. Introduction

This is the 2nd edition of Indonesian Peace-building Directory as a follow up of the first edition that was published in 2003. Like its predecessor, the publication of the 2nd edition was supported by  CRS (Catholic Relief Service) and Cordaid.

But unlike the 1^st edition which had been published in hard copies and compact discs, while the 2^nd edition has also been developed into a website from 2004. CERIC of the Faculty of Social and Political Science of the University of Indonesia was in charge of the development in collaboration with the Ohio University. 

We are absolutely aware that the names of organizations, individuals and addresses listed in a directory are subject to revisions due to name changes, address changes, emergence of new institutions and organizations, or  organizations which have ceased to exist. Therefore, the effort to regularly update a directory is an endless one. This is also the reason to publish the 2nd edition of the directory.

 But the reason for this publication was not only for the sake of updating the names and addresses listed in the 1st edition, but also to ensure the sustainable network among the peace-building activists and their existing patrons. For your information, the 1st directories have been distributed to more than 1,000 national organizations and 200 international organizations in hard copies and compact discs. With access to names and addresses of such institutions which are constantly updated, hopefully the peace-building activists are able to improve their existing collaboration and forge new joint efforts with other oganizations newly listed in this directory.

One may wonder the reason for the publication of this peace-building directory, particularly for the Indonesian community. What is the actual concept being offered by a peace-building directory to us in Indonesia?

Physically, this directory is simply a collection of data comprising names and addresses of institutions promoting peace. Obviously, the collected data will not give any benefit if we do not try to give a meaning to them. In other words, the value of the collected data will largely depend on how the peace-building activists make use of the data; for instance for training and funding purposes, information dissemination, promoting solidarity, collaborating with the working partners and so forth.

 As a result, this directory is dedicated to encourage the establishing a network among the peace-building activists, especially those in Indonesia, in order to build the network of fellow activists in Indonesia and overseas. This directory therefore offers and encourages joint efforts among the peace-building institutions to establish the necessary contacts and links. In this way, peace and justice in Indonesia will be achieved. Such collaboration network is becoming more important because the institutions listed in this directory have varied backgrounds. This fact is particularly useful to resolve complex and multi-dimensional conflicts taking place in Indonesia and their roots. We believe that to build a peaceful society, we must adopt multi and cross-discipline approaches. These must be carried out by those involved by way of different stages in the communities.

Numerous kinds of institutions are listed in this directory. They show and clarify that various activities they are carrying out at the moment contain the attempts to promote peace and social justice in Indonesia through cross disciplines. This directory shows that the peace-building institutions involved in so many fields, namely empowering the marginalized traditional people, investigating human right violations, promoting the role of rural communities in the local decision-making process, opposing the expansion plan of palm coconut plantation, giving the opportunity to rural youths to express their creativity, facilitating the repatriation of refugees to their original communities; as well as activities which are linked to peace-building and conflict resolution efforts, such as interfaith dialogs, mediations and negotiations, and activites to promote tolerance and pluralism.

Indeed, not all the institutions listed in this peace-building directory is directly linked to peace-building activities. However, as they have agreed that their names and addresses be listed in this directory, we conclude that they own the same goal, namely within the same peace-building efforts. Under such circumstances, we are all committed to create a synergy to promote peace and justice. Accordingly, we have picked up a theme for this directory, namely “together we become strong”.

B. The Process to Compile the 2nd edition of Directory

 As earlier mentioned, updating a directory is a continous effort. This is so to make the directory mantain its basic function as living resources. In particular, nowdays there are more and more organizations involved directly or indirectly in peace-building activities, such as inter-ethnic and inter-faith dialogs, promotion and protection of human rights, conflict transformation, improving the mediation and negotiation skills, peace campaigns, civil society empowerment as well as other initiatives for peace. Thus, the compilation and publication of the 2nd edition of peace-building directory is extremely relevant.

As a matter of fact, a website directory is most effective as the peace-building institutions may directly access the latest data. However, there are many reasons, deliberately or for any other reason,  why so many people or institutions do not have the access to websites. Consequently, maintaining the up-to-date directory in hard copies is vital for those working in remote areas and lacking the facilities to access the internet.

As an effort to convince the users that this directory remains as living resources and maintain its role as a bridge of communication and network among the peace-building institutions at the local and international level, CERIC in collaboration with Cordaid, CRS and Ohio University has conducted a survey to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the 1st edition directories. We used the results of the survey to revise and improve the 2nd edition of the directory. 

Data Collection Method

The method used in the compilation of the 2nd edition of the directory was questionnaire distribution. As the first step, the questionnaires were sent to as many as 1,300 organizations comprising 465 organizations listed in the 1st edition of directory plus organizations which have received the directories but have not/are not listed in the directory. From those receiving the questionnaires, some responded immediately, some questionnaires were sent back to the CERIC secretariat as they had moved, or addresses were not complete. Few questionnaires were not returned to the secretariat. We concluded that it was the techical error on the part of the post offices/courier services.

In respect to the questionnaires which were sent back to CERIC, we followed them up as follows:

• Searching the existence of such organizations through the websites. Once found, we again sent the questionnaires to the addresses via the mail, email or fax.
• Asking for some information about these organizations from an organization  or its network considered solid in a given area.
• Searching via the directories published by other institutions.

Thanks to such follow up actions, as we managed to obtain fairly good responses. Our last resort of tracking and acquiring the data was conducting phone interviews. We did this mostly to organizations located in Jakarta. We opted this because there were many organizations genuninely wishing their names and addresses be listed in the directory but they were so busy and lacked the personnel to follow up the questionnaires we had forwarded to them.

The total number organizations completing and returning the questionnaries is 301 organizations. The number is smaller than the organizations listed in the 1st edition directory, namely 465 organizations. However, when viewed from its data accuracy, the publication of the 2nd edition directory  can hopefully boost the execution of peace-building activities in Indonesia in the real term.

Even though only 25% of the organizations of all peace-building institutions that had received the directories took part in this survey, their opinions served as valuable inputs for the development of this 2nd edition directory. The lack of response to this survey was resulted from, we had to admit, the less detailed information of the organizations listed in the 1st edition.

Based on the inputs from the respondents, we concluded that around 64% of organizations have been using hard copy directories to obtain various information, for capacity building and obtain financial support from the donor agencies. Meanwhile, 22% of organizations preferred the CD version and the remaining 14% chose to access our website. In addition, the respondents gave valuable inputs to improve the directory usage more effectively. Most of them suggested the layout and contents of the directories be improved, as it will enable them to access to more specific information about the activities performed by the other organizations, and their hands-on experiences in peace-building, more detailed information about the training programs as well as more clear-cut prerequisites to obtain financial support from donor agencies.

We definetely accommodated useful inputs concerning the layout improvement for the publication of the 2nd edition of directory. However, we were not able to accommodate all the inputs, although they were equally important, bearing in mind that the objective of publishing this directory is to build a network, and not to provide all the data required and considered essential to all organizations.

 C. General discriptions of Indonesian Peace-building Directory, 2nd edition

 Type of Organization

Compared to the directory of the 1st edition, the organization profiles in this 2nd edition do not change much. Most organizations listed in this directory are NGOs (52.92%), followed by Foundations (27.38%) and associations (7.69%). 

 Activities

As regards the activities carried out in the last 2 years, the civil society empowering activities have been the priority of the organizations listed in this directory (15.12%) followed by advocacies/lobbying (10.75%), gender issues (9.79%), human right promotion (8.97%) and democratization (7.93%). While for the activities in the next five years, the sequence is unchanged (civil society empowerment (19,25%), advocacies/lobbying (10.08%), gender issues (9.63%), human right promotion (8.61%). With the exception of the fifth position, which used to be dominated by democratization activities had turned into the endeavors to promote good governance (6.46%). 

 Level of Peace-building activities

The ratio between organizations operating in the urban and rural areas is almost equal. Those working in the urban areas are 43.27% compared to those targeting rural areas, namely 40.79%. This shows that the peace-building activities carried out in urban and rural areas are equal. 

Geographical Areas

Five major geographical areas  of peace-building activites are Central Java (8.46%), Aceh and Papua (respectively 6.77%) followed by the Special Capital Territory of Jakarta and East Java. The emergence of Aceh and Papua is quite relevant to the current peace-building in Indonesia. As a result of powerful tsunami that struck Aceh at the end of 2004, Aceh is now under reconstruction and rehabilitation programs. Various peace-building efforts are taking place in this area. Meanwhile, Papua is ridden with conflicts involving the native people against multi-national corporations (MNC) as well as tribal wars. This also explains why Maluku, which is currently becoming more stable, is excluded from 4 major geographical areas where peace-building activities are taking place. 

Funding Sources

Funding sources are one of the most essential components to measure the performance of CSO. The data below show that CSO listed in this directory own a fairly high level of independence as evident from the fact that 34.5% of the organizations are self-funded. Most fundings still come from local donor agencies (37.96%). This indicates the growing attention from the domestic parties involved in the CSO activities in Indonesia. While, the fundings from international donor agencies, which are considered as the main funding sources from CSO, evidently rank third, i.e. 15.86%.

 Services

The services rendered by these organizations are mostly networking (16.18%), information exchange (12.97%) project collaboration (11.79%) training/capacity building (10.45%) and workshops (9.35%).

In view of the main services comprising networking, information exchange and project collaborations, it is evident that the role of the directory will greatly back up such services.  

Organizational Needs

The needs comprising the funding support the first rank of 19.39% were followed by the contact with international organizations (15.31%), peace-building skills (14.75%) networking with Indonesian organizations (12,52%), and NGO management (12,06%).