Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, NATURAL HAZARD SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: null; date: 20 January 2020

Natural Hazards Governance in Indonesia

Summary and Keywords

Geographically, Indonesia is located in southeast Asia between the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. It is recognized as an active tectonic region because it consists of three major active tectonic plates: the Eurasian plate in the north, the Indo-Australian plate in the south, and the Pacific plate in the east. The southern and eastern parts of the country feature a volcanic arc stretching from the islands of Sumatra, Java, Nusa Tenggara, and Sulawesi, while the remainder of the region comprises old volcanic mountains and lowlands partly dominated by marshes. Territorially, it is located in a tropical climate area, with its two seasons—wet and dry—exhibiting characteristic weather changes, such as with regard to temperature and wind direction, that can be quite extreme. These climatic conditions combine with the region’s relatively diverse surface and rock topographies to provide fertile soil conditions. Conversely, the same conditions can lead to negative outcomes for this densely populated country, in particular, the occurrence of hydrometeorological disasters such as floods, landslides, forest fires, and drought. The 2017 World Risk Report’s ranking of countries’ relative vulnerability and exposure to natural hazards such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts, and sea-level rise calculated Indonesia to be the 33rd most at-risk country. Between 1815 and 2018, 23,250 natural hazards occurred here; 302,849 people died or were otherwise lost, 371,059 were injured, and there were 39,514,636 displaced persons, as well as billions of rupiah in losses. The most frequent type of natural hazard has been floods (8,919 instances), followed by cyclones (5,984), and then landslides (4,947).

Following these latest disasters and acknowledging that Indonesia is becoming increasingly vulnerable to such natural hazards, the country’s government established a comprehensive disaster management system. Specifically, it instituted an organization capable of and responsible for handling such a wide-reaching and complex situation as a natural hazard. A coordinated national body had first been developed in 1966, but the current discourse concerning proactive disaster risk management at national and local levels has encouraged the central government to adapt this organization toward becoming more accountable to and involving the participation of local communities. Law No. 24/2007 of the Republic of Indonesia Concerning Disaster Management, issued on April 26, 2007, established a new National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), but it also focusses on community-based disaster risk management pre- and post-disaster. Through the BNPB and by executing legislative reform to implement recommendations from the international disaster response laws, Indonesia has become a global leader in legal preparedness for natural hazards and the reduction of human vulnerability.

Keywords: governance, disaster management, Indonesia, natural hazard, political commitment, institution, funding, regulation

Introduction

Natural hazards are events that have the potential to trigger disasters that disrupt governance activities, destroy infrastructure and assets, endanger lives and health, and undermine livelihoods. Natural hazards and their potential and actual harm require action by different actors, governmental and nongovernmental, at different scales—local, subnational, national, and international (Melo Zurita et al., 2018). Natural hazard governance and management of their actualized impacts involve multiple challenges given the fact that disasters are inherently chaotic situations and diverse actors responding to the impact that possess a large variety of resources, skills, and expertise that require coordination (Lane & Hesselman, 2017). Furthermore, decision-making in managing disaster risk should be based on the principle of subsidiarity and devolved to competent actors (Aroney, 2011; Evans & Zimmerman, 2014; Wilkins, 2010). However, determining precise allocation of decision-making responsibility and authority in and across various government levels and numerous actors to implement accurate disaster management policy has been a long-standing problem in disaster governance (Jones & Webber, 2012; McLennan & Birch, 2009). Moreover, since natural hazards transcend the geography, territorial boundaries, and capacity of local actors, governance arrangements are required to deal with problems that exceed the current multi-actor and government capacity (Marshall, 2007). Governance arrangements should include sharing competence, networking, and allocated responsibility (Kusumasari, 2012a; Pelkmans, 2006). How governance is arranged and challenges that must be faced during disasters are shaped by state-civil society relationships, economic organizations, and societal transition (Tierney, 2012). Research into existing governance frameworks mostly shows that natural hazard governance systems are highly dynamic and complex, involving various levels, actors, and activities, as well as fragmented (Fisher, 2007; Gall, Cutter, & Nguyen, 2014).

Indonesia is a country that is vulnerable to natural hazards such as floods, cyclones, landslides, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Between 1815 and 2018, there had been 23,250 natural hazards in Indonesia that left nearly 700,000 people dead, lost, or injured and close to 40 million displaced persons, as well as billions of rupiah in losses (BNPB, 2018b). Following recent hazard events in the 2010s, the government of Indonesia established a comprehensive natural hazard governance plan to handle such wide-reaching and complex situations. Most studies relating to natural hazard governance in Indonesia discuss challenges of post-disaster coordination (Lassa, 2015), the role of community empowerment in governance (Padawangi & Douglass, 2015), the adaptive governance of the 2010 Mount Merapi eruption (Bakkour et al., 2015), multilevel institutional arrangements for disaster risk preparedness in Indonesia (Chang Seng, 2013), institutional challenges and opportunities in disaster risk reduction (Djalante, Holley, Thomalla, & Carnegie, 2013), and the discourse and practice of co-governance in disaster risk reduction (Srikandini, Hilhorst, & Van Voorst, 2018).

Risk Identification

This section contains disaster risk analysis that has been developed based on a study conducted by the National Agency for Disaster Management in 2015. Disaster risk analysis is an approach to indicate potential negative impacts that may be brought about by an existing potential disaster. The potential negative impacts were calculated by considering the level of susceptibility and capacity of the region under analysis. These potential negative impacts illustrate the potential loss of human lives, material damages, and economic and environmental destruction exposed to potential disasters.

Earthquakes

In terms of geographical location, Indonesia is situated along the ring of fire that runs along the Pacific plates, and it is the most active belt of tectonic plates in the world. This zone contributes to nearly 90% of the world’s earthquakes (BNPB, 2016). The high frequency of earthquakes in Indonesia can be observed in the recorded results of Amri et al. (2016) wherein within the span of 1900 to 2009 there were more than 8,000 earthquakes with magnitude levels M >5.0. According to the disaster risk analysis matrix, the number of lives exposed to earthquake risks are at its most in the island of Java with an asset value exceeding 140 trillion rupiahs. Generally speaking, the number of people at risk of experiencing an earthquake in Indonesia is 86,247,258 (BNPB, 2016). Material loss is estimated to be 466 trillion rupiahs while economic loss reaches 182 trillion rupiahs.

Tsunamis

Tsunami is one of the substantial disaster threats found in Indonesia (Sattler, Claramita, & Muskavage, 2018). This disaster is commonly triggered by the occurrence of submarine earthquakes causing a vertical shift at the bottom of the ocean or underwater landslide such as happened in Palu Earthquake and Gunung anak Krakatoa. According to historical records, tsunami is not new to Indonesia. Between 1600 and 2007, Indonesia experienced 172 tsunami disasters in which 90% were caused by earthquakes, 9% by volcanic eruptions, and 1% by landslides on the sea floor (BNPB, 2016). Based on the risk analysis conducted by Amri et al. (2016), the number of lives exposed to the risk of tsunami disaster is spread out throughout several islands with a total exceeding 4 million people and exposed asset value of over 71 trillion rupiahs.

Volcanic Eruptions

Indonesia has the longest volcanic belt in the world. With 13% (127 active volcanoes) of all the world’s volcanoes, Indonesia possesses the largest number of volcanoes in the world (Inan, Beydoun, & Pradhan, 2018). Indonesia has several types of volcanic eruptions, namely Hawaiian, Strombolian, Vulcanian, Plinian, and Ultraplinian eruptions. The volcanoes in the Indonesian archipelago display a high level of eruptions characterized by dominantly discharging loose materials rather than entire volcanic materials. The population exposed to risks of volcanic eruptions is mostly spread out in the islands of Java, Bali, and Nusa Tenggara, with a total of 3 million lives affected throughout Indonesia.

Floods

Floods are one of the disasters that constantly occur in various parts of Indonesia (Hernawati, Insani, Bambang, Nur Hadi, & Sahid, 2017). Floods in Indonesia are caused by dynamic natural phenomena such as high rainfall intensity, containment from the sea/rising tide of the main river, land subsidence and siltation brought about by sediments, as well as dynamic human activities such as inadequate management of floodlands, namely by building residential areas on riverbanks, lack of flood control facilities, surface land subsidence, and rising sea level caused by global warming (BNPB, 2016). The population exposed to risks of flood disaster is spread throughout nearly all the major islands in Indonesia, with a total exceeding 170 million lives and an exposed asset value of over 750 trillion rupiahs.

Landslides

Indonesia, in the last few years, has seen an increased intensity in landslide disasters with an extensive spread of affected areas. This is a result of an increased use of land with poor environmental awareness on areas susceptible to landslides, as well as high rainfall intensity with prolonged duration of rain or due to the increasing frequency of earthquakes. Amri et al. (2016) recorded as many as 2,425 landslide disasters between 2011 and 2015 with sites spread out throughout various regions in Indonesia. Most landslides occurred in the provinces of Central Java, West Java, East Java, West Sumatera, and East Kalimantan. The populations exposed to the risk of landslide disaster are distributed particularly in the islands of Java and Nusa Tenggara, with a total of over 14 million people and an exposed asset value exceeding 78 trillion rupiahs throughout Indonesia.

Droughts

Indonesia’s high climate variability causes extremely dry and wet conditions. Extremely dry conditions cause prolonged drought, which in itself is a type of disaster that occurs gradually (slow onset), with a duration lasting until the rainy season arrives, has expansive cross-sector (economic, social, health, educational) impacts. The population most exposed to drought are spread out in the islands of Java and Sumatera.

Land and Forest Fires

In essence, land and forest fires in Indonesia are not considered natural hazards, since 99% of them are caused by humans, be it through sheer negligence or unintended actions (Sitanggang, Istiqomah, & Syaufina, 2018). The spread of land and forest areas throughout Indonesia has been affected by the region’s biophysical features. Most of the fires that have occurred in the last 10 years have been on peat land areas. Such land areas are naturally wetlands that do not burn easily, but if peat lands become dry due to excessive water drainage, they become highly susceptible to fire. The land area exposed to risks of land and forest fires is distributed throughout the islands of Sumatera, Java, and Kalimantan, with a total area of more than 14 million hectares.

Extreme Weather

Extreme weather refers to extraordinary events with disaster-causing potential, including tornadoes, tropical cyclones, and whirlwinds (Djalante, 2018). Specifically, for Indonesian regions, the National Disaster Management Agency has defined extreme weather as relating only to whirlwinds. A whirlwind is defined as the sudden formation of a strong wind with a center that moves in a spinning or swirling motion, like a spiral, at speeds of 40 to 50 km/hour and that touch the surface of the earth and then dissipate within a brief period of time (three to five minutes). Whirlwinds more frequently occur in tropical regions between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, excluding regions that are in close proximity with the equator. Nearly all locations in Indonesia are prone to this wind-type disaster. Nevertheless, there are a number of areas that are in fact more frequently ravaged by whirlwinds than others, including the regions of Nusa Tenggara, Sumatera, and Sulawesi. Even the island of Java is included as one of the areas most hit by this type of calamity, particularly in the West Java region where whirlwinds commonly occur in Banjar, Ciamis, Garut, and Tasik. Additionally, such winds are common in the Sukabumi and Sumedang region. The number of lives exposed to risks of extreme weather is distributed throughout the provinces with a total exceeding 200 million people.

Extreme Tides and Abrasion

Extreme tidal waves or storms are high waves generated by tropical cyclones with a strong potential of causing disasters. Indonesia is not typically exposed to tropical cyclones, yet their presence strongly influences the occurrence of strong winds, high tides, and heavy rain. Tidal waves commonly occur due to strong winds/typhoons, extremely rapid weather change, and effect from the gravity of either the sun or the moon. The speed of tidal waves is 10 to 100 km/hour, and tidal waves are extremely dangerous to ships sailing in particular regions as they may cause them to sink. The number of lives at risk of extreme tides and abrasion is dispersed throughout the provinces with a total reaching nearly 5 million people and an exposed asset value of over 80 trillion rupiahs in all of Indonesia (BNPB, 2016).

Flash Floods

Flash floods may happen instantaneously and are at times very difficult to predict. Generally, flash floods tend to happen in river bank areas formed by mountainous areas with valleys bearing steep inclines and an abundant water source (BNPB, 2016). Aside from being a result of natural processes, flash floods may also be caused by dam or water reservoir failures. A prolonged gush of heavy rain may cause too much water retention in the dam or reservoir. The increased water volume may generate stress on the barrier, rendering it incapable of maintaining pressure from the retained water. Such a tremendous surge of water is capable of sweeping away areas around the dam, particularly those located in areas lower than the dam or reservoir. A flash flood disaster caused by dam failure was observed at the Situ Gintung Dam of West Java in 2009, destroying hundreds of homes and leaving 100 people dead or missing.

Institutional Roles and Networking

The following discussion explores the development of institutions and policies for disaster management in Indonesia from 1966 to the present (Kusumasari, 2012b; Lassa, 2013).

Institutions for Disaster Management in Indonesia

The government has taken several important steps in managing frequently occurring disasters by establishing an organization responsible for handling such complex situations. A coordinated national organization was first developed in 1966, but since then the discourse on disaster management at the national and local levels has encouraged the central government to adapt this organization to become more accountable and to involve community participation. During the 1960s, a paradigm shift from conflict/war to natural hazards occurred. This may be construed as an achievement of institutional change wherein the leading cause was possibly the increasing number of natural hazard incidents, drawing the government’s attention. A number of natural hazards bearing catastrophic effects occurred during the 1960s, such as the eruption of Mount Agung in Bali in February 1963, which resulted in approximately 1,600 fatalities; events relating to the El Nino drought, which left approximately 8,000 people dead in 1966; the eruption of Mount Kelud, causing the deaths of approximately 200 people also in 1966, which was actually far less intense than the 1856 eruption that emitted lahars, killing about 10,000 people. The varying numbers of fatalities are not a result of better capacity or better policy pertaining to volcano preparedness in 1966 but simply refer to the eruptions’ varying scales and attributes; apparently, the characteristics and magnitude of hazards play roles in determining the risks involved (Alexander, 1993). The following subsections discuss the development of the disaster management organization from its initial establishment in 1966 until 2007, when Law No.24/2007 mandated the creation of a national and local disaster management agency that allowed local people and local governments to participate and play important roles in proposed planning, implementation, and evaluation of disaster management activities.

1966–1990

The Advisory Board for Natural Hazard Management was established in 1966 by the government through the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 256. The activities of this organization were mostly centered on disaster victims. To improve disaster response coordination and integration, the government established a coordinating body for natural hazard management called the Bakornas PBA (National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management) by way of Presidential Decree No.28 in 1979. Until that year, the Ministry of Social Affairs (MOSA) had the sole responsibility of handling relief measures relating to natural hazards. As recommended by the United Nations Disaster Reduction Organization, which was the predecessor of United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs(UNDHA, which later developed into the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [UNOCHA]), a single ministry should not be solely responsible for natural hazard management; accordingly, the government established the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management (Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, 2007). The Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare was the chairperson of this organization. Nevertheless, it still had to rely on the MOSA as the authority, based on its organizational structure. While the Coordinating Minister was responsible for the general chairmanship, the executive chairmanship was delegated to the Minister of Social Affairs and supported by the Minister for Home Affairs along with the Minister for Public Works.

The concept of disaster management was actually prescribed in Presidential Decree No.28/1979, covering prevention, repression, and rehabilitation measures, and it was not limited to disaster relief. Nonetheless, in practice, the focus remained on disaster relief that was directed by MOSA as the authority in National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management. At the subnational level, the activities of Satkorlak PBA I (provinces) and Satkorlak PBA II (regencies/municipalities), which were the regional agencies of the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management, were mostly tasked with the activities of representative offices of MOSA at their respective levels. This resulted in the side-lining of initiatives that were supposedly under the Ministry for Home Affairs’ responsibility or authority. The regional representatives of MOSA played the role as secretaries for the Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management and Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management. The 1979 decree also included the establishment of a similar arrangement at the provincial and regional/municipal levels.

1990–1999

Presidential Decree No.43 of 1990 was issued as an amendment to the previous decree (28/1979) to improve and facilitate integrated sectors related to disasters. It includes Armed Forces back-up and encompasses manmade disasters. The organization was called the National Coordinating Body for Disaster Management. Yet it still established MOSA as the leading sector (Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, 2007). This decree introduced Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management. The Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management were obligated to report immediately to National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management through the governor about the occurrence or potential occurrence of disasters in relevant areas. However, in urgent circumstances, the Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management could directly report to the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management and inform the governor afterwards. The Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management and National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management were obligated to prepare reports for submission to the president of Indonesia. This presidential decree (43/1990) did not provide elaboration on the structure of disaster management organization at the provincial level.

1999–2001

On September 2, 1999, Presidential Decree No.106 was issued as an amendment to Presidential Decree No.43/1990, which did not address the management of human-induced disasters or social unrest. In order to facilitate this additional scope, the national organization for disaster management, the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management, changed its name to the National Body for Disaster and Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Management (Bakornas PBP; Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, 2007). Membership in Bakornas PBP was enlarged to include 13 ministers and relevant governors. As the coordinating body, Bakornas PBP did not have direct implementation or policymaking functions. This agency, although its name indicates that it was a “body,” was virtually a council or board chaired by the vice-president, with relevant ministers, the police chief, the military chief, and the governor(s) of affected province(s) as its members. Bakornas PBP was to be “activated” when disasters struck. During periods of “no disasters,” Bakornas PBP remained dormant. Its work was very much represented by the work of the Secretariat and thus its performance was largely assessed by outsiders from the point of view of the performance of its Secretariat.

2001–2007

The spirit of the decentralization era, which started in 2001 and instigated substantial changes in Indonesia’s administrative and political system, also significantly influenced disaster management during this particular period. Substantially, the new concept of local autonomy, which is stipulated under Law No.22/1999 on Regional Government, was implemented with the intent of empowering provincial and regional/municipal governments. Concurrently, the government then established the National Coordinating Board for Disaster Management (Badan Koordinasi Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana [Bakornas PB]), which was in line with Presidential Decree No. 111/2001, and the government also gained more insight by learning about each region’s respective strengths and constraints in terms of human resources, as well as the widespread impacts of disaster in numerous regions throughout Indonesia.

Nonetheless, the central government introduced the Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management with the governor as its chairperson in order to support the duties of National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management. Additionally, for disasters occurring at the regional or municipal level, Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management with the regent or mayor as the chairperson were established as well. Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management were comprised of task forces (Satgas) from relevant institutions and offices, such as the regional health office, search and rescue (SAR), the armed forces, the police, social and public work offices, the Indonesian Red Cross, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). As front-line organizations, these regional/municipal implementation units had the capacity for the mobilization of all relevant agencies in their respective regencies/municipalities, districts, and villages, as well as local community organizations. This Ministrial Decree No. 46/2008 also provided provincial and regional/municipal governments the opportunity to organize their respective adaptations concerning the structure of Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management and Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management according to their local needs (Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, 2007).

In several national workshops involving the Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management that were periodically organized by the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management, the regional governments that attended the events deliberated and accepted disaster management to be included into their provincial development plan. Although the disaster management discourse at both the national and regional levels showed promising results in these organizations accepting the fact that incorporating disaster management into their overall development plan is necessary, and also their accepting the fact that disaster preparedness is essential in mitigating the impacts of disasters, actual programs that extend to and engage the community in disaster preparedness remained uncommon. Through its Self-Initiative Disaster Management System, the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management introduced the concept known as community-based disaster management, which was developed in order to boost the community’s awareness about possible events of disaster that might happen in and around their area.

The National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management also assumed the responsibility of handling strategy and policy coordination in activities relating to disaster prevention and mitigation. In terms of implementation, the respective ministries accordingly dealt with their allotted tasks. In the event of a disaster, particularly in the case of rescue, emergency relief was to be directly managed by the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management at the national level, the Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management at the province level, and the Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management at the regional/municipal level. In the aftermath of a disaster, matters concerning rehabilitation were to be directly handled by either the Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management or the Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management, along with line ministries and agencies under the coordination of the central government. Each ministry directly handled all manuals, hazard mapping, and risk assessments in line with their respective policy responsibilities within the system. To address matters relating to post-disaster response, the National Development Planning Agency of the Government of Indonesia, known as Bappenas (under/within the purview of the central government) and the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management formed a special agency for numerous recovery-related activities.

2007 to the Present

In disaster-prone countries like Indonesia, understanding the link between development and disaster is crucial. Development activities are undertaken with appropriate consideration of the potential impact of disaster. In this regard, the government has taken significant steps to boost disaster risk reduction, starting with the passing of Law No. 24 of 2007 on disaster management.

In 2007, the organizational structure, terms of reference, and role of the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management were modified and strengthened. A new operations manager was appointed to lead the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management Secretariat. However, due to the scope and complexity of disasters that occurred, the government implemented Law No. 24/2007 to cover all stages of disaster activities. According to the law, the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management was subsequently replaced by the National Disaster Management Agency, while the Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management and Regional/Municipal Implementation Units for Disaster Management were replaced by the Regional Disaster Management Agency (BNPB, 2008).

Before the establishment of this new agency, everything related to disaster had to be coordinated by the National Coordinating Body for Natural Hazard Management. Nevertheless, preparation and post-disaster stages are still to be handled in part by the ministries. However, prior to the enactment of the law, the Ministry of Social Affairs took an important step in establishing what is now recognized as community participation in disaster risk reduction, called the Tagana (Youth Disaster Preparedness Corps). The corps trains regularly as a human resource for dealing with disaster, particularly in helping reduce disaster risk at the preparedness stage. In the long term, every regional area is expected to have trained individuals who voluntarily help disaster victims throughout the country as members of Tagana. Tagana members now number 20,000; they are spread throughout the country and are predicted to increase to 40,000 members in the future (World Bank, 2006).

The Role of Central and Local Governments in Disaster Management

Bureaucratic management relies on clearly defined objectives and formal structures to coordinate all activities at all government levels through a clearly stratified division of labor so that redundancy and confusion are avoided and so that policies and procedures designed, developed, and enacted by organization members ensure effective response in a highly chaotic environment (Takeda & Helms, 2006). The bureaucratic system is designed to facilitate rational reactions in a highly irrational and chaotic set of circumstances (Schneider, 2001). Disasters require a very different management mindset in order to tackle a crisis and the complex situation that may be faced by bureaucracy, because no two natural hazards are alike, and, as they unfold, they often have to be technologically, culturally, socially, and politically constructed.

Disaster management activities involve all levels of government agencies in terms of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Coppola, 2007). Each level of government has a role in comprehensive disaster management. Managing a natural hazard is at the core of national policies. All levels of government must, therefore, have clear roles and policies for natural hazard risk reduction and management.

According to Law No. 24/2007, the role of the central government in implementing disaster management includes (a) disaster risk reduction and integration of disaster risk reduction with development programs; (b) protecting the public from impacts of disasters; (c) assuring that disaster-affected evacuees and communities are provided equal fulfillment of rights with minimum service standards; (d) rehabilitation of conditions from the impact of disasters; (e) sufficient allocation of disaster management budget; (f) on-call budget allocation; and (g) maintenance of authentic and credible archives/documents from threats and impacts of disasters. Meanwhile, the authority of the central government in implementing disaster management, among others, includes (a) arrangement of disaster management policies that are in accordance with national development policies; (b) development policy for disaster management; (c) establishment of regional and national disaster levels and statuses; (d) establishment of collaborative policy in disaster management with other countries, agencies, or international institutions; (e) policy formulation on technological usages that may become a potential source of disaster-inducing threat or danger; (f) policy formulation preventing control and exploitation of natural resources exceeding nature’s capacity to recover; and (g) national-scale control, collection, and distribution of money or goods.

Accordingly, the regional governments, which consist of the provincial and regional/municipal governments, have the responsibilities of (a) assuring that disaster-affected evacuees and communities are provided their rights according to minimum service standards; (b) protecting the public from impacts of disasters; (c) disaster risk reduction and integration of disaster risk reduction with development programs; and (d) sufficient disaster management budget allocation in the regional budget. The authority of the regional governments, among others, includes (a) arrangement of regional disaster management policies that are in line with their regional development policies; (b) creation of development planning that includes elements of disaster management policy; (c) implementation of collaborative policy among governmental levels; (d) arrangement of new technologies as a source of disaster-inducing threat; (e) formulation of policies preventing the control and exploitation of natural resources exceeding nature’s capacity in the region; and (f) provincial, regional/municipal scale control, collection, and distribution of money or goods.

Relations Between Central, Provincial, and Regional/Municipal Governments

The National Academy of Public Administration (2006) acknowledges the need for increased capacity and understanding on intergovernmental research, particularly on disaster management issues. Intergovernmental relations are the responsibilities and roles that occur between central, provincial, and regional/municipal governments (O’Toole, 2000). Mutual aid agreements and relations between central, provincial, and regional/municipal governments to disaster response represent the varying levels and complexity of intergovernmental relations (Kettl, 2005a). Concurrently, local governments and community-level disaster vulnerability are directly linked to the central government and global economy. Strategies for mitigating disaster are set in political agendas throughout all levels of government, hence resulting in even more complex disaster preparedness issues at the local level. Regencies/municipalities must, therefore, comply with the demands of the central and provincial governments, work within their allocated budget, and also satisfy their community. It is not uncommon for political rivalries and conflicts of interest to stimulate disaster responses, which may subsequently render disaster management ineffective (Winchester, 1992). Winchester adds that politicians, most of the time at the central government level, bargain for more funding since they have both regional and national power groups and interests in defending certain areas. Moreover, decisions made at the regional level sometimes reflect the demands of global market and national ideologies.

In an era of global markets, the agendas of national governments and the power relations occurring between the national and subnational governments have substantial influence on disaster responses and planning. As a result, the coping strategies and interests of the community at the local level often go unnoticed. Nonetheless, achieving success in mitigation efforts requires disaster management planning to incorporate public participation at the local level, and people should be urged and fostered to respond to disaster and rebuild their lives (Maskrey, 1989; Pearce, 2003).

Local-level engagement in disaster management is a crucial issue for disaster management; thus, to be effective in managing disasters, central and provincial governments must decentralize decision-making power to regional/municipal governments Stoker, Turnipseed, and Van Wilson (2011) add that centralization is not just a question of how much central government controls but how it is distributed. In addition to this, disaster management programs may be centrally determined but designed to fully cater to local government needs.

Although the existence of national- and provincial-level disaster preparedness strategies is essential, it is equally important that regional/municipal governments have the capability to contribute design and policy implementation of these strategies at their respective levels. Newport and Jawahar (2003) add that involving the community in both pre-disaster preparedness and disaster response is vital to achieve effective disaster mitigation. The communities of regencies/municipalities, as well as provincial and national policies, must support their regional governments so that they are able to effectively respond to disaster. This is particularly of utmost importance for rural areas, which have limited expertise in rescue teams and thus may experience the most significant disaster-related impacts. Moreover, the local government objective is to obtain a tailor-made local preparedness plan and designed emergency training exercises, irrespective of the uniformed central and provincial government plans (Maor, 2010).

Disaster management requires intergovernmental networks between central, provincial, and regional/municipal governments so they can share responsibilities, information, expertise, and communication (Kapucu, Arslan, & Collins, 2010). According to many researchers, central, provincial, and regional/municipal government disaster management efforts are difficult due to several factors. These include the diversity of disasters; the low salience of disaster management as an issue; historical resistance to regulation and planning; a lack of strong political and administrative constituencies; the uncertainty of risks from disasters; the technical complexity of some regulatory, planning, and response efforts; jurisdictional confusion; economic and political circumstances that are inhospitable to expanding government activities; and questionable capacities of central and local government officials to design, implement, finance, maintain, and operate effective disaster management systems (Cigler, 1987; May & Williams, 1986; Petak, 1985). To some extent, regional/municipal capacities can be augmented because financial resources and technical capacity can be provided by provincial and central governments. However, regional/municipal governments are required to manage disaster during the initial hours or days, or until help comes, and this will determine the success or failure of a disaster management policy.

In terms of development, regional/municipal governments need to assure there is sustainable growth aimed at reducing effects of disaster. Nevertheless, even though local bureaucrats pay attention and have the right intentions, central and provincial government agendas and policies aimed at economic growth are frequently found to be in competition with or overriding sustainable development priorities. Governments at the local level are often engaged in national ideologies and development agendas. The relations of central, provincial, and regional/municipal governments can, thus, become unfavorable during a disaster; conversely, when national and subnational governments cooperate, extremely effective disaster responses can be accomplished. Effective local government performance targeted to reduce vulnerability and build adaptive capacity is vital in preparing for and mitigating disasters. Nonetheless, a commitment from all government levels and well-defined collaborations between multistakeholders, such as national government, provincial government, regional/municipal governments, NGOs, and civil society, is necessary to mitigate and reduce risks of disasters.

The activities of multiple actors beyond the public sector have always affected the management of natural hazards. This is specifically apparent in activities relating to emergency and disaster response, which typically involve coordination among multiple public services as well as voluntary and community organizations. It is important to understand the interactions between local governments and social networks in the disaster discourse in order to overcome an increase in nonroutine issues and a growing need for solutions that are nonhierarchical (Kettl, 2005b). For an institution’s networks, communication and coordination are central issues in a disaster (Haddow & Bullock, 2006). To perform effectively in a time of disaster, networks must use and share information, and this entails promptly collecting, collating, analyzing, and then deploying information in a useful form (Weber, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2007). As soon as a disaster management network is effectively established across all sectors, response and recovery tasks will consequently become more effective and efficient, since it is then capable of increasing the amount of resources required for dealing with multiple emergency management related issues (Kapucu, 2008).

In Indonesia’s natural hazards governance, there has been a shift of paradigm toward the involvement of a much greater diversity of actors as well as the development of various new roles and even stronger forms of partnership and collaboration. In the case of natural hazards, the relationships forged between various governance levels have also gained more significance. This can be observed in the networking links made between local governments and numerous NGOs that have emerged, particularly, in the response stage. The 2006 Bantul earthquake can be considered as a good example wherein the UNOCHA supported the Bantul Regency government by providing the community with emergency relief supplies (relating to food, health, agriculture, telecommunication, education, sanitation, protection, emergency response, and shelter). Other NGOs hold relatively similar roles in numerous disaster events that have occurred throughout Indonesia. Nevertheless, networking activities taking place between NGOs and local governments are not only focused on the response and recovery phase but also on the mitigation and preparedness phase. Some of the activities involving both local governments and NGOs include tsunami drills, setting up alarms along coastal areas, and establishing evacuation routes to anticipate tsunamis. Moreover, local government officials have frequently been provided disaster awareness training by international agencies such as United States Agency for International Development (USAID), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ).

Institutional Aspects and Political Commitment

The issue of Law 24/2007 and the Hyogo Framework of Action 2015 paved the way for the government of Indonesia to develop an institutional structure for and political commitment to disaster management. In this case, the institutional structure provided guidelines and information that helped decision-makers to pledge commitment to cross-sector and priority programs based on a systematic foundation. At the same time, the government’s political commitment can be related to the implementation and allocation of necessary resources and the establishment of appropriate institutional and legislative frameworks to facilitate disaster management programs.

The Indonesian government has established a regulatory framework intended for post-disaster financing, which is stipulated in Law 24/2007, which presents a definition of natural hazard and specifies the responsibilities of both central and local governments along with the National and Regional Disaster Management Agencies’ duties and functions. The regulation delineates the financing framework of disaster management, in which it is a shared responsibility between the national and subnational governments, specifying the three stages of a disaster event as emergency, recovery, and reconstruction. Supplementary provisions pertaining to the management of disaster events that are not included in Law 24/2007 abide by Governmental Regulation (GR) 21/2007 on disaster response and GR 22/2007 on financing and management of natural hazards. Lastly, Law 33/2004 specifies how the central government can be requested by authorities at the local level to provide emergency funds during a disaster.

The financial responsibility that the national and subnational governments carry is specified in Law 24/2007 and is further expounded in GR 22/2008. The central government provides budget support via exceptional transfers to the provincial government for the financing of major-scale disasters. In general, the regional and provincial governments are responsible for post-disaster financing of minor disasters. The financing of recovery efforts by the national government must gain the approval of the parliament, wherein the funds are acquired from the General Treasury of State (Bendahara Umum Negara) and subsequently disbursed through the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Fund. Nevertheless, there is no clear elaboration relating to the provision of funding assistance by the central government for major disasters and the lack of it for minor disasters.

During the first few weeks following a disaster event, the source of funding for emergency response depends on whether the event is declared as a disaster of national significance (a national disaster). In that case, the national government, represented by National Disaster Management Agency along with relevant line ministries, takes responsibility and the National Disaster Management Agency disburses the necessary resources from its “on-call” funds, which are reserved for emergency response. The on-call funds occupy a separate line in the budget structure, and they can be utilized to support activities relating to post-disaster early recovery as long as emergency status remains in place. If the condition is not declared a national disaster, regional governments (regencies/municipalities) obtain financing for the necessary activities by using their contingency budget. For activities relating to post-disaster recovery, the appropriations of the budget financed by the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Fund are subsequently made during the budget discussions held at the House of Representatives. Budget preparation and approval influences the availability of supplementary financial resources in certain months of the year; budget preparation is before December, whereas mid-year budget revision is in June. The timing of the assistance is also dependent on any delays that occur during the preparation process, while the regulations for budget evaluation and revisions also have an effect on the flexibility for reallocations of funds.

National Disaster Management Agency’s Organizational Structure and Roles

The National Agency for Disaster Management is a nonministerial government institution with the task of providing assistance to the president of the Republic of Indonesia in coordinating plans and implementation of emergency and disaster management activities in an integrated manner as well as implementing emergency and disaster management before, during, and after events of disaster including prevention, preparedness, emergency response, and recovery. The National Disaster Management Agency is tasked to, among other duties (a) establish directives and guidelines in disaster management efforts covering disaster prevention, emergency response management, reconstruction, and rehabilitation fairly and equitably; (b) determine standards and needs in implementing disaster management in accordance with existing laws and regulations; (c) disseminate information about activities relating to disaster management to the public; (d) provide a monthly report on the implementation of disaster management to the president under normal conditions and report at all times during a state of emergency; (e) use and be responsible for national and international donation/aid; (f) be accountable for the use of the budget provided in the State Budget; (g) perform other tasks and obligations according to existing laws and regulations; and (h) compose a guide for establishing a Regional Disaster Management Agency (Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah [BPBD]). Meanwhile, the function of National Disaster Management Agency consists of formulating and establishing policies for disaster and IDP management by taking quick, accurate, effective, and efficient measures and coordinating implementation of planned, integrated, and comprehensive disaster management activities. Figure 1 shows the organizational structure of the National Disaster Management Agency and the tasks of the respective sections.

Natural Hazards Governance in Indonesia

Figure 1. Organizational structure of National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB).

Source: Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 01/2008 about Guideline on the Formation of National Disaster Management Agency.

The Chairman of the National Disaster Management Agency is tasked with leading the agency in performing its duties, including establishing directives and guidelines on disaster management efforts covering disaster mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery fairly and equitably and being responsible for national and international donation/aid. The Executive Secretariat is tasked with coordinating plans, development, and control of programs, administration, and resources, as well as cooperation. The Deputy for Prevention and Preparedness is meant to coordinate and carry out general policies relating to community empowerment and disaster prevention during the pre-disaster phase. The Deputy for Emergency Management is responsible for coordinating and implementing general policies relating to disaster management in the emergency response phase. The Deputy for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction is tasked with coordinating and implementing general policies relating to disaster management in the post-disaster phase. The Deputy for Logistics and Equipment is responsible for implementing equipment and logistical coordination and supporting disaster management operations. The Principal Inspectorate is tasked with implementing functional monitoring relating to the duties and functions within National Disaster Management Agency’s organization.

Regional Disaster Management Agency’s Organizational Structure and Roles

Meanwhile, at the regional level, the Regional Disaster Management Agency (BPBD) is responsible for disaster management. Regional Disaster Management Agency is a regional government organization that implements disaster management related tasks in the region in both the provinces and the regencies/municipalities based on the policies provisioned by the National Agency for Disaster Management. The Regional Disaster Management Agency is an element that supports the duties of the governor and regent/mayor in the implementation of disaster management by regional governments, and it is led by a head of agency who is under the authority of and responsible to the governor and regent/mayor.

The Regional Disaster Management Agency is tasked with (a) establishing guidelines and directives on disaster management efforts that include disaster mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery in a fair and equitable manner; (b) determining standards and needs for implementation of disaster management in accordance with existing policies; (c) composing, establishing, and disseminating hazard maps; (d) composing and determining permanent procedures for disaster management; (e) reporting the implementation of disaster management to the regional head; (f) controlling the collection and distribution of money and goods and being accountable for its use; (g) being accountable for the use of the funds received from the Regional Budget; and (h) performing other obligations in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

In implementing these duties, the Regional Disaster Management Agency functions to (a) formulate and establish policies relating to disaster management and IDP management by taking quick, accurate, effective, and efficient measures; (b) coordinate the implementation of effective disaster management; and (c) conduct other duties requested by the governor and regent/mayor in accordance with its duties and functions (Figure 2).

Natural Hazards Governance in Indonesia

Figure 2. Organizational structure of Regional Disaster Management Agency.

Source: Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 03/2008 about Guideline on the Formation of Regional Disaster Management Agency.

The head of Regional Disaster Management Agency is mainly tasked with implementing some of the regional government’s functions in disaster management, such as (a) establishing guidelines and policies of the regional government and the National Agency for Disaster Management on disaster management efforts covering disaster mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery fairly and equitably and (b) composing, establishing, and disseminating hazard maps and controlling the collection and distribution of money and goods. The Secretariat is tasked with assisting the executive head in coordinating plans, development, and control of programs, administration, and resources, as well as cooperation. The main duty of the prevention and preparedness section is to assist the executive head in coordinating and implementing policies relating to community empowerment and disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness in the pre-disaster phase. The main duty of the emergency and logistics section is to assist the executive head in coordinating and implementing policies relating to disaster management during the emergency response phase and logistics support as well as conducting equipment and logistics management. The main duty of the rehabilitation and reconstruction section is to assist the executive head in coordinating and implementing policies relating to disaster management during the post-disaster phase.

Funding Sources and Fund Management

Funding sources for disaster management in Indonesia consist of (a) the State Budget (APBN), (b) the Regional Budget (APBD), and/or (c) the community (including individuals, businesses, and domestic or international NGOs; Bakkour et al., 2015). The budget for disaster management provided by the APBN at the central level or by the APBD at the regional level is to be utilized before, during, and after events of disasters.

Additionally, the government also prepares the contingency fund, on-call fund, and assistance fund in the form of a grant. The government also encourages public participation in the provision of funds that are obtained from the community. The public funds received by the central government are accordingly recorded in the State Budget, while those received by the regional government are recorded in the Regional Budget. Regional governments are only allowed to receive funds from communities domestically.

In order to encourage public participation, the central and regional governments may (a) facilitate people intending to donate funding assistance for disaster management, (b) facilitate people intending to conduct fund raising for disaster management, and (c) increase public awareness to participate in the provision of funds. Every collection of funds for disaster management must obtain a permit from the government. A copy of the permit issued by the institution should then be conveyed to National Disaster Management Agency or Regional Disaster Management Agency.

Subsequently, the management of disaster management funds is conducted by the central government, regional government, BPNB, and/or BPPD in line with their respective duties and functions. The disaster management funds are used in accordance with the implementation of disaster management covering the pre-disaster phase, the emergency phase, and/or the post-disaster phase. The National Disaster Management Agency or Regional Disaster Management Agency within its authority directs the use of disaster management funds allocated in the State and Regional Budgets (BNPB, 2015a). The provisions relating to the use of funds before, during, after events of disasters are as follows.

Pre-Disaster Use of Funds

The use of funds before events of disasters is distributed into two provisions. The first refers to a period of no disaster. Under such conditions, the funds may be used to facilitate (a) a disaster management plan, (b) disaster risk reduction programs, (3) disaster prevention programs, (4) disaster risk analysis, (5) spatial planning enforcement, (6) disaster management training and education, and (7) technical standards for disaster management. The other condition refers to the presence of potential disaster. Under such conditions, the funds may be used for (a) preparedness activities, (b) developing early warning systems, and (c) activities relating to disaster mitigation.

Use of Funds in Times of Disaster

The disaster management funds used during the emergency response phase are comprised of (a) disaster management funds that have been allocated in APBN or APBD of relevant institutions/agencies, respectively; (b) on-call funds allocated in the National Disaster Management Agency budget; and (c) on-call funds allocated by the regional government in the Regional Disaster Management Agency budget. The use of funds during the emergency response phase includes (a) implementation of quick and accurate assessment of location, destruction, and resources; (b) activities relating to rescue and evacuation of disaster-affected communities; (c) assistance provided to fulfill the basic needs of disaster victims; (d) protection of vulnerable groups; and (e) activities relating to emergency recovery of facilities and infrastructure.

Post-Disaster Use of Funds

The disaster management funds used during the post-disaster phase include those for (a) rehabilitation activities and (b) reconstruction activities. The government may provide assistance in post-disaster funding to regional governments affected by disaster in the form of grant-scheme funding for social assistance. To obtain such funding, the regional government proposes a written request to the government through National Disaster Management Agency.

The Government of Indonesia has established a regulatory framework relating to post disaster financing, which is stipulated in Law 24/2007. The definition of natural hazards is identified in the law, it also includes the responsibilities that the central and local governments carry along with the duties and functions of the disaster management agencies at the national and regional levels. The regulation specifies the framework used for disaster risk financing, which is a responsibility shared between the national and subnational governments, and it also specifies the three stages of disaster as the emergency, recovery, and reconstruction phases. Supplementary provisions that are not included in Law 24/2007 concerning the management of disaster incidents adhere to the Governmental Regulation (GR) 21/2007 on disaster response, and GR 22/2007 on financing and management of natural hazards. Lastly, Law 33/2004 specifies the process local authorities must go through for requesting emergency funding from the Central Government during a disaster.

The financial responsibility that the national and subnational governments carry is specified in Law 24/2007, and it is further expounded in GR 22/2008. The central government provides budget support via exceptional transfers to the provincial government for the financing of major-scale disasters. In general, the regional and provincial governments are responsible for post-disaster financing of disasters that are minor in scale. The financing of recovery efforts by the national government must gain the approval of the parliament, wherein the funds are acquired from the General Treasury of State (Bendahara Umum Negara) and subsequently disbursed through the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Fund. Nevertheless, there is no clear elaboration relating to the provision of funding assistance by the central government for major disasters and the lack of it for minor disasters.

During the first few weeks following a disaster event, the source of funding for emergency response depends on whether the event is declared as a disaster of national significance (a national disaster). If that were the case, the national government, represented by National Disaster Management Agency along with relevant line ministries, would take responsibility and National Disaster Management Agency would disburse the necessary resource from their “On call” funds, which is reserved for emergency response. The “On call” funds occupy a separate line in the budget structure and they can be utilized to support activities relating to post-disaster early recovery as emergency status remains in place. If the condition were not declared as a national disaster, regional governments (regencies/municipalities) obtain financing for the activities by using their contingency budget. For activities relating to post-disaster recovery, the appropriations of budget financed by the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Fund are subsequently made during the budget discussions held at the House of Representatives. Budget preparation and approval influences the availability of supplementary financial resources in certain months of the year; budget preparation is before December, whereas mid-year budget revision is in June. The timing of the assistance is also dependent on any delays that occur during the preparation process, while the regulations for budget evaluation and revisions also have an effect on the flexibility for reallocations of funds.

Indonesia began adopting a new disaster risk financing and insurance strategy in 2019 in order to better cope with the devastating impact that recurrent natural hazards have, such as the recent major tsunami and earthquake that occurred in Sulawesi, which resulted in more than 2,000 fatalities. During the earthquake and liquefaction in Palu, the Central Sulawesi Provincial Government had only allocated 0.1% to 0.3% of the total Regional Budget for disaster mitigation. The same applies to four other provinces in Indonesia such as in the provinces of Central Java, East Java, East Kalimantan, and West Nusa Tenggara. The budget allocation in the Regional Budget provided for the Regional Disaster Management Agency within the three mitigation sectors, which include preparedness, prevention, and empowerment, is not more than 0.1%. In terms of disaster management, the National Disaster Management Agency has a budget ceiling that has been agreed on by the House of Representatives and the on-call funds from the Ministry of Finance annually. This budget ceiling relates to funds that must be spent within a one-year period, whereas on-call funds are used in accordance with existing needs by having the National Disaster Management Agency submit a proposal to the Ministry of Finance. The budget of the National Disaster Management Agency in 2016 was merely 1.2 trillion rupiahs, while emergency and recovery needs indicated that the agency required approximately 1.75 trillion rupiahs in that particular year. The central government would create a disaster risk financing instrument, managed in an “insurance-type process,” which local governments could draw on if their budgets were wiped out because of a natural catastrophe.

Regulations

The 24/2007 Disaster Management Law is a legal umbrella for Indonesia’s disaster management implementation, and it includes guidelines for community-based disaster risk management. Law No. 24/2007 was issued on April 26, 2007. It has provided a new perspective on disaster management. The earlier perspective emphasized only emergency response or relief from disaster. The new perspective includes disaster management not only as an emergency response but also as a driver for pre-disaster and post-disaster actions (BNPB, 2008). According to Law No. 24/2007, disaster management is seen as comprising a series of efforts such as disaster-sensitive development policymaking, disaster prevention activities, emergency response, and rehabilitation.

In addition to this law, the government also promulgated regulations related to disaster management, including government regulations, presidential decrees, presidential regulations, and ministerial regulations (see Table 1).

Table 1. Regulations Related to Disaster Management in Indonesia

Presidential Regulations

No.

Name

Subject Matter

1.

Presidential Regulation No. 70/2012

Second Amendment of Presidential Regulation No. 54/2010 on the Public Procurement of Goods/Services

2.

Presidential Regulation No. 08/2008

National Agency for Disaster Management

3.

Presidential Regulation No. 03/2007

Amendment of Presidential Regulation No. 83/2005 on National Coordinating Board for Disaster Management

4.

Presidential Regulation No. 83/2005

National Coordinating Board for Disaster Management

Governmental Regulations

No.

Name

Subject Matter

1.

Governmental Regulation No. 23/2008

The Role of International Institutions and Foreign Non-Government Organisations in Disaster Management

2.

Governmental Regulation No. 22/2008

Funding and Management of Disaster Assistance

3.

Governmental Regulation No. 21/2008

Disaster Management Implementation

Presidential Decrees

No

Name

Subject Matter

1.

Presidential Decree No. 59/2009

Members of the Steering Committee for Disaster Management from Government Institutions

2.

Presidential Decree No. 43/2004

Statement of Emergency Status Amendment from Military Emergency Level to Civil Emergency Level in the Province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam

3.

Presidential Decree No. 97/2003

Statement of Emergency Status Extension with a Military Emergency Level in the Province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam

4.

Presidential Decree No. 71/2003

Annulment of Civil Emergency Status in the Province of Maluku

5.

Presidential Decree No. 28/2003

Statement of Emergency Status with a Military Emergency Level in the Province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam

6.

Presidential Decree No. 27/2003

Annulment of Civil Emergency Status in the Province of North Maluku

7.

Presidential Decree No. 111/2001

Amendment of Presidential Decree No. 3/2001 on the National Coordinating Board for Disaster and IDP Management

8.

Presidential Decree No. 03/2001

National Coordinating Board for Disaster and IDP Management

9.

Presidential Decree No. 88/2000

Civil Emergency Status in the Province of Maluku and the Province of North Maluku

10.

Presidential Decree No. 75/2000

The Formation of an Integrated Team for Resolving the Aceh Issue

11.

Presidential Decree No. 47/2000

The Formation of a Task Force for Handling Negotiations between Indonesia and the United Nations Transitional Administration In East Timor (UNTAET)

Ministerial Decrees

No.

Name

Subject Matter

1.

Decree of the Coordinating Minister for Social Welfare No.14/2006

The Organisation and Personnel of National Coordinating Board for Disaster Management at the Province of Yogyakarta Special Region and the Province of Central Java

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman

No.

Name

Subject Matter

1.

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 03/2008

Guideline on the Formation of Regional Disaster Management Agency

2.

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 23/2010

Collection and Management of Public Funds for Disaster Management Assistance

3.

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 21/2014

Mechanism of Expenditure and Sharing Knowledge and Experiences in Disaster Management

4.

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 14/2014

Treatment, Protection, and Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Disaster Management

5.

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 12/2014

The Role of Business Institutions in the Implementation of Disaster Management

6.

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 11/2014

The Public’s Role in the Implementation of Disaster Management

7.

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 8/2014

Guideline for Management of Disaster-Related Information Technology

8.

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 8/2013

Guideline for Emergency Response Media Centre

9

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 6/2011

Guideline on the Use of On-Call Funds

10.

Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 12/2010

Guideline on the Mechanism for Providing Emergency Reconstruction Assistance

Facilities and Infrastructure

In order to support information and data communication for disaster management, the National Disaster Management Agency has been running the Disaster Management Operations Command Centre (Pusat Pengendalian Operasi Penanggulangan Bencana [Pusdalops PB]) located at the Juanda office and operating 24 hours a day. This unit is tasked with conducting constant monitoring before, during, and after events of disasters. During events of disaster, Pusdalops PB holds a crucial function as it is through this facility that data and information on the occurring disaster are acquired and processed, which subsequently produce an analysis or recommendations for decision-makers to take necessary measures. Since 2008, the National Disaster Management Agency has gradually been assisting in enhancing Pusdalops PB capacity and the disaster management communication infrastructure in the regions.

So far, the capacity of Pusdalops PB in 19 provinces and 88 regencies/municipalities has been reinforced by providing modular, information, communications, and technological instruments, as well as a specific room for Pusdalops PB use. The enhancement of some Pusdalops PB capacity has also been achieved through cooperation with international donor institutions. Capacity enhancement assistance provided by donor institutions have been carried out in the province of Bali, Jakarta SCR, West Sumatera, East Nusa Tenggara, Aceh, Jambi, and Yogyakarta SR. As a part of strengthening the infrastructural capacity of Pusdalops PB, National Disaster Management Agency has provided radio communications equipment.

The National Disaster Management Agency has provided and distributed logistics and equipment as buffer stock for Regional Disaster Management Agencies in 33 provinces and 427 regions/municipalities in preparation for facing disasters. The basic logistics provided include ready-to-eat meals, side dishes and additional nutrition, as well as clothing. Supporting logistics include rolled-up tents, floor mats, mattresses, blankets, mosquito nets, children’s wear, family kits, and family health kits. For equipment support, the National Disaster Management Agency has also provided assistance in the form of multipurpose trucks to 65 Regional Disaster Management Agencies and water tank trucks to 80 Regional Disaster Management Agencies. The assistance was provided based on an assessment/scoring system that employs indicators of disaster-prone level, regional topography, quantity of disasters, human resource availability, and budget.

International Cooperation

Law No. 24/2007 provides various stakeholders the opportunity to participate in disaster management, including international institutions and foreign NGOs. The participation of international institutions and foreign NGOs in disaster management is explicitly regulated in Chapter III, Article 7, number 1, letter d, and number 2, as well as Chapter VI, Article 30 of Law No. 24/2007 and GR 21 and 23/2008 on the Participation of International Institutions and Foreign Non-Governmental Organizations in Disaster Management. International institutions and foreign NGOs can participate in disaster management when the government declares that it requires and/or accepts offers of assistances in accordance with the needs and regulations of the region struck by disaster.

Good Practices

2004 Aceh Earthquake and Tsunami

The Aceh tsunami was a result of the earthquake that occurred in the Indian Ocean in 2004 (Zoraster, 2006). The earthquake’s epicenter was located off the west coast of Sumatera, Indonesia. The earthquake measured between M 9.1 and 9.3. It triggered a set of devastating tsunamis along the coastal lines bordering the Indian Ocean.

Based on the loss of life, the Aceh tsunami disaster ranks first as the worst disaster in Indonesia, wherein over 200,000 casualties were recorded. The tsunami resulted in the loss of approximately 283,100 lives in the entire region. The number of casualties in Indonesia alone reached 108,100, and 127,700 were missing (BNPB, 2016).

Aceh is a province located at the tip of the Sumatera island in Indonesia. Before the tsunami hit, Aceh was an area of conflict. This was a conflict between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka), which is an organization fighting for Aceh’s independence (Gaillard, Clavé, & Kelman, 2008). Additionally, the Aceh community is a unique one as it is the only province in Indonesia that applies Islamic law.

The Aceh tsunami reconstruction and rehabilitation process involved various actors. Institutionally, the Aceh tsunami operation was undertaken by the National Coordinating Board for Disaster Management and IDP Management (BRR, 2005). This institution had four key functions, namely (a) the formulation and establishment of national policies relating to emergency and disaster management; (b) the coordination of activities and cross-sector budgeting as well as functions in implementing duties relating to emergency and disaster management; (c) the establishment of guidelines and policies of emergency and disaster management; and (d) the provision of support, assistance, and services in social issues, health issues, facilities and infrastructure, information and communication, transportation, and security as well as other forms of support relating to issues of emergency and disaster. This organization was headed by the vice-president of the Republic of Indonesia and consisted of relevant ministers, the Chief of the Armed Forces, the Chief of National Police, and the Head of the Indonesian Red Cross as its members.

Aceh’s post-tsunami recovery also involved various NGOs and bilateral organizations. Lassa (2015) grouped the actors involved in Aceh’s post-tsunami recovery activities into several categories. The first category was bilateral organizations, which played a role as the donor that provided funding for post-disaster reconstruction activities. The following actor was local NGOs, which mostly performed as the recipient of funds provided by donor organizations. The funds were subsequently sorted into a set of programs. The third category was given to multilateral organizations that played a role as both donor and recipient of funds. Similar to multilateral organizations, private organizations also played a role as donor and recipient.

In more detail, the source of funds for Aceh’s post-tsunami reconstruction and rehabilitation activities consisted of funds from the State Budget, Regional Budget, grants, and public funds as stipulated in the Republic of Indonesia Presidential Regulation No. 30/2005 on the Master Plan for the Post-Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of the Regions and Communities of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province and Nias Island, North Sumatera Province. In further detail, the APBN fund was a form of governmental responsibility in national disaster management. Therefore, the government had allocated a special fund for implementing the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the said regions and communities. In addition, the fund also consisted of foreign grants provided by countries or donor organizations assembled in the Consultative Group on Indonesia. Bilateral donors comprised of assistance from the United States, Australia, Austria, China, Denmark, Japan, Germany, Canada, Kuwait, South Korea, and Norway. Meanwhile, the source of funds coming from multilateral organizations was provided by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the United Nations, and the Islamic Development Bank (Rahardjo, Wiroatmodjo, & Koeshartono, 2008). Additionally, there were also grants or assistance managed by international NGOs, including Care International, Oxfam International, World Vision International, Mercy Corps, Direct Relief, Christian Children Fund, Médecins Sans Frontiéres, Plan International, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services, and Habitat for Humanity.

Grants were also provided by companies, NGOs, individuals, and other sources (Doocy, Johnson, & Robinson, 2008). The approximate amount of grants collected from the private sector/community is estimated to have reached the value of 13.5 trillion rupiahs. Fundraising to help tsunami victims was also carried out in various countries. Fundraising by the private sector was conducted through the Private Sector Summit on Post Tsunami Reconstruction Program in May of 2005. The government facilitated the participation of the private sector and the community in the rehabilitation and reconstruction program.

During the disaster response, the World Food Program (WFP) provided food assistance to more than 9,000 people in Aceh in one month (Jayasuriya & McCawley, 2010). The WFP also provided emergency settlement through the provision of tents and the construction of permanent housing. In addition, funds were allocated to restore the livelihoods of the people who worked as fishermen by buying small boats and fishing nets, as well as paying cash for work. In the recovery, there were three main prioritized activities (Izziah & Nicolas, 2008). The first priority was the recovery of livelihoods in agriculture and fisheries as well as microfinance. The second focus was the restoration of social services consisting of health and education. The third priority was restoring the infrastructure of the community and physical facilities development including the facilities for clean water and sanitation, irrigation, electricity, spatial planning, and environmental management.

2006 Bantul Earthquake

The earthquake that occurred in Bantul on May 27, 2006 destroyed most areas in Bantul. Less than 3% were houses of traditional design (i.e., constructed of wood or bamboo and thus more resistant to the earthquake’s tremors). In addition to the losses and damages in the housing sector, the impact the earthquake had on public and private infrastructure was estimated at 397 billion rupiah and 153.8 billion rupiah, respectively (World Bank, 2006). Bantul’s economy declined by 23% after the earthquake (Kusumasari & Alam, 2012a; Yogyakarta Agency for Planning and Development, National Development Planning Agency, & Central Java Agency for Planning and Development, 2008).

Disaster management activities in Bantul involved all levels of government institutions in mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The central government played an important role by setting up the president’s emergency office in Yogyakarta in order to coordinate all disaster relief efforts and provide necessary support. To ensure coordination, the central government set up a task force to help with disaster relief under the direction of the vice-president as chair of National Coordinating Board for Disaster Management. Later the vice-president established Bakornas Advance Journey Unit (AJU) to coordinate disaster relief operations. The function of Bakornas AJU was chiefly to coordinate support given to Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management offices in Yogyakarta for relief efforts. Bakornas AJU also had the authority to mobilize soldiers and police officers to help with relief efforts (National Technical Team, 2007).

At the provincial level, the institution for managing disaster was the Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management, with the governor of Yogyakarta as its chairperson. The Provincial Coordinating Board for Disaster Management basically functioned to provide direction and coordination to manage disaster relief operations. These functional areas included planning, implementation, and evaluation. At the same time, the Bantul Regent was responsible for providing house rehabilitation and reconstruction programs (Kusumasari & Alam, 2012b).

In responding to the 2006 earthquake in Bantul, international NGOs had well-prepared coordination, particularly for those agencies or organizations under the United Nations (UN) cluster system. The UN had developed a clustering system that aimed to avoid overlap in relief efforts by organizations or agencies under the UN’s auspices. Although this cluster system is only active during an emergency, during times of non-disaster these agencies develop contingency plans for disaster risk reduction programs.

2009 Padang Earthquake

The 2009 Padang earthquake hit with a magnitude of 7.6 on the Richter scale off the coast of West Sumatera. The earthquake resulted in more than 1,100 casualties. Losses and damages incurred by the earthquake were estimated to have reached 21.6 trillion rupiahs (US$2.3 billion; GTZ, 2010). The infrastructure and housing sector was devastated the most. The earthquake wreaked havoc in 13 of the 19 regencies/municipalities situated in West Sumatera Province. Based on the magnitude of destruction, Padang Municipality had the most devastated conditions (Ristirini, Rukmini, & Oktarina, 2012). In Padang, the earthquake left 2 persons missing, 383 dead, 431 heavily injured, and 771 with light injuries. Additionally, as many as 33,597 homes were heavily damaged, 35,816 had moderate damages, and 37,615 suffered minor damages.

Efforts in accelerating the post-earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction of Padang Municipality were based on the Padang Mayoral Decree No. 969/2009 on the establishment of the Executing Agency for the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Padang Municipality (Badan Pelaksana Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi [BPRR]). BPRR was formed to support the duties of the newly established Regional Disaster Management Agency (Setiageni, 2011). The coordinator of BPRR was the Regional Secretary of Padang Municipality, who was supported by experts from several higher education institutions in Padang (Shannon, Hope, McCloskey, Crowley, & Crichton, 2014). The main task of BPRR was to set an action plan, which would be used as a guideline in rehabilitation and reconstruction operations, in the form of studies, proposals, and recommendations, as well as provide intensive assistance in the rehabilitation and reconstruction process in accordance with the determined objective, target, and time.

Some of the main policies produced by BPRR, among others, were (a) revision of spatial plans; (b) revision of the 2009–2014 Mid-Term Development Plans; (c) creation of the Padang Municipality Government master plan (relocation of Padang Municipality’s government center); (d) revision of Padang Municipality transportation master plan; (e) organization of the former central business district area; (f) creation of a road map for economic recovery and the recovery of education and health facilities; (g) organization of the old Padang area; and (h) trauma-healing activities (Yustiningrum, Sinaga, & Yuliyanti, 2009). The main obstacle confronted by BPRR was funding. At the time, the central government’s investment for disaster management in Padang Municipality was not available yet. Aid was instead provided by NGOs that consisted of assistance for the reconstruction of education and health infrastructure (community health centers and hospitals). Accordingly, funding for the market reconstruction process was collected from Padang Municipal Administration Civil Service’s allowance.

In the aftermath of the earthquake, the evacuation process of the disaster victims was conducted through the collaboration of Padang Municipality Regional Disaster Management Agency, the police, the Armed Forces, the Regional Health Office, and other Regional Working Units (Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah; Yustiningrum et al., 2009). Victim evacuation was also carried out with the assistance of rescue teams from 22 countries. The Padang Municipal Health Office was tasked with providing health services to the earthquake victims. The Health Office collaborated with Indonesian and foreign teams of volunteers to establish a health command post.

The Padang earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction process also involved various NGOs (Dasilveira, 2012). Some of the NGOs involved were, among others, the Indonesian Red Cross (Palang Merah Indonesia [PMI]), which was designated as the general coordinator in planning and implementing the operations of earthquake assistance provided by both domestic and foreign partners. PMI, post-Padang Earthquake, was also tasked with supporting emergency response activities such as providing support in the effectiveness of victim evacuation so that they had access to first aid and recovery. Additionally, the UNOCHA was deemed the coordinator for international assistance. The lack of resources compelled the government to engage in collaboration with various actors, including NGOs. To facilitate international assistance, the Provincial Government of West Sumatera established a coordinating agency to ensure that there is no overlapping among the NGOs. Another NGO operating in the aftermath of the Padang earthquake was the Disaster Management Unit, which was tasked as the international coordinator during the first three months of field operation. Furthermore, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) also participated by initially dispatching its members to conduct rapid assessment and prepare for the arrival of the Japan Disaster Relief, which was comprised of SAR and medical teams. The Japanese government, through JICA, also provided assistance in the form of blankets, sleeping mattresses, tents, electric-dynamo generators, and water filters.

2018 Lombok Earthquake

An earthquake of 6.4 magnitude on the Richter scale had hit several regencies and municipalities in the West Nusa Tenggara Province and other regencies/municipalities in the surrounding areas on July 29, 2018. The earthquake’s epicenter was at a depth of 24 km and located 47 km to the northeast of Mataram City, West Nusa Tenggara Province. The earthquake caused 436 casualties, with 783 people heavily injured and 570 with light injuries (BNPB, 2018a). Based on data from the Lombok Earthquake Response Command Post on August 13, 2018, as many as 352,793 IDPs were recorded. The spread of IDPs was recorded at 137,182 people in North Lombok Regency; 118,818 people in West Lombok Regency; 78,368 people in East Lombok Regency; and 18,368 people in Mataram Municipality. The impact of the earthquake on the economy in West Nusa Tenggara was substantial. The provisional quick count result of losses and damages incurred from the West Nusa Tenggara earthquake reached more than 5.04 trillion rupiahs with a composition of 3.82 trillion rupiahs in the housing sector, 7.5 billion rupiahs in infrastructure, 432.7 billion rupiahs in productive economy, 716.5 billion rupiahs in the sociocultural sector, and 61.9 billion rupiahs in cross-sectors.

In order to accelerate post-earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction, the government of Indonesia through Presidential Instruction No. 5/2018 on the Acceleration of Post-Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction in West Lombok Regency, North Lombok Regency, Central Lombok Regency, East Lombok Regency, Mataram Municipality, and Affected Areas in West Nusa Tenggara Province, instructed several ministries, nonministerial institutions, and regional governments to accelerate recovery efforts in those regions.

In further detail, the instruction was given to 4 coordinating ministries, 15 ministries, the armed forces, the police, the attorney general, the National Agency for Disaster Management, the Finance and Development Supervisory Agency, the National Public Procurement Agency, West Nusa Tenggara Provincial Government, and 5 regents/mayor. These government institutions, in accordance with their main duties and functions, had to conduct activities such as rehabilitation of disaster areas; improvement of public facilities and infrastructure; provision of home improvement assistance to the community; sociopsychological recovery; health services; social and economics; recovery of safety and order; recovery of the government’s administrative functions; recovery of public service provision and reconstruction covering rebuilding of facilities and infrastructure; revival of the community’s sociocultural life; implementation of proper designs and use of better and more disaster resilient equipment; participation of civil society organizations and institutions, the business sector, and the public; enhancement of social, economic, and cultural conditions; improvement of public services function; and improvement of key services in the community.

In the 2018 Lombok earthquake, the government felt that the national capacity, which comprised personnel, logistics, and funding, was still capable of dealing with problems caused by the earthquake. Additionally, according to the Regulation of National Disaster Management Agency Chairman No. 22/2010 on the Guideline and Role of International Institutions and Foreign Non-Government Organisations during Emergency Response, international aid/assistance may be given when the Indonesian president has issued a statement accepting foreign aid (Halim, 2018).

2018 Palu Earthquake and Tsunami

On Friday, September 28, 2018, an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.4 on the Richter scale with its epicenter at 26 km north of Donggala Regency, Central Sulawesi occurred. The earthquake caused a 1.5-meter-high tsunami between 6.22 pm and 6.36 pm local time. The total casualties from the earthquake and tsunami in Palu and Donggala as of October 8, 2018, 1 pm Eastern Indonesia Time had reached 1,948 people. This is approximately 0.007% of Central Sulawesi Province’s total population of 2.97 million (KataData, 2018). Most of the casualties were from the Palu Municipality, with 1,539, followed by Sigi with 222 and Donggala with 171.

Meanwhile, the number of victims who suffered injuries brought about by the earthquake and tsunami were recorded as high as 10,679, and those missing reached 835 persons. There were 74,444 IDPs throughout 147 points, wherein Palu Municipality had 38,621; Donggala 20,223; and Sigi 15,600. The earthquake destroyed 65,733 homes, 2,736 schools, 1 one hospital, and 6 community health centres (BNPB, 2018c).

The management of this earthquake and tsunami disaster involved governments at all levels as well as NGOs. The central government, represented by the president, issued four directives to accelerate the reconstruction and rehabilitation process. The directives were issued, among others, to instruct the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs to coordinate available aide by working with the National Disaster Management Agency Chairman and commanding the National Disaster Management Agency Chairman, the Chief of the Armed Forces, the Chief of the National Police, and the relevant ministers to rapidly respond to the situation (BNPB, 2018c). In response to those directives, the National Disaster Management Agency performed several tasks, such as coordinating with line ministries and NGOs, conducting quick analysis of the earthquake’s impact and disaster management, preparing a GIS map portal to share, and providing constant updates of earthquake and tsunami relief operations to media and public reporting outlets. Subsequently, the Armed Forces directed its troops to assist in handling the impact of the earthquake and tsunami. It mobilized seven company-level units from the health battalion (Yonkes), the combat engineer battalion (Yonzipur), the infantry battalion (Yonif), and the construction engineer battalion (Yonzikon), using two Hercules C-130 airplanes, as well as a Superpuma Helicopter from the Air Force to Makassar, to bring in portable navigation equipment. Meanwhile, the National Police mobilized personnel, logistics, equipment, and drugs to provide support in the emergency response effort.

Some of the ministries involved in this disaster relief effort, among others, were the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Transportation, and the Ministry of Health (BNPB, 2018c). The role of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was to issue a Telegram No. 361/7676/SJ to the Southeast Sulawesi governor, Donggala Regent, and Palu Mayor to immediately issue a Statement of Emergency Response in accordance with the existing legal provisions and to issue a Telegram No. 361/7675/SJ to the governors of South Sulawesi, North Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi, Central Sulawesi, Gorontalo, West Sulawesi, Jakarta SCR, Banten, West Java, Central Java, Yogyakarta SR, East Java, East Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan, South Kalimantan, North Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, and Maluku to instruct the Executing Head of Regional Disaster Management Agency and Head of the Firefighter Unit, Civil Service Police Unit to mobilize their personnel and facilities to provide assistance to Donggala Regency and Palu Municipality. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources was tasked with conducting impact analysis (destruction of structures, land movement and fissures, landslides), identifying land features, providing technical recommendations, and disseminating information regarding these matters. Accordingly, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics was engaged in efforts to recover telecommunication networks. Whereas the Ministry of Social Affairs was instructed to direct the Youth Disaster Preparedness Corps to the location of disaster, the Ministry of Transportation was to restore the runway and airport facilities/infrastructure. Lastly, the Ministry of Health was instructed to dispatch medical personnel and prepare community health centers at the locations of the disaster.

Local NGOs and civil society organizations (CSOs) also participated in disaster management efforts, such as Wahana Visi Indonesia (WVI), PKPU Human Initiative, Muhammadiya Disaster Management Center (MDMC), and Nahdlatul Ulama Disaster Management and Climate Change Institution (LPBI NU). WVI, in this case, was tasked with performing evacuation and assessment, while PKPU Human Initiative was instructed to dispatch its team from Makassar to conduct rapid assessment. Two significant CSOs in Indonesia, through their disaster management organization, namely MDMC and LPBI NU, were tasked with establishing health command posts and dispatching medical teams.

Priorities

Priorities refer to strategies for accomplishing the targets of the disaster management program. The National Disaster Management Agency’s Priorities Focus serves as the backbone of disaster management planning, which ensures the integration of disaster management implementation throughout all government levels. Some of the priorities in Indonesian disaster management according to BNPB (2015b), among others, are described next.

Reinforcing the Legal Structure of Disaster Management

Achieving effective disaster management implementation requires reinforcement of national commitment by harmonizing authorities, duties, and functions among ministries and institutions as well as regional governments in implementing disaster management. This commitment can be reinforced by strengthening the legal structure. Reinforcing the legal structure of disaster management should be directed toward the creation of technical regulations concerning (a) disaster management budget allocation from central and regional governments, (b) increased effectiveness of national emergency and preparedness system, (c) involvement in more partnerships, (d) establishment of emergency status along with (e) cross-sector and cross-institutional integrated monitoring mechanism of both central and regional governments.

Mainstreaming of Disaster Management in Development

The implementation of disaster management is a cross-sector and cross-institutional endeavor that is integrated or mainstreamed into development planning in a holistic and comprehensive manner. The national plan for disaster management must be internalized and made a part of the National Mid-Term Development Plan (RPJMN). From the RPJMN, the national plan for disaster management is expected to be translated in a calculated and comprehensive manner into the Strategic Plan of line ministries, the Government Work Plan, and the Work and Budget Plan, and the National Spatial Plan. Additionally, mainstreaming of disaster management must be included the work plan of NGOs.

Increasing Multiparty Partnerships in Disaster Management

In Indonesia, the shift in the disaster management paradigm meant a shift in its executor and responsibility—which was initially afforded solely to the government—into a matter that is addressed together by all stakeholders involved. For that reason, enhancing public participation and increasing partnerships with NGOs, education institutions, and the National DRR Forum become a key focus for achieving effective disaster management in Indonesia.

Meeting the Requirements of Disaster Management Governance

Disaster management governance is meant to ensure the transparency, accountability, and availability of facilities/infrastructure in order to achieve effective disaster management at all levels of government. It is thus necessary to enhance the capacity of resources in government institutions so that institutional infrastructure and personnel can function optimally at every phase of disaster management implementation.

Improving Effectiveness of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation

Improving effectiveness of disaster prevention and mitigation is focused on (a) optimizing public awareness strategy to develop public participation in the implementation of disaster prevention and mitigation, (b) developing applied studies with structured framework that are oriented toward benefit-cost ratio and that constantly consider the process of adapting indigenous knowledge found in the system of the community employing the research results, and (c) conducting land and spatial planning in most of the national priority areas based on the plan for management of forest, land, and water resources in accordance with the Disaster Risk Assessment results and the Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Improving Preparedness and Emergency Response

Enhancing preparedness capacity is expected to improve effectiveness of emergency response operations, and it is oriented toward (a) building a mobilization of national and regional resources by considering the characteristics of threatened communities and the minimum response time mutually agreed upon nationally; (b) accelerating the response time of central and regional governments to begin the procedure for emergency response with a sufficient level of accountability based on the results of quick assessment; (c) reinforcing the government’s capacity in support of emergency response operation in accordance with the target priorities during national state of emergencies in an accountable, effective, and efficient manner based on the operational framework and system that has been jointly established.

Enhancing Capacity for Disaster Recovery

Strengthening the support mechanism for recovery at the international, national, and local scales as well as the facilities/infrastructure procurement chain in every sector of services sets the basic perspective for enhancing disaster recovery capacity. The lesson learnt of disaster management in Indonesia is that regional resilience in the aftermath of a disaster can be achieved by focusing on environmental and spatial management as well as enhancing the community’s capacity, integrated disaster recovery and reconstructive actions that are in line with the characteristics of local communities.

Conclusion

The study of natural hazard in Indonesia has shown that the government of Indonesia requires a high degree of political commitment along with proper institutional and networking arrangements between all government levels, the community, and other organizations in order to achieve successful disaster management implementation. Based on the experiences of numerous natural hazard incidents in Indonesia, even though the government was found to be a crucial institution during emergencies, it was also found to be rather insufficient due to several issues relating to financing and resources. As an example, during the response stage, the roles that emergency institutions had were rather similar and lacking diversity; the same could be said regarding the distribution of safety and evacuation zones within the affected areas. The lessons learned from past natural hazard events emphasize the significance of local government’s capability and preparedness for addressing more extensive issues rather than merely providing immediate responses to a disaster. In this case, the economic and physical susceptibilities of communities situated in disaster areas need to be appropriately taken into consideration. Due to some of the local governments’ lack of disaster management capacity, regional administrations with a crucial role in disaster response have been compelled to make decisions based on possibly inaccurate and incomplete, fragmentary information. During an emergency event, collaboration and coordination between all government levels play a critical function and will aid in saving lives. Regrettably, the lack of collaboration and coordination found between the various levels of government is a real problem. However, learning from previous natural hazard incidents, the government of Indonesia has provided disaster mitigation and preparedness programs at many levels of government. The implementation of relevant laws and regulations as well as strong institutional commitment are sound evidence that Indonesia’s central government is assigning regional governments with responsibility for implementing natural hazard governance.

References

Alexander, D. (1993). Natural disasters. London, U.K.; New York, NY: Springer.Find this resource:

    Amri, M. R. et al. (2016). Risiko Bencana Indonesia (Disaster Risk in Indonesia). Jakarta, Indonesia: BNPB.Find this resource:

      Aroney N. (2011). Subsidiarity: European lessons for Australia’s federal balance. Federal Law Review, 39: 213–234.Find this resource:

        Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre. (2007). Policy and institutional arrangement for disaster management in Indonesia. Bangkok, Thailand: Author.Find this resource:

          Bakkour, D., Enjolras, G., Thouret, J.-C., Kast, R., Mei, E. T. W., & Prihatminingtyas, B. (2015). The adaptive governance of natural disaster systems: Insights from the 2010 Mount Merapi eruption in Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 167–188.Find this resource:

            BNPB. (2008). Pedoman pembentukan badan penanggulangan bencana daerah. Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.Find this resource:

              BNPB. (2015a). Rencana Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana. Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.Find this resource:

                BNPB. (2015b). Rencana Strategis Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana Tahun 2015–2019. Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.Find this resource:

                  BNPB. (2016). Risiko Bencana Indonesia. (R. Jati & M. R. Amri, Eds.). Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.Find this resource:

                    BNPB. (2018a). Dampak Gempa Lombok: 436 orang meninggal dan kerugian ekonomi lebih dari 5.04 trilyun rupiah. Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.Find this resource:

                      BNPB. (2018b). Data Informasi Bencana Indonesia (DIBI) 1815–2018. Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.

                      BNPB. (2018c). Penanganan Bencana Gempabumi M7,4 dan Tsunami di Kota Palu dan Donggala Sulawesi Tengah. Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.Find this resource:

                        BRR. (2005). Aceh dan Nias satu tahun setelah tsunami upaya pemulihan dan kegiatan yang akan datang. Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.Find this resource:

                          Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft. (2017). World risk report: Analysis and prospects 2017. Berlin, Germany: Author.Find this resource:

                            Chang Seng, D. S. (2013). Tsunami resilience: Multi-level institutional arrangements, architectures and system of governance for disaster risk preparedness in Indonesia. Environmental Science and Policy, 29, 57–70.Find this resource:

                              Cigler, B. A. (1987). Current policy issues in mitigation. In L. K. Comfort (Ed.), Managing disaster: Strategies and policy perspectives (pp. 39–52). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Find this resource:

                                Coppola, D. P. (2007). Introduction to international disaster management. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Find this resource:

                                  Dasilveira, R. (2012). Inventarisasi dan rekonstruksi Sejarah Gempa 30 September 2009 di Kota Padang melalui Fil Dokumenter. Zed, Mestika. Padang, Indonesia: FIS, UNPFind this resource:

                                    Djalante, R. (2018). Review article: A systematic literature review of research trends and authorships on natural hazards, disasters, risk reduction and climate change in Indonesia. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(6), 1785–1810.Find this resource:

                                      Djalante, R., Holley, C., Thomalla, F., & Carnegie, M. (2013). Pathways for adaptive and integrated disaster resilience. Natural Hazards, 69(3), 2105–2135.Find this resource:

                                        Doocy, S., Johnson, D., & Robinson, C. (2008). Cash grants in humanitarian assistance: A nongovernmental organization experience in Aceh, Indonesia, following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 2(2), 95–103.Find this resource:

                                          Evans, M., & Zimmermann, A. (2014). The global relevance of subsidiarity: an overview. In Evans, M. & Zimmermann, A. (Eds.), Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity (pp. 1–7). Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.Find this resource:

                                            Fisher, D. (2007). International disaster relief: A growing regulatory dilemma. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (Vol. 101, pp. 114–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

                                              Gaillard, J.-C., Clavé, E., & Kelman, I. (2008). Wave of peace? Tsunami disaster diplomacy in Aceh, Indonesia. Geoforum, 39(1), 511–526.Find this resource:

                                                Gall, M., Cutter, S. L., & Nguyen, K. (2014). Governance in disaster risk management. Beijing, China: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk.Find this resource:

                                                  GTZ. (2010). 30 Menit di Kota Padang—Pembelajaran untuk kesiapsiagaan dan peringatan dini tsunami dari gempa bumi 30 September 2009. Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.Find this resource:

                                                    Haddow, G. D., & Bullock, J. A. (2006). Introduction to emergency management. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Find this resource:

                                                      Halim, D. (2018, August 8). LSM internasional berdatangan, BNPB sebut masih mampu atasi dampak gempa Lombok. Kompas.com.

                                                      Hernawati, K., Insani, N., Bambang, S. H. M., Nur Hadi, W., & Sahid. (2017). Mapping the Indonesian territory, based on pollution, social demography and geographical data, using self organizing feature map. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1868, p. 040002). Melville, NY: AIP Publishing.Find this resource:

                                                        Inan, D. I., Beydoun, G., & Pradhan, B. (2018). Developing a decision support system for disaster management: Case study of an Indonesia volcano eruption. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31, 711–721.Find this resource:

                                                          Izziah, H., & Nicolas, J. T. (2008). Proyek Bantuan Darurat Gempa Bumi dan Tsunami (Earthquake and Tsunami Emergency Support Project/ETESP) Mekanisme Pengaduan. Mandaluyong, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.Find this resource:

                                                            Jayasuriya, S., & McCawley, P. (2010). The Asian tsunami: Aid and reconstruction after a disaster. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.Find this resource:

                                                              Jones, K., & Webber, R. (2012). Looking for sustainability in not-for-profit program delivery: An experiment in providing post-bushfire recovery programs. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(4), 412–422.Find this resource:

                                                                Kapucu, N. (2008). Collaborative emergency management: Better community organising, better public preparedness and response. Disasters, 32(2), 239–262.Find this resource:

                                                                  Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Collins, M. L. (2010). Examining intergovernmental and interorganizational response to catastrophic disasters. Administration & Society, 42(2), 222–247.Find this resource:

                                                                    KataData. (2018, September 10). 1.948 jiwa meninggal akibat gempa dan tsunami Palu dan Donggala. Databoks.

                                                                    Kettl, D. F. (2005a). The next government of the United States: Challenges for performance in the 21st century. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.Find this resource:

                                                                      Kettl, D. F. (2005b). The worst is yet to come: Lessons from September 11 and Hurricane Katrina Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Find this resource:

                                                                        Kusumasari, B. (2012a). Network organisation in supporting post‐disaster management in Indonesia. International Journal of Emergency Services, 1(1), 71–85.Find this resource:

                                                                          Kusumasari, B. (2012b). Resource capability of local government in managing a disaster: Evidence from Indonesia. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.Find this resource:

                                                                            Kusumasari, B., & Alam, Q. (2012a). Bridging the gaps: the role of local government capability and the management of a natural disaster in Bantul, Indonesia. Natural Hazards, 60(2), 761–779.Find this resource:

                                                                              Kusumasari, B., & Alam, Q. (2012b). Local wisdom‐based disaster recovery model in Indonesia. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 21(3), 351–369.Find this resource:

                                                                                Lane, L., & Hesselman, M. (2017). Governing disasters: Embracing human rights in a multi-level, multi-duty bearer, disaster governance landscape. Politics and Governance, 5(2), 93.Find this resource:

                                                                                  Lassa, J. A. (2013). Disaster policy change in Indonesia 1930–2010: From government to governance? International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 31(2), 130–159.Find this resource:

                                                                                    Lassa, J. A. (2015). Post disaster governance, complexity and network theory. PLoS Currents, 7, 1–23.Find this resource:

                                                                                      Maor, M. (2010). Emergency preparedness consultants at the local government level: The Israeli experience. Disasters, 34(4), 955–972.Find this resource:

                                                                                        Marshall, G. (2007). Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local scale. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 75.Find this resource:

                                                                                          Maskrey, A. (1989). Disaster mitigation: A community based approach. Oxford, U.K.: OXFAM.Find this resource:

                                                                                            May, P. J., & Williams, W. (1986). Disaster policy implementation: Managing programs under shared governance. New York, NY: Springer.Find this resource:

                                                                                              McLennan, J., & Birch, A. (2009). Age and motivations to become an Australian volunteer firefighter. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 27(1), 53–65.Find this resource:

                                                                                                Melo Zurita, M., Cook, B., Thomsen, D., Munro, P., Smith, T., & Gallina, J. (2018). Living with disasters: social capital for disaster governance. Disasters, 42(3), 571–589.Find this resource:

                                                                                                  National Academy of Public Administration. (2006). National agenda for the support of intergovernmental research 2006. Washington, DC: Author.Find this resource:

                                                                                                    National Technical Team. (2007). Living in disaster-prone area: Relying on local wisdom. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Author.Find this resource:

                                                                                                      Newport, J. K., & Jawahar, G. G. P. (2003). Community participation and public awareness in disaster mitigation. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 33–36.Find this resource:

                                                                                                        O’Toole, L. J. (2000). American intergovernmental relations: Foundations, perspectives, and issues. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Find this resource:

                                                                                                          Padawangi, R., & Douglass, M. (2015). Water, water everywhere: Toward participatory solutions to chronic urban flooding in Jakarta. Pacific Affairs, 88(3), 517–550.Find this resource:

                                                                                                            Pearce, L. (2003). Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: How to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards, 28(2–3), 211–228.Find this resource:

                                                                                                              Pelkmans, J. (2006). Testing for subsidiarity. Bruges European Economic Policy Briefings 13. Bruges, Belgium: European Economic Studies Department, College of Europe.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                Petak, W. J. (1985). Emergency management: A challenge for public administration. Public Administration Review, 45, 3–7.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                  Rahardjo, E., Wiroatmodjo, K., & Koeshartono, P. (2008). Toward more efficient multinational work on rescue and aid for disasters: Lessons learned during the Aceh tsunami and Yogya earthquake. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 23(4), 301–304.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                    Ristirini, R., Rukmini, R., & Oktarina, O. (2012). Analisis implementasi kebijakan kesiapsiagaan penanggulangan bencana bidang kesehatan di Provinsi Sumatra Barat. Buletin Penelitian Sistem Kesehatan, 15(1), 91–102.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                      Sattler, D. N., Claramita, M., & Muskavage, B. (2018). Natural disasters in Indonesia: Relationships among posttraumatic stress, resource loss, depression, social support, and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 23(5), 351–365.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                        Schneider, B. (2001). Fits about fit. Applied Psychology, 50(1), 141–152.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                          Setiageni, S. (2011). Proses pemulihan bencana gempa. Jakarta, Indonesia: Universitas Indonesia.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                            Shannon, R., Hope, M., McCloskey, J., Crowley, D., & Crichton, P. (2014). Social dimensions of science-humanitarian collaboration: Lessons from Padang, Sumatra, Indonesia. Disasters, 38(3), 636–653.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                              Sitanggang, I. S., Istiqomah, N., & Syaufina, L. (2018). Fire spot identification based on hotspot sequential pattern and burned area classification. BIOTROPIA—The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Biology, 25(3), 147–155.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                Srikandini, A. G., Hilhorst, D., & Van Voorst, R. (2018). Disaster risk governance in Indonesia and Myanmar: The practice of co-governance. Politics and Governance, 6(3), 180.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                  Stoker, J., Turnipseed, D. P., Van Wilson, K. (2011). Using regional-scale pre- and post Hurricane Katrina Lidar for monitoring and modeling. In Recent hurricane research—Climate, dynamics, and societal impacts (p. 3). IntechOpen.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                    Takeda, M. B., & Helms, M. M. (2006). “Bureaucracy, meet catastrophe.” International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 397–411.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                      Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 341–363.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                        Weber, E. P., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. J. (2007). Assessing collaborative capacity in a multidimensional world. Administration & Society, 39(2), 194–220.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                          Wilkins, R. (2010). Paper presented at the AFAC/Bushfire CRC 2009 Conference.

                                                                                                                                          Winchester, P. (1992). Power, choice, and vulnerability: A case study in disaster mismanagement in South India, 1977–1988. London, U.K.: James & James.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                            World Bank. (2006). Preliminary damage and loss assessment: Yogyakarta and Central Java natural disaster. Washington, DC: Author.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                              Yogyakarta Agency for Planning and Development, National Development Planning Agency, & Central Java Agency for Planning and Development. (2008). Ringkasan report on monitoring and evaluation of the rehabilitation and reconstruction processes after earthquake in Yogyakarta and Central Java Provinces. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Authors.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                Yustiningrum, R. R. E., Sinaga, L. C., & Yuliyanti, R. (2009). Pemetaan kerentanan politik korban bencana alam dan indeks kerentanan bencana: gempa kota Padang 2009. In Prosiding Pemaparan Hasil Penelitian Pusat Penelitian Geoteknologi LIPI–2012 (pp. 978–979). Bandung, Indonesia: Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                  Zoraster, R. M. (2006). Barriers to disaster coordination: Health sector coordination in Banda Aceh following the South Asia tsunami. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 21(S1), S13–S18.Find this resource: