1

1

In search of Collaborative Policy Practice at Local Level:

The Case of Safe School Against Disaster in West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia1

By

Ida Widianingsih2

This paper discusses the contemporary issues in public administration and policy practice by presenting the case of Safe School Against Disaster (SMAHE) in West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Among others, one of the most vulnerable sectors affected by the disasters are the education facilities. In 2012 the National Board for Disaster Management (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, BNPB) recorded that 72% of school buildings in Indonesia are at moderate to high risk disaster. Indonesian government concerns on disaster management mainstreaming in education sector started in March 2010 by enacting a Ministry of Education Circular letter. Then, it followed by collaborative policy designed to innitiate the One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals Campaign, led by Coordinating Minister for People's Welfare, supported by other related ministries, such as the Minister of Health, Ministry of Education, and National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB). In the process, the collaborative policy also encompassed series of discussions involving NGOs, GFDRR and various stakeholders. As a result, the Head of the BNPB issued the parchment No. 4/2012 on the Safe Schools from Disaster program in May 2012. The policy model on disaster management and risk reduction in education sector highlights the importance of collaborative policy design as adopted by the RCC in 2007 and SMAHE model of Indonesian government. I consider the SMAHE program as a good collaborative policy model dealing with such issues. However, National level collaborative policies would not guarantee the succesful implementation at the local. The question is to what extent does the collaborative policy practice understood and implemented at local level? Who actually play important roles in managing disaster and reducing the risks at school communities ? What challenges and options can be derived from the practice of collaborative policy practices? This paper argues that the national efforts to design a collaborative policy could be intrepreted differently at local level. The case of Safe School Against Disaster in West Nusa Tenggara, for example higlights some challenges related to the policy intrepetation. Local government policies from related authorities determined the succesful or failures of the program implementation in 60 pilot schools.

Keywords: collaborative policy practice, disaster management, disaster risk

reduction, Indonesia

1 Paper submitted for Korean Association for Policy Studies (KAPS) International Conference “Government

Transition and Policy Change”, Seoul, Korea, June 14-15, 2013. The author expresses great appreciation to Marnia Nes, Director of Studio Driya Media Bandung and the Team Leader of the SMAHE West Nusa Tenggara¸ who gives full access to the SMAHE West Nusa Tenggara data. 2 Senior Lecturer at Public Administration Department, Padjadjaran University. The author can be contacted at

ida.widianingsih@unpad.ac.id or idawd@yahoo.com

2

2

I. Safe School Against Disaster: From Global Innitiative to Local Actions

As every part of the world has been facing similar problems related to natural

disaster that cause human victims and property damages, it became an important

global phenomenon when every nation share similar problems (Benson and Clay

2003, p.3). The UN relief (2002) for example noted that in the period of 1992-2002,

4777 natural disasters have occurred, killing more than 880,000 people. More over,

the natural disaster also created big economic losses and social problems (UN

Reliefweb in Kirschenbaum 2004; Kanti 2011). Ando et.al argue that eventhough

the earthquake only counted 15% of total natural disaster, the economic lost

counted at 50% (Ando et.al 2009, p. 9). Figure 1 and 2 below illustrate the strong

relationship between natural disaster and economic loses in different countries.

Figure 1. Natural Disaster Loses

Compared to Economic Indicators

Figure 2. The Relationship between economic

Growth and catastrophe loses (1990-2000)

Source: (Mechler 2003, p. 52)

Source: (Andersen 2003, p. 59)

At global level, the natural disaster problems tend to increase as indicated by

Pelling et al. (2002) that „„Disaster frequency has doubled every ten years since

1960, with 96% of all deaths from natural disasters occurring in the global south”

(Kirschenbaum 2004, p. 16). In similar vein, Munich (1999) argues that from 1950s

to 1990s the cost of natural disaster significantly increased by 14 times and created

economic lost for about US $54 billion per annum (in 1999 prices). This number

increased again to US$198 billion in 1995 (Benson and Clay 2003, p.3).

Indonesia also has similar problems, its geographical position exposes the country to

various disasters including the earthquake and tsunami which causes human victims

3

3

and property damages (SMAHE 2013a; SMAHE 2013b; SMAHE 2013c; Fauzan &

Susanto 2013). The tables below present the historical records on natural disaster in

Indonesia.

Table 1. The Records of Earthquake in di Indonesia (1899-2012)

Time Places Strength (Richter Scale) Human victims

20 September 1899 Ambon 7,6 3,280

26 Juni 1976 Papua 7,1 9000

26 November 1987 Alor, East Nusa Tenggara 6 43

18 April 1990 Minahasa, North Sulawesi 7,6 5

12 Desember 1992 Flores, East Nusa Tenggara 7,8 2500

7 September 1994 Banyuwangi, East Java 7,2 250

17 Februari 1996 Biak, Papua 8,1 164

7 Juni 2000 Bengkulu 7,9 94

26 Desember 2004 Aceh 8,5 220.000

27 Mei 2006 Yogyakarta 5,9 4.710

12 September 2007 West Sumatara & Bengkulu 7,9 25

17 November 2008 Gorontalo 7,5 1

2 September 2009 West Java 7,3 79

30 September 2009 West Sumatera 7,6 81

16 Juni 2012 Biak, Papua 7,1 17

26 Juni 2011 Warapan, Papua 6,3 2

11 April 2012 Aceh 8,5 10

2012 Central Sulawesi 6,2 5

Source: (Fauzan & Susanto 2013, p. 3)

Table 2. Tsunami in Indonesia (1861-2011)

Year Places Human victims

1861 Nias, North Sumatera 50

1907 Aceh 4.000

1977 Bali, West Nusa Tenggara and East Nusa Tenggara 398

1979 Sikka,and East Flores, East Nusa Tenggara 175

1992 Sikka, East Nusa Tenggara 2.400

1994 Banyuwangi, East Java 75

1998 West Lombok & Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara N.A

2004 NAD (Aceh) and North Sumatera 210

2006 West Java, Central Java, and Yogyakarta 650

2010 Mentawai, West Sumatera 477

2011 Jayapura, Papua 1

Source: (Fauzan & Susanto 2013, p. 3)

4

4

Among others, one of the most vulnerable sectors affected by the disasters are the

education sector and its facilities, including school buildings. The effect of natural

disaster on education facilities could be dangerous to the students and interrupted

the learning process (SMAHE 2013, p. 1). The United Nations recorded that there

are 1.2 billion school children and 875 million of them live in hazarprone areas

(Azwar 2011, p. 1). It is not surprising when so many children became victims of

natural disasters such as in the case of Gujarat when 400 children died in 2001 and

the Dhaka three month floods in 1998 25-30% students were dropped out (Rego et

al 2007, p. 1). The World Bank (2001) noted that the earthquake in Wenchuan,

Sichuan China (May 2008) killed 7,000 students at schools. Similar incident

happened in Spitak, North Armenia when 75% (285 out of 302) students killed

whilst they were studying at schools (Ando et.al 2009, p. 7). Unfortunately, even

though numerous natural disasters took children life at schools, the UNESCO found

that the efforts to create a safe school against disaster in Asia and Pacific regions

are still limited (Rego et al 2007, p. 1).

It is important to raise awareness on disaster reduction among school community.

The RCC (Regional Consultative Committee on Disaster Management) for example,

outlines that the effort to mainstream disaster risk reduction in the education sector

should be covered „soft and hard components‟ of the system. For this the program

design addresses different themes, including the integration of the disaster risk

reduction modul into school curriculum, established standards of hazards resilience

for the schools located in hazarprone areas, and encourage the school to improve

the facilities such as water, sanitation, and cooking facilities to support victims during

the occurace of the disaster (Rego 2007, p. 1).

The severe impact of disaster on children has upsurged awareness on the

importance of Education and knowledge for disaster risk reduction. Educating the

children on disaster risk reduction considered as the best strategy to condense the

impact on the victims, especially children at schools. International conference on

Disaster Reduction held in Kobe, Japan in 2005 resulted in an action plan to reduce

disaster from 2005-2015. This is known as the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)

which put the issue as one of priority areas of the world development process

including ensuring the disaster risk reduction as national and local priority; identify,

5

5

evaluate and monitor the disaster risks and early warning system; the use of

knowledge, innovation and education to establish safe culture for all levels; reducing

basic risk factors; strenthening the disaster readiness and efective response at all

levels (Rego et.al 2007; Ando, et.al. 2009; Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana 2011).3

Important analyses on the risk of school children during the disaster conducted by

the “Global Earthquake Safety Initiative” (GESI) pilot project during 1999-2001 as

shown in the figure 1 below. This project aimed to understand how the disaster

management and disaster reduction can be effectively managed to reduce the

number of victims and other negative effects of disaster.

Figure 3. The Per capita School Earthquake Lethality Potential in GESI Pilot

Countries

The figure summarizes that “a school child in Kathmandu is 400 times more likely to be killed by an earthquake than a school child in Kobe and 30 times more likely than a school child in Tashkent. In Latin America, a school child in Mexicali is 1.5 times more likely to be killed by an earthquake than a school child in Quito and about 30 times more likely an a school child in Antofagasta” (GHI-UNHCR 2001, p. 17). Source: (GHI-UNCRD 2001, p. 16)

The importance of disaster risk reduction on education sector also highlights by

some international agencies such as the UN/ISDR (United Nations/International

Strategy for Disaster Reduction), UNESCO (UN Education, Science and Culture

Organization), UNICEF (UN Children‟s Fund), IFRC (International Federation of Red

Cross and Red Crescent Societies), and ADPC (Asian Disaster Preparedness

Center). They introduced the disaster education awareness and school safety

3 This issue became a priority 3 of the “Hyogo Framework for Action: Bulding Resilience of Communities and

Nations to Disater, 2005-2015)”. Furthermore, the agenda focused on “Knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilient at all levels” (ADPC 2007).

6

6

programs in Asia and Pacific regions through the RCC (Regional Consultative

Committee on Disaster Management) support program of mainstreaming disaster

risk reduction into Education sector in 2007. This is part of global campaign of the

UN/ISDR on “Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at Schools” in 2006-2007. The

csmpaign also covered a “ Thematic Platform on Knowledge and Education” and

“Coalition on Global School Safety Initiatives, (COGSS)” (Rego et al 2007, Ando et.al

2009).

The main idea of the program is that the safety of the children is the most important

part of teaching and learning process, especially in natural disater risk areas. As a

hazarprone areas Indonesian children are the most vurnerable victims. Children are

not only directly affected by the disaster, but also expose to other „followed up‟

dangers from psychological effects into human trafficing and poverty trap as occured

in the case of Aceh and Nias Tsunami in 2005 (Lubis 2013).

Indonesian government nor other institutions in Indonesia who have concern on

disaster management have not yet established a formal uniform data on how many

children involved and become victims in natural disasters due to the complexity of

Indonesian public administration system. However, some institutions like the

Department of Social of Republic Indonesia recorded that there were 6,955 children

become the Aceh and Tsunami victims (Kompas, 27/1/2006 in Lubis 2013). As well

the PKPA foundation of Medan recorded that they have consulted more than 25

thousand children refugees (2005 – 2010) in Aceh, Nias, Medan, Yogyakarta, West

Sumatera and Karo District (Lubis 2013).

In 2012 the National Board for Disaster Management (Badan Nasional

Penanggulangan Bencana, BNPB) recorded that 75% of school buildings in

Indonesia are at moderate to high risk of disaster (SMAHE 2013; Fauzan, &

Susanto, 2013). The World Bank data presents that the number of schools in

Indonesia was in the fourth rank in the world, there were 109,401 (76%) out of

144,507 Primary Schools located in 23 provinces that prone to disaster. Azwar argue

that the students who study inside the buildings are expose to disaster (Azwar 2011,

p. 1). The Ministry of Education found that by the end of 2011 there were 194,844

classrooms (primary and secondary schools) were severely damage due to natural

disasters (Fauzan, & Susanto, 2013, p. 11).

7

7

In Indonesia, government awareness on disaster reduction strengthened through

series of national policies on disaster management. The enactedment of Law No.

24/2007 on Disaster Management becomes a significant effort regarding this issue. It

was followed by Government Reguation No 21/ 2008 on the Implementation of

Disaster Management. The government took the legal framework further by

integrating the policies into development agenda, for example the disaster

management included in the National Plan on Disaster Management (Rencana

Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana) 2010-2014 (Fauzan & Susanto 2013, p. 3).

In term of mainstreaming disaster risk reduction, the Ministry of Education released a

Circular Letter No. 70a/MPN/SE/2010 on Mainstreaming Disater Risk at school and

series of campaign at schools. It is believed that disaster management involved

multi stakeholders, therefore the Circular letter followed by launching the One Million

Safe Schools and Hospitals Campaign, led by Coordinating Minister for People's

Welfare and attended by Minister of Health, Deputy Minister of Education, and Head

of the BNPB. Moreover, this taken further by series of cross-sectoral discussions

involving NGOs, GFDRR (Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery), and

various stakeholders. As a result, the Head of National Disaster Management

Agency (BNPB) issued the parchment No. 4/2012 on the Safe Schools Against

Disaster program (SMAHE). This efforts followed by launching a guideline for detail

implementation of the Safe School program in May 2012. This is a collaborative

policy implementation of safe school practices, one of the programs implemented

through the rehabilitation of elementary school and Islamic Primary School

(Madrasah) classrooms (SMAHE 2013a, p. 2).

The policy model on disaster management and risk reduction in education sector

highlights the importance of collaborative policy design as adopted by the RCC in

2007 and SMAHE model of Indonesian government. I consider the SMAHE program

as a good collaborative policy model dealing with such issues. However, National

level collaborative policies would not guarantee the succesful implementation at the

local. For Indonesian case, there are contributing factors to the success or failures of

policy implementation at the local. Furthermore, since the country adopted two tiers

government system the exercise of power between national and local government

remains controversial (Hadiz 2004; Hoadley 2006).

8

8

The question is to what extent does the collaborative policy practice understood and

implemented at local level? Who actually play important roles in managing disaster

and reducing the risks at school communities? What challenges and options can be

derived from the practice of collaborative policy practices? This paper argues that

the national efforts to design a collaborative policy could be intrepreted differently at

local level. The case of Safe School Against Disaster in West Nusa Tenggara, for

example higlights some challenges related to the policy intrepetation. Local

government policies from related authorities determined the succesful or failures of

the program implementation in 60 pilot schools.

II. Learning from SMAHE West Nusa Tenggara: Collaborative Policy Practice

Towards Better Policy Implementation Results?

Disaster can be defined in many different ways, however, in a simple term it can be

understood as the event that cause the destruction of all existing resources (Beach

2010, p. 1). Naturally, human live always threathened by various natural disasters,

therefore, disaster management existed since human lived in the prehistoric society.

However, the changing society structure and the emergence of nation states have

changed the way human dealing with the problems. Indeed, human being has a

nature of survival, but historically the role of the state getting stronger.

Kirschenbaum for example, outlines the role of the state in disaster management

after the World War II increased significantly (Kirschenbaum 2004, p. 17). The

figure below ilustrates how human organisation develop an adaptation process

caused by disaster.

Figure 4. Continuum of the Role of the State and Community in Disaster

Management

Source: (Kirschenbaum, 2004)

9

9

Kirschenbaum argues that since natural disaster occured beyond expectations and

embraces different patterns and impacts, this could not follow the ordinary social

adaptive processes. The way human responding disaster usually „more flexible and

fine-tuned manner‟ (Kirschenbaum 2004, p. 18). Before the World War I broke,

community organization held important roles in dealing with disaster. However, the

wave of modernisation and the emergence of the nation states transformed the

responsibility of disaster management into government hand. Public administration

plays critical and dominant roles in disaster management. Refering to the case of

„September 11 Terorist attack‟, Kirschenbaum argue that political intervention on

bureaucracy influenced the disaster management model and strengthening the state

role in the process (Kirschenbaum 2004, p. 20).

However, I have different perspectives on the extend to which the state involved in

disaster management. I would argue in some cases public administration probably

plays dominant roles in managing disaster. However, the roles of the state would be

vary due to the development of theory and practice of public administration since

1980s. Public administration specialist discuss that state of the art of public

administration has been evolving from „Old Public Administration‟, „New Public

Management‟, „New Public Service‟ and „Democratic Governance‟ (Polllit 1990;

Hood 1991; Roosenbloom 1992; Osborne & Gaebler 1992), consequently, the way

the state managed transformed from state dominance into more participatory

governance.

In Indonesian case, the wave of democratic governance reform after the fall of

Suharto government more or less changing the face of the state, from the most

centralistic into more decentralised government. As I argue elsewhere, that some

local governments like Solo Municipality under Jokowi leadership succesfully

implement participatory planning process that enable to encourage community

involevement in development process (Widianingsih 2006; Widianingsih & Morrell

2007). In the case of disaster management various government innitiatives do not

merely run by Indonesian government itself but also a collaborative efforts of various

different stakeholders including international donors community, Civil Society

Organizations, Private sectors, Community organizations, universities and certain

10

10

individuals as shown in SMAHE West Nusa Tenggara for example (Ando et.al 2009;

SMAHE 2013a) .

The practice of collaborative policy in disaster management highlights by Bach who

argues that disaster response previously developed without appropriate supports

nor good government preparations and management. However, the big human

victims and economic loses in the the late 1800s and early 1900s have changed the

way the „disaster-impacted communities‟ managed. Government started to find

outside supports from governments, non-government organizations (NGOs), and

private donors (Bach 2010, p. 1). Hence, the new collaborative policy practice and

management encourage the effectiveness of relief and emergency operations . This

also facilitate the disaster victims to cope with losses, hardships, and distress and

also to deal with other the impacts of natural disasters (Kanti 2011, p. 14). Tierney

et al., 2001 further argues that the aim of collaborative policy practice is finding

„protective measures seek to improve the household, community, and government‟s

abilities to absorb the impact of a disaster with a minimum amount of damage‟ (Kanti

2011, p. 14).

In the case of SMAHE West NusaTenggara, the collaborative policy innitiated at

national level. No more than 3 years after the disaster management mainstreaming

launched by the RCC, Indonesian government committed to join the global

innitiative. The Ministry of Education and other related authorities collaborate with

development partners to establish policy framework and program design on disaster

reduction at schools (SMAHE 2013b, p. 1). In practice, design of the SMAHE

program developed as a collaborative policy model that involved stakeholders from

different governance levels. The program did not individually run by Indonesian

government, but also supported by international donor‟s community who intensively

worked with NGOs and also supported by private sector, commmunity organisation,

and universities. The figure below reveals the map of stakeholders involved.

11

11

Figure 5. Mapping the Stekeholders in the SMAHE West Nusa Tenggara

Sources: Adapted from SMAHE 2013a; SMAHE 2013b; SMAHE 2013c; Fauzan &

Susanto 2013)

The stakeholders involved in SMAHE programs come from different governance

levels, including international, national, provincial, districts, and community levels.

They play different functions depend on their authority and awareness. Similar

model previously developed by the UNCRD as the most prominent institution in

disaster risk reduction for school children called Safe School Against Earthquake

Special Innitiative (SESI) in Yogyakarta, Bandung city and Bandung district. The

collaborative program involved Center for Disaster Management, CDM of the

Institute of Technology Bandung (ITB), the District Education Office in the pilot

districts and the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Board of Aceh and Nias, and the

Aceh Province (Ando et. al 2009, p. 25).

The implementation strategy of this collaborative policy involved the school

community and local stakeholders. The school comunity includes principal,

teachers, school committee members, students, Village police, village staff, and

Community Leaders. The local stakeholders consists of individual affiliated with

theDistrict Education Office (Dinas Pendidikan, DISDIK), Local Government Board

for Disaster Risk Management (Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah, BPBD),

Universities, Public Works Department, and private sector (SMAHE 2013b, p. 3).

The SMAHE West Nusa Tenggara utilised the Special Allocation Fund (Dana Alokasi

Khusus, DAK) for the rehabilitation of school classrooms. The fund regularly

allocated to district level government. Eventhough national level has clear

12

12

commitment though the enactedment of policy framework for disaster reduction

mainstreaming program, there is a need to facilitate the implementation process.

National government alone would not be able to ensure the implementation of the

program due managerial and funding issues. For this the World Bank office in

Jakarta as one of Indonesian partners, offered a technical assistance program. The

technical assistant offered through advocacy and facilitation processes which will be

conducted in three pilot provinces, namely West Java, West Sumatra and West

Nusa Tenggara (SMAHE 2013a; SMAHE 2013b; SMAHE 2013c).

The World Bank strategy to takes this opportunity to facilitate and encourage the use

of the existing DAK fund to meet the safety standards against disaster risks (SMAHE

2013a; SMAHE 2013b; SMAHE 2013c). The advocacy and facilitation process in

this program aimed to:

“Ensure that the use of the DAK fund for rehabilitation of school buildings are safe and meet the standard requirements of the building (structure) of disaster-resistant; Strengthening the system or institutional stakeholders (Department of Education, Principal, School Board, etc.) in order to have a system in a school that meets the standards of disaster-resistant community-based school since the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation; Develop an operation and maintenance (O&M) for post-development, early warning procedures and evacuation; Develop a system for maintenance and the use of solar cell and wind turbin, LED lamp at schools for energy sustainability and post disaster communication. This also use for the development of technology, information and comunication in learning process” (SMAHE 2013a; SMAHE 2013b; SMAHE 2013c).

III. Safe School Against Disaster Program in West Nusa Tenggara: Challenges

and Promising Options

West Nusa Tenggara Province located in the Eastern part of Indonesia, this province

known as the third poorest region in the country. Unfortunately, the province also

recorded as one of the most vurnerable areas to natural disaster. The SMAHE

program conducted in 3 pilot provinces, namely West Java, West Sumatera and

West Nusa Tenggara involving 180 schools in 6 districts (Fauzan & Susanto 2013,

p. 2). The Smahe West Nusa Tenggara alone implemented the program in 60

schools in West and East Lombok. Each district covers 30 schools (29 Primary and 1

Junior High School). Similar with other school facilities in Indonesia, not all of the

13

13

schools have appropriate qulity and quantity of classrooms, teacher‟s room, school

principle, library, toilets, and school canteen. Based on preliminary data of the

Smahe WNT, it is found that the number of students and the avaliability of

classrooms are still imbalance as shown by the table 2 below.

Tabel 2 Comparison of the Number of Students and Number of Classrooms in 60

Pilot Schools

West Lombok East Lombok

Number of Rooms 343 321

Number of Classrooms 294 177

Number of Students 5183 7281

Ideal Number of Students Based on

the Rooms Available

4352 4416

Source: (Baseline Survey, September 2012 in SMAHE 2013b, p. 1)

Apart from lack of school facilities and poor ratio of student numbers and class

rooms numbers, the building quality of the schools in West Nusa Tenggara province

are questionable. However, due to the limited Smahe project resources and the

diverse location of the schools. The program selectively chose certain schools as

pilot schools. Furthermore, different amount of special Allocation Fund (Dana

Alokasi Khusus-DAK) 2012 in West and East Lombok affected the technical

assistance process and its results. West Lombok district for example, allocates the

DAK Fund 2012 of IDR 69,500, 000 for school buildings and IDR 124,650,000 for

library buildings. The fund is used for classrooms, teacher‟s rooms, and other

buildings at schools. In East Lombok the fund for each room is IDR 69,500,000 and

IDR 128,400,000 for library building rehabilitation as shown in the figure below:

Figure 6 . The use of the DAK fund for school rehabilitation

Source: (Dispora Lombok Timur and Disdik Lombok Barat, September 2012 in SMAHE 2013b, p. 6)

14

14

The SMAHE program facilitated by a prominent NGO in Bandung, Studio Driya

Media. This program implemented participatory approach which exercised amongst

various different stakeholders at local level. The program implemented through

three different activities, namely: Support program, Activities at District levels,

Activities at School community levels (SMAHE 2013a, SMAHE 2013b). The first

activity consist of Online Media Development, the Development of Monitoring and

Evaluation Instrument, The Development of the Guidance and Training Modul Book,

and Supervision and monitoring. These aim to ensure the effectiveness of the

program. For example, the online media development utilised popular online

communication such as Blog and Facebook designed to increase the campaign

activities that cover more stakeholders.

Figure 7. The SMAHE NTB Blog

The Blog uses SMAHE NTB as credit title addressed http://seesntb.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/smahe-ntb/. The Facebook group developed by using a Safe and Energy Efficient School/Islamic School (Sekolah Madrasah Aman dan Hemat Energi) account, this is an open group that can be accessed by any facebook users. Everyone can be the member of this group and the member can invite other facebook users to be part of the

group without group moderator approval. At this stage, there are 42 active members from program actors and other stakeholders. The information in the Blog and the Facebook group is not limited only to the implementation of The Safe and Energy Efficient School in West Nusa Tenggara, but covers the

natural disaster issues and the use of energy efficient at other schools. Source: (SMAHE 2013b, p. 13)

The second activities conducted at district levels, this activities aim to ensure that

the appropriate use of the fund and comply with established standards. This

involved socialization and advocation process to the District Education Office (Dinas

Pendidikan, DISDIK) conducted by the Education Sector Word Bank (SMAHE

2013b, p. 14). The third activities held at School Community Level, the social and

technical facilitators hired by the Studio Driya Media through intensive field visits

and assistances by combining formal and informal communication methods. For

example, the facilitators took part in social activities, light and informal discussions

(obrolan santai), extra curriculum activities and or other activities conducted at

schools (SMAHE 2013b, p. 12). Furthermore, the critical step was the Establishment

of Disaster and Safe School Commitee (Komite Bencana dan Keselamatan Sekolah

-KBKS) as a community based institution that expected to play strategic roles in

idsaster risk reduction at schools. The structure of the KBKS consists of different

working group, for example the School Emergency Awareness Team (Tim Siaga

15

15

Bencana Sekolah-TSBS); Working Group on Awareness Campaign; working Group

on the SOP, development working group, etc. The establishment of the KBKS school

varied, depends on the need of each school (SMAHE 2013b, p. 13).

The program also conducted Structural and Non Structural analyses to examine

schools‟ condition whether they have met the safety standard from the Structural and

Non Structural aspects involving school community members (students, teachers,

school commitee and local government staff) (SMAHE 2013b, p. 14). This followed

by the Technical Assistance for School Rehabilitation. Technical facilitators assisting

the pilot schools to ensure that they meet the standard of the Permen PU

45/PRT/M/2007 on the Guidance of the Development of Public Building and the

Technical Guidance of the Public Work Depatment on the earth quake resistant

building. The facilitators introduced the retrofitting technique to support the pilot

school in meeting such standard (SMAHE 2013b, p. 14). Other important activity is

the facilitation of Early warning System Operational Procedure and Natural Disaster

Evacuation. The formulation of the Early warning System Operational Procedure and

Natural Disaster Evacuation organized by the KBKS. The process carried out

through series of discussion involved school community. This procedure also tested

through a simulation activities at each pilot school to improve the final procedure.

The last activity related to awareness campaign at school level. This activity

instigates at school level through range of awareness campaign techniques that

suitable to the characteristic of the school community. For example, the advocation

process to the the principle of the pilot schools mostly implemented through

lobbying and negotiation processes. The approach used to the teachers conducted

through formal and informal meetings and the campaign to the students used various

different approached including games, drawing competition, singing competition and

writing contest (SMAHE 2013b, p. 15).

This program considered succesful and achieved project expected output, the

collaborative policy implementation facilitated by an NGO enable to encourage

maximum participation and raising awareness and understanding at school

communities (Fauzan & Susanto 2013; SMAHE 2013c). However, there is a

question on the extend to which this collaborative policy model can cope with some

practical challenges from the technical asistance processes as described below:

16

16

Accesibility and human resources problems

The long distance of each pilot schools made it difficult for the facilitators to facilitate

and conducted a campaign program at once, therefore, a facilitator only able to do

such activity in one school in a day. Each district center can be accessed by cars or

motorbike, however, not all of the pilot schools have road access and located at

remote areas. Some of them even located in a small island and need a boat to get

there. For Primary School 6 Batulayar can only be accessed by foot because it is

located on the top of the hill (Smahe 2013a, p. 4). This problem combined with the

limited number of technical and social facilitators. On average the pilot schools get

10 face to face visits from the social facilitators and the 15 facilitation times during

the SMAHE program implementation (Smahe 2013c, p. 62).

Program duration

The SMAHE program only conducted in 5 months and involved a wide range of

stakeholders. The school community tight schedule made the program implemented

in a shorter periode of time than the expected plan. For example: (1) Mid and Final

semester tests; (2) School holidays; (3) routine meetings of the school principle at

district levels and teachers at school; (4) teacher certification program; and other

activities (Smahe 2013c, p. 63).

The Mis-use of DAK for School Rehabilitation Fund: Money Follow Functions?

The SMAHE program implemented after the DAK 2012 fund disbursed and used by

some pilot schools, therefore, the standard of safe structural components for safe

school difficult to achieve. Moreover, the District Education Office (Dinas

Pendidikan, DISDIK) have appointed a technical consultant to suport the schools in

designing the Budget Plan which in turn posing conflict with the existence of techical

facilitators(Smahe 2013a, p. 14) . When the facilitator worked at the field, most of the

pilot schools have used the DAK fund for different purposes from purchasing

building materials to construction process as shown in the graph below:

17

17

Figure 8 The Use of DAK at pilot Schools

Source: (SMAHE 2013a;SMAHE 2013c)

Contradictory Policy: The World Bank Vs Government

The old centralistic Indonesian governmental system still strongly influenced the way

local authority accepted the program. Furthermore, the weak ministry coordination

made unclear power relations amongst governmental bodies. In this case, the safe

school program has not recognized in the policy of The Ministry of Education and

Culture. The existance of the PERKA BNPB N0 4/2012 on safe school standards

never been utilized because the BNPB has no structural relationship with the

schools. The PERKA BNPB N0 4/2012 is not strong enough to influence the use of

the rehabilitation DAK fund to reduce the disaster risk at school. The implementation

of the program directly conducted by the World Bank and has no legal authority from

the government. This is why, the target group assumes that the SMAHE program

belongs to the World Bank not the government (SMAHE 2013c, p. 63).

„Predatory Bureaucracy‟ at the Local: The aim of the Program VS Stakeholder

interest.

The implementation of the rehabilitation DAK fund related to the structural

components because of personal interest of some local government staff. There are

rumors on the technical consultants appointed by the education office. They

organized by a person who has close relationship with the local government staff at

the education office. The facilitator team found that some of the names on the list

have never been existed, some of the names have no real addresses. Another

example shown in the case of roof changing program which factually applied due to

the interest of the education office. Some of the pilot schools have to change the

roof frame even though it is still in the good condition (SMAHE 2013c, p. 63).

0%

100%

60% 20% 7% 13%

Purchase of achieved

18

18

IV. Conclusion

Indonesian government commitment to join international efforts on disaster risk

reduction at school conducted by establishing legal framework at national level. The

efforts supported by various development stakeholders from different governance

levels. Hence, the disaster risk reduction and disaster management at schools could

not only dominated by central government. The case of Smahe in West Nusa

Tenggara collaborative policy practice at local level shown how the collaborative

policy model at national level poses challenges at the local. This paper argues that

the national efforts to design a collaborative policy could be intrepreted differently at

local level. The case of Safe School Against Disaster in West Nusa Tenggara, for

example higlights some challenges related to the policy intrepetation. Local

government policies from related authorities determined the succesful or failures of

the program implementation in 60 pilot schools.

References

Andersen, TJ., 2003, „Globalization and Natural Disasters: An Integrative Risk

Management Approach‟ in Krreimer, Arnold, & Carlin (eds), Building Safer Cities: The Future of Disaster Risk, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington. Pp. 57-74.

Ando, S., et.al (eds.), 2009 , Mengurangi Kerentanan Anak-anak Sekolah terhadap Bahaya Gempa Bumi, Proyek Inisiatif Keselamatan Sekolah Terhadap Gempa Bumi (SESI) UNDCR.

Azwar, H., 2011, „Anak Bangsa Butuh Sekolah Aman‟, Info Publik, Direktorat Jenderal Informasi dn Komunikasi Publik, Kementrian Komunikasi dan Informatika. Uploaded on Kamis, 04 Agustus 2011, online, accessed 30th May 2013.

Beach, M., 2010, Disaster Preparedness Management, F. A. Davis Company, Philadelphia.

Benson, C & Clay, E., 2003, „Disasters, Vulnerability, and the Global Economy‟ in Krreimer, Arnold, & Carlin (eds), Building Safer Cities: The Future of Disaster Risk, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington. Pp. 3-33.

Fauzan, & Susanto, T. , 2013, Menyelenggarakan Sekolah Aman Bencana: Sejarah Kebencanaan di Indonesia, Serial Media Belajar Menyelenggarakan Sekolah Aman Terhadap Bencana, Studio Driya Media, Bandung.

GHI-UNCRD, 2001, Final Report: Global Earthquake Safety Initiative (GESI) Pilot Project, GHI-UNCRD, June 2001.

Hadiz, V. R. (2004), Decentralization and Democracy in Indonesia: A Critique of Neo-Institutionalist Perspectives. Development and Change, 35: 697–718. doi: 10.1111/j.0012-155X.2004.00376.x

19

19

Hoadley, M., 2006, Quo Vadis Administrasi Negara Indonesia: Antara Kultur Lokal dan Struktur Barat, Graha Ilmu, Bandung.

Kanti, P., B., . 2011,Environmental hazards and disasters : contexts, perspectives and management, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK.

Kirschenbaum, A, 2004, Chaos Organization and Disaster Management 2004, Marcel Dekker, Inc., USA.

Konsorsium Pendidikan Bencana, 2011, Kerangka kerja Sekolah Siaga Bencana, Indonesian Government, SC-DRR, UNDP, Safe the Choldren, Jakarta.

Lubis, M., 2013, Perlindungan Anak Dalam Situasi Bencana: Kajian perumusan pedoman praktis tanggap darurat berperspektif anak, Kordinator Unit PEA-PKPA Medan.

Mechler, R., 2003, „Natural Disaster Risk and Cost-Benefit Analysis‟, in Krreimer, Arnold, & Carlin (eds), Building Safer Cities: The Future of Disaster Risk, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington. Pp. 45-56.

Parino, N., 2013, Praktik Baik: Bersama Mewujudkan Sekolah Aman, Studio Driya Media dan World Bank.

Pribadi,K., et.al, 2011, „Implementation of Community Based Disaster Risk Management in Indonesia: Progress, Issues and Challenges‟ in R. Osti and K. Miyake (eds.), Forms of community participation in disaster risk management practices, Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Rego et.al. , 2007, „ Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management into Education Sector‟ in Asian Disaster Management News: A News Letter of and for Community of Disaster Risk Management Practitioner and Development Workers, September-December 2007, Vol 13 No. 3.

SMAHE, 2013a, Safe School Against Disaster in West Nusa Tenggara Province: First Midterm Report, Studio Driya Media, Bandung (unpublished report).

SMAHE, 2013b, Safe School Against Disaster in West Nusa Tenggara Province: Inception Report, Studio Driya Media, Bandung (unpublished report).

SMAHE, 2013c, Safe School Against Disaster in West Nusa Tenggara Province: Final Report, Studio Driya Media, Bandung (unpublished report).

Widianingsih, I. and Elizabeth, M, 2007, “Participatory Planning in Indonesia: Seeking a New Path to Democracy”, Journal of Policy Studies, Vol. 28, No.1, 2007, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Widianingsih, I, 2006, Local Governance, Decentralization, and Participatory Planning in Indonesia: Seeking a New Path to Harmonious Society”, in The Role of Public Administration in Building a Harmonious Society, ADB dan NAPSIPAG, pp. 69-90.

Wisner, B., 2003, „Disaster Risk Reduction in Megacities: Making the Most of Human and Social Capital, in Krreimer, Arnold, & Carlin (eds), Building Safer Cities: The Future of Disaster Risk, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington. Pp. 181-196.

Other sources: The National Board for Disaster Management (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan

Bencana, BNPB) website: http://www.bnpb.go.id