Studi Kasus pada Implementasi Asian Cities Climate Change … · 2016. 9. 17. · Studi Kasus pada...

Adaptasi Perubahan Iklim dan Pemerintahan:Studi Kasus pada Implementasi Asian CitiesClimate ChangeResilience Network di Indonesia

Climate Change Adaptation and Governance:A Case Study of the

Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network Indonesia Implementation

DAFTAR ISITable of Contents

I. Pendahuluan, Tujuan dan Metodologi / Introduction, Objective and MethodologyII. Gambaran Umum Masalah / Overview IssuesIII. Pemilihan Kota / City Selection •Narasi/Narrative •Perubahanpersepsidansikapterhadapperubahaniklim/ Evolution of climate change perception •Tantangan/Challenges/pitfalls •Pencapaian/dampak/Successes/impact •Rekomendasi/RecommendationsIV. Pembentukan Tim Kota / Establishment of City Teams •Narasi/Narrative •Perubahanpersepsidansikapterhadapperubahaniklim/ Evolution of climate change perception •Tantangan/Challenges/pitfalls •Pencapaian/dampak/Successes/impact •Rekomendasi/RecommendationsV. Shared Learning Dialogues (SLDs) / •Narasi/Narrative •Perubahanpersepsidansikapterhadapperubahaniklim/ Evolution of climate change perception •Tantangan/Challenges/pitfalls •Pencapaian/dampak/Successes/impact •Rekomendasi/RecommendationsVI. Kajian Kerentanan dan Adaptasi (VAA) / Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment (VAA) •Narasi/Narrative •Perubahanpersepsidansikapterhadapperubahaniklim/ Evolution of climate change perception •Tantangan/Challenges/pitfalls •Pencapaian/dampak/Successes/impact •Rekomendasi/Recommendations

VII. Proyek Percontohan dan Studi Sektoral / Pilot projects and Sector Studies •Narasi/Narrative •Perubahanpersepsidansikapterhadapperubahaniklim/ Evolution of climate change perception •Tantangan/Challenges/pitfalls •Pencapaian/dampak/Successes/impact •Rekomendasi/RecommendationsVIII. Dokumen Strategi Ketahanan Kota (CRS) / City Resilience Strategy Document (CRS) •Narasi/Narrative •Perubahanpersepsidansikapterhadapperubahaniklim/ Evolution of climate change perception •Tantangan/Challenges/pitfalls •Pencapaian/dampak/Successes/impact •Rekomendasi/RecommendationsIX. Monitoring dan Evaluasi / M&E •Narasi/Narrative •Tantangan/Challenges/pitfalls •Pencapaian/dampak/Successes/impact •Rekomendasi/Recommendations

ProgramAsian Cities Climate Change ResilienceNetwork (ACCCRN) yangdiimplementasikan di Indonesia, tepatnya di Kota Semarang dan BandarLampung,olehMercyCorpsmengambilpendekatanberbasismulti-stakeholderuntuk membangun ketahanan kedua kota tersebut terhadap perubahaniklim. Melalui pembentukan Tim Kota yang beranggotakan perwakilan daripemerintahkota,LSM,universitassertapihakswasta;ACCCRNberupayauntukmembangunhubungandenganpemangkukepentingandikota.Timkotainimemilikiperanandalammenjalinhubungandenganpemangkukepentingankotalainnya,terutamadalamprosespengambilankeputusanyangberkaitandenganisuadaptasiterhadapperubahaniklimsertamendorongmerekauntukmengimplementasikankeputusantersebut.

Pendekatan dari sisi struktur organisasi serta metode implementasi yangdigunakanolehACCCRNdi keduakota tersebut tidak selalumenghasilkanpencapaian positif, tetapi juga menghadapi berbagai tantangan dalampelaksanaannya.Keduakondisi inidapatmenjadipelajaranyangberharga;baikbagi pelaksanaan kegiatan adaptasi perubahan iklim lainnya,maupundalampelaksananprogram/kegiatanlainnyayangmemilikikomponenterkaitpemerintahan. Studi kasus yang dipaparkan pada dokumen ini bertujuanuntuk menganalisa keluaran positif dan negatif dari pendekatan yangditerapkanolehACCCRN,sehinggadapatdigunakansebagaimodaluntukmengoptimalkankegiatanreplikasi. Studi kasus ini disusun berdasarkan wawancara dengan aktor kunci dankunjungan lapanganke lokasiproyekyangdilaksanakanpadakurunwaktu26April-5Mei2011diKotaJakarta,SemarangdanBandarLampung;sertajuga tinjauan terhadap dokumen eksisting. Mengingat luasnya cakupandokumentasiyangtelahdisusundariberbagaiproyekdiketigakotatersebut,maka dokumen ini akan berupaya untuk meminimalisasi repetisi danmemfokuskan isinya kepada informasi dan analisa yang berkaitan dengantujuandaristudikasusyangdilakukan.

The Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) Program, as implemented in Indonesia by Mercy Corps, takes a multi-stakeholder approach to building climate change resilience in the cities of Semarang and Bandar Lampung. In establishing and working through a City Team composed of local government, NGOs, universities, and private sector, ACCCRN has undertaken an ambitious attempt to engage city stakeholders in the difficult decisions around climate change adaptation and empower them to implement those decisions.

The structure and implementation of this approach have resulted in some successes and struggled with some challenges, and in both cases can serve as a model for other climate change adaptation projects in particular, as well as for governance components of a broader range of programs. This case study is intended to analyze the positive and negative outcomes of the ACCCRN approach in order to optimize future replication.

This case study is based on key informant interviews and visits to project sites carried out from 26 April to 5 May 2011 in Jakarta, Semarang, and Bandar Lampung, as well as a review of existing documentation. Given the extensive nature of that documentation, this document will minimize repetition and focus on information and analysis relevant to the objective of the case study.

I. Pendahuluan, Tujuan dan MetodologiIntroduction, Objective and Methodology

2 A Case Study of the ACCCRN Indonesia Implementation 3Studi Kasus pada Implementasi ACCCRN di Indonesia

Kemauan politik dan komitmen pribadi Kemauanpolitik dan komitmenmerupakan salah satu tema yangmunculsecara konsisten di beberapa wawancara yang dilakukan. Hal ini dapatterlihatdiberbagaibagiandidalamstudikasus inimengingatketerkaitantema ini dengan setiap tahapan di dalam kegiatan adaptasi perubahaniklim.Terlepasdaripembahasanmengenaikemauanpolitikdankomitmenpribadidisetiapbagian,tentunyatemainimerupakansalahsatuisuyangcukuppentinguntukdiangkatsebagaisalahsaturekomendasiutamabagiprogramsecarakeseluruhan.

Ketertarikandanpermintaanakanprograminidiperlukandiseluruhtahapanproses.Tingkat kepentingankeduahal tersebut tergambarpada tahapanpelaksanaan proses di Kota Semarang dan Bandar Lampung. Padaawal proses, Kota Bandar Lampung berada di posisi yang lebih depan,terutamadikarenakandukunganyangcukup tinggidariWalikota saat itu.SementaraprosesdiSemarangberjalandenganlebihlambatdikarenakankurangnyaantusiasmeWalikotaterhadapprosesyangberjalan,walaupuniamemberikandukunganterhadappelaksanaanprosestersebut.PergantianWalikotaSemarangternyatamemberikanpengaruhpositifbagipelaksanaanproses. Walikota yang baru merupakan sosok yang memiliki perhatiandanketertarikan tinggi terhadap isu-isu lingkungan, ia juga telahmemulaipelaksanaankegiatan-kegiatanmitigasiperubahaniklim.Akibatnya,prosesdiSemarangpunberjalandenganlebihbaik.

Dalam kurun waktu setahun berikutnya, program-program adaptasiperubahaniklimyangdilaksanakandiSemarangdinilailebihmaju.KemajuanpesatinidinilaiberkatperananpentingdariTimKotayangsangataktifdalammelaksanakantugasnyasertadalammenjalinhubungandenganpemangkukepentinganlainnya.HalinibertolakbelakangdengankondisiTimKotadiBandarLampungyangdinilaimemilikidedikasiyanglebihrendah.

Korupsi Setidaknya 1 staf ACCCRN meyakini bahwa telah terjadi tindak korupsidisetidaknyasalahsatukotamitraACCCRNdi Indonesia;dandipercayabahwakondisi inimerupakanhalyangtidakdapatdihindari,dimanacaraterbaik untuk mengatasinya adalah dengan mencoba melakukan kontroluntukmencegah terjadinyakorupsi.Mengingatbahwakorupsi adalah isuyangtidakasinglagiterjadidiberbagaibelahandunia,makamerupakanhalyangutamabagisuatuorganisasiuntukmenyusundanmengkomunikasikankebijakanmengenaihal-halyangdapatdantidakdapatditoleransi.

II. Gambaran Umum MasalahOverview Issues

Political will and personal commitmentOne of the most consistent themes throughout the interviews was the need for political will and personal commitment. This is reflected in the different sections as it relates to each step in the process, but it is important enough to be a key recommendation for the program as a whole as well.

The need for interest in and demand for the program spans all levels of the process. The overall arcs of the two city programs illustrate the importance of this. At the beginning of the process, Bandar Lampung was seen as ahead in the program, in large part due to the strong support of the mayor, while Semarang was moving more slowly, with a sense that the mayor was, though approving, not enthusiastic about the program. When an election replaced the Semarang mayor with one who has a strong interest in environmental issues and has instituted mitigation measures, the project started to gain momentum.

A year later, the Semarang program is considered more advanced, with most of the difference attributed to the active, engaged City Team, as opposed to the interested but less dedicated City Team in Bandar Lampung.

CorruptionAt least one member of ACCCRN staff was convinced that there is corruption in at least one of the cities, and believed that this was unavoidable and that the best option was to try to contain it. Given that corruption is a potential issue anywhere in the world, it is important for organizations to determine and communicate a clear policy for what is acceptable and what is not.

III. Pemilihan KotaCity Selection

Tantangan Proses pemilihan kota untuk program ACCCRN merupakan bagian darikerangka kerja proyek skala regional, melibatkan tiga negara lain danberbagaiorganisasipelaksana;dimanaprosesinijugacukupdipengaruhiolehpilihandaridonor.Kondisi-kondisitersebutpadaakhirnyamenyebabkanprosespemilihankotainimenjadicontohyangtidakmudahuntukdireplikasi.

1. Kurangnyakejelasanmengenaikriteriadanprioritasdiantaraberbagailapisanpemangkukepentingan:donor,peneliti,danpelaksana.Memilikipemahamanyangcukupmemadaimengenaikriteriayangdigunakan–bahkan apabila kriteria tersebut bersifat acak atau berkaitan denganprioritasstrategisyangberadadiluarlingkupproyek–akanmembantudalam mengarahkan proses dan memperjelas pemahaman diantaramitraACCCRN.

2. Potensi perubahan yang dapat terjadi di tataran pemerintahan dariwaktukewaktumerupakansuatuhambatanyangdapatdiidentifikasidiawalpadastudikasusini.PadasaatprosespemilihankotaACCCRNsedangberlangsung,tanggalpemilihanwalikotamerupakansalahsatuhal yang menjadi bahan pertimbangan untuk menilai kemauan danketertarikanpemerintahkotauntukmenjadibagiandidalamprogramACCCRN; apabilamasa jabatan seorangwalikota yangdinilai positifakanberakhirdalamkurunwaktuenambulanatausetahunkedepan,makapengaruhwalikotatersebutterhadapprograminiakanberkurang.

Challenges/PitfallsThe city selection for ACCCRN was conducted within the framework of a regional project including three other countries and multiple implementing organizations, and was to a large extent driven by donor preferences, all of which complicates it as an example for replication.

1. Lack of clarity in criteria and priorities among the different layers of stakeholders: the donors, the research partners, and the implementing partners. Having a clear understanding of the criteria – even if they are arbitrary or related to strategic priorities beyond the scope of the specific project – will streamline the process and reduce confusion among partners.

2. The potential for change in a city government over time is a pitfall which was identified early in this case. During the ACCCRN selection process, mayoral election dates were taking into consideration in weighing the eagerness of a municipal government for inclusion in the program: if a very positive mayor was likely to be voted out within six months or a year, his impact on the project would be significantly lessened.

Keputusanmengenai kota yang terpilih didasarkan pada studi yang telah dilaksanakan sebelumnyaolehICLEILocalGovernmentsforSustainability,sertaberdasarkanhasilkonsultasidenganRockefeller

FoundationdanInstituteforSocialandEnvironmentalTransformation(ISET).SuatudaftaryangberisikantigapuluhdelapancalonkotaACCCRNkemudiandisaringuntukmenjadidaftarsingkatberisikanlimacalonkota;

daridaftarsingkatinilahkemudianakhirnyaterpilihKotaSemarangdiPulauJawadanKotaBandarLampungdiPulauSumatrauntukmenjadiduakotapartisipan.

The decision was informed by a previous study conducted by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability, as well as by consultation with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Institute for Social and Environmental Transformation (ISET). A thirty-eight city long-list was pared down to a short-list of five, and from these Semarang in Java and Bandar Lampung in Sumatra were selected as the two participating cities.

4 A Case Study of the ACCCRN Indonesia Implementation 5Studi Kasus pada Implementasi ACCCRN di Indonesia

Pencapaian Dalam lingkup ACCCRN, proses pemilihan kota telah berhasil mencapaibeberapatargetyangpenting.1. Kedua kota yang terpilih mampu untuk menjalankan proyek ini dan

dinilaimemiliki tingkatpemahamandanketerlibatanyang lebih tinggidenganisuperubahaniklimjikadibandingkandengankondisisebelummasuknyaproyekinikekota.

2. Keduakotamemenuhiparameterpersyaratanyangdimintaolehdonor,sehinggakondisinyadapatdibandingkandengankota-kotaACCCRNlaindiskalaregional.

3. MercyCorpstelahmembangunhubungandanreputasidikeduakotaACCCRN,dimanasebelumnyaMercyCorpstidakpernah(Semarang)atauhanyasedikit(BandarLampung)melakukankegiatanlaindikeduakotatersebutsebelumdilaksanakannyaproyekini.

Rekomendasi1. Identifikasiparameteryangjelasberdasarkankonteksdanpertimbangan

strategis.Dalamkaitannyadenganproyekini,adaberbagaiparameteryangdapatdianggap ideal,bergantungkepadastrategidankonteksdari program tersebut. Sebagian program akan lebih memilih untukmelaksanakan program-program yang sedang berjalan di kota-kotalain;yanglainakanmemilihuntukmempergunakanisuperubahaniklimsebagaipengenalanterhadapsektor-sektoryangbaru.Padabeberapakasus, strategi yang dipilih akan mengarah kepada pelaksanaankegiatandikotamegapolitan;sementarapadakasuslaindikota-kotasekunder. Penentuan ukuran dan kondisi kota yang sesuai, disertaidenganinformasikarakteristikyangsedetailmungkinakanmembantudalam menyusun daftar singkat kota-kota yang potensial sebagaipartisipandenganlebihcepatdanlebihmudah.

2. Prioritasisasi kemauan politik. Kemauan politik atau “pemerintah kotayangresponsif”,sepertiyangdisampaikanolehsalahsatuinterviewee,merupakan faktor terpenting dalammempercepat tercapainya tujuanproyek. Dengan demikian kemauan politik harus mendapat bobotyang cukup tinggi dalam proses pemilihan kota. Program ACCCRNmenggunakansalahsatuteknikyangpalingefisienuntukmemastikanhal ini dengan mensyaratkan kota untuk mendaftar untuk dapatberpartisipasididalamprogramini,sehinggakomitmenmerekadapatdilihat.

3. Pentingnyakeberadaanchampion.Terlepasdaripentingnyakemauanpolitik terhadap kesuksesan suatu program, namun keberadaan satuatauduaorangyangdapatbertindaksebagaiseorangchampionakandapat lebih mendorong keberlangsungan suatu program; terutamaapabilaprogramyangakandilaksanakanmelibatkanberbagaiindividudari berbagai dinas, departemen serta organisasi (Hal ini sangatpenting,mengingat untuk kasusACCCRN, staf program yang utamaberlokasidi luar lokasiproyek).Walaupunkeberadaandanpengaruhseorang champion tidak selalu jelas terlihat dalam proses pemilihankota,potensiyangterlihatharusdicatatdandilibatkansedinimungkin.

4. Memahamidanbekerjadidalamstrukturorganisasiyangtelahada.ProsesACCCRNmengambilkeuntungandariadanyaAsosiasiWalikotaNasional(APEKSI)untukmencaridanmenjalinkontakdengansejumlahkota.

5. Pergunakankontakpribadi.Walaupunhalinitidakbisamenjadikriteriadidalampemilihankota,keberadaankontakpribadiantarastafproyekdengan kota mitra dapat bermanfaat dalam menentukan kemauanpolitik dan mengidentifikasi champion di kota tersebut.Lebih lanjut,hubunganpersonaldapatmembantumeyakinkanpemerintahkotaakankeabsahan dan pentingnya program ini; partisipasimereka di dalamproraminitidakakansia-sia.

6. Sadar akan potensi perubahan yang mungkin terjadi selama kurunwaktu berjalannya proyek. Selama berlangsungnya proses pemilihankota,perluuntukdisadariakanpotensiperubahandi sistemataupunaktor politik yang mungkin terjadi selama kurun waktu pelaksanaanproyek.Sebagaicontoh,prosespemilihanwalikotadiKotaSemarangmemberikan pengaruh yang signifikan (dalam kasus ini perubahanbersifatpositif)dalampelaksanaanproyek.

Success/ImpactIn the case of ACCCRN, the city selection accomplished several important objectives. 1. The two cities identified have been able to run the project and seem to

have a greater level of engagement with climate change issues than before the project started.

2. Both meet the parameter requirements of the donor, allowing for comparison with other cities participating in ACCCRN regionally.

3. Mercy Corps has now forged relationships and a reputation in cities where it had no (Semarang) or minimal (Bandar Lampung) presence before beginning the project.

Recommendations1. Identify clear parameters based on context and strategic considerations.

The ideal parameters for the project will vary based on program strategy and context. Some programs will want to build on existing projects in specific cities; others will want to use climate change as an introduction to new areas. In some cases the strategy will point towards working in megacities; in others, in secondary cities. Determining the appropriate city size and condition with as much specificity as possible will help to reach a short list relatively quickly and easily.

2. Prioritize political will. Political will, or “responsive local government”, as one interviewee termed it, is the most important factor in getting swift traction for a successful project, so political will should be given significant weight in the selection of cities. The ACCCRN program used one of the most efficient techniques for ensuring this by requiring cities to apply for participation in order to gauge their commitment.

3. The importance of a champion. While political will in general is important, a complex program that requires individuals from multiple agencies, departments, and organizations to add to their list of responsibilities also benefits greatly from having one or two people who act as its champions, driving the process forward (this is particularly important if, as in the case with ACCCRN, the primary project staff are off-site). While the existence and influence of a champion may not always be apparent during the selection process, potentials should be noted and engaged as early as possible.

4. Understand and work within existing structures. The ACCCRN process took advantage of the existence of the national Association of Mayors (APEKSI) to reach and contact a number of municipalities.

5. Make use of personal contacts. While it should not be a criteria for selection of a city, the existence of some personal contact between project staff and city counterparts can be helpful in determining political will and identifying champions. In addition, a personal connection can help to convince the city government that this is a legitimate opportunity that is worth their time to participate in.

6. Be aware of potential changes during the duration of the project. During the city selection process it is important to be aware of changes in the political system or players that may occur during the project period. For example, in Semarang, a mayoral election made a significant (and in this case positive) change in project implementation.

76 Studi Kasus pada Implementasi ACCCRN di IndonesiaA Case Study of the ACCCRN Indonesia Implementation

Bandar LampungPada awal pembentukannya, Tim Kota Bandar Lampung beranggotakanhampir tiga puluh orang; namun berdasarkan informasi yang diperoleh,saatinianggotaTimKotayangaktifhanyakuranglebihsepuluhorang.Timinidiketahuitidakmelakukanpertemuansecararutin,namunbaru-baruinitelahdiajukansuatuproposaluntukpelaksanaanpertemuanbulanan.TimKotadiBandarLampungdipimpinolehBappedayangselamainiditengaraisebagaiaktoryangaktifdalammendorongpelaksanaanprogramACCCRN.

Ketua dari Tim Kota, yaitu Desti, lebih memilih untuk menargetkantercapainyakuorum(lebihdariseparuh)disetiappertemuandibandingkandengan mencoba meyakinkan setiap anggota untuk hadir di setiappertemuan; dimana opsi yang terakhir dianggap Desti sebagai kondisiyang sulit tercapai karena kesibukan setiap anggota tim. Terlepas darikeberhasilannya dalammemastikan kehadiran anggota tim dalam jumlah

yangcukupdisetiappertemuan,sehinggamemungkinkandilaksanakannyadiskusidanpengambilankeputusan;namun Desti mengakui bahwa berubah-ubahnyapesertapertemuan,terutamadiawal-awalprogram,merupakan suatu masalah bagi pelaksanaanprogramACCCRN.

SemarangPerubahan jugadialamiolehTimKotadiSemarangdariwaktu kewaktu.Padaawalnya tim inidibawahkendalidandipimpin langsungolehKantorLingkunganHidup,danmelibatkansekitartigapuluhpartisipanyangberasaldari berbagai dinas terkait, LSM, dan universitas. Setelah berakhirnyasatu tahunpertama, tim inimelakukanproses evaluasi. Evaluasi pertamadilakukandengandifasilitasi olehMercyCorps di Jakarta; namun karenapadaevaluasipertamatersebuttidakdicapaisuatukesimpulan,makatimkembalimelakukanevaluasi,kaliinisecarainternal.

Berdasarkan hasil evaluasi, disepakati bahwa Tim Kota akan berada dibawah kendali Bappeda yang notabene memiliki kapasitas lebih untukmengorganisirdinas-dinaslaindikota.Secarakeanggotaanjugadilakukanperubahan,dimanapadaawalnyapartisipanTimKotalebihdifokuskanpadakehadiranperwakilansetiapdinas/organisasi(memperbolehkanperbedaanperwakilan di setiap pertemuan), kemudian diubah menjadi difokuskanpadaindividutertentu;partisipanyangdidaftarkanharussebagaiindividu,bukansebagaiperwakilandinas/organisasitertentu.Halinidilakukanuntukmengatasi isuketidakkonsistenananggotaTimKotadisetiappertemuan.Dari sisi struktural, perubahan yang dilakukan adalah membentuk duatingkatkeanggotaan;dimanaanggota-anggotakunci,tujuhsampaidelapanorang yang memiliki tingkat keaktifan tinggi, membentuk suatu tim inti;sementaraanggotalainyangmemilikitingkatanlebihtinggidipemerintahansertaaktor-aktorpolitikakantetapterlibatdidalamprograminilnamunlebihmemegangperanansebagai timpenasihat.Hal ini telah terbuktiefektifdidalampelaksanaanprosespengambilankeputusandanmenarikpartisipasitanpamengacuhkanpemangkukepentinganutama.

Perubahan Persepsi dan Sikap terhadap Perubahan IklimTerlepas dari masih perlu diyakinkannya sebagian kecil pemangkukepentingan, baik di Semarang ataupun Bandar Lampung, mengenaiperubahanpolaiklimselamabeberapadekadeterakhirataupunmengenaidampak lingkungan negatif yang berpotensi mengancam pendudukrentandikeduakotatersebut;pembentukanTimKotaterbukti telahdapatmeningkatkankesadarandikeduakotamengenailatarbelakangilmiahdariperubahan iklimdandampak lingkungan terkait,sertamengenai tindakanadaptasi sebagai suatu strategi. Berdasarkan hasil wawancara, diketahuibahwa sebagian besar orang lebih mengaitkan perubahan iklim denganmitigasidibandingkanadaptasi.

Bandar LampungThe City Team in Bandar Lampung originally consisted of almost thirty members, although now informants agree the number of active participants is closer to ten. It does not meet regularly, although a proposal has been recently put forward for monthly meetings. The City Team is led by the Bappeda, which has been an active force in the project.

The leader of the team, Desti, aims to have at least a quorum (more than half) at every meeting, rather than trying to convince everyone to attend every time, which she believes is unrealistic, “since everyone is busy.” Although she has been largely successful in managing to get enough people in meetings for discussions and decisions, she admits that the frequent switching of participants, especially at the beginning, was a problem.

SemarangThe City Team in Semarang has also evolved over time. It was originally seated in and led by the Ministry of the Environment, and included around thirty participants culled from relevant ministries, NGOs, and universities. After one year the team conducted an evaluation, first with Mercy Corps facilitation in Jakarta, and then, when no conclusion was reached there, internally.

The evaluation resulted in the City Team moving to Bappeda, which has more power to convening other ministries. It also shifted from requesting participants from each ministry or organization to requesting participants by name, in order to reduce inconsistency in the team members. The City Team also developed a dual-tier structure, in which key dedicated members form a “core team” of around seven or eight who meet regularly, while higher level and more influential political players continue to be involved on a less intensive basis as an “advisor team.” This has proved effective in facilitating decision-making and informed participation without alienating important stakeholders.

Changing Attitudes To Climate ChangeWhile few if any stakeholders in either Semarang or Bandar Lampung need convincing that there had been changes in climate patterns over the past decade, or that the cities face serious environmental hazards that threaten their most vulnerable residents, the formation of the City Team has helped raise awareness both about the scientific background for these changes and hazards, and about adaptation as a strategy. According to interviews, most people relate climate change to mitigation rather than adaptation.

IV. Tim KotaCity Team

TimKota, dengan segala kelebihanmaupun kekurangannya,merupakan inti dari programACCCRN.MenarikketerlibatanorganisasidanpartisipanyangtepatsebagaibagiandariTimKotamerupakansuatusistemkerjasamayangefektifantarapemerintahkotadenganprogram;selainjugatentunyamenjadikuncididalamkeberlanjutanprogramtersebut.Namundibalikkelebihanini,terdapatjugakemungkinanbahwaTimKotamenyimpansendiriilmudankapasitasyangmerekadapat,tanpamenyebarluaskanilmutersebutkepadapihak-pihaklaindiluaranggotaTimKota.

The City Team is the heart of the ACCCRN program, and as such encapsulates its strengths and its limitations. Reaching the right structure and participants on the City Team makes it a potent fulcrum between the program and the municipality, as well as a key player in the sustainability of the efforts. However, the City Team can also concentrate knowledge and capacity, without doing enough to disseminate learnings outside of its members.


TantanganTimKota,sebagaistrukturintidariprogramACCCRN,menghadapiberbagaitantangan dan hambatan baik dalam proses internalnya – bagaimanaagar dapat berjalan dan berfungsi secara efektif sebagai suatu tim –maupundalammencapai tujuanyang lebih luas–bagaimanacarauntukmeningkatkanposisidantingkatkepentingankebijakandanrencanaterkaitperubahaniklimdipemerintahankota.

Keduatantangan inimerupakanhalyangsangatbermanfaat, tidakhanyabagiproyekterkaitperubahaniklimdimasayangakandatang,tetapijugauntukprogram/kegiatanlainyangmencobauntukmeintegrasikanpihakluar(darisisikeahliandanpendanaan)kedalamsistempemerintahankota(darisisiperencanaandanpendanaan).

Dalam kaitannya dengan proses, Tim Kota menghadapi tantangan yangsama selayaknya program/kegiatan lain yang memberikan beban lebihkepadastafpemerintahanuntukmelaksanakanprogram/kegiatantersebuttanpaadanyagajitambahan.

1. Tingginya tingkat perubahan anggota tim. Adanya agenda pekerjaanyanglainsertaperbedaantingkatkepentinganmengakibatkanpertemuanrutinTimKotaacapkalidihadiriolehpesertayangberbeda-beda.Akibatnya,sulituntukmembanguntingkatpengetahuanyangsetaradiantaraanggotatimkota;seringkaliwaktu terbuanguntukmemberikanpenjelasankepadapesertabaru.

WalaupunkeduaTimsama-samamenyadariisuini,namunmerekamemilikisolusiyangberbeda.Padakeduakasus,didalamTimKotasendiriakhirnyamuncul suatu grup kecil berisikan partisipan yang memiliki ketertarikantinggipada isuperubahan iklim.DiBandarLampung,kondisi iniditerimadangrupkecil ini secara tersiratdianggapsebagai representasidariTimKota.SementaradiSemarang,TimKotadibagilagimenjadi2grup,dimanasalahsatunya–grupkecil–memiliki tingkatpertemuanyang lebih tinggi.Keduagrupinisama-samamemintapartisipandidaftarkansebagaiindividu,danbukanmemintaperwakilandaridinas.

2.TingginyatingkatperubahandinasyangmenjadianggotaTimKota.Sepertihalnyanegara laindidunia,stafpemerintahkotadi Indonesiamengalamirotasi/mutasi pekerjaan secara rutin. Hal ini mengakibatkan perubahankeanggotaan;baikdarisisiindividumaupundarisisikeberadaanperwakilansuatudinas;didalamTimKota.Sebagaicontoh,sepanjangketerlibatanyadidalamTimKota,seorangstafpemerintahandiBandarLampungpernahberdinasdiDinasPekerjaanUmum,DinasPerikanansertaDinasKesehatan.Terlepas dari partisipasi aktif individu tersebut di dalam program, namunsebagai akibat darimutasi ini,DinasPekerjaanUmum tidak lagimemilikiperwakilandidalamTimKota.

Kedua kota sampai saat ini belummendapatkan solusi yang tepat untukmenghadapitantanganini,walaupunkeduanyamenyadariakanpentingnyatransfer ilmu dari anggota tim kepada staf-staf lain di lingkungan dinas/instansimerekasehinggadapatmembantuprosesperpindahantanggungjawab.

3.KurangnyakeberagamananggotaTimKota.KeduaTimKotadiketahuitidakmemilikiperwakilanyangcukupdarisektorswasta,dankeduanyajugatidak melibatkan pemimpin masyarakat. Walaupun kedua pihak tersebutdilibatkandidalamaktivitasSharedLearningDialogues,namunpartisipasimerekadidalamTimKotajugaakanmemberikanefekpositif.

4.Konflikeksistingdiantaraanggotatim.Padabeberapakasus,isusalingcurigaantaraLSMdenganpemerintahditengaraisebagaisesuatuhalyangmasihdapatdiatasi,namuntentunyamembutuhkanwaktu.Fasilitatorharusdapatmenyadariketeganganantarpihakdanmencaricarauntukmeredamkonflikyangdapatterjadi.

Challenges/PitfallsThe City Team, as the core structure of the project, faces challenges both in its own processes – how to be a functioning and effective group – and in achieving its broader goals – how to raise the level of climate change policy and planning in the municipality.

Both of these sets of challenges are instructive not only for future climate change projects, but also for almost any initiative that seeks to integrate outside expertise and funding with local government planning and budgets.

In terms of process, the City Teams faced the same challenges faced by any initiative which asks government employees to take on additional responsibilities without additional pay or prestige.

1. High turnover among members. With competing schedules and varying levels of interest, ministries would often be represented by different individuals in successive meetings. This made it difficult to build a standard knowledge base across members and resulted in wasted time bringing new people up to speed.

While both City Teams recognized this issue realistically, they have taken slightly different approaches to dealing with it. In both cases, a smaller group of participants with a strong interest in the issues emerged organically within the City Team. In Bandar Lampung, this is accepted and used as a proxy for the City Team implicitly. Semarang has explicitly created two separate teams within the City Team, one of which meets more frequently. Both teams also request participants by name, rather than requesting one person from a given ministry.

2. High turnover among participating agencies. As in many countries, Indonesia local government officials are rotated among ministries on a regular basis. This can result in further turnover in the City Team – or, alternatively, for members remaining on the City Team while ministries are no longer represented. For example, one official in Bandar Lampung has worked for the Ministries of Public Works, Fisheries, and Health during his tenure on the City Team. While his consistent participation on the team as an individual has been positive, Public Works is no longer represented by anyone.

Neither city has found a satisfactory solution to this challenge, although both mentioned the need to promote greater transmission of learnings from City Team members to others in their ministries, which would facilitate more productive handovers.

3. Not enough diversity in the City Team. Both City Teams were short on private sector actors, and neither included community leaders. Although those groups were invited to the Shared Learning Dialogues, the City Team would also benefit from their participation.

4. Pre-existing friction among members. In some cases, suspicion between NGOs and the government was mentioned as something which could be overcome, but which took some time to work out. Facilitators should try to be aware of tensions among participants and find ways to work through or around them.


5. Rendahnya tingkat partisipasi anggota. Dikarenakan sifat pekerjaanACCCRNyangsukarela (tanpadibayar)dandengan tingkatprestis yangkurang tinggi,maka tidaklahmengherankan jikaprogramkesulitandalammendapattingkatpartisipasipenuhdarianggotaTimKota.

Strategiyangdirasapalingefektifuntukmengatasimasalahpartisipasi iniadalah dengan mengidentifikasi orang-orang yang benar-benar tertarikdanberdedikasi terhadap isuperubahan iklimserta, jikamungkin,orang-orangyangsenangbekerjasama.DiSemarang,‘timinti’didalamTimKotabertemu secara informal setiap dua minggu sekali; seringkali di rumahmakanataupundirumahseoranganggotatim.DiBandarLampung,ketuaTim Kota memberikan undangan pertmeuan formal disertai dengan smssebagai pengingat; mereka juga mempertimbangkan untuk mengadakanpertemuanrutin,sebagaipenggantipertemuanad-hoc¬.

Di luarberbagaitantanganyangdihadapiTimKotaagardapatberfungsi,adasatutantanganlainyangperludiatasi,yaitukeefektifantiminisebagaisuatu kesatuan yangdapatmendorongpeningkatan kesadaran terhadapperubahaniklimsertamendorongperencaanlangkahadaptasi.

6. Kurangnya kapasitas dan lemahnya peningkatan kapasitas. Keinginanuntukbelajarlebihbanyaklagi,khususnyamengenaitopikilmiah,merupakanhalyangdikemukakanolehanggotaTimKotadikeduakota.Secaraumum,merekaberpendapatbahwaprosespeningkatankapasitasyangdiberikanolehprogram ini kurangmencukupi untukmenjalankan tugas-tugas yangharusmereka lakukan;misalnyamemilihproyekpercontohanyangsesuaiberdasarkandampakperubahaniklimdanmenyampaikaninformasikepadapemangkukepentinganyanglain.KurangnyakapasitasjugabisadilihatdaridesainproyeksertapersiapanproposalproyekdiBandarLampung,yangkemudianberdampaknegatifpadapelaksanaanACCCRNdikotatersebutmanakalaproposalyangdiajukantidakdidanaiolehRockefellerFoundation.

Perlu tersirat di dalam pendanaan dan perencanaan, bahwasanyapeningkatan kapasitas memerlukan lebih dari sekali presentasi ataulokakarya, terutama apabila berkaitan dengan tema yang di luar bidangkerja peserta (misal tema analisa ilmiah untuk orang-orang yang tidakberkecimpungdibidangtersebut).

7.Kurangnyapenyebaraninformasidanpartisipasi,diluarTimKota.SelaindariSharedLearningDialogues(akandidiskusikandibagianselanjutnya),

ACCCRN tidak memiliki suatu struktur formal untuk menyebarkanpengetahuan atau mendorong partisipasi di luar Tim Kota; baik untukinstansi pemerintah, LSM atau universitas atau bahkan untukmasyarakatumum.WalaupuntingginyakekompakandidalaminternalTimKota,sepertiyangterjadidiSemarang,berujungkepadaprosespengambilankeputusanyang lebih efektif sertapeningkatan komitmendi dalam tim;di lainpihakhal ini jugaberdampakpadaterkonstrasinyapengetahuandanpartisipasididalamtimtersebut.Proyekyangdilakukanmenjadi lebih terfokuspadamembangunmomentumdanketertarikanakanisuperubahaniklimdidalamTimKota,hampirmelupakanintidariprogramitusendiriyaitumemberikanmanfaatbagimasyarakatyangterkenarisiko.

Sekurang-kurangnya,harusadasuatumekanismeuntukmempublikasikankeputusandanhasilyangdiperolehkepadamasyarakatpenerimamanfaatdan kota secara luas; diperlukan juga suatu struktur (seperti misalnyaagendauntukmelakukantraining/pertemuansaatmakansiangataujumlahpresentasi yang harus dilakukan) yang dapat mendorong anggota TimKotauntukmembagiinformasiyangmerekaperolehkepadadinas/instansi/organisasiasalmereka.Selaindaripadaitu,aktivitasmonitoringdanevaluasiketatdengan indikatoryang jelasyangdilakukandi lingkunganpenerimamanfaat dapat membantu dalam memfokuskan kegiatan pada kelompokrentan,sertapadapencapaianpentingdalamhal tingkatketerlibatandanketerkaitanparapemangkukepentingan.

PencapaianPembentukan Tim Kota telah berhasil mencapai satu tujuan utama programACCCRN.DiSemarang,dandenganlingkupyanglebihkecildiBandarLampung,sekarang telah terbentuk suatu koalisi yang melibatkan berbagai pemangkukepentingan yang bertujuan untuk mendorong dan menggiatkan adaptasiperubahaniklimsertamemilikikesadaranakanpotensipendanaanuntukproyekadaptasiperubahaniklim.Walaupunpadaawalnyasebagiananggotatimtelahbekerjadibidangperubahaniklimatautelahmendorongaksiadaptasi,

5. Low participation by members. With ACCCRN requiring unpaid, not particularly prestigious extra work, it is less surprising that it is difficult to get full participation than that participation is as high as it is.

The most effective strategies to ensuring participation seem to be identifying people who are already interested and invested in the issues discussed and, if possible, people who enjoy working together. In Semarang, the “core team” within the City Team meets informally every two weeks, often at a restaurant or at the house of a team member. In Bandar Lampung, the City Team leader has attempted to reinforce letters of invitation to meetings with sms reminders; they are also considering instituting regular, instead of ad hoc, meetings.

Beyond the challenges in getting the City Team to function are the challenges in its effectiveness as an entity promoting climate change awareness and adaptation planning.

6. Lack of capacity and insufficient capacity building. A desire to learn more and particularly to have more scientific capacity was expressed by many City Team members in both cities. Almost universally, they feel that the capacity building supported by the program is insufficient for the tasks they are supposed to take on, such as selecting pilot projects based on climate change adaptation impact and informing additional stakeholders. A lack of capacity was also noted in project design and preparation of project proposals in Bandar Lampung, which adversely affected the implementation of ACCCRN when proposals were not funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

There needs to be a recognition in budgets and planning that capacity building will require more than one-off presentations or workshops, particularly when it is on a subject out of the participants’ normal scope of work (e.g., scientific analysis for non-scientists).

7. Lack of dissemination of information and participation beyond the City Team. Other than the Shared Learning Dialogues (discussed below),

ACCCRN has no formal structure or provisions for disseminating knowledge or encouraging participation beyond the City Team, either within government ministries, NGOs, or universities, or to the general public. While greater cohesiveness within the City Team, as in the case of Semarang, leads to a more effective decision-making process and more commitment to the project, it also tends to concentrate the knowledge and participation within that group. The project became focused on creating momentum and excitement around climate change adaptation within the City Team to the point of losing sight of the at-risk communities that are supposed to be the beneficiaries.

At a minimum, there should be some mechanism for publicizing decisions and results to beneficiaries and the city at large; there should also be a structure (such as a calendar for brown-bags or required number of presentations) that encourages City Team members to share information from their meetings with their respective ministries or organizations. Beyond that, more stringent M&E with clear indicators around beneficiary populations can help to keep the focus on vulnerable groups, as well as on the important and admirable accomplishment of levels of engagement among stakeholders.

Success/ImpactThe establishment of the City Team has succeeded in one of the key (if not explicitly stated) objectives of the ACCCRN program. In Semarang, and to a lesser extent in Bandar Lampung, there is now a moderately diverse coalition of stakeholders dedicated to promoting climate change adaptation and aware of potential funding availability for CCA projects. While some of the members already worked on climate change issues or promoted adaptation, the collaboration and the funding orientation are both results of this project.


namun adanya program ACCCRN ini telah membantu memfasilitasikolaborasi berbagai pihak serta memberikan orientasi mengenaipendanaan.

Rekomendasi1. 1. Undang pihak-pihak yang ingin berpartisipasi. Seperti halnya

pemilihankota,mencariindividuyanginginmenjadibagiandariproyekiniadalahkunciuntukmembentuksuatuTimKotayangaktifdanmemilikitingkatketerlibatantinggi.SatustrategiyangsuksesdiimplementasikanolehACCCRNadalahmengidentifikasiseorangchampion,seseorangyangmemang sudahmemiliki ketertarikan pada isu perubahan iklimdanberkomitmenuntukmemajukanproyek;sertastrategimerekadalammenggunakankontakpersonaluntukmengidentifikasicalonpartisipan,walaupunstrategiiniselaiknyadiiringidenganmetodeperekrutanyanglainuntukmemastikanpartisipanberasaldarikalanganyanglebihluas,tidakhanyabergantungkepadajaringansosialseseorangsaja.Harusdiupayakan bahwa perwakilan dari suatu dinas tidak berubah-ubahdisetiappertemuan,baikdengancaramengundangindividutertentuataupunmemintadinasuntukmengirimkansatuorangperwakilantetap.

2. Berupaya melibatkan berbagai jenis organisasi dan aktor ke dalam Tim Kota. Satu poin utama dari Semarang danBandaraLampungadalahkurangnyaperwailandarisektorswasta di dalam Tim Kota. Terlepas dari kesulitan yangdiperoleh dalam menarik komitmen partisipan, namunperlu diupayakan secara terus-menerus untuk menarikketertarikandanketerlibatanpartisipandarikalanganyanglebihluas.

3. Identifikasi dinas yang dirasa paling efektif untuk memimpin Tim Kota.Selaindaripadaperlunyaseorangchampionindividuuntukmendorongimplementasiproyek,diperlukan jugasuatuorganisasidenganposisiyangkuatyangdapatmenarikisuinikedalampemerintahankota.SalahsatualasankeberhasilanTimKotaACCCRNdalammengintegrasikanprioritasmerekakedalamprosesperencanaankotaadalahkarenaTimKotaberadadibawah tanggung jawabBappeda,dinasutamauntukbidangkoordinasidanperencanaan,memberikanmerekalegitimasidanakses langsungkeprosesperencanaan,danhingga tataran tertentu,kewenangandiatasdinas-dinas lain.Pentingnyahal inidisampaikanberulangkaliolehintervieweedenganmemberikancontohkasusyang

terjadidiSemarang,dimanamemindahkan tanggung jawabatasTimKota dari BLH ke Bappeda berdampak pada peningkatan tingkatpartisipasidanefektivitastim.

Susunan yang paling sesuai dan efektif untuk suatu Tim Kota akanberbeda-beda tergantung kepada struktur dari pemerintah kotaitu sendiri, sehingga diperlukan suatu analisa terhadap pemangkukepentingansebagaimetodeidentifikasi.

4. Identifikasi metode/alat dalam sistem birokrasi yang dapatdigunakan untuk membentuk Tim Kota secara formal. Di Indonesia,ditandatanganinya surat keputusan penugasan oleh walikotamerupakan faktor utama yang mendorong staf pemerintahan untukmelakukanpekerjaantambahanterkaitprogramACCCRN.Tergantungkepadakonteksnya,penyusunanperjanjianformaldenganinstitusilain,seperti universitas, juga dapat dipertimbangkan. Pengakuan secaraformalmengenaieksistensiTimKotadankomitmenuntukmendukungtim ini dapat membantu mendorong ketertarikan dan keterlibataninstitusianggotatimdalamisuperubahaniklim.

5. Menyusunsuatustrukturyangfleksibelagardapatmelakukanpengambilan keputusan dan penyertaan. Satu contohstruktur yangdianggap sukses adalah yang terbentuk diSemarang;dimanadidalamTimKotaterdapatsuatutimintiyangbertugassebagai implementorutamayangbekerjadengan didukung oleh tim penasihat yang melibatkanpejabatdengantingkatanlebihtinggisertapihaklainyangditengaraisesuaisebagaianggotatimnamuntidakmemilikiwaktuyangcukupataupuntingkatketertarikanuntukmemajukanprogram ini.Namun tentunyamasihadabentuk-bentukstruktur yanglain,selaindaripadacontohdariSemarangini.

6. Mendorongpelaksanaanpertemuan informal,sebagai tambahandariSLD.HaliniterjadisetidaknyadiSemarang,dimanaadanyapertemuaninformalditengaraitelahmembantumeningkatkanefektivitaspekerjaantimintidariTimKota.

7. Mengidentifikasi dan menumbuhkan pemimpin. Champion ataupunindividuyangproaktifdanantusiasdalammemajukanprogramdapat

Recommendations1. Invite those who want to participate. As with the city selection, finding

the people who want to be a part of the project is key to establishing an engaged, active City Team. One strategy successfully used by ACCCRN is to identify a champion, someone who is already interested in climate change issues and is committed to moving the project forward, and using their contacts to identify participants, although that should be combined with other methods of recruitment to ensure representation broader than one person’s social network. Efforts should be made for ministries to be represented by the same person at every meeting, whether by inviting people by name or through specific requests to the ministry to designate a single, non-interchangeable participant.

2. Work to engage a diverse range of organizations and actors on the City Team. One point from both Semarang and Bandar Lampung was the insufficient representation of the private sector on the City Team. While it may be difficult to get commitments for participation, continuing efforts should be made to attract a broad spectrum of participants.

3. dentify the most effective ministry to take the lead on the city team. In addition to having an individual champion to push forward implementation, in order for the program to gain traction within municipal government it needs to have a strong position within the system. Part of the reason the ACCCRN City Teams were effective at embedding their priorities in city planning processes was because the City Team was based in the BAPPEDA, the key coordination and planning ministry, giving it legitimacy, direct access to planning processes, and some degree of convening authority over other ministries. The importance of this was mentioned again and again by interviewees, and demonstrated in the case of Semarang, where moving the City Team from the Ministry

of the Environment to BAPPEDA led to greater participation and effectiveness.

The most appropriate and effective setting for the City Team will vary depending on the structure of local government, so a stakeholder analysis should be used to identify it.

4. Identify the bureaucratic necessary tools to formally establish the City Team. In Indonesia, having the mayors sign a letter establishing the City Team was a key factor in authorizing city employees to spend their working time on it. Depending on the context, formal agreements with other institutions, such as universities, could also be considered. The formal recognition of the City Team and commitment to support it can also promote greater interest and investment in climate change by participating institutions.

5. Set out a structure flexible enough to allow for decision-making and inclusion. The Semarang model of having a core

group that does most of the actual work along with an advisor group that includes higher-ranking officials and others who are desirable as members but do not necessarily have the time or interest to drive the process forward is one successful example,

but there are other possibilities.

6. Promote informal meetings in addition to the SLDs. At least in Semarang, informal meetings helped the core group of the City Team to work more effectively.

7. Identify and cultivate leaders. Champions or proactive, enthusiastic individuals who drive the project forward can make the difference


menjadisuatupembedaantaraTimKotayangsuksesdenganTimKotayang bahkan kesulitan dalam mencapai tingkat kehadiran minimum.Saatchampiontelahteridentifikasi,merekaharusdilatihdandidorongdenganmemberikantanggungjawablebihsertasemangat.

8. Mendedikasikan sumber daya untuk peningkatan kapasitas.Peningkatan kapasitas haruslah menjadi salah satu fokus agar TimKota dapat melaksanakan pekerjaan dengan efektif, serta tentunyauntuk memastikan bahwa tim ini dapat berkelanjutan dan berjalansendirisetelahprogramACCCRNselesai.Lebihlanjut,didalamkasusACCCRN,anggotatimmemilikikeinginanyangtinggiuntukbelajarlebihbanyak lagi; baik mengenai isu perubahan iklim maupun mengenaipembelajaran Bahasa Inggrismengingatmereka perlu berpartisipasidiacaralokakaryainternasional.Peningkatankapasitas,terutamayangdilakukanoleh institusi/tenagaahliyangsesuaiyangmenurutpesertadapat membantu meningkatkan kapasitas mereka, dapat menjadiinsentifbagipartisipanuntukberpartisipasisertameningkatkanloyalitasmerekaterhadapTimKota.

9. MenyusunstrukturdanmekanismepenyebaranpengetahuanolehTimKota.AnggotaTimKotaharusdidoronguntukmenyebarluaskan ilmuyangmerekadapat,sertahasildanperencanaanyangtelahdilakukan;baikdilingkupinternaldinasmerekamaupunkepadamasyarakatluas.Insentif dan indikator harus disusun untuk memastikan bahwa fokusTimKotaadalahpadadampakyangterjadi,termasukapabiladampaktersebutdiluarlingkupkerjamereka.

between a successful City Team and one that can barely complete the minimal requirements for participation. When champions are identified, they should be fostered and encouraged through greater responsibility and encouragement.

8. Devote resources to capacity building. Capacity building needs to be taken seriously for the City Team to do the work it is supposed to do, and particularly for it to stand alone after the end of the project. Moreover, at least in the case of ACCCRN, the members are eager to learn more, whether about climate change issues or of the English language that they need to participate in international owrkshops. Capacity building, particularly if it is done by the appropriate experts or institutions and in a way that gives it value in the eyes of the participants, can be a strong incentive for participation in and loyalty to the City Team.

9. Set up structures and mechanisms for the City Team to disseminate their knowledge. City Team members should be encouraged to disseminate their learnings, results, and plans both within their home institutions and to the wider public. Incentives or indicators should be set up to keep the City Team focused on impacts beyond their own functioning.

DalamprogramACCCRN,setiapkotamengadakanlimakaliSLD,dengantemayangdifokuskanpada:1. PengenalanACCCRNdanidentifikasikerentanankota;2. Mendiskusikanhasilkajiankerentanandanadaptasi;3. Mendiskusikankemajuanproyekpercontohan;4. Menyusunconceptnotedanproposaladaptasisertamengintegrasikan

strategi adaptasi perubahan iklim ke dalam Rencana PembangunanJangkaMenengahDaerahKota;dan

5. Menyampaikanhasildaristudisektoralsertamengidentifikasipeluangpendanaan.

Perubahan Persepsi dan Sikap terhadap Perubahan IklimSharedLearningDialoguemerupakanjalanutamauntukmenginformasikanisu perubahan ikim kepada pemangku kepentingan di luar Tim Kota.Sebagian besar pihak yang diwawancara merasa bahwa pelaksanaanSLD telahmembantumeningkatkan kesadaran akan isuperubahan iklim,serta terutama menarik perhatian masyarakat akan pentingnya tindakanadaptasi,dibandingkantindakanmitigasi.Namun,intevieweejugamerasabahwa durasi pelaksanaan SLD terlalu singkat dan frekuensinya terlalurendah,sehinggasulituntukmendapatkanpemahamansecaramenyeluruhmengenaiisuini.

V. Shared Learning DialoguesKegiatanSharedLearningDialoguesmemiliki2peranan:sebagaialatutamadalammemperkenalkan,berdiskusidanmengintegrasikaninformasidaritenagaahlibaikeksternalmaupuninternalprogram;serta

sebagaistrukturutamadalammenarikketerlibatanpemangkukepentinganlain,diluarTimKota.

SharedLearningDialoguesyangdilakukanolehACCCRN,walaupunterbuktisuksesdalampelaksanaannya,namunmemilikikekurangandalamhalpengelolaanjarakjauh;dimanatemadanwaktupelaksanaanacaraseringkalidiputuskan

olehpihakmanajemenyangberadadiJakartaataupunolehdonor;sehinggadampakkegiataniniterhadappesertakurangoptimal.

The Shared Learning Dialogues play a double role: they are the main vehicle for introducing, discussing, and assimilating information both from outside experts and from within the program; and they are the primary structure for incorporating stakeholders beyond the City Team.

The ACCCRN Program Shared Learning Dialogues, though they were successfully implemented, suffered from remote management, with decisions about topics and timing often decided either in Jakarta or by the donors, lessening their impact.

In the ACCCRN program, five SLDs were held in each city, focusing on: 1. introducing ACCCRN and identifying vulnerabilities; 2. discussing the results of the VAA; 3. discussing pilot project progress; 4. developing further concept notes and adaptation proposals and

integrating climate change adaptation strategies into the city’s Medium-Term Development Plan;

5. and delivering the results of the sector studies and identifying funding opportunities.

Changing Attitudes To Climate ChangeThe Shared Learning Dialogues are the primary avenue for communicating information about climate change to stakeholders beyond the City Team. Most interviewees felt that the SLDs had raised awareness of climate change issues, and particularly drawn attention to the importance of adaptation as opposed to mitigation. However, interviewees also felt that the SLDs were too short and too infrequent to promote real understanding.


Tantangan1. Menyeimbangkan kedalaman informasi. Durasi SLD yang terlalu

panjangataupunfrekuensinyayangterlaluseringakanmenjadibebantersendiribagiparapemangkukepentingankotayangkemudianakanmenyebabkanmenurunnyaketertarikandankomitmenpartisipan.Akantetapi, apabila SLD jarang diadakan akanmengakibatkan kurangnyarasamemlikipartisipandanTimKotaterhadapprogramini,terlebihlagimereka juga akan kurangmemahami isu perubahan iklim.Salah satutantangan utama bagi program ACCCRN adalahmencari cara yangsesuai untuk memudahkan masyarakat luas, yang belum menjalanipelatihanatau tidakmemiliki latarbelakang terkait, untukmengaksesinformasimengenaiperubahaniklim.

2. Berubah-ubahnyapartisipanacara.Sepertihalnyadenganyangterjadipada Tim Kota, para pemangku kepentingan tidak selalu mengirimperwakilan yang sama ke setiap acara SLD. Di satu sisi, kondisi inibermanfaat dalam hal penyebaran informasi perubahan iklim kekalangan yang lebih luas; namundi lain pihak, para partisipan yanghadir secara rutin berpendapat bahwa hal inimengakibatkan prosesdiskusi terhambat dan pengambilan keputusan berjalan lebih lambatdikarenakansebagianbesarpesertayanghadirtidakterlalumemahamiterminologisertakonsepyangdisampaikanpadaSLD-SLDsebelumnya.

3. Penyebaran informasi dan keputusan kepada pihak-pihak di luarpartisipanSLD.ProgramACCCRNtidakmemilikisuatumekanismeuntukmenyebarkan topikatauhasil dariSLDkepadakalangan luasdi luarpesertakegiatan,dan terkadang institusimereka;sehinggaseringkalipemangku kepentingan lainnya di kota, selain dari peserta kegiatan,tidakmengetahuimengenaiSLDataupunhasilnya.Mendapatkansuatumekanismeyangefektifdanhematbiayauntukmenyebarkaninformasimengenai SLD ke seluruh masyarakat kota akan dapat berdampakpadameningkatnyakesadaranmasyarakatakanperubahaniklimsertaadanyadukunganyanglebihbesarterhadapkegiatanadaptasi.

PencapaianSLD telah berhasil memberikan suatu struktur, sampai tingkatan tertentu,untuk program ACCCRN, dengan memberikan peluang untuk menyusunjadwalkegiatanyangjelasdanteraturuntukpelaksanaanseluruhrangkaianprogram. Secara umum, kegiatan ini juga berhasil dalam meningkatkankesadaranmasyarakat akan perubahan iklim; serta meningkatkan pamorprogramACCCRNsecarakhususnya.

Rekomendasi1. Penggunaanpendapatmasyarakatlokal.SLDharusdidesainagardapat

mengoptimalkanpendapatmasyarakatlokal;untukmemastikanbahwasolusiyangdidapatdilakukanuntukmengatasiisuyangdirasakanolehmasyarakat lokal,maupun yang terlihat oleh orang luar. Hal ini akanmembantumeningkatkanrasakepemilikansertapartisipasimasyarakatterhadapprogram.

2. MekanismepenyebaranhasildaninformasiselainSLD.Pamflet,poster,SMS, iklanbaris, radioataumetode lainyangdianggapsesuaiuntukkotatersebut;harusdicaridanditentukandalamrangkamenyebarkaninformasimengenaidanhasilSLDkeseluruhkota.Haliniakandapatmeningkatkanpamorisuperubahaniklimdikota,danmenarikdukunganuntukpelaksanaankegiatandanproyekpercontohanterkait.

Challenges/Pitfalls1. Balancing depth of information. Too long or frequent SLDs will be a burden

to stakeholders and probably outlast the interest and commitment of participants. However, too few SLDs leave both participants and the City Team lacking ownership of the process and without a thorough enough understanding of climate change issues. One of the key challenges for the program is to make climate change information accessible to people without training or background in science.

2. Inconsistent participation. As with the City Team, stakeholders did not always send the same representatives to participate in subsequent SLDs. While this has the advantage of exposing more people to information about climate change issues, those participants who did attend regularly found that it slowed decisions and hampered discussions because of the large percentage of people who were not familiar with terminology and concepts from previous SLDs.

3. Disseminating information and decisions beyond participants. The ACCCRN program lacked any mechanism for disseminating the topics or the results of the SLDs beyond immediate participants and in some cases their institutions, so it is unlikely that many in the cities other than the stakeholders who participated were aware of the SLDs or their results. Finding an effective, low-cost mechanism for transmitting information about the SLDs city-wide would go a long way to raising awareness of climate change issues and garnering broader support for adaptation initiatives.

Success/ImpactThe SLDs succeeded in giving the program a degree of structure that it might not otherwise have had, setting clear dates for moving the program through each stage of progress. They raised some degree of awareness about climate change issues in general and raised the profile of the ACCCRN program in particular.

Recommendations1. Use of local input. The SLDs should be designed with as much local input

as possible, to make sure that they are addressing locally perceived needs for information, as well as those needs seen from outside. This will help to promote a sense of ownership and increased participation.

2. Some mechanism for dissemination of results and information beyond the SLDs. Pamphlets, posters, text messages, newspaper advertisements, radio, or some other locally appropriate method should be determined to spread information from the SLDs citywide. This will help to further raise the profile of climate change issues in the city, rallying support for initiatives and pilot projects.


VAA untuk program ACCCRN tidak hanya dilakukan oleh Mercy Corps,tetapi juga melibatkan organisasi mitra lokal lainnya, yaitu Urban andRegional Development Institute (URDI) dan Center for Climate Risk andOpportunity Management for Southeast Asia and the Pacific (CCROM)dengankerjasamadenganISET.Setiapinstitusidiatasmelaksanakankajianuntuk lingkupyangberbeda,dimanahasilnyakemudianakandikompilasikedalamsatudokumenKajianKerentanan (VA)untuksetiapkota.MercyCorps bertugas melaksanakan Kajian Kerentanan Berbasis Komunitas,URDImelaksanakan Kajian Pemerintahan, sementara CCROMmenyusunPemetaan dan Analisa Teknis serta bertanggung jawabmenggabungkanseluruh hasil kajianmenjadi sebuahdokumen. Pemetaan inimenghadapiberbagaitantangan,dimanamasyarakatlokalberanggapanbahwahasilnyatidakmencerminkankenyataandilapangan.Dalamprosespenyusunannya,CCROMmenggunakandatadaritingkatnasionalyangtidakter-update,danbukandatayanglebihbarudaritingkatlokal;merekajugatidakmelakukanvalidasi terhadap informasi yang didapat di lapangan, sehingga hasilnyadipermasalahkan.

Perubahan Persepsi dan Sikap terhadap Perubahan IklimWalaupun VAA dapat memberikan informasi mengenai sisi ilmiah dariperubahan iklim dan potensi dampak yangmungkin dialami suatu lokasispesifik,sebagianbesarpartisipanberpendapatbahwametodedancarapenyampaian informasi tersebut kurang tepat. Lebih lanjut, lemahnyamekanismepenyampaianinformasimenyebabkanVAAdanhasilnyahanyadiketahuiolehkalanganterbatas.

Tantangan1. Membuatinformasiyangadamudahdiaksesdandipahami.Salahsatu

tantanganutamaprograminiadalahmenjembatani‘gap’antaraahliiklimdenganpartisipanlokalyangsedikitatautidakmemilikilatarbelakangilmiahataupunisuiklim.VAAharusmenjadikuncidalammencapaihalini,namuntentunyadiperlukanupayauntukmenerjemahkanhasildarikajiankedalambahasadanpresentaiyangdapatdipahamiolehorangawam.

2. Mendapatkaninformasiyangsesuai.Dikeduakota,partisipanmerasabahwahasilVAAtidakmencerminkankondisidilapangan.DiSemarang,VAAdisusunmenggunakandatastatistiknasionalyangtidakter-updatetanpa melakukan verifikasi terlebih dahulu di lapangan, walaupunkota sendiri sudah memiliki data statistik terbaru untuk tingkat kota.Walaupunkondisiinibisadikatakanmerupakankekurangandarimitrayang melaksanakan VAA; namun hal ini juga merupakan pengingatbahwa proses pengumpulan dan validasi data, walaupun menelanbiayayangtinggidanmembutuhkanwaktuyanglama,merupakanhalyangpentingdanmembutuhkanpendapatlokal.

3. Menentukaninformasiapayangdigunakan.DalamkasusdimanaVAAtidak mencerminkan kenyataan di lapangan, keputusan mengenaiproyekpercontohandilakukanberdasarkanpendapatlokal,danbukandata.Walaupunkondisiinididorongolehadanyamasalahpenjadwalan,dimanaproyekpercontohanditentukansebelumVAAselesaidisusun;hal ini memberikan contoh akan pentingnya informasi lokal, terlepasdaridigunakannyaanalisasecarailmiahuntukisuini.

4. Penyebaraninformasi.SepertihalnyaSLD,tidakadamekanismeuntukmenyebarkan hasil SLD kepada pihak-pihak di luar partisipan, yaituTimKotadanpemangkukepentinganyangmenghadiriSLDsaatVAAdipresentasikan.

VI. Kajian Kerentanan dan AdaptasiVulnerability and Adaptation Assessment

KajianKerentanandanAdaptasi(VAA)merupakanbasisilmiahbagipenentuandanpelaksanaanproyekpercontohan.Bahaya, kerentanan, asetdanopsi adaptasiditentukanberdasarkanhasil analisa ilmiahparaahlimenggunakankontekslokal.

Di dalamprogramACCCRN,VAAdilaksanakanolehorganisasimitra, yaituCCROM.Terlepasdari hasil yangdicapaiolehVAA,namunsebagianpartisipanmerasabahwakearifanlokalkurangdipertimbangkandidalamkajianini. Selain itu, disampaikan jugabahwapenyusunanVAAmenggunakandata/informasi yang tidak ter-update, sehinggabeberapakesimpulanyangdiambildirasakurangsesuai.

The Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment (VAA) forms the scientific basis for the selection, and implementation, of the program’s pilot projects. It should apply expert analysis to the local context to determine hazards, vulnerabilities, assets, and adaptation options.

In the ACCCRN program, the VAAs were carried out by partner organization CCROM. While the VAAs achieved some results, many participants felt that they did not use enough local knowledge, and that a reliance on outdated information led to some errors in their conclusions.

The VAAs for the ACCCRN project were conducted not only by Mercy Corps, but also by local partners Urban and Regional Development Institute (URDI) and the Center for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management for Southeast Asia and the Pacific (CCROM) in coordination with ISET. Each institution implemented a different assessment, and the results were then collated into a single VA document for each city. Mercy Corps carried out a Community-Based Vulnerability Assessment, URDI implemented a Governance Assessment, and CCROM did a Mapping and Technical Analysis and was also responsible for compiling all assessments’ results into a single document. However, the mapping caused some difficulties, as community members complained that it did not reflect the reality on the ground. CCROM used outdated national data, rather than using more recent local data, and did not validate their information in the field, leading to significant problems with the results.

Changing Attitudes To Climate ChangeWhile the VAA provided information on climate science and predictions of future impacts specific to the location, most participants felt that it was not presented in an accessible way. In addition, the lack of dissemination mechanism limited the number of people aware of the VAA and its results.

Challenges/Pitfalls1. Making the information accessible. One of the overarching challenges

of the program is bridging the gap between climate experts and local participants with little or no background in science or climate issues. The VAA should be a key step in achieving this, but that requires that effort be put into adjusting findings into a language and presentation that is accessible for the untrained.

2. Getting the right information. In both cities, participants felt that the VAA did not accurately reflect local conditions. In Semarang, the VAA implementer used outdated national statistics, without checking them in the field, although there were district-level statistics that were more recent. While this can be attributed to poor performance of the partner implementing the VAA, it is also a reminder that data collection and validation, while expensive and time-consuming, is important and requires local input.

3. Determining what information to use. In the cases where the City Team members felt that the VAA did not reflect the reality of the situation on the ground, the pilot project decisions reflect the local understanding, rather than the data. While this was facilitated by the fact that, due to scheduling issues, the pilot projects were selected before the VAA was completed, it highlights the need to prioritize local information, while using scientific expertise to analyze it.

4. Disseminating the information. As with the SLDs, there was no mechanism for propagating the results of the VAA beyond the immediate participants, primarily the City Team and those stakeholders who attended the SLD where the VAA was presented.


5. Penjadwalan kegiatan. Dalam kasus ACCCRN, jadwal yang padatmenyebabkan proyek percontohan ditentukan sebelum selesainyaVAA.Walaupunhalinimengurangimasalahdalamhalmenentukanareaprioritas, apakaharea yangdiidentifikasi sebagai daerah rentan olehVAAyangdidasarkanatasinformasiyangtidakter-update¬atauareayangmenurutanggotaTimKotapadakenyataannyamemangberisiko.Hal ini jugamengeliminasisebagianpembenaranmengenaiVAAdankegunaannya. Penjadwalan yang lebih realistis akan memberikankesempatan bagi pelaksanan untuk mengumpulan dan menganalisadatasebelumpengambilankeputusan.

PencapaianTerlepas dari kelemahanCCROMdalammelakukan VAA, Tim Kota tetapdapat menggunakan hasil dari kajian tersebut secara langsung ataupunadaptasinya sebagai dasar untuk proyek percontohan tahap kedua sertapemilihan studi sektoral. Data dari VAA juga dapat digunakan untukmempromosikan proyek percontohan serta program ACCCRN sendiri.Proyeksiakandampakdimasayangakandatang,padakhususnya,cukupmempengaruhiparapemangkukepentingandanmemberikankesempatanuntukdilakukannyaperencanaanjangkapanjangyanglebihmatang.

Rekomendasi1. Menggunakan kearifan lokal dan mengumpulkan data konkrit di

lapangan.BerdasarkanpengalamandariprogramACCCRN,diketahuibahwapenggunaandatanasionaltanpamelakukanverifikasidilapangandapat menyebabkan adanya perbedaan antara hasil kajian denganrealitayangada,sertamenurunkanrasakepemilikandanketertarikanyang dimiliki pemangku kepentingan lokal terhadap dokumen VAA.WalaupunpadadasarnyaVAAharusbermanfaatdalammeningkatkankapasitassumberdayalokal,tetapiprosespenyusunannyajugaharusmempertimbangkan kearifan lokal; baik melalui praktik di lapangan,maupun dengan melibatkan pemangku kepentingan lokal utama kedalamsuatutimyangdipimpinolehtenagaahliyangkuat.

2. Carapenyampaianinformasiyangmudahdipahami.HasilVAAharuslahmudahdipahamiolehpemangkukepentinganlokal;setiapbagiannyaperludicermati.IsidokumenmungkintidakhanyasemataditerjemahkankeBahasaIndonesia,tetapijugakedalambentukbahasayangdapatdimengertiolehorangawam;mungkinperludisertaidengandiagram/gambarataupembuatanvideoataumembuatsuaturingkasandokumenselain daripada dokumen asli yang lebih komprehensif. Memahamikebutuhan masyarakat dan menerjemahkan hasil ilmiah ke dalambahasa masyarakat awam harus menjadi bagian dari lingkup kerjakegiatanpenyusunanVAA.

3. Mengintegrasi berbagai komponen program. Apabila VAA harusdilakukanolehbeberapaorganisasi,makaprosespengintegrasianVAAkedalamrangkaianprogramharusdilakukandengancermat,termasukdalamhalmekanismepengawasandanakuntabilitas.

4. Penyebaran informasimengenai program.Dokumen VAAmerupakanalat penggerak dan advokasi yang berharga, sehingga mekanismepenyebaran informasi yang sesuai dengan konteks ini harusdirencanakandanmenjadibagiandaridokumenVAA.

5. Timing. In the case of ACCCRN, a compressed timeframe meant that the pilot projects were selected before the VAA was completed. While this removed the problematic decision over whether to prioritize the areas identified as vulnerable based on the outdated information in the VAA or the areas which City Team members felt were visibly more at risk, it also removed some of the justification for and usefulness of the VAA. Realistic timeframes should allow for data to be collected and analyzed before decisions are made.

Success/ImpactDespite the weaknesses in CCROM’s implementation of the VAAs, the City Teams were able to use the results, or their adaptation of the results, for the second round of pilot projects, as well as the selection of sector studies. The VAAs also provide useful data for promoting the pilot projects and the program itself. The projections of future impacts, in particular, made an impression on stakeholders and allowed for more concrete long-term planning.

Recommendations1. Include local knowledge and on-the-ground data collection. The

experience of the ACCCRN program shows that using national data without field validation is likely to result in disparities between assessment results and reality, as well as reducing the sense of ownership and investment that local stakeholders feel in the report. While the VAA must add value beyond what local resources are capable of, it must also take into account the value of local knowledge, either through extensive fieldwork or, ideally, by including key local stakeholders on a team with strong expert leadership.

2. Present information in an accessible way. In each context, care should be taken so that the results of the VAA are understandable for local stakeholders. This may mean not only translation into local language, but into simple local language; it may require including diagrams, or creating a video, or providing a concise summary in addition to more extensive material. Understanding the needs and translating the scientific results into layman’s terms should be part of the scope of work for the VAA.

3. Integrate program components. If the VAA must be done by a separate organization, care should be taken to integrate it with the rest of the program, including monitoring and accountability structures.

4. Disseminate program information. The VAA report is a valuable mobilization and advocacy tool, and dissemination methods appropriate for the context should be planned for the report.


ProgramACCCRNmemberikanpeluangpendanaanuntukbeberapaproyekpercontohan,namunmensyaratkanagarproyek-proyekyangdiusulkandariberbagai kota di tingkat regional berkompetisi untuk mendapatkan danatersebut.WalaupunkotapartnerdiIndonesiaberhasilmendapatpendanaanuntukbeberapaproyekpercontohanditahappertama;namunpadatahapkeduatidakadausulanproyekyangdisetujui;dansaatpenulisandokumenini dilakukan, kedua kota di Indonesia sedang mengajukan proposalproyekpercontohanuntuktahapketiga.ProyekyangtelahdilaksanakandiIndonesiaadalah:BandarLampung:1. Program Participatory Design Adaptasi Ketahanan Masyarakat

KelurahanKangkungDanKotaKarangKotaBandarLampungterhadapPerubahanIklim:peningkatankesadarandanpelatihandaurulangsertapenyediaanairbersih;

2. Peningkatan Kapasitas Masyarakat di Kelurahan Panjang SelatanterhadapDampakPerubahanIklim:peningkatankesadaran,rehabilitasilahandanpenyediaanairbersih;

Semarang:1. ProyekRintisanKreditSanitasiPemukimanBerbasisKomunitasUntuk

MengantisipasiPerubahanIklimPadaTingkatPerkotaanDiKelurahanKemijenKecamatanSemarangTimurKotaSemarang:pinjamanuntukmeningkatkan fasilitas sanitasi di permukiman yang rawan terhadaptanahlongsor.

2. Model Penataan Lahan untuk Meminimalisasi Bencana di KelurahanSukorejo Kecamatan Gunungpati Semarang: Terasering, biopori dansumurresapan;

3. UpayaAdaptasi olehMasyarakat di Kawasan Pesisir Tapak Tugurejosebagai Bentuk Ketahanan Masyarakat dalam Menghadapi DampakPerubahanIklim:penahangelombangdankonservasitanamanbakau

4. AdaptasiterhadapDampakPerubahanIklim(TanahLongsordanPutingBeliung) di Kelurahan Tandang, Kota Semarang: penanaman untukmencegahtanahlongsor.

Proyekpercontohandiatasmemilikitingkatpencapaianyangbervariasi.

Perubahan Persepsi dan Sikap terhadap Perubahan Iklim Sebagianbesarmasyarakatyangdiwawancarahanyaberpartisipasidalampelaksanaan proyek percontohan dan tidak mengikuti SLD, sehinggaprogram ini tidak terlalu banyak memberikan informasi baru mengenaiperubahaniklimkepadamereka.Proyekpercontohanyangdilakukandirasabermanfaatdalammemberikansolusiuntukisuaktualdilingkungansekitarmereka,sepertimisalnyabanjirdantanahlongsor,danketerlibatanmerekadidalamproyekinitidakperludidorongolehsuatubuktiilmiah.Walaupuninformasibaruyangmerekadapatkansangatminimal,namunproyek-proyektersebutditengaraitelahmampumeningkatkankesadaranmasyarakanakanpentingnyadanpeluangpelaksanaanaksiadaptasi,dibandingkanmitigasi;menunjukkan keterkaitan konsep perubahan iklim dengan aksi-aksi yangpraktisdanrendahbiayauntukmengatasidampaknya.

Studi sektoral memiliki peranan yang sama dengan VAA atau SLD;dimanaketiganyatidakmemilikistrategiataumekanismeyangjelasuntukpenyebaraninformasidiluarlingkupTimKota.

Tantangan1. Mengusulkan proyek yang aplikatif dan dapat diterima oleh donor.

MemperolehpersetujuanpendanaandariRockefellerFoundationuntukproyek percontohanmerupakan salah satu tantangan utama bagi TimKotaSemarangdanBandarLampung,terutamapadatahapkeduadanketiga.HalinitidakhanyamenunjukkanperlunyapeningkatankapasitasTimKotasertaperlunyadokumenVAAyanglebihinformatif,namunjugamengindikasikan perlunya kriteria yang jelas untuk pendanaan proyekpercontohansertadukunganuntukhalini.Berdasarkanhasilmonitoringterhadap keseluruhanprosesACCCRNyangdilakukan oleh konsultanyangdikontrakolehRockefellerFoundation,salahsatukekuranganyangdapatterlihatadalahtidaksemuaproyekpercontohanyangdilaksanakanmemenuhidefinisiadaptasiperubahaniklimmenurutpendapatdonor.

VII. Proyek Percontohan dan Studi SektoralVulnerability and Adaptation Assessment

DiBandarLampung,StudiSektoraldilakukanuntuk sektordrainasedan limbahpadat; sementaradiSemaranguntuksektordrainase,erosidandampakekonomidaribanjir.

In Bandar Lampung, Sector Studies were done on drainage and solid waste; in Semarang on drainage, erosion, and the economic impact of flooding.

The ACCCRN program included some funding for pilot projects, but required that additional projects compete for a pot of funds available to all participating cities across the region. Although the Indonesian cities were able to implement several pilot projects in the first round of proposals, they had none approved for the second, and were submitting proposals for the third at the time of this study. The projects that had been undertaken included:

Bandar Lampung:1. Society Endurance Adaptation Design Participatory Program in

Kangkung and Kota Karang District Bandar Lampung City towards Climate Change: Awareness raising and training on recycling and clean water provision;

2. Capacity Building for Panjang Selatan Sub-district Community towards Climate Change Impact: Awareness raising, land rehabilitation and clean water provision;

Semarang:1. Pilot Project Community Based Revolving Fund for Improving Sanitation

to Anticipate Climate Change at Urban level in Kelurahan Kemijen, Semarang: Loans for improved sanitation facilities in houses prone to subsidence;

2. Land Arrangement Models to Minimize Disaster in Kelurahan Sukorejo Kecamatan Gunungpati Semarang: Terracing, biopores and recharge wells;

3. Coastal Community Adaptation in Tapak Tugurejo as a Resilience Community Coping Climate Change: Breakwater and mangrove conservation;

4. Adaptation to Climate Change Impacts (Landslide and Cyclone) in Sub District of Tandang, City of Semarang: Landslide prevention planting.

The success of the pilot projects varied considerably.

Changing Attitudes To Climate ChangeMost of the community members who were interviewed had only participated in the pilot projects and not in the SLDs, and so they had received very little new information about climate change issues through the program. The pilot projects directly addressed immediate issues that they faced in their neighborhoods, such as flooding and landslides, and scientific justification was not necessary for their participation. However, the projects did raise the profile and the possibility of adaptation as opposed to mitigation, connecting the concept of climate change with low-cost, practical measures to address its impacts.

The sector studies played a similar role to the VAA or the SLDs; like these, they lacked a strategy or mechanism for dissemination beyond the City Team.

Challenges/Pitfalls1. Proposing viable projects acceptable to the donors. Getting pilot projects

approved by the Rockefeller Foundation proved a significant challenge for the City Teams in Semarang and Bandar Lampung, particularly in the second and third rounds. While this relates to the need for capacity building in the City Teams and for more accessible VAA reports, it also highlights the importance of clear criteria for pilot project funding and direct support in this area of the program. In particular, monitoring by the consultant contracted by the Rockefeller Foundation for the overall ACCCRN program suggested that not all of the pilot projects fit the definition of climate change adaptation according to the donors.


2. Membuat suatu keterkaitan antara adaptasi perubahan iklim denganproyek percontohan. Beberapa responden berpendapat bahwatidaklahmudahbagianggotaTimKota–terutamayangtidakterlaluaktifsebelumpelaksanaanproyekpercontohan–untukmencaridanmenarikketerkaitanantaraisu-isuilmiahyangdibahaspadasaatSLDdengankegiatan-kegiatandidalamproyekpercontohan.Halinimenjadisuatuhambatandidalamprosespemilihanproposaldanpengawasannya.

3. Pengawasan dan Evaluasi. Ada suatu ketidakjelasan dalam haltanggung jawab pelaksanaan aktivitas pengawasan untuk proyekpercontohan;walaupunpadadasarnyaaktivitasinidiharapkanmenjaditanggung jawab Tim Kota, namun pada kenyataannya tim ini tidakmemilikikapasitassertasumberdayayangcukupuntukmelakukannya,selain ituada juga risikokonflikkepentingan.Di lainpihak,walaupunaktivitas pengawasan sekunder yang dilakukan oleh Mercy Corpssangat terbatas, namun hal tersebut menurunkan insentif bagi TimKotauntukmelakukanpendekatanyanglebihaktifdancermat.Banyaksekali isu-isu kecil dan besar yangmenyelimuti pelaksanaan proyekpercontohan yang sebenarnya dapat diselesaikan segera denganmelakukanpengawasanyanglebihketat.

4. Penyebaran informasi. Seperti halnya SLD dan VAA, studi sektoralmemilikikekurangandidalamhalpenyebarluasaninformasidanhasil.

5. Tindaklanjut.Lemahnyarencanadanaktivitastindaklanjutmerupakankeluhan yang diutarakan oleh sebagian besar responden mengenaiimplementasiproyekpercontohan.Merekamerasabahwamomentumyangdibangunolehproyekinimenjadisia-siasaatkeberlanjutandanpotensiperluasannyatidakdipersiapkan.Walaupunkondisiinitentunyadipengaruhiolehisueksternaldalamhalketersediaandanadanwaktu,hal ini tetapharusmenjadisalahsatupertimbangandidalamprosesperencanaan proyek percontohan, agar proses transisi kegiatan keskalayanglebihbesarnantinyadapatberjalandenganlebihlancar.

6. Sistem skala besar vs skala kecil. Walaupun di satu pihak suatuproyek percontohan yang berskala kecil dapat mengatasi dampakperubahaniklim;namundilainpihak,proyekinitidakdapatmengatasi,ataumungkinjustrumemperparah, isusosialdalamskalabesaryangmenentukan kelompokmasyarakatmana yang lebih rentan. Sebagaicontoh, proyek percontohan yang dilakukan di Semarang bertujuanuntuk meningkatkan kondisi masyarakat miskin yang terkena banjirsecararutinsertatanahlongsormelaluipelaksanaanpenanamanpohondan pembuatan biopori. Sebelumnya masyarakat ini tinggal di areayang tidakdapatdihuni lagi karena terkena intrusi air laut, kemudianmerekadirelokasikearearawanbanjirdantanahlongsor.Strukturpolitisyangmendasariprosesrelokasiinilahyangtidakdipertimbangkanolehproyek ini;masyarakatdirelokasidarisatuarearentankearearentanlainnya.Meskipunisu-isutersebuthinggatatarantertentutidakmasukdalam cakupan program ini, namun perlu dipahami bahwa dalamjangka panjang proyek-proyek ini dapat mendorong kelanjutan darisituasi kehidupan yang tidak berkesinambungan, alih-alih memaksapemerintahkotauntukmengambilpilihanyangberbiayatinggi.Namuntentunyahalinihanyaberlakuuntukkasus-kasustertentu.

PencapaianWalaupun beberapa proyek percontohan (contohnya, proyek air minum diBandar Lampung) menghadapi hambatan operasional yang signifikan, namundapat diidentifikasi juga pencapaian/keberhasilan dari proyek-proyek tersebut.RespondendiSemarangmemberikanresponyangsangatantusiassaatberbicaramengenaiproyekpenanamanpohondanbiopori,mereka jugamemperlihatkankesediaanuntukberkontribusidanmelakukanpemeliharaanyangtentunyaakanmembuat iri program-program partisipasi masyarakat lainnya. Proyek ini telahberhasilmeningkatkankualitaskehidupanmasyarakatsertameningkatkanniatbaikorganisasipelaksanadanketertarikanmerekaterhadapaktivitasadaptasilainnya.

2. Making the connection between climate change adaptation and pilot projects. Some interviewees reported that it was not always simple for City Team members – particularly those who had been less active up to that point – to make the connection between the scientific issues that had been discussed in the SLDs and the activities of the pilot projects. This created difficulties in effective proposal selection and monitoring.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation. The responsibility for monitoring of the pilot projects was somewhat unclear; while in principle the City Teams were expected to take this on, they lacked the training and resources to do so, and had the risk of potential conflicts of interest. While Mercy Corps’ secondary monitoring was very limited, it lessened the incentive for the City Teams to take a more active or rigorous approach. Many minor and major issues in pilot project implementation could have been addressed early with closer monitoring.

4. Dissemination of information. The sector studies suffered from the same lack of dissemination of results as the SLDs and VAAs.

5. Follow-up. The most frequent complaint about the pilot projects was the lack of follow-up or any plan for follow-up. Many respondents felt that the projects generated a momentum which was squandered when possibilities for expansion or continuation were not readily apparent. While this relates to external issues of funding availability and timeframes, these should be considered during the design phase of the pilot projects, to allow as much opportunity as possible for smooth transitions into larger-scale interventions.

6. Macro versus micro systems. While small-scale pilot projects can address the impacts of climate change, they do not address, and may even perpetuate, the macro-level social issues that determine which communities are more vulnerable. For example, the project in Semarang attempted to improve the situation of poor communities that suffered from frequent flooding and landslides through tree planting and biopores. What it did not address was the political structure that had relocated those communities to areas vulnerable to these hazards when their previous living areas became uninhabitable due to sea-level encroachment. While such issues are to a certain extent beyond the scope of this program, it is worth noting that in the long term these projects may promote the extension of an essentially unsustainable living situation, rather than forcing municipalities to make costly choices. This is not, however, true for every case.

Success/ImpactAlthough some of the pilot projects (for example, the potable water project in Bandar Lampung) had significant operational difficulties, there were also notable successes. Interviewees in Semarang were enthusiastic about tree planting and biopore projects, and demonstrated willingness for both contribution and maintenance that would be the envy of many community mobilization programs. These projects improved the lives of communities and generated significant good will for the implementing organizations, as well as interest in further adaptation activities.


Rekomendasi1. Dukungan tinggi atau kerja samadalamprosesdesain, pelaksanaan

dan pengawasan proyek percontohan. Kebanyakan Tim Kota tidakmemiliki sumber daya maupun pengalaman yang mumpuni untukmendesainataumelaksanakanproyekpadatingkatanyangdiharapkanoleh donor internasional, dan membutuhkan dukungan serta kerjasamaaktifdenganorganisasipelaksanaprogram.Adanyakerjasamainitidakhanyadapatmeningkatkanpelaksanaandanpencapaianproyekpercontohan,namunjugamenjadisalahsatumediabagianggotaTimKotauntukmeningkatkankemampuanmerekadibidangmanajemenproyek.

2. Merencanakan suatu mekanisme penyebaran informasi mengenaihasilstudisektoral.SepertihalnyaSLDdanVAA,laporanstudisektoralmengandung informasi yang dapat digunakan untuk mendorongpergerakanmasyarakatdanprosesadvokasiisuini,sertajugauntukmerencanakanaksiintervensidiwaktuyangakandatang.Penyebaraninformasi ini ke kalangan di luar Tim Kota akan membantu dalammencapaitujuanprogram.

3. Menggunakan studi sektoral untuk mengaitkan proyek percontohandengan isu perubahan iklim. Beberapa responden melihat bahwaterlepas dari kepuasan masyarakat terhadap hasil dari proyekpercontohan, mereka memiliki kesulitan dalam menarik keterkaitanproyektersebutdenganstudisektoralyangberbasisilmiah.BeberapaanggotamasyarakatsebelumnyatelahdilibatkandidalamSLDataupunkegiatan ACCCRN lainnya. Pendekatan yang digunakan sebagaikerangka kerja proyek percontohan di dalam keseluruhan strukturprogramharusdipertimbangkanlebihdalam.

4. Pengawasan yang proaktif. Sebagian proyek percontohan yangdiimplementasikan ditengarai berhasil meraih kesuksesan, namunproyekpercontohanlainnyamengalamihambatandiaspekoperasionalyangsebenarnyadapatdiselesaikandenganmelakukanpengawasanyangketat.

5. Merencanakan tindak lanjut berdasarkan pencapaian proyekpercontohan.Proyekpercontohanyangsukses, sepertidiSemarang,dapat menciptakan momentum dan ketertarikan masyarakat rentanterhadap isuadaptasiperubahan iklim;suatupeluangyangmemangingin diciptakan dan didorong oleh program ini. Perencanaan danpenggalangan dana untuk proyek ini sebaiknya dilakukan dari awalsehinggadapatmengambilkeuntungandaripeluangyangadatersebut.

Dalam penyusunan CRS, masing-masing Tim Kota memilih sektor-sektorproritas dan kemudian melakukan analisa biaya-manfaat untuk memilihintervensi yang akan menjadi bagian dari CRS. Walaupun CRS milikSemarangtelahdiintegrasikansebagiankedalamRencanaPembangunanJangkaMenengahKota; namun sampai saat studi ini dilakukan, dampakdariCRStersebutmasihterlaludiniuntukdievaluasi.

Perubahan Persepsi dan Sikap terhadap Perubahan IklimCRSmengintegrasikansegalahalyangtelahdilakukandidalamprogramsampaisaatpenyusunandokumenCRS,danterutamamelibatkanpartisipanyangtelahterlibatsebelumnyadidalamprogram;hanyamenyisakansedikitruanguntukpembelajaranlebihlanjut.Namun,CRStelahmembantudalammengubah sikap masyarakat terhadap arti penting isu perubahan iklimsebagai salah satu alat penggalangan dana untukmemenuhi kebutuhankota.

Tantangan1. MengintegrasikanCRSkedalamprosesperencanaankota.Salahsatu

kekuatan utama CRS adalah strukturnya yang memudahkan prosespengintegrasian materi dan kegiatan terkait adaptasi perubahaniklim yang berasal dari program ACCCRN ke dalam proses standarperencanaankota.DidalamprogramACCCRN,prosespengintegrasianini sangat terfasilitasi olehpenempatanTimKotadiBAPPEDA,dinasyangmemilikitanggungjawabdibidangperencanaankota.

2. Mencari donor. CRS seharusnya memberikan peluang pendanaanbagi kota untuk mengimplementasikan adaptasi perubahan iklim.

VIII. Dokumen Strategi Ketahanan KotaCity Resilience Strategy Document

WalaupunpadadasarnyaStrategiKetahananKota(CRS)seharusnyamenjadisalahsatukeluaranprogramACCCRNyangdapatmendorongpelaksanaanaktivitasadaptasiperubahaniklimlainnya,namunrespondenmemilikipersepsiyangberagammengenaihalini.BeberapapartisipanhampirtidakmenyadarinilaidariCRSatautidakmenganggapCRSsebagaisuatuhalyangpenting;dilainpihak,1respondendiSemarangmenyatakanbahwaiatidakmengertiartipentingdariprogramACCCRNsampaiakhirnyaCRSdisusun.TimKotaharusmenekankannilaidariCRSsebagaimediauntukmengintegrasikanadaptasiperubahaniklimkedalamperencanaankotasertasebagaipengungkituntukmencaripendanaan.

While the City Resilience Strategy (CRS) should be one of the results of the program that is in itself a catalyst for further climate change adaptation work, interviewees had mixed perceptions of it. Some participants were almost unaware of it or didn’t consider it important; on the other hand, one respondent in Semarang stated that he did not understand the importance of the ACCCRN program until the CRS. The value of the CRS as a tool for incorporating climate change adaptation into municipal planning, and for leveraging more funding for it, should be highlighted to the City Teams.

Recommendations1. Significant support or collaboration in the design, implementing, and

monitoring of the pilot projects. Most City Teams have neither the resources nor the experience to design or implement a project at the level expected by international donors, and will require either support or proactive collaboration from the organization implementing the program. In addition to improving pilot project performance, this can also provide much needed mentoring for City Team members to improve their project management skills.

2. Plan mechanisms to disseminate the results of the sector studies. As with the SLDs and VAAs, the sector study reports contain information that is useful for mobilization and advocacy, as well as for planning future interventions. Dissemination of this information beyond the City Team will help to achieve the goals of the program.

3. Use the sector studies to help connect pilot projects to climate change issues. Some interviewees noted that even when communities were very happy with the results of the pilot projects, they had difficulty connecting them to the scientifically-written sector studies. Few community members had been involved in the SLDs or other parts of the program. Approaches that frame the pilot projects within the overall structure of the program should be given more consideration.

4. Proactive monitoring. While many of the pilot projects were successful, others were plagued by minor operational issues that could be easily resolved with a closer monitoring process.

5. Plan for follow-up that builds on the success of pilot projects. Successful pilot projects, like those in Semarang, can create a momentum and interest in climate change adaptation among vulnerable communities, offering exactly the opportunity that this program is designed to catalyze. Planning and fundraising for continuations of the projects from the start will help to take full advantage of such opportunities.

To develop the CRS, each City Team selected priority sectors and then conducted cost-benefit analysis to select interventions to be included in the CRS. While the Semarang CRS has already been partially incorporated into the city’s Medium-Term Development Plan, at the time this study was conducted it was still early to evaluate the full impact of the CRS.

Changing Attitudes To Climate ChangeThe CRS consolidated what had been done up to that point in the program, and engaged primarily participants who were already involved, leaving little space for further learning. However, the CRS did help to shift attitudes towards the usefulness of climate change as a fundraising tool for the needs of the cities.

Challenges/Pitfalls1. Integrating the CRS into municipal planning processes. One of the main

strengths of the CRS is that it packages the climate change adaptation learning and initiatives from the program in a way that is easy for the city to adopt into its standard planning process. In the ACCCRN program, this was significantly facilitated by locating the City Team in BAPPEDA, the department with planning authority.

2. F inding donors. The CRS is supposed to enable fur ther f u n d i n g f o r c l i m a t e c h a n g e a d a p t a t i o n i n t h e c i t i e s .


NamunkebanyakananggotaTimKotatidakmemilikikemampuanuntukmencari,mengidentifikasiataumelakukanpendekatankepadadonor-donorpotensial.

Pencapaian/DampakPada kondisi yang sesuai – contohnya di Semarang, yang memiliki TimKotadengantimintiyangdekatdankompak,kemauanpolitikyangtinggiuntuk isu perubahan iklim, dan dukungan dari dinas yang menaungiurusan perencanaan – CRS membantu dalam menguatkan tim inti danmengintegrasikanaksiadaptasiperubahaniklimkedalamperencanaandanpendanaan kota secara formal.Dampak jangka panjangdari CRSmasihbelumdapatterlihat.

Rekomendasi1. Menekankan pentingnya CRS sebagai alat untuk menggalang dana.

CRS telah membantu Tim Kota di Semarang melihat arti pentingperubahan iklim dalam mencari dana untuk mengimplementasikanaksi-aksi yang dapat membantu masyarakat rentan di kota mereka,suatu pemahaman yang mendorong mereka untuk menyusun suatudokumenyangberhargadanbermanfaat.DiBandarLampung,denganpemahamanyanglebihrendahakannilaiCRS,prosespengerjaanCRSberjalandenganlebihlambat.

2. Mendesain CRS sedemikian sehingga rekomendasi yang diusulkandapat diintegrasikan dengan mudah ke dalam proses perencanaankota. Semakin mudah proses pengadopsian kegiatan di dalam CRSkedalamprosesdanformatstandarkota,semakintinggikemungkinankegiatantersebutuntukdimasukkankedalamperencanaankota.

Tantangan1. Adanya berbagai macam struktur dan rencana. Seperti halnya

komponen-komponen lain di dalam program ACCCRN, berlapisnyaproses pengawasan dan evaluasi berdampak pada timbulnyakebingungan dan konflik; pengawasan pada tingkat donor dilakukandengan cara serta indikator yang berbeda dengan yang dilakukanpada tingkatan organisasi pelaksana, dimana sistem (yang kurangjelas)yangdigunakanpunberbeda.Hal inikemudianmengakibatkankurangnya kejelasan, serta pada kasus-kasus tertentu, kurangnyapemberdayaandantanggungjawab.

2. Kesulitan dalam melaksanakan pengawasan off-site. Staf M&E yangberlokasidiJakartamelakukanbeberapakalikunjunganlapanganyangumumnyadiorganisirolehpemangkukepentingankota;sehinggaakansulituntukmelihathal-halyangtidaksesuai.

3. Kurangnyasumberdaya.StafM&EdiJakartajugamengurusmasalahadministrasi,sehinggawaktuyangmerekagunakanuntukmenjalankanfungsiM&Emenjadiberkurang.Untuklebihmemperumitmasalah,hasildari M&E jarang diminta atau dipertanyakan, sehingga insentif bagistafuntukmelakukanpekerjaandenganlebihkomprehensifsangatlahkurang.

Pencapaian/dampakWalaupunsaat iniprosespengawasanhasil sedangberlangsung,namunmasih terlau dini untuk menentukan dampak dari proses M&E di dalamkeseluruhan program ACCCRN. Meskipun begitu, akuntabilitas yanglebih tinggidanprosespengawasanyang lebihkomprehensifakandapatmembantu meningkatkan implementasi saat ini dan di masa yang akandatang.

Rekomendasi1. Mengalokasikan waktu dan sumber daya yang memadai untuk

pengawasan dan evaluasi. Walaupun rekomendasi ini berlakuuntukhampir semuaprogram,namunnilaipentinghal ini tetapperluuntuk ditekankan. Mengingat kompleksnya suatu program yangmengkombinasikan adaptasi perubahan iklim dengan pemerintahan,maka kesadaran akan perlunya prioritasi serta pengawasan danevaluasidengansumberdayayangmemadaidapatmenjadisalahsatufaktorkunciuntukmencapaikesuksesanprogram.

2. MendukungpenuhpengawasanyangdilakukanolehTimKotasembarimembangunkapasitasmereka.HanyasedikitanggotaTimKotayangmemilikipengalamanmelakukanprosespengawasan, terutamapadatingkatanyangdiinginkanolehdonorinternasional.Prosespeningkatankapasitas merupakan hal yang penting, namun sampai dan selamaproses itu berjalan,mereka akanmembutuhkandukungan yang kuatdaridinaspelaksanaagarstandaryangdiinginkandapattercapai.

IX. Pengawasan dan EvaluasiM&E

Rencanapengasawandanevaluasi (M&E)ACCCRNsangatlahkompleks,mencakup:pendekatanberbasishasilyangdiimplementasikanuntukseluruhprogramyangdilakukanolehkontraktoreksternal;pendekatanberbasislog-fram¬eyangdisusunolehMercyCorpssetelahprogramdimulai;danprosespengawasan proyek percontohan yang kurang terstruktur yang dilakukanolehTimKota.Walaupunsaatinidirasamasihterlaludiniuntukmenilaihasildariprosespengawasanterhadapproyek,sertatentunyamasihterlaudinijuga untukmelakukan evaluasi; saat ini sudahdapat terlihat adanyagapyangcukupsignifikandalamhalmonitoring.

The ACCCRN M&E plan was extremely complex, including: a results-oriented approach implemented for the entire regional program by an external contractor; a logframe-based approach developed after the start of the program by Mercy Corps; and relatively unstructured monitoring of the pilot projects carried out by the City Teams. While it is still early in the project to make a definitive judgment on the monitoring, and certainly too early to say anything about evaluation, there were significant gaps in the monitoring up to this point.

However, most City Team members do not know how to research, identify or approach potential donors.

Success/ImpactUnder the right circumstances – for example, in Semarang, which had a close-knit group working on the City Team, significant political will around climate change issues, and the support of the planning ministry – the CRS can help to strengthen the core group and formally ingrain climate change adaptation measures in municipal planning and budgeting. The longer-term impacts of the CRS remain to be seen.

Recommendations1. Emphasize the importance of the CRS as a fund-raising tool. The CRS

helped City Team members in Semarang to see the value of the climate change approach in raising funds for urgently needed initiatives for vulnerable communities in their city, an understanding that galvanized their work on creating a worthwhile document. In Bandar Lampung, which had less of a sense of that value, the work on the CRS was proceeding more slowly.

2. Design the CRS to make its recommendations as easy as possible to fit into the standard municipal planning process. The easier it is to adapt the initiatives in the CRS to the standard processes and formats, the more likely they will be included.

Challenges/Pitfalls1. Multiple structures, multiple plans. As with other components of the

ACCCRN program, the many layers of the M&E led to some confusion and conflict, with monitoring at the donor level conducted in a different way and with different indicators than monitoring at the implementing agency level, and yet another (and poorly defined) system used by City Teams. This led to a lack of clarity and in some cases to lack of empowerment or responsibility.

2. The difficulties of remote monitoring. M&E officers based in Jakarta made few visits to the field, and those they did make were largely organized by the city stakeholders, making it difficult for them to see any undesirable results.

3. Lack of resources. M&E in Jakarta was combined with administration, reducing the time to perform its functions. Perhaps more problematically, results were rarely requested or questioned, offering little incentive for rigorous work.

Success/ImpactWhile some tracking of results is on-going, it is early to determine the impact of the M&E in the ACCCRN program. However, greater accountability and more rigorous monitoring could help improve current and future implementation.

Recommendations1. llocate sufficient time and resources to monitoring and evaluation.

Although this is a recommendation valid for almost any program, it bears repeating. Given the complicated nature of programs combining climate change adaptation and governance, an awareness of the need to prioritize and adequately resource monitoring and evaluation can be a key success factor.

2. Support City Team monitoring sufficiently while building their capacity. Few City Team members have any experience with monitoring, particularly at the level required by international donors. While building this capacity is important, until and as it is built, they will require strong support from the implementing agency to meet those standards.


Mercy Corps IndonesiaGraha STKFFloorSuiteF01JalanTamanMargasawtaNo.3Ragunan,PasarMingguJakartaSelatan12550

Studi Kasus pada Implementasi Asian Cities Climate Change … · 2016. 9. 17. · Studi Kasus pada...

Documents

Transcript of Studi Kasus pada Implementasi Asian Cities Climate Change … · 2016. 9. 17. · Studi Kasus pada...