JUNIAWAN PRIYONO

How well suited are the existing institutional structures and procedures available for disaster management?

In 1979, the National Natural Disaster Management Coordinating Board (BAKORNAS PBA) was established to replace Advisory Board for Natural Disaster, directly responsible to the President and chaired by the Coordinating Minister for People Welfare. Its membership comprises four ministers and 17 officials appointed by related ministers and heads of agencies. On 2nd September 1999, the Presidential Decree No. 106/1999 was issued to include the management of man-made disasters or social unrest and BAKORNAS PBA became BAKORNAS PBP. In order to facilitate this additional scope to disaster coordination, the members were extended up to 13 Ministers and related Governors. Since 2001 and the Presidential Decree No. 111/2001, BAKORNAS PBP is directly under the responsibility of the Vice-President of Indonesia. Since 2002, the structure of BAKORNAS Secretariat has been transformed to a permanent entity with four organizational units.

Emergency preparedness issues are also part of the National Government agenda through other national bodies, such as the Central Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) producing the 5-year National Plan, the Ministry of Transport, including the Search and Rescue Unit (BASARNAS), other line Ministries which are members of BAKORNAS PB.

At Provincial level, the inter-sectoral coordinating body is the SATKORLAK, which depends directly on the Province Government. The Head of Satkorlak is the vice-Governor; the Deputy is Head of the Development and Unity Division (KESBANG/LINMAS). The Secretary of Satkorlak is the Head of the Provincial Social Office (DINSOS). SATKORLAK members are all the heads of the Government Administrations, including the Armed Forces, the Police and local PMI (Indonesian Red Cross).

At District level, the inter-sectoral coordinating body is the SATLAK, which depends directly on the District Government. The Chairman of the SATLAK is the Bupati, and the members are representatives for various departments on the same model as the Provincial organization.

The role of BAKORNAS, SATKORLAK and SATLAK is not clear yet for various reasons, including: (i) the persistent confusion between coordination, implementation and control mandates; (ii) the conflicts of interest and leadership; (iii) the heavy dependence on personalities, the absence of real delegation of authority and too many political choices; (iv) the lack of permanent and operational intermediate structures that can assure continuity, and initiate and coordinate preparedness activities; (v) the weak sense of responsibility among the insufficient and under-equipped staff; (vi) the multiplication of autonomous decentralized entities does not facilitate the coordination process; and (vii) a tendency for each administrative/ sector entity to develop its own Emergency Response Team and Taskforces which increases duplication and confusion.

BAKORNAS should edited general guidelines on emergency management that have to be adapted and agreed upon at all decentralized levels. The level of adaptation and ownership of the guidelines by the various decentralized administrations and stakeholders vary from one Province or District to another (from non existing to nearly adapted). BAKORNAS should have the initiative to disseminate the information and emergency standard procedures.

Decrees and Policy Papers on emergencies management should existed at national, provincial, and district levels; and the latest ones are under the Governor and the Bupati authorities. Memorandum of Understanding usually exist linking the members of SATKORLAK and SATLAK, especially the Government Offices, Armed Forces, and the Police.

Emergency Standard Operating Procedures already existed but they are not operational because they have not been adapted to the local context or disseminated. In some cases, the Standard Operational Procedures (SOPs) are more like guidelines since no specific action is identified by sector, and no detailed activities/responsibilities are specified. There is a tendency that good SOPs are prepared locally after disasters. However, due to the lack of resources, the implementation of the SOPs has not been sustainable.

The decision-making process depends on the disaster size. It starts with the responsibility of the Camat at Sub-District Level and the Bupati at District Level. If the disaster has a Provincial dimension, it falls into the responsibility of the Governor. A national disaster requires BAKORNAS coordination.

Direct support can be obtained from BAKORNAS even though the disaster does not have a national impact. In addition, no cases of bilateral cooperation in case of emergency or on emergency preparedness issues were reported between two neighboring Provinces.
Political will is also very important since it requires a specific attention and targeted efforts to enhance the emergency preparedness. The lack of sensitivity on preparedness at the highest level affects the coordination mechanisms.

How effective are the applied processes and procedures of disaster preparedness, mitigation and management of relief measures?

Comprehensive emergency management is a widely used approach at all levels of government to deal with the inevitability of natural hazards and their potential to cause disasters in a given community. The components of a comprehensive emergency management system include:

• Preparedness activities involve at least two types of activities. Structural activities include actions to prepare for the imminent arrival of a hazard event. Non-structural activities involve taking steps to minimize damage to personal property and to minimize harm to individuals. Preparedness activities include development of response procedures, design and installation of warning systems, exercises to test emergency operational procedures and training of emergency personnel.
• Response activities occur during or immediately following the disaster and include time-sensitive activities such as search and rescue operations, evacuation, emergency medical care, food and shelter programs. Response activities are designed to meet the urgent needs of disaster victims.
• Recovery activities are emergency management actions that begin after the disaster, as urgent needs are met. These actions are designed to put the community back together and include repairs to roads, bridges and other public facilities, restoration of power, water and other municipal services and other activities that help restore normal operations to a community.
• Mitigation activities reduce or eliminate the damages from hazardous events. These activities can occur before, during and after a disaster and overlap all phases of emergency management. Structural mitigation pertains to actions such as constructing disaster-resistant structures and retrofitting existing structures to withstand events. Non-structural mitigation activities include development of land use plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations and tax incentives and disincentives to discourage development in certain high-hazard areas. Mitigation also includes education programs for members of the public about the hazards to which their community is vulnerable, as well as the importance of mitigation and how to prepare their property to withstand a disaster.

There are notable good will and efforts in the GoI to build or reinforce their capacity and capability on emergency management. However, the coordination mechanisms among the public sectors are poor at all levels due to ad hoc and informal meetings, poor transfer of information and knowledge, and lack of sensitivity on preparedness, compared to response.

• The central government allocates funds from the national budget for routine and overall emergency matters, but most of these funds are used for response rather than for preparedness.
• Community awareness on emergency management, comes from spontaneous knowledge acquired from the live experiences rather than from an official/technical way. The communities and their leaders are rarely involved in emergency preparedness or management.
• The level of political will from the local government and parliament regarding emergency preparedness has a determinant impact on the actions undertaken and the level of awareness and sensitivity of the community. When a disaster occurs, emergency relief gives a chance to the various stakeholders to highlight their role and responsibility, whereas emergency preparedness is less visible and less marketable and requires more underground and sustainable efforts.
• The decentralization and the process of autonomy have a direct impact on the roles, competences and responsibilities among the Provinces and Districts authorities and also on the perception that the population has on its immediate leaders. Emergency preparedness and relief, and conflict situations are major issues when power relationships are at stake between the central and decentralized authorities. The confusion between de-concentration and decentralization has a strong impact on how coordination, information sharing, resource mobilization and operations will be handled.
• Emergency preparedness does not appear to have a routine organization, structure and meeting procedures. It remains to date as an ad hoc mechanism, without systematic guidelines and standardized operating procedures socialized up to sub-districts and community leaders.

What are the main issues for a successful disaster management in the volcano and earthquake region?

How well co-operate the various actors together?

What has been done in the past and what should be done in the future?

The level of knowledge in emergency management must be improved by supporting capacity-building activities at decentralized levels. All emergency management sectors should be involved in organization of these activities.  Emergency preparedness issues should be incorporated in academic curricula. Sustainable and all-sector endorsed training programmes, including training of trainers, should be conducted at decentralized levels.
The population must be supported in organizing its capacity in effective emergency preparedness and response. The communities must be aware of what may be done to quickly handle an emergency situation and to reduce mortality and morbidity during natural and/or complex disasters or other emergencies. A network for emergency preparedness amongst the population in disaster-prone areas must be promoted.
A socialization campaign on emergency preparedness should be undertaken for the population, with the support of specific tools, such as posters, booklets, videotapes, simulation exercises, etc.

Access and dissemination of the information must be strongly improved. National data reports and database for decision-making related to emergencies must be available in a clear and user-friendly way. A complete inventory of available data, reports and maps in the country must be made. An information needs assessment must be conducted. BAKORNAS could establish an integrated Disaster Management Information Website.
The exchange of experiences/procedures among the countries in Southeast Asia, which face the similar emergency risks and common geopolitical challenges, should be regularly held.  Nevertheless, the experiences and knowledge acquired in other countries, with better emergency management systems, should be taken into consideration. A comparative study on emergency preparedness must be conducted at the Southeast Asia regional level. An evaluation must be conducted on existing tools and mechanisms in civil protection and defense in other countries.

Public awareness programs are necessary to periodically inform and remind people about an area’s hazards, and the measures necessary to minimize potential damage and injury. Tools in this category include:

1. Public Relations; providing general information or establishing public consensus can be accomplished through a formal or informal public relations program.
2. Public Information; information about hazards or mitigation efforts can be disseminated through the media.
3. Public Hearings; the public may obtain information and express opinions about mitigation efforts at public forums run by appropriate government agencies.
4. Surveys and Polls; government agencies or other organizations can gather information about public support for mitigation efforts.
5. Public Education; learning experiences, such as workshops and seminars, may be used to communicate hazard mitigation information to special target audiences.