Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) In Handling Post Disaster Infected Citizens in The Earthquake, Tsunami and Liquifaction in Palu City

The purpose of this research is to analyze the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) in the management of residents affected by the post-earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction disasters in Palu City. The research method used is a qualitative approach with Miles and Huberman 2014 data analysis consisting of: data collection, data condensation, data presentation, and drawing conclusions. From the research conducted, it can be concluded that the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) in handling disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction disasters have not run optimally. This is because there are components in the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) cycle that are not going well.


INTRODUCTION
Earthquake is a natural phenomenon that we cannot avoid or prevent. The emergence of earthquake events is very difficult to predict accurately. Therefore, this places the earthquake as one of the biggest disasters in Indonesia because of the risks it can cause. As is known, all regions of Indonesia are in the Pacific Ring of Fire, which is an area that experiences earthquakes the most. Therefore it can be said, Indonesia is always faced with the threat of shocks due to the movement of tectonic plates. This shock can at least occur almost every day with a strength of around magnitude 5 or 6. A higher strength above magnitude 7 also has the potential to appear which is predicted to occur every year two to three times. The risk of danger posed is truly extraordinary, both in terms of casualties as well as damage to infrastructure and disruption to the environment.
On September 28, 2018 an earthquake rocked Donggala Regency and Palu City. After that, aftershocks appeared and triggered a tsunami wave that devastated the Tadulako Earth and its surroundings. In Palu, the earthquake shook up to a magnitude of 7.4 on the Richter scale. It was reported that the epicenter was at a depth of 10 km. While the position of the epicenter of this earthquake is in the direction of 27 km east of the Donggala Sea. The earthquake in Palu occurred due to the activity of the Palu-Koro fault. Based on the position and depth of the epicenter of the earthquake, the earthquake was caused by active fault activity in the Palu-Koro fault zone which is trending northwest-southeast. (Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (PVMBG).
Based on the results of data collection and verification of the condition of houses affected by the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City, data obtained were 12,854 units heavily damaged, 12,717 moderately damaged units, 17,293 lightly damaged units so that a total of 42,864 units. The central government has issued Presidential Instruction Number 10 of 2018 concerning the Acceleration of Post-Earthquake and Tsunami Rehabilitation and Reconstruction in Central Sulawesi Province and Other Affected Areas, then followed up with Governor Regulation Number 10 of 2019 concerning post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction in Palu City so that handling disaster-affected residents can complete their construction in 2022, but in reality the policy target was not achieved so the president again issued Instruction Number 8 of 2022 concerning Completion of Post-Earthquake, Tsunami and Liquefaction Rehabilitation and Reconstruction in Central Sulawesi Province in 2024.
The condition of residents affected by the disaster after the Palu City disaster are still living in evacuation shelters, and there is no clarity on when the permanent shelter will be completed, while thousands of residents affected by the disaster in Palu City are still waiting for permanent housing (huntap), temporary housing buildings (huntara) which are they have lived in since April 2019 until now, many of which are damaged and unfit for habitation. the incomplete construction of permanent housing in Palu City is mainly due to the incomplete status of land ownership. The construction of temporary housing using World Bank assistance requires that no claims of land ownership by other parties can be made. In addition, the majority of residents complained about unusable toilets, cramped shelter booths, access to clean water and security and convenience issues for women and children who are vulnerable to cases of sexual violence. Under these conditions, all stakeholders, both the government and the community, are required to collaborate so that what is the target of the presidential instruction regarding the management of disaster-affected residents can be resolved as desired. Implementation of post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction will involve the role of various parties who prepare resources. At the level of the rehabilitation and reconstruction center, it will be coordinated by the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) and at the regional level, it will be coordinated by the Regional Disaster Management Agency (BPBD). and liquefaction requires the involvement of various parties (Collaborative). Ansell and Gassh (2007: 543) mention that collaborative governance is a new strategy in governance that makes various policy stakeholders gather in the same forum to create a common consensus. Furthermore, Ansell and Gash define collaborative governance as a governance arrangement in which one or more public institutions directly involve nongovernmental actors in a collective policy-making process that is formal, consensusoriented, and consultative with the aim of making or implementing public policies, managing programs or public assets. Collaborative governance acts as a mediator so that actors can formulate the same understanding on a problem (Ansell, 2014: 172).
Therefore, the problem in this research is how the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) deals with disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City. In this study, the collaborative process of Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh (2012: 6) uses the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) theory, because it sees the components involved in handling disaster-affected residents in Palu City as comprehensive and appropriate to use in addressing problems. The collaborative process theory or Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) explains in detail how the collaboration process is dynamic and cyclical, by producing temporary actions and impacts, before leading to the main impact, as well as adaptation to temporary impacts. The above collaboration process referred to is in the CGR box. This study uses various components in CGR to reveal the collaboration phenomenon. The various components that make up the collaboration process include 1) collaboration dynamics, 2) collaborative actions, and 3) temporary impacts and temporary adaptations of the collaboration process.

METHOD
This study uses a qualitative approach. According to Bogdan and Taylor in Molong 2017: 4 define qualitative methodology as a research procedure that produces descriptive data in the form of written or spoken words from people and observable behavior. Meanwhile, Denzin and Lincoln in Moleong 2017: 5 state that qualitative research is research that uses a natural setting, with the intention of interpreting phenomena that occur and is carried out by involving various existing methods.
In qualitative type research, data analysis consists of: data collection, data condensation, data presentation, and drawing conclusions (Huberman 2014). Data condensation is the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and changing field notes, transcripts, interviews, documents, and other empirical material (findings). Data condensation means fitting all the data without having to sort (reduce) the data. Data condensation occurs continuously in life as long as it is oriented towards qualitative research, before the actual data is collected, the anticipation of data condensation as a researcher unconsciously often draws a conclusion can be in the form of a conceptual framework, cases, research questions, and data collection that is considered close to chosen. As a result of data collection, further data condensation occurs: writing summaries, coding developing categories, and writing analysis memos (Miles, Hubberman & Saldana, 2014:31).
Thus, it can be concluded that by condensing the data analysis process in certain qualitative research it will better accommodate the data as a whole without having to reduce the field findings obtained during the research (Data Screening Process) in progress. Presentation of data is a set of structured informants that provide the possibility of drawing conclusions. This happens because by presenting the data it will be understood what is going on and what should be done based on that understanding.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) cycle will run well if all components run well, for more details, the following is a description of the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) component cycle in handling disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City:

Collaborative Dynamics
Ansell and Gash (2008) and Thomson and Perry (2006), Emerson (2013) see the dynamics of the collaboration process as an oriterative cycle of interaction. Emerson focuses on the three interaction components of collaboration dynamics. These components include: Principled Engagement, Shared Motivation and Capacity for Joint Action.

a. Principled Engagement
The movement of shared principles is very important in the process of collaboration. Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh (2012:12) the movement of shared principles can be seen from several things such as face-to-face dialogue, or through technological intermediaries is a way of moving shared principles. In it there is a reaffirmation of common goals, the formation and development of shared principles which are often expressed in the perspectives of various actors. Therefore, the unification of principles is at the heart of this. In the movement of shared principles, there are several elements as follows:

1) Disclosure (Discovery) and Definition (Defenition)
Disclosure of both collaboration actors, and individuals within them, can be analyzed from the interests of these actors joining the collaboration. whether there are differences in interests that affect the collaboration process. However, Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh (2012: 12) emphasized building the formation of "sharedmeaning" or understanding together continuously. The interests of the actors involved in the care of residents affected by the aftermath of the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City are the common interest of achieving the rehabilitation and reconstruction targets in accordance with presidential instructions and governor regulations.

2) Deliberation
Building quality deliberation requires advocacy skills, it doesn't have to be for all individuals, but some are enough. This advocacy is internal, meaning to direct collaboration, as well as actors to keep running on the goals of collaboration, resulting in strategic and effective conflict resolution. There is a process of delibrative democracy, so as to be able to make collaboration a forum for developing innovation and creation, both in generating ideas, and in dealing with the practice of collaborative activities in the field. In dealing with disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City, each collaborating agency is given space to provide suggestions and input and be creative as long as it does not go outside the agreed rules.

3) Determination
Determination is the act of determining the desired goals, which are divided into primary determination and substantive determination. (a) Primary determination: several procedural decisions (for example: setting collaboration agenda, scheduling discussions, forming working groups). In inter-agency meetings held or initiated by the Palu City BPBD, they always produce recommendations to be mutually agreed upon between agencies, so that collaboration goes well.

b. Shared Motivation
Motivation, Agencies that collaborate must have shared motivation, Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh (2012: 13) define shared motivation as a cycle of self-reinforcement consisting of four mutually beneficial elements including: shared trust, shared understanding, internal legitimacy, and commitment, with the following description:

1) Mult Turst (Joint Trust)
According to Fisher and Brown in Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh (2012: 13) mutual trust will develop along with the involvement of parties when collaborating, getting to know each other and proving to each other that they can be trusted, responsible and reliable. However, sometimes there are agencies that collaborate in handling disasteraffected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City, there are still agencies that are free from responsibility, program synergy that is prioritized in disasters is not implemented. in a collaboration, trust plays an important role in reducing transaction costs, increasing investment value and maintaining stability in relationships as well as stimulating joint learning, exchange of knowledge and innovation (Koppenjan and Klijn in Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh, 2012: 13).

2) Mutual Understanding
Shared understanding will give birth to trust that can make stakeholders/agencies appreciate the differences that exist from other stakeholders/agencies in collaborating. The existence of a shared understanding of the collaborating stakeholders/agencies will facilitate the achievement of collaboration goals. Mutual understanding is needed  2008). The delay in handling disaster-affected residents in Palu City was due to a lack of mutual understanding across sectors in every task and function of each agency that carried out the collaboration.

3) Internal Legitimation
Internal legitimacy is an acknowledgment originating from internal collaboration, namely that collaborative actors can be trusted or credible in carrying out their duties and roles Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012: 14). Building Internal Legitimacy in collaboration requires mutual trust and shared understanding from stakeholders/agencies. the collaborative commitment to handling post-disaster disaster-affected residents in Palu City is contained in the Post-Disaster Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Plan (R3PB) which was proposed by the BPBD to the Palu City Development Planning Agency on the basis of mutual agreement of each collaborating agency.

4) Commitment
The existence of conditions of high interdependence among stakeholders is likely to increase commitment to collaboration. It should be emphasized that collaborating is not a one-time agreement but is a process of continuous and mutually beneficial cooperation activities (Anshell and Gash 2008). The commitment of every actor in the agency is needed to keep the collaboration going. The commitment of fellow collaboration participants can be seen from the budgeting process and programs planned by the agency or agency in handling disaster-affected residents after the natural disaster in Palu City. However, there are still several agencies that propose programs that are not related to the management of disaster-affected residents, so that the commitments agreed upon by the collaboration participants have not gone well.

c. Capacity for Collective Action
The capacity to take joint action is conceptualized within a framework which is a combination of four important elements including: institutional procedures and agreements, leadership, knowledge and resources (Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh, 2012:14). These elements must be adequate in achieving the agreed objectives. These elements can be explained as follows:

1) Procedural and Institutional Arrangements
The agreement that existed in the initial collaboration was informal, but over time, formalities were needed, such as the formation of legislation or legal formalities which became the legal umbrella for collaboration. For larger, more complex, and long duration collaborations, the institutional structure of collaboration must be clear, and protocols for the administration and management of collaborative activities are required (Milward and Provan in Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh 2012:14). Collaboration requires management to regulate procedures and mechanisms for SINOMICS JOURNAL | VOLUME 2 ISSUE 2 (2023) WWW.SINOMICSJOURNAL.COM 335

ISSN (e): 2829-7350 | ISSN(p): 2963-9441
collaboration carried out by agencies in handling disaster-affected residents after the natural disaster in Palu City. Handling residents affected by disasters is a joint matter where all agencies have their own standard of handling, but the procedures for handling residents affected by disasters after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City were delegated to the Palu City Regional Disaster Management Agency (BPBD).

2) Leadership
Leadership in collaboration is really needed, not leadership that is vertical in nature, but leadership that is meant in collaboration is leadership that is horizontal in nature, in order to be able to coordinate with collaborating agencies. The coordination carried out can identify the division of tasks and authorities in serving residents affected by the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City, so that collaboration does not occur overlapping tasks and responsibilities. According to Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh 2012: 15 collaborative leadership has the following roles: (1) as a party that explores support for collaboration, (2) initiates meetings, (3) facilitators and mediators, (4) representation of actors and collaboration as a whole , (5) knowledge distributor, (6) encouraging the use of technology in collaboration, and (7) advocating to the public.

3) Knowledge
According to Groff & Jones (in Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012:16) explains knowledge as: Knowledge is information combined with understanding and capability: it lives in the minds of people…Knowledge guides action, shereas information and data can merely inform or confused. Knowledge is the combination of information with understanding that information and adding capabilities. Knowledge leads to action, but knowledge can also inform or confuse. In collaboration with disaster-affected residents in Palu City, each agency has different knowledge in translating Presidential Instructions and Governor Regulations, which delegate full responsibility to only one agency, namely the Palu City Regional Disaster Management Agency (BPBD).

4) Resources
Governance collaboration Handling disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City requires resources, both human resources (employees) and non-human resources. The resources owned by agencies in collaboration with disaster-affected residents in Palu City are still minimal so that recommendations and joint agreements sometimes do not work according to the goals of the collaboration. Meanwhile, non-human resources are related to finance (budgeting), the available budget in each collaboration participant agency is still limited in handling disaster-affected residents. According to Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012: 16 Resources are: (1) financial funding, (2) division of time and roles, technical and administrative support for the implementation of activities, (4) mutual assistance, (5) needs collaboration analysis skills, and (6) implementers in the field, and (7) expert needs.

Action in Collaboration
According to Agranoff & Mc Guire, 2003: 403 Collaborative actions are motivated by the idea that it is difficult to achieve goals if only one group or organization acts alone. Meanwhile, according to Innes and Booher in Emerson 2012:17 collaborative actions are the main result of a linear collaboration process which is sometimes associated with impact. Collaborative actions in practice are very diverse, such as community empowerment, establishment of licensing processes, pooling of resources, monitoring of new management systems/practices, and so on. Actions in collaboration in practice vary widely, and are a reflection of the dynamics of collaboration. Whatever actions are taken in the form of activities/events or discussions and so on, and the pros and cons can be seen from the development and correct understanding of the dynamics of collaboration by collaborative actors and individuals. Then, the results of these actions directly bring temporary impacts that lead back to the dynamics of collaboration, and long-term impacts (Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh 2012:17).
Actions in collaborative handling of disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City have been carried out in various ways, such as inviting disaster-affected residents to sit together to resolve the obstacles they face, but community empowerment is still minimal, because the construction of permanent housing starts from planning up to the physical construction stage is still being carried out by the construction company so that residents affected by the disaster are not involved.

Impact and Adaptation
The impact of this collaboration is being able to provide solutions to the problems faced by residents affected by the disaster after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City. The problem faced by disaster-affected residents to date is that permanent shelter has not been built, so that disaster-affected residents are still occupying refugee shelters. Apart from that, another problem is the unfinished status of land ownership for the construction of permanent housing (huntap) for disaster-affected residents which should be has been completed by the local government together with the BPN/ATR land agency of Palu City. The impact in the CGR referred to is the temporary impact caused during the collaboration process. Impact characteristics are expected, unexpected, and unexpected. The expected impact is "small-wins", namely positive results that continue to sustain the enthusiasm of the actors. While unexpected impacts such as obstacles in the implementation of collaboration.
The adaptation in question is how to collaborate in handling disaster-affected residents in response to feedback from each existing actor. A good adaptation is one that can be carried out by all collaborative actors, meaning that there is no influence of organizational interests on collaboration, thus causing efforts to take advantage of collaboration more for the benefit of the organization itself.

CONCLUSION
From the research conducted, it can be concluded that the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) in handling disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction disasters have not run optimally. This is because there are components in the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) cycle that are not going well. Among them are the components of the dynamics of the first collaboration: a sub-explanation of the movement of shared principles in the element of determination, because the meetings that have been held so far are still initiated by the Palu City BPBD, there has been no initiation from other collaboration participant agencies, on the grounds that there is no budget. Second: sub-explanation of motivation in the element of shared understanding. The slow handling of disaster-affected residents in Palu City is due to a lack of cross-sectoral mutual understanding in every task and function of each agency that is collaborating. Third: Commitment sub-explanation, there are still several agencies that propose programs not related to handling disaster-affected residents. Fourth; Capacity to Take Joint Actions in the element of shared knowledge: each agency has different knowledge in translating Presidential Instructions and Governor Regulations, which delegate full responsibility to only one agency, namely the Regional Disaster Management Agency (BPBD) Palu City, while the resource element; there is still a lack of resources owned by agencies that carry out collaborations and financial resources in terms of limited budgeting. Furthermore, the Action Component in Collaboration: community empowerment is still minimal, and finally, the Impact and Adaptation Component: there is still land for permanent housing construction (Huntap) that has not been released by the regional government so that permanent housing construction (Huntap) is still lacking.

Recommendation:
In order for the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) cycle to run well in handling disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City, the researchers provide recommendations, as follows: 1. It is better if the institutions participating in the collaboration have the initiative to schedule meetings, because so far only the BPBD has had the initiative to hold meetings in handling disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City. 2. In the collaborative process of handling disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City, it is necessary to have a shared understanding regarding the duties and functions of the Palu City government agencies, so that tasks and functions do not overlap. 3. It is necessary to build the commitment of each collaborating agency in handling disasteraffected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City, especially programming activities related to disaster-affected residents. 4. Agencies participating in the collaboration need to conduct joint training so that they can increase their knowledge of handling disaster-affected residents after the earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu City.