Collaborative management (co-management) in natural resources governance and development based on collective action was built as a criticism of the classical and neo-liberal approach in the development and management of natural resources. Collective action can be generally defined as practices that involve various actors/stakeholders that voluntarily engage in common actions to pursue a shared interest. Activities can include resource mobilization, program coordination, and institutional strengthening.

The classical approach views local communities and institutions based on collective action as a source of environmental degradation and a barrier to development. The main thesis of this approach is the use of the common property by the community to produce a tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968). According to this approach, local knowledge, participation, and community collective action are severely restricted, that is, only if it can support programs carried out by the government and experts who support the use of this approach.

Meanwhile, the neo-liberal approach emphasizes that the failure of the development and management of natural resources is due to the absence of effective economic incentives. The neo-liberal approach emphasizes the importance of shifting natural resource management from being strongly controlled by the state to giving more power to markets through deregulation. Local community members are seen as rational economic creatures, each of whom has the motivation to benefit as much as possible from the development and use of natural resources.

Both approaches that alienate collective action and collaboration between communities and various stakeholders have many weaknesses. The classic approach that only relies on human resources and government finances makes the government unable to reduce environmental degradation adequately and ensure the sustainability of the livelihoods of its citizens. The neo-liberal approach is still seen as a top-down approach. Economic incentives provided are often inadequate and not relevant to people's needs and perspectives (Mahonge 2010).

For these weaknesses, a populist approach was born which was later refined by a collaborative management (co-management) approach. The populist approach emphasizes the importance of active involvement and empowerment of local communities as a prerequisite for sustainable development and natural resource management. The emergence of this approach is influenced by the existence of empirical evidence that shows that traditional resource management systems in a co-ownership regime have contributed to protecting natural resources from over-exploitation and have played an important role in biodiversity conservation (Ostrom, 1990). These approaches regard local communities as rational beings not only from an economic perspective but also from an environmental perspective. Empowerment and participation of local communities as a key to nature conservation and sustainable development.

However, the results of further research indicate that not all communities have adequate resource strength in managing natural resources and carrying out sustainable development, including disaster management. They need collaboration with other stakeholders, especially the government, the private sector, and bridges from CSOs. With a co-management approach, the strengths of each institutional actor can complement the others (Islam et al 2020, Alipour et al 2020, Garza-Gil et al 2020, Islam et al 2019).

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) and sustainable development goals (SDGs)

In the framework of sustainable development, DRR is an integral part of social and economic development and is essential if development is to be sustainable for the future (UN 2015). This has been recognized by various documents related to DRR and sustainable development, from MDGs to the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (Johannesburg, September 2002), to the "Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015)" and to the "Future We Want" (Rio, June 2012), to the Sendai Framework for DRR (Sendai, March 2016) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September 2015).

UNISDR (2015) in a papery entitled Disaster Risk Reduction in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — a reflection of the link between disaster risk reduction and development in the context of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030-- has written that there are 25 targets related to disaster risk reduction in 10 of the 17 SDGs. This means that the success of the DRR will have an impact on achieving SDGs.

  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere (target 1.5)
  • Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture (target 2.4)
  • Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages (target 3.d)
  • Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all (target 4.7)
  • Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all (target 6.6)
  • Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation (target 9.1 & 9.a)
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (target 11.1, 11.3, 11.4, 11.b, & 11.c)
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (target 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.a, & 13.b)
  • Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development (target 14.2)
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss (target 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, & 15.9)
  • Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
  • Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Collective action and collaboration in DRR

Even though they appear to be separate, in fact, all the targets and objectives of the SDGs related to the DRR must be carried out integrally by paying attention to the five "P" principles, namely people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership. The first three principles are related to ambition to balance the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, and environmental), while the last two dimensions are the principle of the importance of collaboration and collective action in achieving them. Because of its importance, these two principles are explicitly stated in Goal 16 and Goal 17.

The Sendai Framework highlights the importance of collective action and collaboration between various stakeholders as an effort to share responsibility in DRR. This is done to share the resources owned by each stakeholder so that they can complement each other.

Empirical evidence on the importance of using collective action and collaboration on disaster risk reduction is contained in several research papers. Ireland & Thomalla who conducted research in Nepalganj, Nepal and Krabi, Thailand (2011) found the importance of the role of collective action in strengthening adaptive capacity. Social networks are the most important component in building adaptive capacity. Yuanjaya & Fajri (2019) found that the collective actions in Kampung Gambiran, Yogyakarta proved to be effective in reducing disaster risk. Collective actions undertaken by the local community with government and NGOs can improve the quality of the environment, encourage the emergence of environmental management innovations, and expand environmental awareness campaigns. March et al (2017) also mentioned the importance of collaboration and collective action in urban planning and recovery after a disaster.

Various researches conducted by researchers in the Human Ecology Cluster (Population and Environment), Research Center for Population, LIPI in various research schemes also show the importance of collective action and collaboration in disaster risk reduction. Hidayati et al (2019) and Abdurrahim et al (2019) show that aspects of collective action and collaboration are key to the level of community resilience. Jambi rural communities face the disasters of floods and haze from forest fires. Surtiari et al (2019) and Hidayati et al (2019) found the importance of collective action and collaboration in post-disaster resettlement recovery and livelihood development strategies in Palu, Sigi, and Donggala. Ross et al (2019) and Abdurrahim et al (2019) explained how the collective action and collaboration carried out by coastal communities in Selayar were very useful in conflict resolution and co-management which positively reflected disaster risk reduction. Hidayati (2018) mentioned the importance of the role of social capital in building collective action that can enhance community disaster preparedness and building back better in recovery in the people of Jambi, Bantul, and Aceh. Abdurrahim et al (2016 & 2015) suggested the role of collective action in building the capacity of urban populations to reduce the risk of disasters in cities. Abdurrahim et al (2014) showed the importance of collective action and collaboration in increasing the resilience of rainfed lowland rice farming communities in Indramayu.

-----

Ali Yansyah Abdurrahim**

*Written in commemoration of Disaster Preparedness Day (April 26, 2020).

** Human Ecology Researcher in the Population and Environment Cluster, Research Center for Population, LIPI. Active in the National Research Priority Team on Natural Resources Governance, LIPI (2020-2024) and the SESAM Program, Wageningen University & Research (2020-2025). Email:

  

Reference

Alipour H, Arefiour T. 2020. Rethinking potentials of Co-management for sustainable common-pool resources (CPR) and tourism: The case of a Mediterranean island. Ocean and Coastal Management 183, 104993

Abdurrahim AY, Hidayati D, Putri IAP, Prasojo APS, Yogaswara H. 2019. Community resilience in dealing with floods and haze in Jambi province, Indonesia. The 6th Annual Scientific Meeting on Disaster Research 2019/The International on Disaster Management 2019 Proceeding

Abdurrahim AY, Ross H, Adhuri D. 2019. Analysing fisheries conflict with the FishCollab ‘conflict mapping’ toolkit: lessons from Selayar, Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 420 012001

Abdurrahim AY, Alihar F, Soetopo T, Katherina LK, Pradipta L. 2016. Kerentanan penduduk terhadap banjir di Kota Medan. Pusat Penelitian Kependudukan LIPI, Jakarta

Abdurrahim AY, Alihar F, Soetopo T, Katherina LK, Pradipta L.  2015. Karakteristik penduduk dan akumulasi risiko bencana di perkotaan: kasus Kota Surabaya, Gerbangkertosusila dan Kota Medan, Mebidangro. Pusat Penelitian Kependudukan LIPI.

Abdurrahim, Ali Yansyah, Arya Hadi Dharmawan, Satyawan Sunito, and I Made Sudiana.. 2014. Kerentanan ekologi dan strategi penghidupan rumah tangga petani sawah tadah hujan di Pantura Indramayu. Jurnal Kependudukan Indonesia Vol. 9 No. 1.

Garza-Gil MD, Perez-Perez I, Fernandez-Gonzalez R. 2020. Governance in small-scale fisheries of Galicia (NW Spain): Moving toward co-management? Ocean and Coastal Management 184, 105013

Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859): 1243-1248.

Mahonge CPI. 2010. Co-managing complex social-ecological systems in Tanzania- The case of Lake Jipe wetland. Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Hidayati D, Dalimunthe SA, Putri IAP, Ekaputri AD, Yogaswara H, Abdurrahim AY. 2019. Siapkah penduduk menghadapi ancaman multibencana di perdesaan? Penerbit Obor, Jakarta

Hidayati D, Surtiarti GAK, Hidayati I. 2019. Policy Brief Strategi Pemulihan dan Pengembangan Penghidupan Rumah Tangga Penyintas Bencana di Palu, Sigi, dan Donggala. Pusat Penelitian Kependudukan LIPI, Jakarta

Hidayati D. 2018. The role of social capital in enhancing community disaster preparedness and building back better in recovery. MATEC Web of Conferences 229, 01001

Ireland P, Thomalla F. The Role of Collective Action in Enhancing Communities' Adaptive Capacity to Environmental Risk: An Exploration of Two Case Studies from Asia. PLOS Currents Disasters. 2011 Oct 26. Edition 1.

Islam MM, Nahiduzzaman Md, Wahab MA. 2020. Fisheries co-management in hilsa shad sanctuaries of Bangladesh: Early experiences and implementation challenges. Marine Policy 117, 103955

Islam K, Nath TK, Jashimuddin M, Rahman MF. 2019. Forest dependency, co-management, and improvement of peoples' livelihood capital: Evidence from Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Environmental Development 32, 100456

March A, Kornakova M, Leon J. 2017. Integration and Collective Action: Studies of Urban Planning and Recovery After Disasters. Urban Planning for Disaster Recovery 2017, Pages 1-12.

Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York. 280pp.

Ross H, Adhuri D, Abdurrahim AY, and Phelan A 2019 Opportunities in community- government cooperation to maintain marine ecosystem services in the Asia-Pacific and Oceania. Ecosystem Services 38 100969

Surtiarti GAK, Hidayati D, Alihar F, Dalimunthe SA, Putri IAP, Katerina LK, Abdurrahim AY, Pradipta L, Kusumaningrum D, Hastuti P, Sarwo Prasojo AP. 2019. Laporan kaji cepat penanganan pasca bencana di palu, sigi dan donggala: pemulihan tempat tinggal dan penghidupan. Pusat Penelitian Kependudukan LIPI, Jakarta

UN .2015. Disaster risk reduction. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/disasterriskreduction diakses 23 April 2020.

UNISDR. 2015. Disaster risk reduction and resilience in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A reflection paper prepared by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, October 2015. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/46052_disasterriskreductioninthe2030agend.pdf

Yuanjaya P, Fajri H. 2020. The Collective Action of Urban Communities in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Case Study in Yogyakarta City. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 448 012095

powered by social2s
Go to top