Who Leads Recovery? Interagency Coordination and Collaborative Governance after Social Conflict in Indonesia

Indonesia’s social conflict framework assigns a central coordinating mandate to the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereas crucial financing and operational instruments for post-conflict recovery remain embedded in disaster governance. This article examines interagency leadership, coordination, and implementation constraints through comparative qualitative document analysis of the West Adonara conflict in East Flores during 2024–2025 and the Banemo–Sibenpopo conflict in Central Halmahera during 2026. Evidence comprises legislation, government reports, ministerial meeting materials, and interagency coordination records. Findings reveal three interconnected patterns. First, the social conflict and disaster management regimes define different administrative mandates, emergency statuses, and financing procedures, creating an institutional gap between formal leadership and access to recovery resources. Second, officials respond by adapting or borrowing disaster mechanisms: the Adonara response required exceptional presidential authorization, while Central Halmahera used a social conflict disaster designation to access recovery arrangements. Third, coordination gravitates toward organizations controlling budgets and implementation instruments, even when another ministry holds the formal mandate. Differences across official damage and displacement records further complicate joint planning. Presidential Regulation No. 46 of 2026 partially addresses the regulatory mismatch, but cannot alone establish coherent institutional responsibilities. The article concludes that sustainable recovery requires explicit financing rules, interoperable information, clarified agency roles, and alignment between social conflict management and disaster recovery procedures. The findings are document-based and do not establish causal effects or household-level recovery outcomes. Fieldwork should test these proposed coordination mechanisms.