337 KB – 44 Pages
PAGE – 2 ============
2 Front page photo credit: Karina Acknowledgements The research team was led by Puji Pujiono and supported by Anggoro Budi Pras e t yo , Zela Septikasari and Sugyarso Sanan of the Pujiono Centre. Jessica Lees of Humanitarian Advisory Group also provided support. The team would like to extend its thanks to all the representatives who gave their time to take part in the research, especially the members of the DRA Localisation working group, in particular Inge Leuverink and the IDNJR coordinator, Nicole Slootweg. Localising our research partnership The principle s of localisation were operationalised during this research. The review was undertaken as part of an evolving partnership between the Pujiono Centre and Humanitarian Advisory Group (HAG). The partnership was formed during a previous study on the localisati on (see ) commissioned by the Pujiono Centre and led by HAG. For this review, the tables were turned, with Pujiono Centre acting as the lead agency and sub – contracting HAG. This was the t time it had sub – contracted a partner organisation.
PAGE – 3 ============
3 Executive Summary The Central Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami response has been a highly visible test case of how the global community is tracking against World Humanitarian Summit commitments to tr uly respect, empower and resource national and local actors. This report seeks to highlight how the government policy influenced response from the DRA and to some extent the SHO, and the broader humanitarian sector from an operational perspective, drawing upon reflections from different stakeholders. Within the DRA mechanism, most funding was channeled through national affiliates of international organisations or national branches of international network partners who in turn work with national and local p artners. Whilst this directed funding further towards the local level, there were many layers involved. 24% of the total DRA funding was committed to national and local partners. As such, whilst the government policy may have increased funding to local par tners, the modalities largely remain unchanged, challenging commitments for funding to be channeled as directly as possible to local actors. National and local actors in Central Sulawesi benefited from large volumes of locally – sourced funding from a range of emerging sources there are implications and considerations for international donors bringing stringent requirements and comparatively smaller amounts of money. There is evidence to suggest that some alternate approaches to partnerships are actively b eing pursued by international actors with a view to increasing capacity for local leadership in Indonesia, particularly at the national level. There is scope for further support to ensure that national actors can best work with their local partners to stre ngthen response capacity, and for partnerships between national and local actors to promote principle – based partnerships, including aligning with the Charter4Change . This review found that consortia and network – based models were critical for national and l ocal actors in their responses, and support from international partners including DRA and SHO organisations should continue to pursue and strengthen these mechanisms over project based subcontracting arrangements . Whilst i t may appear these models lengthen funding chains and are therefore more inefficient, these models were considered effective in mobilising shared resources, coordinating joint assessments and information sharing, measured decision making around best – placed responders and present opportunit ies for joint capacity strengthening init i atives and consolidated funding chains. Coordination mechanisms reflected an increased focus on supporting locally led response , though not without challenges. There is scope to use lessons from Sulawesi to promote coordination reform alongside localisation commitments at the national level, and further refine the role of the AHA Centre at the regional level. Various capacity strengthening initiatives were pursued within the DRA member network and partners prior to and immediately after the response. Whilst gaps have been identified that align with technical disaster management capabilities and broader organisational development priorities, there is a need for a specific focus at the individual organisation level to tailor approaches. Local actors would benefit from coordinated approaches to building capacity, in line with DRA Strategic priorities around shared capacity strengthening.
PAGE – 4 ============
4 Contents Acknowledgements .. .. .. 2 Executive Summary .. .. . 3 Contents .. .. .. 4 List of abbreviations and acronyms .. .. . 5 Introduction .. .. .. . 6 Review scope and methodology .. .. 8 Findings .. .. .. . 12 Impact of the GoI regula tions .. .. .. .. 12 Funding .. .. .. .. .. 18 Partnerships .. .. .. .. 22 Coordination .. .. .. .. 27 Capacity gaps and strengthening .. .. .. 30 Conclusion .. .. .. 33 Annex A TOR .. .. .. .. 34 Annex B Funding an alysis of DRA budget .. .. .. 40 Annex C SHO Funding Flows .. .. .. .. 41 Annex D Resource List .. .. .. .. 42
PAGE – 5 ============
5 List of abbreviations and acronyms AHA Centre ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations BNPB Badan Nasional Penaggulangan Bencana/ National Disaster Management Agency BPBD Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah/ Local Disaster Management Agency CARE NL Ca re Netherlands CRS Catholic Relief Services DRA Dutch Relief Alliance ERAT Emergency Response Assessment Team ERCB Emergency Response Capacity Building consortium FGD Focus Group Discussion GoI Government of Indonesia HCT Humanitarian Country Team ICCG I nter – Cluster Coordination Group IDNJR Indonesia Joint Response IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies LPTP Lembaga Pengembangan Teknologi Pedesaan (Indonesian national NGO) NGO Non – Governmental Organisation PKPU Pos Keadi lan Peduli Ummah (Indonesian national NGO) PMI Palang Merah Indonesia/Indonesian Red Cross RTRR Real Time Response Review SHO Cooperating Aid Agencies (public fundraising alliance of Netherlands based INGOs) UN United Nations UNDAC United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs YEU Yakkum Emergency Unit (Indonesian national NGO)
PAGE – 6 ============
6 Introduction On September 28th 2018 an earthquake of magnitude 7.4 struck central Sulawesi province, triggering a tsunami that struck Palu. The earthquake and tsunami were compounded by resulting liquefaction and landslides causing immense loss of life and damage acros s Central Sulawesi, killing 2,101 people, displacing 130,000 and causing an estimated USD 910 million in material damage. 1 This disaster followed the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that struck Lombok on August 5th. The compounding disasters resulted in a straine d response capacity across Indonesia. In the days following the tsunami, on October 1st, the Government of Indonesia (GoI) issued the Regulations for International NGOs aiming to provide Assistance in Central Sulawesi (Table 1). 2 The regulations address th e conduct of international organisations, including limiting their ability to directly manage implementation, personnel and access, and mandate local partnerships. 3 The GoI considers international organisations as those either e of the United Nations or that Non – governmental organisations that functionally organized international organisations that are free of and do not represent any government; or international organizations that are formed separately from countries where they are established 4 These definitions do not clarify the classification of nationalised branches of international NGOs, as whilst they are representatives of inte rnational organisations, they are still locally registered. Table 1: Regulations for International NGOs aiming to provide assistance in Central Sulawesi 1 Foreign NGOs are not allowed to go directly to the field. All activities must be conducted in partne rship with local partners. 2 Foreign citizens who are working with local NGOs are not allowed to conduct any activity on the sites affected by disasters. 3 Foreign NGOs which have already procured/prepared relief items in Indonesia need to register their assistance with the relevant ministries/agencies and receive approval to work with local partners in distributing aid. 1 HCT Indonesia. 2018. Humanitarian Country Team Situation Report #10. 10 December 2018 2 Disaster Management Law 24/2007 Art. 7 (1c.) Provides that government may establish cooperation with an international agency in the management of a disaster, except in the case of an emergency, in which case international agencies may be allowed to proc e ed to the disaster site after reporting the number of their personnel, logistics, equipment and the targeted location. However, the BNPB regulations stipulate specific requirements for Central Sulawesi. 3 BNBP regulations, https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/bnpb_rules.pdf 4 Government Regulation 23/2008; BNBP No. 22/20 10
PAGE – 8 ============
8 The DRA has two mechanisms, an acute crisis mechanism with an implementation period of 6 months and a 12 month protracted crisis mechanism. The Sulawesi response used the acute mechanism , in which l ocalisation objectives are not specifically articulated . Localisation objectives are shared and not necessarily to be ac hieved per response. As such, the DRA as a whole report against progress towards funding and capacity building targets, rather tha n per program. This study provides evidence about how the DRA response in Central Sulawesi contributed towards shared DRA ob jectives on localisation as well as its alignment with global commitments. This research builds upon the initial findings produced by HAG and the Pujiono Centre on the strengths and challenges of the localised elements of the response . This study sharpens the analysis to the operational modalities that challenged or supported locally – led response in the complex context of Sulawesi and provides recommendations that could be applied elsewhere in Indonesia and considered further afield. Review scope and metho dology Purpose The purpose of this study commissioned by the DRA is to collect data that will enable an evidence – based analysis and conclusions as to what extent and in what aspects the Sulawesi response has been a locally led response, and what according to key local, national as well as international actors the major implications and challenges of the regulation of GOI have been for effectiveness of the response. Addi tional purpose is to collect good practices and learnings from the Sulawesi response that generate content to develop/ describe models of locally led responses that can be used to increase effectiveness of humani tarian response in the future f or the use of both DRA and the wider humanitarian community. Scope The review sought to answer the following specific review questions (Table 2). Table 2: Review questions Funding flows and chains Provide insight into funding flows and chains starting with DRA and SHO organisations and, depending on data availability, a broader picture for response over the first 6 months: who funded which actor? Are there examples of locally led funding? Do actors feel the regulations had implications for the financing of the Implications of GoI regulations How did international actors adapt to the GoI regulations? Are there innovative or best practice examples of support to locally led response? negative) of the GoI regulations on the overall quality of response (as far as poss ible
PAGE – 9 ============
9 using informants who can compare with previous disasters in Indonesia): timeliness of the response quality: technical (SPHERE or GoI guidance Perka BNPB 7/2008) and core humanitarian standards accountability to donors and beneficiaries relationships with communities Coordination Did the coordination mechanisms at the regional, national and sub – national levels reflect or support locally led response? Were the coordination forums effective? What are the implications of the role of the AHA centre in the region vis – a – vis OCHA? Partnerships What can be le arned from different partnership approaches between actors? How did international actors work with national actors, both those with ongoing relationships and those establishing partnerships during the response? How do partnerships align with C4C Principles of Partnership? Were there examples of national national or national local partnerships? If so, what can we learn from these? Were any burdensome requirements placed on national actors? Are there best practice examples of equitable partnerships? Capacity What capacity gaps and capacity – strengthening (CS) needs of local actors were observed by local actors themselves and by international actors? How were they addressed, and if not, why not? What CS in humanitarian aid had local actors received previously? Based on this response, what do local actors list as their priority for CS for the future? Methodology Figure 1: Methodology
PAGE – 10 ============
10 The methodology used a largely qualitative approach. The data collection process combined stakeholder interviews with key representatives of DRA and SHO agencies and their partners, as well as other key humanitarian actors engaged in the response. Intervie ws were conducted in Palu, Jakarta and remotely with stakeholders in the Netherlands. Four focus group discussions were held, and over 27 documents read in desk review. A survey was devised and administered to representatives of organisations that received funding from the DRA and SHO to provide quantitative insights to complement the qualitative data collection. Limitations The timeframe of the review was brief (16 days total) and the breadth of stakeholders and data available meant that some data could not be analysed in depth. As such, some of the findings, such as the analysis of funding flows, are presented at a high leve l rather than in detail. Some stakeholders, particularly those from local organisations, could not respond to specific questions on funding received from multiple sources. This prevented detailed mapping of funding flows across the entirety of the DRA and SHO members and their partners. Nonetheless, the data available gives considerable insight into funding flows and trends. Some of the questions referred to both DRA and SHO recipients, but not all SHO agencies were part of the data collection process. There is some overlap between agencies, but findings and recommendations are less applicable to the broad spectrum of SHO agencies than to agencies funded under the DRA mechanism. The research questions generated rich data, but also meant that data pertai ned to the general response environment as well as to DRA and SHO and their partners. This challenged the team in framing findings and recommendations relevant to the broad range of stakeholders in this review. Working definitions consistent across individuals and agencies , including between DRA members , and in some cases differed from the definition utilised for the purpose of this review (see definitions on page 11) international NG Os meant that organisations affiliated with international structures that had registered considered themselves to be national actors, despite this being inconsistent with global definitions. This hindered interpretation of some of the data, as noted in the findings below.
PAGE – 11 ============
11 Definitions This review employed the following definitions: Localisation 7 : Local and national humanitarian actors increasingly empowered to take a greater role in the leadership, coordination and delivery of humanitarian preparedness and response in their countries. Local and national non – state actors 8 : organisations engaged in relief that are headquartered and operating in their own aid recipient country and which are not affiliated to an international NGO. National and sub – national state actors: State authorities of the affected aid recipient country engaged in relief, whether at local or national level Internationally affiliated organisations: Organisations that are affiliated to an international organisation through inter – linked financing, contracting, governance and/or decision – making systems. 9 Partnership: the relationshi p between international humanitarian actors (especially international NGOs) and local and national actors (especially local and national NGOs), whereby the international actors work with, support and resource their local and/or national partners to design and implement humanitarian preparedness and response programming. DRA organisations: organisations that receive and channel funds from the Dutch Ministry, coordinated through the Joint Response Lead SHO organisations: organisations that receive and channel funds mobilised from the public via the joint mechanism. DRA and/or SHO partners: national organisations or networks that receive, utilise and/or further channel funds received from the direct recipients of DRA and SHO funding. 7 https://r eliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Accelerating%20Localisation%20Research%20Summary_Global.pdf 8 IFRC Localisation Worksteam: Identified categories for tracking funding flows ; http://media.ifrc.org/grand_bargain_localisation/wp – content/uploads/sites/12/2018/06/categories_for_tracking_direct_as_possible_fu nding_to_local_and_national_actors_003.pdf 9 IASC Humanitarian Financing Task Team, Localisation Marker Working Group Definitions Paper. 24 January 2018; https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/hftt_localisation_marker_definitions_paper_24_january_2018.pdf
337 KB – 44 Pages