276
F. Shidiq et al.
with children and youth. On this, the paper has identified current policies where
the window of opportunity existed for building meaningful partnerships with youth
on DRR. It has also suggested the institutional setup on bridging the gaps of youth
engagement on DRR in Indonesia. Moreover, the chapter strongly suggests policy
change to include youth group as one of the members within the advisory board of
BNPB and local BPBDs, for ensuring youth voices within the coordination of DRR
in the pre-disaster phase, emergency response, and deliberation for deciding course
of recovery in the post-disaster stage.
Generally, there seems to be a disconnection between the agency/ministry who
coordinates disaster management policy with that who coordinates youth development policy. Limited opportunities are given to the youth group to engage in national
and local DRR framework and policy development. As one of the conclusions, a
clear and legal standing for youth engagement on DRR must be established. This
study suggests policy change to include youth group as one of the members within
the advisory board of the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) and the
Local Disaster Management Agency (BPBD), to ensure youth voices to be considered
throughout the whole disaster management cycle.
Finally, in terms of transferability aspects to the context of other developing countries, each government or youth in a particular country might want to start by a
systematic review on youth initiatives on DRR, for understanding the potential and
challenges faced by youth. The stock-taking must be able to identify the pockets of
youth that potential for mobilization within DRR, and prioritize the empowerment
of existing pockets with DRR ideas and innovations instead of creating new ones.
This also includes the potential of synergy with investments in safe schools and the
role of science, technology, and higher education for DRR. In addition, each country
must also conduct a policy analysis of the institutional setup on disaster management and how the SFDRR Article 36-ii-a is interpreted. Thus, based on the system
of each country, a clear and legal standing for youth engagement on DRR must be
established. Lastly, it is recommended for all states to encourage the peer learning
process between youth from various countries to learn from each other on planning,
implementing, monitoring, and evaluating their DRR initiatives.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the United Nations Major Group for Children
and Youth (UNMGCY) for data sharing of the Children of Youth Forum of the Third UN WCDRR
in Sendai, Japan, March 2015. This paper is also integral to the first author mandate as Regional
Focal Point for Northeast and Southeast Asia in the DRR Working Group of UNMGCY. Hence, the
statement in this paper does not represent the official view of the UNMGCY. We are also indebted
to Ms. Meta Indriyani, for her assistance in data compilation. The authors receive no funding in the
development of this manuscript.
F. Shidiq et al.
with children and youth. On this, the paper has identified current policies where
the window of opportunity existed for building meaningful partnerships with youth
on DRR. It has also suggested the institutional setup on bridging the gaps of youth
engagement on DRR in Indonesia. Moreover, the chapter strongly suggests policy
change to include youth group as one of the members within the advisory board of
BNPB and local BPBDs, for ensuring youth voices within the coordination of DRR
in the pre-disaster phase, emergency response, and deliberation for deciding course
of recovery in the post-disaster stage.
Generally, there seems to be a disconnection between the agency/ministry who
coordinates disaster management policy with that who coordinates youth development policy. Limited opportunities are given to the youth group to engage in national
and local DRR framework and policy development. As one of the conclusions, a
clear and legal standing for youth engagement on DRR must be established. This
study suggests policy change to include youth group as one of the members within
the advisory board of the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) and the
Local Disaster Management Agency (BPBD), to ensure youth voices to be considered
throughout the whole disaster management cycle.
Finally, in terms of transferability aspects to the context of other developing countries, each government or youth in a particular country might want to start by a
systematic review on youth initiatives on DRR, for understanding the potential and
challenges faced by youth. The stock-taking must be able to identify the pockets of
youth that potential for mobilization within DRR, and prioritize the empowerment
of existing pockets with DRR ideas and innovations instead of creating new ones.
This also includes the potential of synergy with investments in safe schools and the
role of science, technology, and higher education for DRR. In addition, each country
must also conduct a policy analysis of the institutional setup on disaster management and how the SFDRR Article 36-ii-a is interpreted. Thus, based on the system
of each country, a clear and legal standing for youth engagement on DRR must be
established. Lastly, it is recommended for all states to encourage the peer learning
process between youth from various countries to learn from each other on planning,
implementing, monitoring, and evaluating their DRR initiatives.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the United Nations Major Group for Children
and Youth (UNMGCY) for data sharing of the Children of Youth Forum of the Third UN WCDRR
in Sendai, Japan, March 2015. This paper is also integral to the first author mandate as Regional
Focal Point for Northeast and Southeast Asia in the DRR Working Group of UNMGCY. Hence, the
statement in this paper does not represent the official view of the UNMGCY. We are also indebted
to Ms. Meta Indriyani, for her assistance in data compilation. The authors receive no funding in the
development of this manuscript.