Institutional Development for Environmental Hazard Prevention

The Case on Mahakam River, East

By: Kemal Taruc *

Presented for EAROPH REGIONAL SEMINAR Jogjakarta, September 19 – 20, 2005

“RISK MANAGEMENT IN HUMAN SETTLEMENTS” ". . .to promote and encourage all parts of society to participate in disaster preparedness planning and in disaster prevention though activities that build a culture of prevention" (Habitat Agenda, 1996) “. . .to integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs, and reverse the loss of environmental resources.” (the Millennium Development Goals Target 9)

Overview Mahakam river is very strategic in East Kalimanatan, the lifeblood of the region, the symbol, the heritage and the identity of . The river runs for 920 kilometers from the uplands down to the east on the eastern coastline of .

This is a case about challenges faced by the Province to initiate a coordination in the management of Mahakam River in East Kalimantan to answer every year’s record- breaking flood and other environmental hazards related to the river. It is a about efforts and processes to build a local capacity for environmental risk and disaster mitigation at local governments.

* Founding Faculty Member, Graduate Program in Real Estate and Urban Development, Tarumanagara University Jakarta; Chairman-elect, Board of Ethics, the Indonesian Association of Planners (IAP); Principal, Ecolink Center for Business and Environment. 21st Century Trust Fellow, UK; Cornell University Hubert Humphrey Fellow. Email address: [email protected]

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 1 It has tried to develop policies on river basin management in the setting of Indonesia’s bureaucratic polity of natural resource management and the ecological threats resulted from the uncoordinated activities on the river. It also directly shows a local economic dimension of the issue where river is the main transportation and water supply for the local people competing with timber and mining activities of global players. Not only is a complex issue that also involves the protection of endangered species, Pesut, the fresh- water dolphin, but also gives the international dimension of the issues. During the process it had involved and exposed to international donor organizations and multinational companies, namely, USAID, GTZ, Total Indonesie, the Pesut Foundation, ICMA and the State of Oregon, and Oregon State University Extension Service.

The author involved as the field facilitator during the process when the case evolved during the work in a short period of 2002-2003 in an early effort to develop an intergovernmental coordination that crosscuts five local governments and the province during the time when local autonomy was in its early stage of implementation.

The Issue There are a myriad of issues and environmental problems on the Mahakam River, from the remaining timber-rich upland Kabupatens of Malinau and of West through two other Kabupatens, Kutai Kartanegara and East Kutai, and the provincial city of down to the Makassar Strait on the eastern coastline of Kalimantan. Problems on the Mahakam River affect multiple jurisdictions.

The Mahakam River is the lifeblood of the region. The Mahakam River is the transportation route for industry, commerce, and communities, a source of food and drinking water for more than one million people. The uses are threatened as the Mahakam River Basin suffers continued degradation from mining (six coal mines, one gold mine), logging practices on 23 large concessions and numerous 100 Ha community’s small-holding concessions, twelve plywood factories, six plantations, 12,000 households living on the river, domestic and industrial discharges, adverse fishing practices, and fish farming.

The problems include downstream impacts of logging practices, siltation, increased seasonal salinity (salt wedge), concentrated runoff from deforested land to the three lakes of the endangered pesut fresh-water dolphin habitat (Danau Semayang, Danau

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 2 Jempang and Danau Melintang), flooding in the city of Samarinda, salt intrusion causing rust of city water supply pipes, and shallower ship paths to the main river port that serves the region. The river is also subject to more frequent, worsening and severe floods and low water levels (during the last five years), erosion and sedimentation from logging practices, pollution (point and non-point discharges), and invasive plants (water hyacinth). The fresh water dolphin (Orcaella brovirostris / Irrawady dolphin) and its habitat in the Mahakam lakes are threatened by the disruption of the natural river cycle, fishing practices and river transportation.

There are conflicting ownerships and use of natural resources between traditional communities and outside private commercial companies as well as between commercial sectors (forestry, mining, plantations, aquaculture, etc.). At the same time, important local and indigenous wisdom has been displaced by the introduction of modern technology and capital in natural resource use and management. There is a lack of law enforcement of Indonesian natural resource industry (forestry, mining, plantations, fish farming, etc.) laws and regulations.

Local leadership envisions restoring and sustaining the health of the river basin system. There is growing awareness that East Kalimantan’s future is linked to the health of the river. There has been a strong desire by the Province and local governments for an integrated and holistic approach to river basin management not only for a better use of the river, but also to mitigate potential environmental hazard due to lack of proper management. Initial cooperation and collaboration efforts among and between the Province, Regencies/Kabupatens and City government in the “post-reformation” era of local autonomy have just begun; controversies and on-going debates about authority, roles and functions of local institutions are yet to be resolved in the amended laws and local regulations.

Governments and stakeholders in East Kalimantan have not yet developed a strategy, program, or information to generate support for the management of the Mahakam River, neither other programs for public awareness on environmental hazard mitigation nor similar systematic efforts for such disaster prevention planning related to the land use activities in the basin.

To work on the Mahakam River Basin also means that the participation and cooperation of all upstream local communities and institutions is essential in the planning and management of the watershed jointly with the city of Samarinda and the coastal areas of

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 3 Kutai who are the “victims” of the upstream problems. Interregional insitutional coordination could focus in identifying an appropriate framework for potential collaborative management for the watershed including its hazard mitigation plans. Clearly it is a daunting task, very ambitious, and with so many challenges. But, as the old proverb says, “a one-thousand-mile journey starts from our first small footstep.”

Leadership’s initiatives An open talk show at a local TV station was broadcasted to address the importance of intergovernmental coordination for Mahakam river basin management responding to the year’s big flood in Kutai regions. This was the first time such an issue of this magnitude and importance was discussed live in public by representatives of the Province, Samarinda City, and Kutai Kartanegara Regency. In the following weeks a new East Kalimantan Working Group (EKWG) was formed by the leadership of Mr. Ibnu Nirwani, the Governor’s Assistant who sees the a greater environmental hazard if the river’s problems are not properly worked out. The group was charged with the following main tasks.

ƒ Coordination of the development of a methodology for Mahakam River basin management (and by inference the river basin spatial planning and action plans) involving all local government jurisdictions in the river basin and other significant stakeholders.

ƒ Mitigate potential environmental hazards, particularly flood that directly affect the live of people, and incorporate such disaster mitigation plans in the integrated river basin management plan.

ƒ Form a membership that includes all the local governments in the river basin, the province officials related to river basin issues, as well as representatives of local representatives, NGOs and the Mulawarman University. Developing methods of forest protection and improving relations between potential investors and local indigenous communities.

ƒ Coordination of the East Kalimantan activities with related partners who could support the efforts. (Among the first potential partner to support with know-how and expertise was the State of Oregon, USA, and its network of institutions within).

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 4 The Process

An important initial step taken was to conduct a public meeting, multi-stakeholder workshop to address the future of the Mahakam River Basin in the context of the interests and roles of the government and all stakeholders. The workshop was aimed at establishing a consensus vision of an appropriate future for the Mahakam River Basin, based on recognition of the issues facing the river basin and its present and future stakeholders. The agreed upon vision introduced and shared with all stakeholders represented is stated as:

“to create integrated river basin management on the Mahakam that adopts sustainable environmental management for the benefits and welfare of the people.” Further, with the support by ICMA a study tour was made to Oregon. A group of executives representing local governments (the province, regency and city officials) enhanced their knowledge and shared their experience of being one team in dealing with the river basin management. In November 2002 two province officials and two county executives spent a full week in Oregon, met the Governor, and visited several different organizations of different levels related to Willamette River Basin Management, from the State level, Counties, and community-based Watershed Councils.†

Upon their return from Oregon, and with the new appointment the Governor’s Assistant in-charge for intergovernmental coordination on development, the East Kalimantan Working Group was strengthened and held another meeting to enhance communication among local officials and to share common problems related to the Mahakam River. A master plan study on river hydrology and irrigation has been conducted and the Working Group has provided input to the study. A core team was formed to expedite secretarial work and communication among local governments consisting of personnel from the province’s planning office and forestry department, together with Samarinda city and Kutai Kartanegara’s planning office. A new momentum have been built among local

† Among those institutions visited were Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Willamette Restoration Initiative, North Santiam and McKenzie river Watershed Councils, Bonneville Dams, Eugene Water and Electric Board, Oregon State Forestry Department, and variety of people representing local citizens as well as local officials.

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 5 officials, sharing concern for the Mahakam River and initiating the local intergovernmental cooperation.‡

ƒ Increased awareness among government officials and other stakeholders about the importance of an integrated and coordinated approach on river basin management as a way to mitigate river hazards and a better way to use natural resources by forming a multi-stakeholder coordinating body.

ƒ A new practice to communicate more directly among related officials at different local governments, and to form a secretarial team to maintain ongoing contacts. Sets a good precedent for better communication between local officials regarding cross-boundary issues.

ƒ A new coalition among river stakeholders with other kinds of public forums (such as the Water Forum of East Kalimantan) and international agencies that advocate for environmental protection in the river basin.

ƒ More information available to the public through those organizations and the media about potential disaster and environmental hazard of the river if current practices continue.

ƒ Sharing of experience with outside organizations has given the Province increased awareness that it is possible to do new things and to make improvements on current practices given the right incentives and a thrust for change.

Although the program has paused and faces challenges due to various political events, both at international and national/local levels, a shared vision and common understanding about the importance of integrated and coordinated river basin management has been introduced among East Kalimantan officials. It is intended that the multi-stakeholders partnership will focus on practical solutions and models for institutional development of watershed councils, techniques to promote citizen participation, and developing public awareness for better preparedness on flood and other environmental hazards. This might only a little step but to look it in more positively this could be a seed for future efforts when time comes.

‡ In November 2002 a gubernatorial election was held in Oregon. This, coupled with international tensions resulting form the Iraq war, followed by East Kalimantan’s gubernatorial election created a pause in the program.

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 6 Lessons Learned: Capacity Building for Institutional Development

“Environmental hazards tend to be highly localized,” (Penning-Rowsell, 1996, p.128), such as floods, forest fires, erosion, landslides, high winds, earthquakes, although there are exceptions of unusual “low-probability high-magnitude” phenomena like tsunamis, volcanic eruptions which are normally called as “catastrophes” or “disaster.” (Jones & Hood, 1996, p. 4). Those local environmental hazards should become internalized within knowledge and have to come to be seen as normal, rather than abnormal, features of the ecosphere. As shown in Mahakam, the river is historically a central part of people’s lives and their livelihood. Floods or forest fires, in its very natural condition, are a normal environmental phenomena that sustain the ecological cycles. That was during the heydays of pre-industrial and pre-capitalist economy.

Within the current globalized economy, the nature, as the main source of “raw materials” for industrial products, has become in the central stage of the political economy. Central to this idea is the recognition that environmental problems cannot be understood in isolation from the political and economic contexts within which they are created (Bryant & Bailey, 1997, p. 28). Given the fact of so many resource extraction activities in the Mahakam river basin it is too naïve to expect that the mother nature would be able to sustain her nurturing capacity after so much damage has been made on the watershed. A adverse impact of human-made potential disaster comes together with the natural hazard make things more complicated and need more comprehensive and coordinated efforts to mitigate casualties. The people in East Kalimantan have learned the hard way, after series of flooding in the city of Samarinda and Kutai region, salt intrusion to sources of drinking water, and shallower ship paths to the river port.

Multi-Stakeholders Institutional Design What happened in the process of establishing a new, multi-stakeholders East Kalimantan Working Group for Mahakam hazard mitigation planning and watershed management has been first to break the “policy inertia” – where “institutional frameworks, policy instruments, professional compositions and the re-drawing of interprofessional boundaries lag behind the practical needs of hazard mitigation in the modern world (Penning-Rowsell, p. 128). The initiative by the Province’s leadership, the formation of East Kalimantan Working Group, are examples to break the inertia. Although sometimes the result might be perceived as a rather “messy compromise

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 7 between local needs and more centralizing structures” (Penning-Rowsell, p. 128), however, an opening has been successfully made. The ongoing tension and coordination challenge between different levels of governments in East Kalimantan during the process has shown that compromise is the keyword the case. The local autonomy issues have been a central debate nationally during the early 2000’s between the Province, Regencies, and the City administration. The Province complained about “lack of respect” to the Provincial authority by Regencies and Cites. On the other hand, those local officials of the Regencies and Cities said that they never got a coordination call for cross-boundary issues, which is stipulated in the law as the Province’s authority, and they kept waiting for the Province’s direction on the river policies.

After the initial visioning workshop, regardless the good results achieved, meetings after meetings within the Working Group did not end up in more conclusive and determined action plans. Some members of the group have tried to maintain the momentum. But, internal communication within the working group members is ineffective, the initiative did not reach the top agenda in the Province, overtaken by other routines and ongoing activities. Consequently, very little external communication has been made, even worse, the message about environmental hazard has never reached the public awareness except in the first public meeting. This does not come as a surprise. Capacity building and institutional design processes are understood as “relatively uncharted territory, with often only trial and error leading the way” (Penning-Rowsell, p. 127-8). Therefore, such a small step that people in East Kalimantan have been doing should be given an appreciation given the courage to initiate such a complex process.

As stated before, environmental hazards are understood as local events. Therefore, as stated by Penning-Rowsell, institutionally, there is a tendency to give prime responsibility to small agencies operating locally, in the assumption that they will then have intimate knowledge of the hazard problems they face (p. 128). Regencies and City government tends to work on their own. When upstream regencies have problems of erosion and flood they try to contain the problem locally. Similarly, when the downstream city of Samarinda has salt water intrusion, it will be seen as a city’s water problem. Solutions tend to be more limited to an engineering or an emergency approach without trying to link one to another. It is a local phenomenon.

But, it is becoming increasingly recognized that a wider geographical and inter- disciplinary perspective brings a better insight on natural hazard (Penning-Rowsell, p.

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 8 128). Especially in a river ecosystem, almost each element of the nature, land use and community’s activities are interlinked. The watershed is one common habitat where all activities on the land and the water will come together to a final destination, the river, then down to the coast and meet the sea, and at the same time the whole chain processes create the impacts to the surrounding environment. Hence, the East Kalimantan’s scheme to create a intergovernmental collaboration and multi-stakeholder approach an integrated river basin management can be seen as an admirable initiative to put an integrated, cross-jurisdiction ecological perspective of the environmental hazards of Mahakam river for a better policy measures.

Public Awareness and Risk Communication Local policy makers have increasingly recognized the difficulty of communicating natural hazardousness to an inattentive population that is more concerned with day-to-day worries than with infrequent, anticipated natural events (Handmer & Penning-Rowsell, 1990). Local agencies responsible for water related issues, such as clean water service, waterways department, sanitation and sewer, irrigation, hydrology, etc all stay within their technical compound and designed to have operational, regulatory, or constructional capabilities dominated by technical experts or engineers (Penning-Rowsell, p. 128). When local disaster happens, for examples flood or fires, each department has its own protocol and together they create the impression that problems can be solved if they are given the appropriate funding and authority. It is their job, to provide public service. Especially during the current local autonomy era, everything goes local. Local citizens demand their right (ironically, with little question ask on their responsibility). Thus, people will be asking for protection by local authority against the unseen risk or any environmental hazards. This public stance puts pressure on local authority to deliver “protection” and to design their structures and systems in cost-effective ways (Drabek 1986). Unsurprisingly, with regard to any natural disaster people will come and protest to the local authority for its incapability to protect them from such happening. Similarly, local authority feels obliged to explain and has all defensive argument why it fails to do so. At the end, in most cases local authority loses credibility because they always fail to deliver risk protection to the people.

This is a problem of public awareness and communication about the nature of environmental hazard. Instead of creating a perception that hazard mitigation measures and the design of local institutions are aimed at giving “solutions”, the message should

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 9 be clear that what can be promised is only the “management of vulnerability” (Jones, 1996). Even in Great Britain, flooding problems in major river catchments would be seen as a product of inadequate land-use planning, such that the increased urbanization create more rapid runoff and land-use control fails to protect floodplains from development (Parker 1995). Unerringly this is what happened in Mahakam River, not so much because of urbanization but of the exploitation, logging and mining activities in the upstream land. The East Kalimantan Working Group is just about to develop a watershed land-use planning of the whole river basin. For many years all land-use activities in the watershed have been done with very little direction or control, if any, it is only limited to the partial technical problems rather than in an integrated and coordinated way.

Given the situation then the Working Group could focus on communicating with the people, create public awareness about the reality they are facing. First, to change the engineering myth that says given a proper technology and sufficient funding then the environmental hazard problems can be solved. Instead, it should be made clear to the public that, as Parker states, “flood cannot in reality be eliminated, only alleviated, yet the public may be given, the impression that they are totally protected when they are not” (Penning-Rowsell, p. 130). A false promise is more counter-productive as escalating public expectation with no way to deliver it.

Second, it should be clearly communicated to the public that environmental hazards are “people problem”, a product of behavioral responses to factors such as the land values (Penning-Rowsell, p. 130) and the ways people use their natural resources. Ecology is about the relationship between people and the nature. In the Mahakam watershed, the tradition to live with and along the river and the traditional slash-and-burn farming persist. Meanwhile, a much larger scale of gold and coal mining together with the rampant logging with no damage control over the forestland seems unstoppable. All are related with the way people responding to those lucrative economic incentives. Nothing can be done but the way people change their use of natural resources. Education is the key. At the same time, better land development practices and enforced regulatory measures should be put in place. Incentives for an alternative livelihood should be provided, while disincentives for doing environmental damage, including the “natural” consequences such as flooding, forest fires, or water contamination, should be made clear in the public eyes. It is mostly communication-education ventures on environmental

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 10 risk with regard to moral question on changing the use of the environment in a sustainable way rather than manipulating environmental techniques to suit human needs. There is no magic or super-technology can change this except the people themselves.

Third, it should be exercised as an enduring effort by those stakeholders in the Working Group to find the right balance between “continuous” or “when needed” information. Repeating messages may degrade the importance of their content, while a prompt message might suffer from the fact that the receivers will be relatively less prepared (Penning-Rowsell, p. 131). Formal authority is not equipped to make such crucial calculation for a balanced decision like this. Therefore, it is the key role of such a multi- stakeholder’s forum like East Kalimantan Working Group or the Water Forum to maintain an ongoing discussion and negotiation among stakeholders, to keep the tunes on and play the music. What could be better option to serve the purpose? It is also the task of civil society’s organization to play this role, not only to demand “service” or “protection” from the formal authority but also to be pro-active in disseminating information, educating the public, and creates better awareness on environmental risk that the public is facing. (In this regard, the city of Samarinda and Balikapan has taken an initiative to include in their elementary school’s local curricula a new modules on practical local environmental problems that the students can easily connecting with, such as the river issues or about the forest and endangered species).

Which Direction? As mentioned in the previous sections, institutional development of hazard mitigation involves a complex, multi-party stakeholders, and consequently in many occasion meets uneasy choices between two extremes of the spectrum. For example, between “continuous” and “when needed” information as mentioned in the previous paragraph. How much is too much or too little information? There is no rules on this. Look at the case on forest fires, who are screaming and prompting for action? Fore sure not the people who live in the nearby forest although they also suffer from the haze. Possibly, there is “too little” information about the fire’s impact to the life of neighboring cities or countries, and “too little” information about consequences. Or, on the contrary, it has been “too much” [false] information given in almost everyday life that smoke is a normal part of forest life, -- and once in a while it gives problem but will fade away by nature. Nothing should be done, just do your business as usual, and the emergency team will

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 11 take care of the victims, the exceptional unfortunate ones. Is this the kind of message that most people have in their mind? We do not know for sure, we never check the reality. But again, there should be an institution, any form of social body, that should be able to work out the “right amount”, in a loose way, of balance between too much and too little.

Alternatively, the issue might go to a deeper debate in risk management. Should the environmental hazard mitigation institution take a dominant view of the “technocratic approach”? i.e., in resolving the mismatch between the “human use system” and the “natural events system,” that is best mitigated by controlling the cause of losses through the application of science and technology (Jones, 1996, p. 24). If this is the case, then, as currently most programs have been directed to, this institution should be in the cutting edge of environmental science and technology, otherwise it would not be able to function properly. An international donor has been in East Kalimantan for the last thirteen years, yet at the end, all respect of the tremendous help they have given, they can only “capture” the satellite image of the forest fires and put them in the map. But helplessly they cannot transfer or provide the knowledge and technology to prevent the fires. How much science is needed to make an effective environmental hazard prevention measures? What kind of technology should be in place? – and the next question will be, what institution would be considered appropriate to carry on these missions? And who’s going to pay for this? The last question will put the discussion in silent or into a heated debate with no solution.

An alternative view in the other spectrum is the “socio-cultural” or “structural” approach or “political economy” paradigm where risk vulnerability is defined as “the characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard” (Blaikie et al., 1994, p. 9). It says, “analyzing disasters allow us to show why they should not be segregated from everyday living, and the risks involved in the disasters must be connected with the vulnerability created by many people through their normal existence” (quoted in Jones, 1996, p. 24-25). If not the science and technology, then is it the social institution that we should creatively be crafting on? Education and communication mentioned in the previous paragraphs are parts of this social institution. The economic decisions made by local people on how little to “take” and how much to “conserve” for their natural resources is partly social, partly

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 12 cultural, and can also be framed as political, not solely an economic or business decision.

Further, those debates might take us to a more fundamental choice between two different approaches. One option is the rational, pre-set datum, self-correcting, homeostatic approach which is more scientific, technocratic, expert-based and depoliticized processes. The other option is the exact opposite: less rational, no fixed targets, that involves tug-of-war type of power pressures between rival parties, and highly politicized (Hood, 1996, pp. 212-216)§. How should we make the choice? Or, how to make the balance and get the best out of those approaches? Definitely, there is no easy answer unless we put our analysis in the context.

However, looking into the case of Mahakam River’s working group of East Kalimantan, intuitively the process is very close to the second approach. Stakeholders involved, in one way or another, are much politicized, either between the Province and Regencies/Cities, or between traditional use and commercial exploitation of local resources, or between NGOs and government officials, or between local businesses and multinational companies, or between endangered spices’ habitat and the need of agricultural land and fishing ground, and so on. The metaphor “tug-of-war” reflects this reality. The river and its watershed is the arena of this “tug-of-war” game between those contending parties.

Secondly, the process of determining the best use of the river are not fully based on the scientific arguments. There are some hydrological and geographical information about the river and its watershed. However, they are not of its highest scientific brilliance to make the best rational decision about land-use and water-use. Quasi-rational, or even intuitive judgment would be the most common and acceptable ways of making decision over the use of natural resources in the Mahakam river basin. Traditional wisdom, local custom, and common practice are what people follow in determining what and how to mitigate any possible environmental hazard. Floods are parts of daily life. People make adjustment, a tug-of-war between natural events and human activities. So, the proposed new institution, as shown by East Kalimantan experience, is so much social and partly

§ Hood describes those two approaches with an acronym as SPRAT and SHARK. The words SPRAT stand for “Social Pre-commitment to Rational Acceptability Threshold”, whereas SHARK is an abbreviation of “Selective Handicapping of Adversarial Rationality and Knowledge.” In short, two different metaphors, between a machine like “thermostat” and a social game “tug-of-war.”

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 13 political. The Working Group format is already in the right track. It only need further push and another pull to make it moves again. And it is the roles of all stakeholders. Planners might take a more positive role to facilitate the process to happen.

Reference: Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, I. Davis, B. Wisner (1994). At Risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge. Bryant, R.L. & Bailey, S. (1997). Third World Political Ecology. London: Routledge. Drabek, T.E. (1986). Human Systems Responses in Disaster. New York: Springer. East Kalimantan Working Group (2002). Unpublished Proceeding, Workshop on Mahakam River’s Vision. Samarinda. Handmer, J.W. & E.C. Penning-Rowsell (1990). Hazards and the Communication of Risk. Aldershot: Gower. Hood, C. (1996). “Where Extremes Meet: ‘SPRAT’ versus ‘SHARK’ in public risk management.” In C. Hood and D.K. Jones (eds.), Accident and Design. London: UCL Press. Jones, D. (1996) "Anticipating the Risks Posed by Natural Perils." In C. Hood and D.K. Jones (eds.), Accident and Design. London: UCL Press. Londsdale, A.& Taruc, K. (2003). “Intergovernmental Coordination for Integrated River Basin Management”. Innovative Practices Conference Proceeding, Resource Cities Programs, International City/County Management Association (ICMA) – USAID, Jakarta. Parker, D.J. (1995). “Floodplain Development Policy in England and Wales.” Applied Geography, 15 (4), pp. 341-63. Penning-Rowsell, E. (1996) "Criteria for the design of hazard mitigation institutions." In C. Hood and D.K. Jones (eds.), Accident and Design. London: UCL Press.

EAROPH 2005 - Kemal Taruc 14