there is recognition of the community’s critical role in disaster response, there has been limited capacity within governments to work with communities

5. Disaster management ELEMENT of DISASTER MANAGEMENT • Preparedness • Response • Emergency Rescue & Relief • Relief • Recovery • Restoration • Rehabilitation • Reconstruction • Mitigation • Prevention DISASTER DISASTER Disaster Risk Management `pre-disaster` Damage Assesment Disaster management `post-disaster` Awareness /EWS Emergency Emergency • Relief • Humanitarian Aid • Damage Assessment Development Preparedness Relief • Early Warning • Preparedness • Mitigation • Prevention • Construction Damage Assessment Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Risk Reduction and Mitigation Recovery • Rehabilitation • Reconstruction RECOVERY is opportunity to close the gapbetween Emergency Response and Regular Development and transform disaster into opportunities for sustainable development DEVELOPMENT Development

6. WHAT YOUMAY KNOWabout Aceh Tsunami 800 km x 1-6km destroyed!=tokyo-hiroshima • It happened on 26 December 2004 • Killed 165,708, 514,150 displaced, 120,000 houses destroyed, 70,000 houses damage Japan Aceh • 30 year armed conflict with GAM (Free Aceh Movement): low trust, thousands people killed, isolated • Government and donors created the Master Plan/BluePrint of Aceh Reconstruction 2004-2009 • Government established the BRR (Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency) and BRA (Integration) • The Blue Print couldn`t work in the ground (unrealistic, too macro, esp. the buffer zone policy) • “It is a deliberate attempt to get close to the communities we serve. We want to engage them as closely as possible in creating their own futures,.. ..One way we do this is through a bottom-up, village planning”(Kuntoro,2006)

7. What you may not know • 647Village Plans (VP) were made in Aceh Prov, 63 village plans in Banda Aceh City in less than two years • More than 3000 planners and facilitators had been dispatched at villages • 3 multilateral agencies, 3 Bilateraldonors, 3INGO, as well as BRR support all the resources in making the plans. Each donor use their own approaches • The Village Plan/Community Action plan is developed by the villagers used as the basis of reconstruction project of all stakeholders • The Village Planning process is complex due to the characteristics of extreme situation (natural and man-made disaster/conflict) and many players/donors involved • It is most likely widespread community participation planning in post disaster recovery planning the world has ever seen. Total: 63 villages Donor's Contribution on VP in Aceh Province 7

8. VILLAGE PLANNING:POLICY • City Land use • Master Plan Reconstruction • The involvement of beneficiaries was of key importance for the housing reconstruction and rehabilitation interventions. • Prior to housing reconstruction, BRR and other government institutions, together with the international community, agreed that they must prepare the village planning. • Main activity components are: community participatory land mapping, damage assessment, village plan, including land use and land consolidation, infrastructure, economic and public facilities plan, and disaster risk reduction • VP were conducted in 647 villages in Aceh Province and 46 villages in Banda Aceh city. • The partners : UN Habitat-UNDP, USAID, ADB, Ausaid (AIPRD), GTZ, Mercycrops, YIPD (land mapping), and BRR • Village Planning is the answer on critic on master plan that is: • Too general to deal with daily concern • Unrealistic • Insensitivity • never reach the stage the implementation • Attempt to accomplish too much and end up doing little or nothing • On the other hand critic on VP: • Too narrow concept • Decline holistic vision • Increase selfish, short sighted, segregated, incremental • Village Plan

9. EXAMPLE of VILLAGE PLAN: Lamjabat (USAID model) • Village Profile: • 90% house/building destroyed, 1670 before 240 now (86%) • area 22ha • The Process: • 3 month planning process incl: • Socialization organization, data collecting (village mapping), Analyzing, Village Land use and development scenario, Master Plan • Village Plan Component: • village mapping • structure plan • land use plan • Infrastructure and utility plan • Green belt water landscape • Evacuation/escape area/hill/route • Building density/height • Program, budgeting and development phase before after Village land mapping : land title Village Plan Draft: signed by head of village,BRR,resident representative, Legalize by Keuchik and Local Govt (Camat) Village Plan: land use

10. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES & QUESTIONS: To study the a bottom-up innovative process of community village planning (VP) in post disaster reconstruction in Banda Aceh (need to rethink what "planning" means in the post-disaster recovery context). How the plan is designed and implemented, its impact on the community recovery towards resilience community, the failure and strategies to involve citizens in planning for disasters.

11. BANDA ACEH CITY There is opportunity for Landuse planning on the basis of disaster mitigation/environmental consideration • Area: 61lm2 • Population; Case Studies Village CBD/City Centre Old City Centre 16th Century Aceh Besar Subdistrict Relocation area Banda Aceh City 11

12. Field Observation: 7 5. Neuheun 6 5 Aceh Besar District Relocation area 4 2 3 CBD Banda Aceh city 6,7 China Charity, Budha Tsuji 1 3. Mulia 2. Lampulo 4. Blangkrueng 1. Lamjabat

13. ANALYSIS 1. Village Planning (VP)Evaluation 2. Community Recovery Assessment 3. Donor`s Methods on Village Planning 4. Influence VP towards Blue Print Aceh reconstruction/city plan

14. Criteria of Evaluation of Village Plans

15. 1. Planning process/implementation for reconstruction: • The Evaluation of Village Planning Process is conducted based on three aspect: • Recovery aspect: physical (housing, infrastructure, public facilities), local economy • Mitigation aspect :land use, plan, hazard protection, EWS, escape route/hill • Community participation: community engaging in plan, sense of ownership, social capital

16. 2. Assessment of Community Recovery

17. In Urban, Rural, Relocation area

18. CASE STUDIES • Issued: • Many problems in housing reconstruction: not occupied, not finish, double ownership • Problems in drainage, roads, water supply • Floodway dyke rebuild, Early Warning System was installed, school, health centre rebuild better • Participatory Governance: • Low trust to the head of village, low involvement in VP process • VP is used as a guideline to build some public facilities: school, EWS, development of Fish port, Fish Auction, and mangrove plant not for housing development History: fish port/action, coastal community Tsunami Impact: almost 60% died, 90% house damaged Area: 154,5ha Population: before 6240, after 3423, 49% state/govt officer, 19%trader,19% teacher/lecture,99%moslem. Dominant Land use: Residential, 30 coffee shop ,50 shop, 27 restaurant, 1 hotel VP: CARE International (2006) VILLAGE PLANNING PROCESS CASE STUDY:LAMPULO VILLAGE Dyke recons.2006 Dyke 2009 Unfinished house 18 Unfinished & temporary house Health centre build by HONDA

19. Lampulo Village: Village Plan & Reconstruction

20. VP EVALUATION BASED on 3 BASIC CONCEPT THEORY OF RECONSTRUCTION: Lampulo village Plan # Sector/Aspect which is "Build back better" in post disaster: local infrastructure, community facilities, disaster risk mitigation # Sector/Aspect which is NOT YET "Build back better" in post disaster: housing,environment, social capital, community participation Concept of Build Back Better, Safer and Greener could not be achieved successfully in Lampulo case. It’s just build back faster, newer

21. CASE STUDIES They are the champion! Strong and solid village staff/officers. Eager to work with planner &community/negotiate with donor/NGO, understand the village and planning. VP is used for the guideline of community recovery . The reconstruction development has proved sustainable even since donor involvement ceased blangkrueng Banda Aceh History: Rural.resdential area Tsunami Impact: 210 died (10%), 90% house damaged Area: 174ha Population: before 1367, after 3332 56% are trader/shop.75% Budhist, 24 Moslem Dominant Land use: Business and Commercial area, 43 coffee shop ,780 shop, 98 restaurant, 6 hotel VP: Ausaid VILLAGE PLANNING PROCESS CASE STUDY:BLANGKRUENG VILLAGE 21

22. CASE STUDIES 2008 2012 Village Office 2012 2008 RECENT CONDITIONS:BLANGKRUENG VILLAGE Village Library Aceh traditional house 2008 2012

23. 3. ANALYSIS: Donor`s approach on Village Planning I will examine village planning approaches that has been done in Aceh post-disaster recovery in terms of: (1) the stage of planning process, (2) participatory level, (3) the goal, (4) dependency, (5) implementation, and (6) expansion • 1. Stage of Planning process: • Initiation • Planning • Design • Implementation • Maintenance • 2. Level of Participation: • None. Outsider is solely responsible in all respect • Indirect. Outsider take full responsibility and receives information about local situation from secondary resources. • Consultative. Outsider build on information directly received from a community • Shared. Community and Outsiders interact equals • Full control. The community dominates and the outside practitioner is a resource Framework of participation and stages of the planning process VP Process focus in this sector

24. ANALYSIS of ‘VP’ Concepts: 1. Stage of Planning Process 2. Level of Participation Community Action Planning (GTZ) Village Spatial Planning (Ausaid) Case study: Blangkrueng Case study: Blangkrueng Community Settlement Plan (the World Bank) Village Planning (BRR, USAID, CARE) Case study: Mulia , Lampulo Case study: Peunayong

25. ANALYSIS of ‘VP’ Concepts: 1. Stage of Planning Process 2. Level of Participation The Common Pattern of Village Planning? Combined all VP Models/Approaches Government maintain s control in key areas (Initiation), and passes responsibility of implementation to communities Case study: Blangkrueng, Mulia, Lampulo, Peunayong

26. ANALYSIS of ‘VP’ Concepts: 3. Dependency 4. Emphasis on Implementation Dependency Emphasis on Implementation Higher Higher Lower Lower The Village Plan (BRR,USAID) is most dependent on outside resources and support (planner). The VSP (Ausaid-AIPRD LOGICA) and CSP (World Bank) places the most emphasis on implementation. It engaged team for implementation the plan and some funding for the project implementation. CAP also include implementation but only for house.

27. The Comparison of VP Participatory Planning Approach

28. Strategies for effective participatory /capacity building approach • Partnership donor-community through involvement approach • Community-driven approach • Donor-driven approach • Partnership donor-community through empowerment approach Community Capacity Community 3 Community 4 High • Capacity not low, commitment low • Participation level: Consultative, Partnership • Capacity high, commitment high • Participation level: Partnership, Initiative Community of Aceh post disaster Community 1 Community 2 • Education, social-economy, basic needs still very low • No energy, weak commitment, trauma, sick community • Education, social-economy, basic needs still very low • Having a potential, wanting to learn,/work strong commitment • Capacity Low, commitment low • Participation level: Informing, Attendance • Top-down approach • Capacity Low, commitment high • Participation level: Consultative, Partnership Low Community Commitment Low High • Where the community capacity and commitment is weak, a top down planning approach and donor driven or less participation is more appropriate • Where the community capacity weak but the commitment is high or the capacity is high but the commitment low, donors should backup the community with assistance (fund, housing, infrastructure, management training, etc) in a partnership.

29. Community Recovery Archetype (discussion with Ed Blakely & Hayashi, May 2010) Community Capacity High A ideal B Ca>Co What is each community look like? And how to prove it? Can community D directly transform to Community A? Should it transform staging from D B A or DCA How to transform DB? can it be applied similarly for CA How to transform DC? can it be applied similarly for BA Need labeling each community C Co>Ca D • wanting to learn , • work strong commitment Community Commitment Low High Asking 3-5 person for each community (4 villages) to put where their community is located in the model. The person is representative: villagers, village officers, donor/facilitator who conduct the planning process in the village.

30. VI.CONCLUSION • Village Planning in Aceh has been usefully applied to rebuilding communities in Aceh after the Tsunami, 26 December 2004. • It contained achievable actions, was local problem based, small in scale, fast, non-reliant on complete information, participatory, and was based on starting points rather than end states. However it’s incremental, small scale nature created challenges for the comprehensive planning on a city scale. Sub-district-plan could be a bridge plan between village and city/district plan. • Post Disaster Village Planning, a form of Community Action Planning in Aceh consisted of planning elements that covers the most important issues: community land mapping, housing plot, settlement infrastructure, land use and hazard mitigation planning. • Transformative community leadership and empowering communities is crucial through Village development cadre and genuine partnership development

31. VI.CONCLUSION • The participatory methods used, have helped in the making and implementation of the reconstruction plan, as well as in healing process and capacity building of the community. • It seems that certain Village Planning model organizational approach can lead to success in reconstruction effort to create resilience community. • Blangkrueng village performed the most successful of recovery. They adopted the Ausaid (AIPRD-LOGICA) approach, which has performed best according to the analysis • We need not just a plan (vision) but also need action for implementing the plan in short –term. We need a Community Action Plan with a combination of long-term (incl. landuse, mitigation, capacity building) and short term elements (small projects) “Plan takes time to work, so be patient…” however they (victims) can`t be patient

32. THANK YOU-ARIGATO GOZAIMASU

33. Objective and Methodology • Understanding the community planning process for post disaster recovery (case of Aceh`s village spatial plans) in the aftermath of a catastrophe. How the plan is designed and implemented, its impact on the community recovery towards resilience community, the failure and strategies to involve citizens in planning for disasters. • The research questions are: Does it achieve improvement after disaster? Does it help households to recover? To what extent does it promote mitigation against future disasters? Does it really work to involve citizens in decision making? Does it also meet normal area wide planning goals (such as a top-down process would aspire to do: blue print of reconstruction, spatial plan. What is the typical model of community action plan in Aceh post disaster planning • The study considers how physical, process, and institutional factors facilitated or impeded the recovery. • Using data, interviews, mapping, and field observations collected from village /neighborhood and city level • Review the village recovery plans, investigations in four villages in Banda Aceh City and three in Aceh Besar District • The study areas were investigated in repeated visits to Banda AcehCity from 2008-2010-2012 • In both district hundreds of individuals were interviewed, representing BRR (Reconstruction Agency), villagers, donors, NGOs, local governments (province, city/district, sub-district, village) • Household questionnaires (160 HH) and focus group discussions (with donors, villagers) were conducted