Governing community relocation after major disasters: Three different approaches in Japan, Philippines, and Indonesia

Transcription

1 Governing community relocation after major disasters: Three different approaches in Japan, Philippines, and Indonesia 8th National Social Science Congress Inclusive governance Kanako Iuchi, PhD. June 16, 2016 Lyceum of the Philippines University Batangas

2 Natural hazards and relocation in Recovery Relocating communities least favored policy approach: disrupts lives increasingly considered in recovery after disasters: minimize loss of lives in the future Impacts of governance on long-term relocation Not many studies available Further study needed for better policy intervention Source: MLIT 2

3 This talk focuses on 3 relocation cases in post-disaster recovery Tohoku, Japan 2011 GEJE and tsunami Yogyakarta, Indonesia 2010 Mt Merapi Volcanic Eruption explain different approaches Leyte, the Philippines 2013 Typhoon Yolanda Explore key elements critical for better governance 3

4 Recap on three disasters Tohoku, Japan: the 2011 GEJE and Tsunami Tsunami inundation Wide area (500 km of shore) Inundated 560km 2 (= Guimaras Island) Dead and missing: 18,880 (May 30, 2012) Building damage: Totally damaged 130,000 (10 Pref.) seriously damaged 260,000 (13 Pref.) 4

5 Leyte, the Philippines: 2013 Typhoon Yolanda The storm surge devastated coastal communities Death toll and missing: 2,603 Completely damaged buildings: 28,734 90% of damage in coastal informally settled areas Source: NASA 5

6 Yogyakarta, Indonesia: 2010 Mt. Merapi Volcanic Eruption Damages Largest eruption: Oct. 26, 2010 Past eruptions: Source: AusAID/Jeong Park Dead and missing: approx. 300 Evacuee:350 thousand Building damage: Yogyakarta:3,023 houses Central Java:920 houses 6

7 All 3 areas were devastated by different types of natural disasters But similarities in rebuilding: Aimed to reduce future disaster impacts Planned and implemented relocation The ways to implement relocation were different *note: all relocation cases presented here are simplified for comparison, but were more complex in reality 7

8 Resettling in higher lands: Tohoku Region Post-2011 GEJE and Tsunami Strategy in rebuilding Relocate and rebuild in higher lands: reduce future tsunami impact Program used: Collective relocation program (Collective relocation promoting program for disaster prevention) Developed and utilized since 1972 Used to promote [small] rural communities in hazardous areas to relocate to safer areas relocate with a consensus; satisfying results 8

9 Function of the program Local government Lead the program (national gov t support financially) Provide land (parcels) for individual households Individual households Former land hazardous land Sell/keep; no future residential use Those who can t afford public housing Local gov t designate former land hazardous Residents sell or keep the land Local gov t Provide new land (parcels) Residents build house themselves if moving in 9

10 Adopting the program after the GEJE Used for massive relocation, though the program design is for small communities Approx. 400 sites 300+ households in some sites Top-down processes Local governments Large number and scale of relocation Lacking number of officials Residents minimally involved in the processes 10

11 Current relocation status at 6th year Residents still waiting quietly 50% of land (parcels) prepared, houses being constructed Residents feeling left out/ forgotten 11

12 Relocating away from the Shore: Leyte region Post-2013 typhoon Yolanda Strategy in rebuilding Relocate inland from the shore: Reduce future storm surge damage Program used: Various, social housing program by NHA (main program) (Under Urban Development Housing Act (UDHA), RA7279, 1992) Program adopted in 1992 Used to relocate disadvantaged population from hazardous areas to social housing in safer areas Past experiences were unsuccessful 12

13 Function of the program NHA and local governments Evaluate on the suitability of land and decides on relocation sites Developers Acquire land and construct buildings Construction cost compensated by the NHA Residents Gov t led, but increasing community buy-in To better meet residents needs Better coordination of housing and infrastructure provision 13

14 Adopting the program after Yolanda Used to relocate coastal disadvantaged population Targeting approx. 10,000+ households Relocating population to the city s north Top-down processes, with resident inclusion Residents are encouraged to participate in the construction Step 2 Step 1 Step 1 14

15 Current relocation status at 3rd year Residents are still waiting 5% in permanent houses 16% in temporary houses Rest are back in communities Residents feeling more connected if involved in construction of the public housing Temporary housing Temporary housing Back in communities Permanent housing 15

16 Moving from the mountain: Yogyakarta special region Post-2010 Mt. Merapi Volcanic Eruption Strategy in rebuilding Relocate away from hazardous areas of volcanic eruption Program used: REKOMPAK program (Rehabilitaci dan Rekonstrukshi Masyarakat dan Permukiman Berbasis Kommunitas: Community rebuilding program) Created by international donor after the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami Community based housing and community infrastructure reconstruction 16

17 Technical support Function of the program Operational structure : Community association will be formed to manage rebuilding Community association (KP) hhs Community association (KP) hhs Communities lead planning and reconstruction of their housing Facilitator Coordinator Technical Specialist Social Specialist Financial Specialist Const. Mngt. Specialist Facilitators manage 8-10 groups Facilitators (hired by the gov t) support household groups (KPs) to rebuild communities Community association (KP) hhs Community association (KP) hhs 17

18 Adopting the program after Mt. Merapi eruption Used to rebuild in safe areas outside directly affected areas Targeting ±2,000 households Bottom-up process, centering residents with the support of facilitators Source: Cipta Carya Residents handle many aspects of relocation on their own 18

19 Current relocation status at 6 years Residents live life similar to pre-eruption, and Communities used the REKOMPAK program continue to live outside the most hazardous zone (ATL) Residents developed strong sense of ownership and belonging 19

20 Reflection and concluding remarks No new programs for relocation were created Adopted and expanded programs already existed Despite all cases involved national gov ts Japan Philippines Indonesia Program Collective relocation Social housing program REKOMPAK Year adopted Year of disaster However, programs often do not fit the local needs Thereby, flexibility in programs that fit local history and character are needed 20

21 Three cases showed varied governance different outcomes Outcome Japan Philippines Indonesia Top-down Responsible for securing relocation sites; managing housing construction Minimally involved in planning and construction, waiting the governments to provide housing Feeling left out or overlooked Top-down with inclusion Encouraged to be involved in construction works Involved residents develop sense of ownership Community-driven With increasing responsibility given to the Roles of the Securing relocation government communities, greater and sites and continued residential ownership buildings is developed among them Provides technical support needed by the government and supports community decision Keeping beneficiaries as the key stakeholders is Residents level of important participation to have them involved in relocation Main implementer of the program (Planning and construction of their communities) Residents continue to be responsible for new neighborhoods 21