110
T. Neise et al.
rather integrated into collective adaptation in order to raise the efficacy of flood
risk reduction. To do so, we review the formal perspective of flood governance in
Indonesia and then present empirical results of limited flood governance.
The Role of SMEs on Broader Flood Governance
in Indonesia
Formal Regulations on Flood Governance
The idea of adaptive governance is based on a collaboration of all affected stakeholders (e.g., state authorities, firms, civil society, and residents) collaborate in order
to achieve adaptation to natural hazards (e.g., Archer et al. 2014; Berkes and Ross
2013). Governance is ideally characterized by polycentric and multi-layered institutions, participative and collaborative relationships, self-organization, and networks
(Djalante et al. 2011; Folke et al. 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013). With a particular
focus on the complexities of cities, “adaptive urban governance” argues that governance requires the consideration of the interrelationship between formal (e.g., laws
and regulations) and informal institutions (e.g., customs, social capital). Therefore,
effective adaptation needs structural measures (e.g., flood protection systems) as well
as the integration and, if possible, the modifications or transformations of multi-level
governance structures and disaster management planning systems (Birkmann et al.
2010; Solecki et al. 2017).
In Indonesia, a considerable effort has been done through revising legal frameworks of the disaster management policy accentuated especially by the passing of
law No. 24/2007 on disaster management and the establishment of national and local
disaster management agencies (BNPB and BPBDs) (Djalante and Garschagen 2017;
Lassa 2013). The new agencies share the responsibility on disaster risk management
policy and thus receive technical and financial resources to develop and implement
disaster risk reduction strategies such as a hazard early warning system (BNPB 2015;
Das and Luthfi 2017). Although the BPBD is assigned as the coordinator to implement disaster risk management policies, it has to coordinate its plans with numerous
ministries (e.g., the Ministry of Public Work and Housing, the Ministry of Home
Affairs and the Ministry of National Development Planning) as well as with the
local disaster management agencies (Mardiah et al. 2017). Furthermore, the BNPB
and BPBDs should respect the needs of the stakeholders. Therefore, the BNPB and
the provincial BPBDs are encouraged to organize disaster risk reduction platforms
that facilitate the coordination of risk reduction activities among different public
authorities, the civil society, NGOs, and the private sector (i.e., firms) (Djalante and
Garschagen 2017; Lassa 2013; UNISDR 2007).
In respect to the private sector, Indonesia’s legal framework states that all companies should support disaster risk reduction. Formally, the contribution and responsibilities of firms are mentioned in the disaster management law (24/2007). According
T. Neise et al.
rather integrated into collective adaptation in order to raise the efficacy of flood
risk reduction. To do so, we review the formal perspective of flood governance in
Indonesia and then present empirical results of limited flood governance.
The Role of SMEs on Broader Flood Governance
in Indonesia
Formal Regulations on Flood Governance
The idea of adaptive governance is based on a collaboration of all affected stakeholders (e.g., state authorities, firms, civil society, and residents) collaborate in order
to achieve adaptation to natural hazards (e.g., Archer et al. 2014; Berkes and Ross
2013). Governance is ideally characterized by polycentric and multi-layered institutions, participative and collaborative relationships, self-organization, and networks
(Djalante et al. 2011; Folke et al. 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013). With a particular
focus on the complexities of cities, “adaptive urban governance” argues that governance requires the consideration of the interrelationship between formal (e.g., laws
and regulations) and informal institutions (e.g., customs, social capital). Therefore,
effective adaptation needs structural measures (e.g., flood protection systems) as well
as the integration and, if possible, the modifications or transformations of multi-level
governance structures and disaster management planning systems (Birkmann et al.
2010; Solecki et al. 2017).
In Indonesia, a considerable effort has been done through revising legal frameworks of the disaster management policy accentuated especially by the passing of
law No. 24/2007 on disaster management and the establishment of national and local
disaster management agencies (BNPB and BPBDs) (Djalante and Garschagen 2017;
Lassa 2013). The new agencies share the responsibility on disaster risk management
policy and thus receive technical and financial resources to develop and implement
disaster risk reduction strategies such as a hazard early warning system (BNPB 2015;
Das and Luthfi 2017). Although the BPBD is assigned as the coordinator to implement disaster risk management policies, it has to coordinate its plans with numerous
ministries (e.g., the Ministry of Public Work and Housing, the Ministry of Home
Affairs and the Ministry of National Development Planning) as well as with the
local disaster management agencies (Mardiah et al. 2017). Furthermore, the BNPB
and BPBDs should respect the needs of the stakeholders. Therefore, the BNPB and
the provincial BPBDs are encouraged to organize disaster risk reduction platforms
that facilitate the coordination of risk reduction activities among different public
authorities, the civil society, NGOs, and the private sector (i.e., firms) (Djalante and
Garschagen 2017; Lassa 2013; UNISDR 2007).
In respect to the private sector, Indonesia’s legal framework states that all companies should support disaster risk reduction. Formally, the contribution and responsibilities of firms are mentioned in the disaster management law (24/2007). According