Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Warning system is about people

Warning system is about people

Jonatan Lassa , Bonn | Thu, 11/27/2008 11:04 AM | Opinion

Can scientists create an Early Warning System (EWS) for the Tsunami Early Warning System (TEWS)? Can an early warning system have an early warning system of its own, alerting the beneficiaries of such things as its failures, effectiveness, efficiency and if there is an absence of system sustainability?

Can scientists and policymakers create a self-reflective and robust EWS which guarantees accuracy, credibility, reliability, timeliness and transformability of information, resulting in a better response?

These are important questions for everyone who has an interest in a disaster risk-reduction policy -- but especially in Indonesia.

There have been huge investments during the past three years from both donor countries and the Indonesian national budget in TEWS technology -- soon to be officially operating. This paper serves as a constructive criticism regarding the lack of investment in the end users of TEWS -- the ordinary people in coastal cities and isolated rural areas.

It is important to note that the people at risk are the raison d'etre of TEWS, i.e., the technology exists for the people. Therefore, a TEWS's emphasis should be on the people and not the technology, despite the importance of technology as a means for achieving human security.

Unfortunately, in many TEWS project settings, technical instruments receive much attention, while efforts to increase a community's disaster risk education and awareness receive less attention -- holding only sporadic events such as tsunami drills and these mostly in urban areas.

In Hawaii, tsunami siren drills have been conducted for more than 25 years and a siren description has been available in the phone book for 45 years. Unfortunately, the public's recognition of the tsunami siren still remains low.

In Hilo, Chris Gregg and colleagues showed that of the 462 adult respondents who were aware of the drill, only 14 percent understood its meaning. Of 432 student respondents, only 3 percent understood the meaning.

The adult rate had increased marginally from the 5 percent recorded in the same area 47 years ago. Ten years ago, other research found that when the warning was given, many people went to the beach to watch the wave arrive and simply did not evacuate.

It is important to note that importing instruments from the United States and Japan, for instance, is much easier than importing the enabling conditions and incentive structures that have sustained EWSs in these countries for more than 40 years.

In addition, in selected indicators such as political stability, press freedom, voice and accountability, government effectiveness, and rule of law and regulatory quality, Indonesia's experience is far too low compared with the United States and Japan.

These are the governance and institutional settings that play a central role in a TEWS's sustainability. Even though further scrutiny is needed, sociologically speaking, the establishment of a TEWS should be seen as an exercise of power by the government for the protection of the people.

Government effectiveness determines sustainability of a TEWS. It also reflects the quality of services delivered by Indonesia's state bureaucrats working along the TEWS chains. This power exercise often neglects grassroots concerns and risk priorities.

Furthermore, there are questions about how TEWS officers and scientists sitting in front of high-tech computers with 24/7 connections with satellites can be receptive to grassroots feedback. In their recent paper, Havid*n Rodrmguez and colleagues emphasized the necessity of feedback and accountability in the early warning systems.

They conclude that "the payoffs of increasing technological sophistication and improving lead time may reach a point of diminishing returns in which morbidity will not come down and in fact may increase in the absence of socially based programs to educate the public and facilitate their understanding of tsunami related information."

A case study of the 1999 Orissa Super Cyclone in India showed that the spatial distribution of risk followed the pattern of economic inequality. The warning systems better serve the haves and not the have-nots. This is easy to explain because a better off family has a better decision support system for the cyclone EWS system.

The case of Orissa, India, is a good case study. The cyclone EWS had a longer lead time to save lives but failed. How can Indonesia then guarantee safety with a TEWS, when tsunamis have shorter lead times, to the poorest of the poor in isolated regions, so that they may have access to warning services as well?

The other challenge is the grassroots response to disaster risk knowledge. The UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) describes risk knowledge as the first step to a people-centered EWS. However, in a country like Indonesia (an archipelago with 17,000 islands) knowledge of TEWS and disaster risk cannot easily be transmitted unless the knowledge infrastructures supported by information and communication technology are in place.

The writer is PhD Candidate, Research on Disaster Risk Governance, BIGS-DR-ZEF, University of Bonn, Germany.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

AusAID DRR Facility for Indonesia: A$67 Million

FYI


MEDIA RELEASE - PRIME MINISTER, MR KEVIN RUDD
AA 24 November 2008

Australia-Indonesia Disaster Reduction Facility Announced

The Prime Minister of Australia and the President of Indonesia, leaders of the two economies co-chairing the APEC Taskforce on Emergency Preparedness, met today to discuss regional disaster coordination – one of the themes of the current APEC Leaders' meeting in Peru.

Both expressed their deep concern about the impact of natural disasters in the region. They noted that many parts of the Asia Pacific region are disaster-prone, and that the number and severity of disasters is increasing because of, among other things, climate change and urbanisation.

Australia and Indonesia have examined the existing mechanisms for disaster management in the region and have found that there are shortcomings in areas of coordination and coherence and, critically, insufficient focus on preventing and mitigating disasters. There are also shortcomings in the building of national capacity for nations to self-manage disasters.

We have agreed to establish an Australia-Indonesia Disaster Reduction Facility in Jakarta which will be operational by April 2009.
The Facility will support Indonesia's and the region's efforts to reduce the impact of disasters and to improve self-management capabilities through training and outreach; risk and vulnerability assessment; and research and analysis on emerging regional threats.

The total value of this Facility will be A$67 million (approximately US$42 million) over five years.

A focus on disaster reduction saves lives and saves money. Countries that adopt a disaster reduction approach will be better equipped to lead and manage disaster response.

Australia and Indonesia will develop and sustain the Facility's relationship and collaboration with ASEAN, ASEAN Regional Forum, APEC, SAARC, the United Nations, the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement and regional disaster management mechanisms and programs. It is envisioned to broaden its scope to include cooperation with Pacific
partners. The Facility will work closely with the APEC Task Force on Emergency Preparedness to share its experiences, tools and strategies with APEC member economies. The Facility will also encourage greater involvement of the private sector in disaster management - an APEC priority - and look for opportunities to support APEC's efforts to build community and business resilience in the region.

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/news/v.php?id=7409

Friday, November 14, 2008

Menuju Rumah Sakit Indonesia Yang Aman Bencana

Opini: Menuju Rumah Sakit Indonesia Yang Aman Bencana
Jonatan Lassa*

Tema Hari Bencana Dunia yang jatuh pada 8 Oktober 2008 adalah ‘Rumah Sakit Bebas Dari Bencana.’ Analisis tentang Rumah Sakit kerap menjadi isu rutin, kalau bukan marginal dalam pembangunan di banyak Negara berkembang. Terlampau ‘berlimpah’ bukti empirik untuk menjadikan Rumah Sakit sebagai lokus mitigasi dan pengurangan risiko bencana.

Fokus pada Rumah Sakit di tahun ini merupakan bagian dari filosofi dasar dialektika pembangunan dan bencana, di mana risiko diproduksi dalam pembangunan – contoh kualitas rendah (bahan dan metode pengerjaan) sejak dimulai peletakan batu pertama hingga pada aspek finishing sebuah rumah sakit – dan sebaliknya bencana merusak hasil pembangunan yang rentan – contoh ketika struktur rumah sakit dan puskesmas yang rapuh runtuh karena gempa dalam konteks Flores 1992, Nias 2005 dan Jogja 2006.

Rumah sakit merupakan kapital simbolik dari infrastruktur kesehatan secara umum tetapi juga secara faktual adalah nadi social. Dimasudkan bahwa bilapun bencana besar terjadi (dalam skala dan dampak), nadi sosial tersebut tak boleh dibiarkan rusak, tetapi harus berada pada front terdepan dalam melayani keamanan manusia Indonesia. Karena bersifat nadi, ‘bunyi’-nya sering tak terdengar dan tidak dianggap vital dalam melayani secara rutin maupun ketika terjadi daruratan kemanusiaan. Bahkan ketika jumlah rumah sakit

Tiga pesan utama UNISDR tahun 2008 adalah: Pertama, proteksi atas hidup pasien dan pekerja kesehatan dengan memastikan tingkat keamanan struktur fasilitas kesehatan. Kedua, memastikan bahwa fasilitas kesehatan dan pelayanan kesehatan tetap dapat berfungsi secara memadai paska emergensi dan bencana, yakni saat ketika mereka paling dibutuhkan. Ketika, meningkatkan kapasitas atau kemampuan mereduksi risiko pekerja kesehatan, kelembagaan/organisasi termasuk managemen kedaruratan.

Pekerja kesehatan tentunya dalam arti luas, dokter, perawat, paramedis dan para pekerja pendukung yang bekerja menggunakan fasilitas kesehatan seperti rumah sakit (swasta/pemerintah), puskesmas hingga unit-unit layanan kesehatan lainnya.

Proses ini harus dilakukan secara sengaja dan by design. Karenanya dibutuhkan ukuran atau standard minimum dalam mengevaluasi kinerja rumah sakit dalam skala nasional maupun lokal. Jargonnya adalah identifikasi risiko serta kajian risiko fasilitas kesehatan secara umum maupun secara khusus seperti indeks keamanan rumah sakit yang dikembangkan beberapa lembaga dunia seperti WHO mapun LSM Internasional.

Hospital Safety Index (HSI)

HSI adalah sebuah alat diagnosa yang diklaim cepat, terpercaya dan murah; Gampang diaplikasikan oleh tim yang multi-disiplin seperti insinyur, arsitek, serta para professional kesehatan terlatih. Selanjutnya dilakukan scoring dari hasil checklist ditabulasikan dengan menggunakan program sederhana seperti Excel dan terdiri 145 variabel. Kategorisasinya pun disederhanakan dalam tingkat keamanan fasilitas kesehatan pada aspek struktur bangunan, non struktur dan komponen fungsi (lihat PAHO (2008).

HSI hakekatnya adalah turunan spesifik dari alat-alat yang juga dikenal kalangan insinyur Indonesia yang terbiasa melakukan analisis kerentanan struktural dan non-struktural sebuah bangunan gedung biasa yang diterapkan secara lebih tegas pada bangunan kesehatan seperti rumah sakit ataupun puskesmas.

Peranan Organisasi & Kelembagaan di Indonesia

Dalam konteks Indonesia, peran ini bisa (dan wajib) dilakukan oleh berbagai instasi terkait baik Department Kesehatan, Badan Nasional Penanganan Bencana, serta instansi-instansi teknis lainnya baik di level nasional/lokal dan didukung pusat riset bencana dan mitigasi bencana yang tersebar di berbagai Universitas di tanah air.

Urgensitas dari adopsi HSI adalah membantu dalam dua hal mendasar. Pertama, pemerintah dan masyarakat mengetahui jauh sebelum bencana tingkat kerentanan fasilitas kesehatan (Rumah Sakit dan Puskesmas), sehingga tindakan prioritas untuk mitigasi bencana fasilitas kesehatan bisa tepat sasaran. Kedua, proyek-proyek konstruksi serta pengadaan barang dan jasa bagi Rumah Sakit dan Puskesmas di tanah air tidak bisa dikerjakan lagi secara amatiran karena menyangkut kemaslahatan orang banyak serta proteksi atas aset-aset pembangunan nasional baik manusia maupun material.

Hanya dan hanya jika Rumah Sakit bebas dari bencana, maka Ruma Sakit bebas untuk melayani masyarakat luas baik sebelum, ketika dan setelah bencana. Bila jarak antara koreksi (risk assessment) dengan kerangka HSI dengan adopsi HSI ke dalam kebijakan dan praktek keseharian baik di pemerintah dan swasta yang menjalankan fungsi serupa, tanpa harus menunggu donor ataupun bencana besar lagi, maka masa depan Indonesia yang lebih baik bisa terwujudkan.

*. Jonatan Lassa, PhD Candidate – Penelitian Disaster Risk Governance, University of Bonn.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

BRIEF REPORT on Vernacular Disaster Risk Management in Indonesia

BRIEF REPORT on Vernacular Disaster Risk Management in Indonesia
Jonatan Lassa *

One of the most important messages in the 4th Community Based Disaster Risk Management Conference (CBDRM) in Bali, 19-21 August 2008, is the need to conceptualize vernacular disaster risk management in Indonesia. Dr. Syamsul Ma'arif, the head of National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) pleaded Indonesian experts and scientists to invent ‘homegrown’ concepts concerning disaster risk reduction.
“Community based” is probably closer to the meaning of ‘vernacular’ – claimed here as a ‘better term’ – of Latin origin refers to any value homemade, for consumption at home. This kind of intellectual positioning is suggested to be read from historical viewpoints as noted further.

Once upon a time in Indonesia, probably back to mid 1990s, most pilot projects that adopted ‘community based” approach to disaster risk reduction in Indonesia, were actually supported by international organizations such as INGOs and United Nations (UN) agencies. Just quite recently, vernacular approach to disaster risk management lately adopted intentionally by local universities and disaster management experts.
This trend is not exclusive to Indonesia but quite similar to most Southeast and East Asian countries. However, this approach is probably ‘trickle down’ effects of postmodernism - which stressed the particularity in contrast to universalism masked by sciences at the universities worldwide - in coupling with post development critics – which showed the failure of international aid in bringing ‘Western’ style of development to most developing counties in 1980s/90s.

Community based disaster risk reduction is not synonymous with vernacularism. It is about local innovation in responding to the rise of disaster risk today. It is indeed a composite principle of efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy in dealing with local level risk at the grass root level. CBDRM is also about how grass root communities interpret and/or construe their own disaster risks, including making their own priorities of actions, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of local performance.

Multistage institutionalization of “community based” approach to disaster risk reduction in Indonesia is the main message of the 4th CBDRM conference. First, the need of ‘indigenization’ of global knowledge (or so called scientific knowledge) of disaster risk. Indigenization is probably a weak term but what is actually meant is about conceptualizing some existing indigenous practices of disaster risk in Indonesia. Localization of scientific knowledge (may equal to knowledge transfers) through international aid can easily be seen as ‘asing’ – something external, strange and not appropriate nor sustainable for the locals. Secondly, the annual CBDRM Conference is meant to be a national platform for all stakeholders such as communities, government, local/international NGOs, United Nations, community of practice and the universities.

Local production of CBDRM knowledge is seen as one aspect of institutionalization of the approach. Inter-university cooperation in research and development of vernacular disaster risk management in the future can be strengthened through research incentives committed by the current national government. BNPB can also build their link to existing 25-30 disaster mitigation research centers all over Indonesia.

The construed that CBDRM is an imported framework/concept is probably not appropriate. Should one understood or signified it as a self-interpretation of grass root community amid disaster risks (including the everyday risks), unproductive controversy surrounding the ‘origin’ of the concept may be eliminated.

At the practical level, a few examples can be offered to prove the empirical evident of the approach. Smong (a local term for tsunami) early warning system in Simelue islands, or Omo Hada ¬as the inherited practice of earthquake mitigation in Nias Island, just to mention a few, can be good lessons learnt for all.
Adoption of CBDRM in Indonesia

Globally, CBDRM has been developed as a new body of knowledge, invented to close the gaps left by mainstream hazard/disaster scientists which highly oriented by the use of high tech. and science which marginalized local knowledge in the past and deeply trapped in single minded disciplinary science.

Krishna S. Pribadi from Disaster Mitigation Center at Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) classified three phases of the development of CBDRM as a conceptual framework. First generation was featured by ‘imported’ model, simply cut and paste solutions. This was clearly seen from available CBDRM modules simply translated from outside into local context in Indonesia. The second generation, CBDRM was featured by some adjustment to local context in Indonesia but still highly influenced by external actors coming from international organizations. The third generation is still in the making, and expected to be led by local actors, conceptualized by local experts/scientists, promoting local knowledge due to fuller understanding of local disaster risk context.

Some gaps from the discussion about vernacular disaster risk management may arise from failure to understand the different between local knowledge and traditional/indigenous knowledge. Borrowing from Prof. Dieter-Evers (2008) local knowledge is one form of processed knowledge derived from either global/scientific knowledge with (or without) traditional/indigenous knowledge. Local risk knowledge is one form of risk knowledge that is produced (and reproduced) at the local level. Hence, the utilisation of such knowledge into practices at an appropriate locality may be called local wisdom.

The adoption of vernacular approach to disaster risk reduction (DRR) or so-called CBDRM, should based on factor such as effectiveness, efficiency, equity and legitimacy in order to avoid both the Samaritan dilemma – high oriented external charity aid responding to local risk – on the one hand, and the un-sustainability that anchored on the high tech and persisted structural approach to disaster risk.
High expectation that may arise is that the ‘national platform’ should also serve to make all efforts, practices, conceptual understandings and policy move towards convergency in dealing with overall disaster risk in Indonesia at community level. Looking at the level of participation, where about more 220 participants joined the conference, coming from more than 70 different organizations (mixed between governmental, local NGOs, INGOs, UNs, local Universities including communities’ representatives, such expectation should be a good thing be kept going indeed.

Building national platform of vernacular disaster risk reduction should also be complemented by provincial platform as currently being exercised in a few provinces as encourages by the new National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB). The platforms are expected to share as hubs for knowledge and information sharing between all stakeholders with consistent efforts in reducing risk is sustained. The conference in itself is expected to serve as an Indonesian national platform for disaster risk reduction with vernacular approach.

*. PhD Candidate - Research on Disaster Risk Governance in Indonesia, University of Bonn, Germany. Lead editor for the 4th CBDRM Conference 2008 Proceedings.
**. This was coined by Neil Adger as EEEL principles for development and NRM sustainability.