Disclaimer
This report was compiled by an ADRC visiting researcher (VR) from ADRC member
countries.
The views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADRC. The
boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the maps in the report also
do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the ADRC.

1

Indonesia’s Country Report
1.

General Information
The Republic of Indonesia (RI) is a country in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Lying along
the equator, Indonesia has a tropical climate, with two distinct monsoonal
wet and dry seasons. Average annual rainfall in the lowlands varies from1,780–3,175 millimeters (70-125 in), and up to 6,100 millimeters (240 in) in mountainous
regions. Mountainous areas-particularly in the west coast of Sumatra, West Java, Kalimantan,
Sulawesi, and Papua-receive the highest rainfall. Humidity is generally high, averaging about
80%. Temperatures vary little throughout the year; the average daily temperature range ofJakarta is 26-30 °C (79-86 °F).
Indonesia is an archipelago comprising approximately 17,508 islands. It has 34
provinces with over 238 million people, and is the world's fourth most populous country.
Indonesia is a republic, with an elected legislature and president. The nation's capital city
is Jakarta. The country shares land borders with Papua New Guinea, East Timor,
and Malaysia. With total area is 5.2 million km² (1.9 million Km² of land and 3.3 million Km² ofocean), West - East Distance edge is 5.110 Km.
According to the 2010 national census, the population of Indonesia is 237.6
million, with high population growth at 1.9%. 58% of the population lives on Java, the world's
most populous island. Despite a fairly effective family planning program that has been in placesince the 1960s, population is expected to grow to around 265 million by 2020 and 306 million
by 2050.
There are around 300 distinct native ethnic groups in Indonesia, and 742 different
languages and dialects. Most Indonesians are descended from Austronesian-speaking
peoples whose languages can be traced to Proto-Austronesian (PAn), which possibly
originated in Taiwan. Another major grouping is Melanesians, who inhabit eastern
Indonesia. The largest ethnic group is the Javanese, who comprise 42% of the population,
and are politically and culturally dominant. The Sundanese, ethnic Malays, andMadurese are the largest non-Javanese groups. A sense of Indonesian nationhood exists
alongside strong regional identities. Society is largely harmonious, although social, religious
and ethnic tensions have triggered horrendous violence. Chinese Indonesians are an
influential ethnic minority comprising 3–4% of the population.

22.

Natural Hazards in Indonesia
2-1. Natural Hazards Likely to Affect the Country

Indonesia is located in disaster prone area, can be considered as Laboratory ofDisasters, due to its geographical, geological and demographic condition. Indonesia issusceptible to various types of natural hazards due to its geographical location andphysical environment; being situated in the “Pacific Ring of Fire”, between three Tectonic
plates (Indo Australia, Eurasian and Pacific), an area encircling the Pacific Ocean where
frequent earthquakes and volcanic activity result from the movements of said tectonic
plates. In fact, the country experiences an average of 20 earthquakes per day (most are
too weak to be felt). There are also about 500 volcanoes, of which 128 are active andhave been recorded in history to have erupted; while 21 are considered to be the mostactive namely: Sinabung, Merapi, Kaba, Kerinci, Anak Krakatau, Papandayan, Slamet,
Bromo, Semeru, Batur, Rinjani, Sangeang Api, Rokatenda, Egon, Soputan, Lokon,
Gamalama, Dukono, Karangetang, Ibu, Talang. Also, being located along the typhoon
belt/superhighway in the Pacific makes it vulnerable to extreme weather events. An
average of 20-30 typhoons/tropical cyclones visit the country every year, with 5-7 ofthem considered the most destructive. Total shoreline prone of tsunami is about 21.000
Km, making the country also highly-susceptible to sea level rise and storm surges.
Accompanying or resulting from these tropical cyclone events are secondary3

phenomena such as landslides, floods/flash floods/flooding, typhoon, drought, andheavy monsoon rains.
Aside from the natural hazards, Indonesia also experiences human-induced
incidents such as urban/structural fires, air, land and sea mishaps, drowning, collapsed
structure, epidemic/disease outbreak, food poisoning, vehicular accidents, gas explosion,
chemical poisoning, oil spillage, grenade/bomb explosion/bombings, civil disturbance,and complex emergencies.

2-2. Recent Major Disasters
From 2000 – 2010 annual average disaster direct damage ranges (US$ 100
billion – 110 billion) and further increased by indirect and secondary impact of disasters.
Cost of direct damages is equivalent to 5% of the national (GDP). An average of 1,002
casualties annually and flooding is the topmost disaster during the last 5 years.
Last earthquake on September 30, 2009 occurred just off the southern coast of
Sumatra, Indonesia. The major shock hit at 17:16:10 local time on September 30, 2009
(10:16:10 UTC) and had a moment magnitude of 7.9. The epicenter was 45 kilometres(28 mil) west-northwest of Padang, Sumatra, and 220 kilometres (140 mil) southwest ofPekanbaru, Sumatra. Early death-toll estimates extended beyond 1,300. Government
reports have to date confirmed 1,115 dead, 1,214 severely injured and 1,688 slightly
injured. The most deaths occurred in the areas of Padang Pariaman (675), Padang (313),
Agam (80) and Pariaman (37). In addition, around 135,000 houses were severely
damaged, 65,000 houses were moderately damaged and 79,000 houses were slightly
damaged. An estimated 250,000 families (1,250,000 people) have been affected by theearthquake through the total or partial loss of their homes and livelihoods

December 2004
Earthquake & Tsunami
220,000 people perished & missing
585,000 people displaced
Estimated damages: $ 4.5 billion
Aceh and Nias Islands

May 2006
Earthquake
5,700 people perished
40,000 people injured
Estimated damages: $ 3.1 billion
Yogyakarta and Central Java

July 2006
Earth quake & Tsunami
1,000 people perished & missing
50,000 people displaced
Estimated damages: $ 110 millionWest Java

February 2007
Flooding
50 people perished & missing
350,000 people displaced
Estimated damages: $ 510million
Jakarta

September 2009
Earthquake
1,300 people perished & missing
50,000 people displaced
Estimated damages: $ 2.1 billionWest Sumatra

October - November 2010
Vulvanoc Eruptions
300 people perished
350,000 people injured
Estimated damages: $ 360 million
Mount Merapi

4

Photos of Earthquake in West Sumatra and Tsunami in Banda Aceh

3.

Disaster Management System
3.1

Administrative System
Indonesia has three (3) administrative levels of governance; national, province

and regency/municipal. Each level of governments has its own disaster management
organizations, policy frameworks and budgets. When disasters occur, municipalities
respond first. In case disasters are large in scale beyond their capacity, national andprovince governments provide every possible support.
Government decides status and level of national and regional/local disaster,with indicators: number of victims, the loss of belongings, damages offacilities/infrastructure, area and economy and social impact.

5Institutionalization
A. National level
BNPB - non-ministry institution (equals a Minister, consists of Steering & Executing
components.

B. Provincial & District level
Provincial gov. establishes BPBD, chaired by an official functionary at a level of under
Governor (echelon I-b). District gov establishes BPBD, chaired by an official
functionary at a level of under Bupati/Walikota (head of district/mayor), echelon II-a.
Establishment by coordination to BNPB.

National Level
President

National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB)

Province Level
Governor

Regional Agency for Disaster Management (Province BPBD)

Regenty/Municipal Level
Regent/Mayoralty

Regional Agency for Disaster Management (Regenty/Municipal BPBD)

Fig 3.A.1 Administrative System in Indonesia

3.2

Legal System and Framework
Disaster Management System is “an overall regulating system which include

legislation, institutionalization, planning, budgeting and science for disaster management,in order to ensure the implementation of disaster management is well-integrated andcoordinated.”

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
6

1. Disaster Management Law No. 24/2007
Principles of Disaster Management-

Promptness & Precision-

Priority-

Coordinating & Integrity-

Efficiency & Effectiveness-Transparency and Accountability-

Partnership-

Non Discrimination-

Non Proselytization

2. Government Regulation No. 21/2008 Operation of Disaster Management
3. Government Regulation No. 22/2008 Funding and Managing in Disaster
Assistance
4. Government Regulation No. 23/2008 Role of International Agencies and Foreign
Non Governmental Agencies in Disaster Management
5. Presidential Regulation No. 8/2008 Establishment of NADM

3-3. Structure of Disaster Management
a. National Agency for Disaster Management-

Head of NADM non-ministry institution equals a minister, consists of Steering &Executing components-

Eight (8), Vice – Chairpersons;
1. Prime Secretary, has the duties of planning, guidance and control of the
program, administrative and resources and cooperation
2. Deputy for Prevention and Preparedness, has the task coordinating andimplementing public policy in the field of prabencana disaster management
and empowerment community
3. Deputy for Emergency Response, has the task coordinating andimplementing public policy in the field of disaster management during
emergency response
4. Deputy for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, has the task coordinating
and implementing public policy in the field of disaster management in the
post-disaster5. Deputy for Logistics and Equipment, has the tasks coordination andlogistical support and equipment in the operation disaster6. Prime Inspectorate, has the tasks of supervision functional to the tasks andfunctions in the BNPB
7. Centre of Data Information & PR and Centre of Education & Training
78. Technical Unit

b. Regional Agency for Disaster Management (Province level)-

Head of RADM (Chief executive) consists of Steering & Executing components(Ess. IIa)-

Four(4), Vice – Chairpersons;a. Executive Secretariat (Ess. IIIa)b. Chief of Prevention and Preparedness (Ess. IIIa)c. Chief of Emergency Field and Logistics (Ess. IIIa)
d. Chief of Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (Ess. IIIa)c. Regional Agency for Disaster Management (Regenty/Municipal level)-

Head of RADM (Chief executive) consists of Steering & Executing components(Ess. IIb)-

Four(4), Vice – Chairpersons;a. Executive Secretariat (Ess. IIIb)b. Head Section of Prevention and Preparedness (Ess. IIIb)c. Head Section of Emergency Field and Logistics (Ess. IIIb)
d. Head Section of Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (Ess. IIIb)

Duties and Functions based on Law no. 24 / 2007
1. BNPB’s duties:
8

a. Guidelines & directives: prevention, emergency response, rehabilitation &reconstruction.
b. Standardisation & the need of DM implementationc. Information of activities to the public
d. Report to President once each month & any timee. Making use of domestic/int’l assistancef. Accountability of budget
g. Guidelines on BPBD
2. BNPB’s functions:a. Formulation & stipulation of DM policyb. Coordination of DM activities

4. Disaster Management Strategy, Policy, and Plan
BNPB Strategy and Policy Direction for 2010-2014
BNPB policy direction and strategy is the result of the identification of the strategic
environment BNPB conducted on the internal and external environment. Based on
the results of the strategic environmental assessment externally and internally aswell as synchronization to the direction of national policies and strategies in the fieldof disaster management, the policy and strategy of the National Disaster
Management Agency disaster management activities within the next five years(2010-2014) is
1. Disaster implementation of planned, directed, coordinated, integrated andcomprehensive and accountable
2. Increased awareness, ability and preparedness for disasters through thecreation of a rapid reaction force of disaster3. Completion of handling emergency disaster victims in post-disaster areas
quickly, accurately and effectively, and coordinated / integrated
4. Completion of recovery of physical infrastructure in the region andnon-physical after disaster of an integrated and comprehensive
Vision and Mission of BNPB
Vision:“Towards resilient nation to cope disaster”

Mission:
1. To protect people through disaster reduction
2. To build disaster management system firmly.
3. To implement disaster management in well planned, integrated, and coordinated9National Medium-Term Development Plan 2010 – 2014
1. Climate Change
2. Control on Environmental Degradation
3. Early Warning System
4. Disaster Management : Capacity enhancement of government and community in risk reduction, mitigationand emergency response, as well as forest fires in 33 provinces
 Establishment of rapid response (special task force for emergency response) with
sufficient transportation means based in strategic location (Jakarta & Malang) tocover nationwide (SRC PB/INDRRA)
The programs contained in the matrix RAN-PRB 2010-2012 are programs contained in
the Act Number 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management and Government Regulation
Number 21 Year 2008 on Implementation of Disaster Management. The programs were:
1. Strengthening legislation and institutional capacity
2. Disaster planning
3. Research, education and training
4. Increased participation and community capacity disaster risk reduction
5. Disaster prevention and mitigation
6. Early warning
7. Preparedness

5. Budget size on National Level
National disaster management plan 2010-2014 (Renas PB) load the programand focus priorities as the basis to make disaster management. Program is atranslation of the vision and mission as well as the choice of action in accordance withthe risk management. Indonesia disaster management system that is currently being
built has 5 pillars in the form of sub-system legislation, planning, institutional, funding
and capacity building. System was built to address the problems facing today andtranslated into the following programs: 1) Strengthening legislation and institutional
capacity; 2) Disaster planning; 3) Research, education and training; 4) Increased
participation and community capacity disaster risk reduction; 5) Disaster prevention
and mitigation; 6) Early warning; 7) Preparedness; 8) Emergency Response; 9)
Rehabilitation and reconstruction.
As for the budget needed to undertake disaster relief during the 5-year term in anational disaster management plan is Rp. 64.475.060.000.000,- (Sixty four trillion four
hundreds seventy five billion sixty million rupiahs) or an average of Rp.
10

12.895.012.000.000,- (Twelve trillion eight hundred ninety five billion twelve million
rupiahs) per year.
Indicative budget of each program in the national disaster management plan:
Indicative budget

No.

Program1.

Strengthening legislation and institutional capacity

2.

Disaster planning

24.16

3.

Research, education and training

368.504.

Increased participation and community capacity(billion Rp.)
30,638.00

2,855.60

disaster risk reduction
5.

Disaster prevention and mitigation

6,665.50

6.

Early warning

822.007.

Preparedness

7,415.80

8.

Emergency Response

1,008.50

9.

Rehabilitation and reconstruction

14,677.00
Total

64,475.06

Source of funding for the implementation of disaster management plansobtained from the state budget revenue and expenditure (APBN), budget revenue
and expenditure (APBD), and the support of the private sector and donor agencies.
Budget comes from the state budget funds allocated annually through the budget ofeach ministry/agency to ensure that disaster management can run continuously.
By government law no. 24/2007 on disaster management and government
regulation no. 22/2008 on the funding and management of disaster relief, disaster
relief funds are used by governments, local governments, BNPB and/or appropriate
duties and functions. In a disaster situation, the funds allocated for disaster relief
programs for disaster risk reduction. The situation there is the potential for disaster,
the funds allocated for disaster preparedness activities, the development of early
warning systems and disaster mitigation activities. To anticipate emergency situations,the government is ready to allocate funds (on-call budget) that should be available for
emergency response needs.

6. Progress of the Implementation of Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)a. Priority 1: Core indicator 1
National policy and legal framework for disaster risk reduction exists withdecentralised responsibilities and capacities at all levels

Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
11such as financial resources and/ or operational capacities.
In general it can be maintained that Indonesia has already possessed disasterrisk reduction policy and regulatory frameworks. Besides the Law No. 24 year 2007
on Disaster Management, several ancillary regulations derived from the Law havealso been enacted at the national as well as regional levels.
Disaster management capacity at the central and regional levels has also beenenhanced. Nearly all ministries have developed policy frameworks that containmitigation aspects. State Ministries’ strategic plans for 2010-2014 have also
factored in DRR and CCA that will ensure their commitment towards both issues.
However, implementation to the regions has yet to be completed, both in terms of
institutional building and disaster management planning.
The capacity and resource development process has been evident but there are stillsome constraints, both financial and policy constraints. The socialization of the shiftof paradigm to disaster risk reduction has yet to be improved among the sectors at
the central and local levels. The enforcement and implementation of land use andspatial planning and risk sensitive development planning have to be improved,
particularly in regions that have not been familiarized with DRR concepts.

Context & Constraints:
One of the constraints related to this issue is the lack of competence in verticaland horizontal regulations and policies. Knowledge of DRR mainstreaming has yet
to be disseminated to the regions and the functional and structural relations
between BNPB and the local BPBDs needs to be strengthened.
The NDMP 2010-2014 and NAP-DRR 2010-2012 have been issued, but these
documents have not been disseminated optimally to the different government
Ministries/Agencies and the wider public, so that not all parties have the sameownership of the documents. There needs to be further harmonization andsynchronization of cross sectoral DRR policies.
In future policy implementations in the regions needs to be monitored and enhanced.
Capacity for DM and DRR needs to be developed, particularly related to policy andregulation. There needs to be socialization of DRR mainstreaming andenhancement of functional and structural coordination between BNPB and BPBDs.
The NDMP 2010-2014 and NAP-DRR 2010-2012 need to be disseminated further
among the ministries and the wider public, so that all parties will own the documents.
Measures need to be developed to strengthen cross sectoral DRR policies.

Priority 1: Core indicator 2
Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk
12

reduction plans and activities at all administrative levels.

Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
such as financial resources and/ or operational capacities.
The commitment of the central and regional governments has been evident
through the Middle-term Development Plans, the NDMP, the NAP DRR and theStrategic Plans of the different State Ministries and Agencies. For the regional level,commitment has been there but capacity has still been limited.
DRR has become a national priority but at the regional level not all districts andcities have included DRR as their priority in their development programs and budget.
Coordination among the relevant State Ministries and Agencies have also become
better with facilitation from the NADM.

Context & Constraints:
Disharmony still exists in DRR programs between the national and regional
governments due to difference perspective in disaster risk potentials. Many regional
governments have yet to develop their DRR vision and missions. DRR regulations
have yet to be adopted by all multi-stakeholders, particularly by the State Ministries
and Agencies. Capacity building efforts have not yet been disseminated optimally at
all levels.
In future there needs to be program synchronization between the central andregional governments. The capacity of the human resources needs to be further
enhanced. DRR needs to be mainstreamed in a more consistent manner into theMiddle-term Development Plans, the Strategic Plans and Annual Plans of different
local government offices.
DRR platforms need to be revitalized as a meeting forum among themulti-stakeholders. There needs to be greater consistency between the program
planning, program implementation and the budgeting. Related to that, program
monitoring and evaluation need to be strengthened at all levels

Priority 1: Core indicator 3
Community Participation and decentralisation is ensured through the delegation of
authority and resources to local levels

Level of Progress achieved:
Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial.
13

In terms of participation and decentralization in the conduct of disastermanagement, there is still a tendency to give priority to government bodies at thenational and local levels (up to village level). Participation and decentralization havebeen applied but not completely. The Government has started to implement acomprehensive approach to develop local DM bodies. Meanwhile, the capacity of
the local governments has yet to be developed to accommodate grassroots level
DRR initiatives.

Context & Constraints:
In relation to participation and decentralization of disaster management
activities, there are still some obstacles in obtaining valid data and information. The
consultation process undertaken in the effort to formulate disaster management anddisaster risk reduction programs at the national and local levels is usually limited tosocialization that in several occasions involves the community, but more in a
passive participation. Participatory processes employed serve more as an
instrument that has not accommodated the actual interests of the community. In
other words, the existing mechanism has not been able to guarantee a participatory
process, while the socialization and dissemination of information at the community
level has not been optimal.
The planning, implementation and monitoring system has not been well developed.
Delegation of authority to the regions is limited since the socialization and advocacy
of disaster management responsibilities at the local level has not been done
optimally. The capacity of the local DM institution in taking advantage of disaster risk
maps has not been well developed, while institutions at the central level do not haveaccess to disaster information in the regions to make local level risk maps.
Participation of the communities in local decision-making process has also still belimited.
In future there needs to be standardization and ease of access to obtain information.
The support of the media is very much required, particularly to strengthen
information dissemination in the regions. It is expected that local governments
develop regulations that ensure the integration of DRR into local development plansso that budget allocation for DRR could be secured. Community participation needs
to be enhanced by building a sense of ownership towards disaster risk reduction
activities among the stakeholders. Bigger resources need to be allocated for theregions to develop disaster risk reduction programs.

Priority 1: Core indicator 4
A national multi sectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning.
14

Level of Progress achieved:
Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial.
At the national level there has been a multi-sectoral disaster risk reduction
platform, the National DRR Platform (in Indonesian it is called Planas PRB), but thework of this forum has not been so prominent. It can be said that this forum has notbeen working in a systematic manner, with measurable work plan and allocatedbudget. Support in the form of required resources from the involved parties has notbeen significant, in particular from the representatives of the private sector; they
only contributed to specific events where they could assert their visibility. Several
provinces have established their own DRR platforms, but the consolidation of DRR
platforms between that at the national level and the ones in the regions has notbeen reliable. In addition to that, understanding of the critical role of DRR platforms
by the local stakeholders has also still be too limited.
Context & Constraints:
One of the constraints is that the prevailing regulation has yet to allow themulti-sectoral DRR platform to receive funding directly from the government.
Another constraint is that the representation of government Ministries/Agencies in
the National DRR Platform has not been consistent; there has not been any official
assignment to specific officials from government offices to represent their offices in
the Platform. The management of the National DRR Platform has not been
supported by an executive office that is staffed by full time and dedicated personnel.
On the other hand, awareness of the existence of the National DRR Platform among
government institutions at the central and local levels has not been internalized. The
National DRR Platform has not been optimal in engaging the relevant stakeholders,
particularly from the government and private sectors.
To date information about what have been done by the National DRR Platform has
yet to reach the public, and its roles and responsibilities need to be redefined inclearer terms. Moreover, the Government also needs to emphasize that disaster risk
reduction is also part of the corporate social responsibility of companies.
In the future, better synergy needs to be built among the partner agencies indeveloping DRR programs and activities. Socialization needs to be done tointroduce the existence and roles of the national and local DRR platforms.
Commitment needs to be built among the multi-stakeholders at the central andregional levels to utilize optimally DRR platforms as a coordination andcommunication forum for DRR.
15

b. Priority 2: Core indicator 1
National and local risk assessments based on hazard data and vulnerability
information are available and include risk assessments for key sectors.
Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
such as financial resources and/or operational capacities
Several risk assessment efforts have been initiated at the national as well as local
levels in an adequate manner. Several relevant ministries and agencies have also
conducted risk mapping and analysis in accordance with their specific tasks andresponsibilities, for instance the Agency for Meteorology, Climate and Geophysics(BMKG) for meteorological, climate and geophysical hazards, the Geological
Agency (PVMBG/ESDM) for volcanic and land mass movement hazards, theMinistry of Public Works (PU) for flood hazards, and so forth. Unfortunately, some ofthese hazard analyses have not been enriched with vulnerability and capacity
information of the community. Nationally there has only been one comprehensive
risk analysis that was conducted by BNPB and the National Planning Board(Bappenas) with a simple methodology that resulted in comparative risk index for
district/city level, which was later used in the formulation of the NDMP and
NAP-DRR.
Risk analysis at the national level has not been supported with national standards inrisk map making. Also, it is difficult for the regions to access the national risk map
available at the central level. The existing risk maps need to be detailed andintegrated into spatial planning to guide the local development planning with risk
reduction considerations.

Context & Constraints:
In general the BNPB and many BPBDs still face limitations in terms ofresources. The capacity of the human resources has not been sufficient and there isalso budget constraint and gross lack of the required facilities and infrastructures.
Disaster Management Study Centers at universities in the regions, which are
expected to support the capacity building of BPBDs, have not been well developed.
The involvement and participation of the relevant stakeholders in the regions can beconsidered as not yet significant. In addition to the lack of understanding of disasterrisk reduction and disaster management issues, there have yet to be uniformity inthe terms and concepts of risks, risk maps, risk analysis, risk map elements, risk
analysis parameters and relevant other things. Disaster-related information
16

conveyed to the media and the public is often convoluted since it is not systematicand the language used is often too technical.
It is obvious that capacity development is greatly needed for risk analysis andmapping both for central and local level stakeholders. In addition to that, there
needs to be a good socialization strategy and effort to encourage the people, local
government and local stakeholders to become more proactive in accessing dataand information related to disaster risks and other relevant data.
It is also necessary to build the capacity of the communities in understanding hazard
and risk maps, risk analysis, etc. The media needs to be empowered to package
and convey information that is valid and systematic and do not cause confusion
among the people. In order that the general public can access easily andunderstand disaster-related information, such information needs to be standardized
and made easy. Once socialization has been done, risk assessments need to be
integrated into spatial planning to support risk sensitive development planning

Priority 2: Core indicator 2
Systems are in place to monitor, archive and disseminate data on key hazards andvulnerabilities

Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
such as financial resources and/ or operational capacities
The system to monitor, store and disseminate hazard and vulnerability data has
been available in government technical Ministries/Agencies in many areas to cover
remote areas. All kinds of media and information technology have been used in
information dissemination, including the radio, mass media, short message service
broadcast and social networks such as the Facebook and Twitter. Although thereporting format and type of information available are not uniform, based on theneeds of the different government agencies, the difference does not affectsignificantly dissemination of information. BNPB has recently developed theIndonesian Disaster Data and Information (Data dan Informasi Bencana
Indonesia/DIBI) but it has yet to be maximally utilized by the different state ministries

Context & Constraints:
One of the constraints faced is that the integration of all early warning systems
hosted by the different government agencies has not been optimal. Moreover, there
has not been any legal instrument that could serve as an umbrella that regulates thepolicy related to the monitoring, storing and dissemination of disaster data. Data17

facilities and infrastructures also need to be improved, besides the humanresources tasked with the management of disaster data and information.
The DIBI system developed by BNPB needs to be improved and socialized in amore rigorous manner. The government also needs to develop inter-sectoral
integrated network that will engage all the ministries and agencies in the provision of
hazard and risk information, if possible through the existing DIBI system. Policy
needs to be formulated to enhance the implementation of the DIBI system andstrengthen coordination among institutions. Budget allocation from the national
budget is needed as well as support from other donor organizations to enhance the
DIBI system, including through the provision of facilities, infrastructures and therequired human resources. Moreover, guidelines for risk mapping have yet to be
formulated so that DM institutions in the regions will be able to support risk sensitive
development planning.

Priority 2: Core indicator 3
Early warning systems are in place for all major hazards, with outreach tocommunities.

Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
such as financial resources and/or operational capacities
Early Warning Systems (EWS) practices have demonstrated clearer distributionof roles and coordination among the sectors/actors in disaster management.
Several provinces in highly prone areas have even developed standard operatingprocedures for EWS and emergency response in their areas. EWS for nearly all
main hazards have been developed by the relevant ministries/agencies, particularly
for major hazards such as flood, tsunami, extreme weather, extreme waves,volcanic eruption and forest fires. Several Early Warning Systems have reached thecommunity such as EWS for volcanic eruption and flooding in several places. At thenational level, the government is in the process of developing a President Instruction
on the strengthening of EWS structure (at the central level) and culture (at the levelof local government, university and community).

Context & Constraints:
One of the obstacles encountered is the lack of common understanding of theimportance of early warning systems that reach to the lowest level of the society.
The monitoring of EWS instruments and their operations as well as maintenancehave not been done as best possible. There have only been a handful of provinces18and districts/cities that have developed and implement Standard Operating
Procedures for EWS in their regions. Currently the national government is in theprocess of developing a grand design for multi-hazard early warning system. The
challenge is in the media infrastructure and communication facility in remote areasthat is often lacking or not functioning optimally due to technical factors or lack ofmaintenance. In future more support in the form of resources for the development ofmulti-hazard EWS needs to be mobilized. Collaboration with other parties such as
the private sector in matters related to media and telecommunication needs to bebuilt. The civil society needs to be empowered to participate in risk information
dissemination and the development of community-based EWS. Emphasis needs tobe given to the science and technology aspects of EWS, and their regulatory aspect
as well as social aspect to reach communities living in hazard prone areas. The
regulations developed should also cover EWS Standard Operating Procedures forareas that are highly at risk.

Priority 2: Core indicator 4
National and local risk assessments take account of regional/transboundary risks,with a view to regional cooperation on risk reduction
Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
such as financial resources and/or operational capacities
There been substantial progress in matters related to cross-border risk analysis.
Several districts around Merapi Volcano in the border between Central
Java-Yogyakarta have implemented joint cross-border risk mapping. In the period
between 2010 and 2011 more joint cross-border risk assessments have been
conducted among districts bordering Mount Bromo and in the mapping of thePalu-Poso river catchment areas.
Cooperation has been established within the framework of ASEAN countries andIndian Ocean countries (IO TWS for risk assessment and disaster management). In
2011 the national SAR agency, BASARNAS has hosted INSARAG meetings andInternational SAR Forum. Cross-border information sharing has also been done
through regular meetings, AHA Center, ICG/IO TWS, PTWC, INSARAG, AADMER,
AIEC, ARF Direx and non-combat joint military exercises that involve militaries fromASEAN member countries.

Context & Constraints:
Although many districts/cities, agencies and institutions have conducted19

independent risk assessments, joint detailed risk assessments for disaster risks that
may simultaneously affect different provinces have yet to be implemented.
International agreement such as that through the AHA Center has yet to be signed,
although consensus has been reached. The involvement of local NGOs andcommunities in risk assessments has also not been optimal.
In future commitment needs to be built among policy makers in hazard-prone areas,
and regional/cross-border cooperation for risk analysis and disaster risk reduction in
general needs to be increased. Collaborative ventures need to be expanded not
only for capacity building but also for cross-border joint risk analysis. Engagement of
the NGO communities and mobilization of resources for risk analysis need to bestrengthened by the government.

c. Priority 3: Core indicator 1
Relevant information on disasters is available and accessible at all levels, to all
stakeholders (through networks, development of information sharing systems etc.)

Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
such as financial resources and/ or operational capacities
Indonesia has developed disaster information system at the national level,
through the DIBI system in BNPB, earthquake and tsunami information in BMKG,
volcanic eruption and land mass movement information in PVMBG/ESDM, LAPAN
has developed forest fire EWS that will soon be connected to the BNPB, and theMinistry of Communication and Information has developed information
dissemination system through the media such as radio and TV. In cooperation withseveral mass media agencies, the ministry has piloted disaster risk information forseveral hazard prone areas.
Several local governments, together with non-government partners such as theuniversity and local NGOs, have developed disaster information systems that are
specific to their local needs, although such effort has not been widely distributed
throughout the country.

Context & Constraints:
One of the constraints faced in the provision of disaster information that is relevant
and accessible is the geographical condition of the country, particularly if we
consider that Indonesia is a vast archipelagic country with thousands of islands thatare scattered along the equator. Information dissemination is also hampered byinternet connectivity and communication network that are still relatively limited and20

centered in the major islands only. The cultural obstacle of the people that is notproactive to seek disaster-related information they need also become a big
challenge.
It is felt that mass media that understand the issue of disaster and disaster risk
reduction needs to play a more active role. Also, the data currently available havenot met the criteria for disaster risk mapping.
In future Indonesia will maximize the use of popular media as an instrument for
information dissemination to the public, such as the radio, television, Hand Phone
and the print media. The institutional capacity of BPBDs in the regions will also be
increased to provide disaster-related information that is accessible for the public,
with support from civil society organizations, religious and community leaders, andlocal NGOs.
Disaster information will also be packaged in such a way that it will be in line witheach specific community context. BNPB will serve as a “hub” for website links oforganizations that have developed web-based disaster database. It is expected thatthe capacity of media in disaster-related issues will also be improved.

Priority 3: Core indicator 2
School curricula, education material and relevant trainings include disaster risk
reduction and recovery concepts and practices.

Level of Progress achieved:
Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial.
The Ministry of National Education of Indonesia has issued a circular letter thatencourages the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into schools through school
curriculums that contain preparedness education for elementary, junior high andsenior high schools for six major hazards. The education materials will include
disaster risk reduction as a local content, school program, or the existing extra
curricular programs. Many universities have developed centers for disaster researchand disaster study as a major, and some universities; together with the BNPB, havedeveloped DRR-based field exposure programs. The School Preparedness
Programs, Village Preparedness Programs and many other disaster simulations
have been implemented throughout all over Indonesia.
The Ministry of National Education will further cooperate with the BNPB to develop
sustainable DRR programs and budget for this has been allocated in the national
budget for DRR capacity building. Many non-government institutions have also
developed various different capacity building training programs, including training
21

for volunteers.

Context & Constraints:
One of the challenges faced is the need to build commitment in the regions todevelop curriculum that contains disaster risk reduction aspects and skills to convey
such materials. The government needs to facilitate and coordinate disaster risk
reduction initiatives implemented by the different stakeholders, including bypromoting community-based disaster risk reduction programs. Another challenging
constraint is the overemphasis on development that is more geared towards
physical development. In future there needs to be a strong advocacy program in theregions to mobilize commitment. The recent One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals
campaign could serve as a momentum to build commitment and cooperation. The
stakeholders will also encourage the set-up of a team to accelerate themainstreaming of DRR into schools.

Priority 3: Core indicator 3
Research methods and tools for multi-risk assessments and cost benefit analysis
are developed and strengthened.

Level of Progress achieved:
Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial
Government ministries/agencies at the national level have developed researchmethods to conduct multi-hazard risk analysis in line with their key duties andresponsibilities, for example BMKG has developed tsunami Early Warning System
and analysis of climate, forest fire, extreme weather, extreme wave, earthquake andflood risks; ESDM through its Geological Agency (PVMBG) has developed volcanic
eruption and land mass movement Early Warning System; PU has developed floodrisk analysis and so forth. The Indonesian National Science Institute (LIPI), withsupport from other agencies, has developed Preparedness Analysis that has been
applied in several regions. BNPB has developed multi-hazard risk analysis
approach and mechanism. Although there are many institutions that haveconducted multi-hazard risk analysis, the coverage of these studies needs to be
expanded to cover the entire Indonesia.

Context & Constraints:
The constraint in the development of methods and tools for multi-risk
assessment is the absent of political commitment towards the use of science and22technology and the lack of inter-agency coordination. Due to this weak coordination,
it is difficult to know exactly how many relevant research initiatives have been
undertaken. Also, such initiatives are usually under-funded. The cost-benefit
analysis of these initiatives has never been conducted as the awareness andunderstanding of such efforts have not been widespread.
In future Indonesia needs to increase and enhance its disaster research, including
the relevant cost-benefit analysis. It is expected that in the near future a journal that
contains disaster research could be published. BNPB will become a center for thecollection and dissemination of disaster research and will enhance coordination withthe relevant ministries/agencies at the national level for this purpose. The result of
these research endeavors will be directly used for the benefit of the wider
communities. It is expected that BNPB will also advocate to the legislature (DPR) to
mobilize support/political commitment and funding for disaster management anddisaster risk reduction research efforts.

Priority 3: Core indicator 4Countrywide public awareness strategy exists to stimulate a culture of disaster
resilience, with outreach to urban and rural communities.

Level of Progress achieved:
Some progress, but without systematic policy and/ or institutional commitment
Indonesia has developed a strategy to stimulate and strengthen the awarenessof the community of the importance of disaster resilience, for example through the
integration of disaster risk reduction into school education. Several regions,particularly those that have experienced major disasters, have developedsocialization strategy to raise awareness about disaster resilience in line with thespecific hazards they face, both at the provincial and district/city levels.
In general it could be said that the commitment has been there, but it has not been
comprehensive and does not cover all hazard prone areas. Coordination among
government agencies is particularly weak and there is no systematic strategy.

Context & Constraints:
The constraint encountered is the absent of a grand strategy to raise publicawareness that is systematic and comprehensive, such as the strategy developedby the country in controlling the number of the population through family planning(Keluarga Berencana or KB in Indonesian). Disaster management strategy at thenational level has already included the disaster preparedness aspect, but in many
regions the strategy is focused more on disaster response. The shift of paradigm to23

disaster risk reduction and preparedness has not been widespread.
It is clear that in the future Indonesia needs to formulate a grand strategy to promote
public awareness to strengthen disaster resilience. The government needs tocollaborate with the stakeholders, for instance with the media or neighborhood
women groups at the grassroots communities to implement the strategy.
Advocacy of disaster risk reduction paradigm also needs to be enhanced andincreased in all hazard prone areas. Besides, the capacity of policy makers at thenational and local levels needs to be enhanced to transform the response approach
into preparedness paradigm and formulate the strategy to mainstream disaster risk
reduction.

d. Priority 4: Core indicator 1
Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of environment related policies
and plans, including for land use natural resource management and adaptation toclimate change

Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
such as financial resources and/ or operational capacities
Indonesia has started to relate disaster risk reduction with environmental
management and integrated it to its development policy, in particular through theninth priority program in the Middle-term National Development Plan 2010-2014.
Indonesian National Council for Climate Change (Dewan Nasional Perubahan
Iklim/DNPI) has initiated the integration of DRR into CCA in the formulation of the
National Action Plan for Climate Change. Thus, disaster risk reduction programs will
be implemented in complementary with environmental conservation programs,
including land use management, natural resource management and adaptation to
global warming and climate change programs.
The above policy has also been supported by numerous regulations, such as theEnvironment Bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, the Natural Resource and Ecosystem
Conservation Bill, the Forestry Bill, the Geothermal Bill, the Water Resource Bill, theCoastal Management Areas Bill, the Waste Management Bill, and the other relevant
laws. Several regulations ancillary to Law No. 32 on the Environment have beendrafted. There has also been a draft damage assessment tool for wetland, completewith the damage indicators. Several institutions have also implemented programs
that integrate disaster risk reduction to climate change adaptation in the regions.
In practice, central-level policies have not always been aligned with those at theregional and local levels.
In Riau Province, for instance, the central government puts much restriction for24

activities in protected forests, but the local authority let mining activities take place inthe same areas. The case is also true with spatial planning related to road
construction, which in the policy of the Ministry of Forestry cannot be built throughnational parks, but this is contested by the policies of the Ministry of Finance andMinistry of Public Works.

Context & Constraints:
One of the constraints related to this issue is the weak law enforcement andoverlapping of regulations.
Indonesia has already had many laws and their ancillary regulations, but the efforts
to enforce these regulatory and policy instruments have not been so successful dueto the lack of understanding and commitment of the sectors in building a synergic
cooperation. Corruption has also become a big challenge. At the community level,
awareness has appeared, but community-based initiatives have often not beenaccommodated by the authority. The Ministry of Environment, for instance, hasdeveloped the Climate Village Project; the Ministry of Fishery and Maritime Affairs
developed Disaster Prepared Village; Surabaya Green and Clean project
constitutes a community-based initiative; but all these initiatives have not been
integrated into the existing policies.
In the future Indonesia needs to nurture understanding of the importance of disasterrisk reduction that is integrated into environmental conservation efforts and reducecompartmentalization among the sectors that manage disasters and risk reduction.
Mangrove planting, for instance, needs to be seen as part of disaster risk reduction
since it is also useful to prevent abrasion and provide protection against tsunami.
Institutional coordination and synergy among agencies working with disaster risk
reduction and climate change issues need to be built. Emphasis needs to be given
to policies that are based on sustainable development.
Multi-sectoral policy advocacy and implementation needs to be enhanced, besides
law enforcement for corruption cases related to natural resource and environmental
management. Coordination and synergy need to be built between the central
government and local governments to prevent opposing regulations issued bydifferent government levels.

Priority 4: Core indicator 2
Social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce thevulnerability of populations most at risk.

Level of Progress achieved:25Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial
Indonesia has formulated policies and development plans to reduce thevulnerability of people living in highly-prone areas, but the effort has not been
comprehensive. At the present time Indonesia’s position has increased from a low
income to a middle income country. This demonstrates progress or improvement inpeople’s live. Policies that support people’s welfare have also been supported by
the Law on Social Welfare and several other bills, but these bills need to be further
supported by their ancillary regulations.
Deliberation of Law on social protection has recently been delayed, suggesting that
there has not been significant progress in reducing the vulnerability of the people.
In its Middle-term Development Plan 2010-2014, the Government of Indonesia has
accommodated disaster management as its number 9 priority program. Consideringthat social development is a cross-sectoral effort, the commitment of thegovernment to reduce poverty may have been included in the programs of theministries. The Ministry of Public Works, for instance, through its PNPM programsupports infrastructure development to increase the people’s well-being. The
Ministry of Agriculture has engaged farmers in poverty reduction programs. The
Ministry of Health has integrated the concept of Safe Community into their preparedvillage programs. Several development programs have been designed to reduce
people’s vulnerability such as the Rice for the Poor, Social Security for Neglected
Senior Citizens and Social Assistance Program for Heavily Disabled. All these
programs are government’s programs, while the private sector has also developed
disaster risk insurance. However, all these programs have only seen limited
implementation and limited budget commitment from the government.

Context & Constraints:
Related to this issue, one of the challenges is the lack of clarity in the criteria of
those considered as poor and vulnerable. The database that contains data aboutpoor communities has not been so comprehensive and the accuracy is also open to
discussion. Moreover, monitoring and evaluation are still lacking. At the grassrootscommunity level, the constraint is that the majority of poor people have yet to enjoy
firm rights and access to land.
To encourage social development policies and plans that could reduce people’svulnerability, in the future efforts need to be done to increase understanding andcapacity in formulating development policies and plans that may reduce thevulnerability of populations most at risk. The community needs to be empowered
to demand their rights and local governments need to be encouraged to understand26

right-based approach to development.

Priority 4: Core indicator 3
Economic and productive sectorial policies and plans have been implemented toreduce the vulnerability of economic activities

Level of Progress achieved:
Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial
There have been a number of efforts by the stakeholders to related economic sector
planning to reduce the vulnerability of the people. However, specific efforts to
reduce the vulnerability of economic activities have only been limited to several
areas that have just been hit by major disasters, particularly as part of the
post-disaster recovery initiatives. The legislation that supports this issue has beenenacted, i.e. the Law No. 11 year 2005 on the International Covenant on the
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Related to fiscal policy there has been a
program called AGEFIS 2 that attempts to predict the impact of policy decisions on
the economic aspects such as economic growth, employment and the number ofpoor people, which are aligned with fiscal policies for climate change and economic
objectives that support growth, employment and poor people (pro growth, pro jobs
and pro poor).
In the field of agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture has started to develop programs
to diversify food crops to reduce vulnerability to climate change and disaster. The
Ministry of Finance has developed an incentive program for business that
implements disaster risk reduction through their business activities. Meanwhile, theMinistry of Marine Affairs and Fishery has also formulated disaster risk sensitiveplans that are pro job and pro poor. Several state-owned enterprises haveintegrated disaster risk reduction aspects in their business activities.

Context & Constraints:
The main constraint in implementing policies and plans that may reduce thevulnerability of economic activities is the lack of understanding and awarenessamong the relevant stakeholders and policy makers of the importance of thisparticular issue. Policies and planning in the economic and industry sectors haveaffected the people’s vulnerability. Community development initiatives implemented
to reduce economic vulnerability have mostly been done in the framework ofstand-alone projects, so that they are not sustainable.
The raise of Indonesia’s position into middle income countries has influenced the27

provision of development grants to Indonesia. The social economic development
paradigm that is pro growth, pro jobs and pro poor has not been consistently appliedby the government, the private sector and the civil society. Ministry of Manpower’s
Regulation related to outsourcing employment has had a significant social impact on
the society. In future it is expected that the stakeholders could better develop andimplement sectoral policies and plans that may reduce the vulnerability of economic
activities.

Level of Progress achieved:
Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial.
Indonesia has already had policies that regulate the planning and managementof human settlements that contain disaster risk reduction considerations, forinstance the Spatial Planning Bill and the Law No. 28 year 2002 on High-rise
Building, the building code, micro-zoning regulations and several other regulations.
In several areas that are highly-prone to earthquake, the governments andnon-government partners have disseminated information to the public on theimportance of earthquake-resistant building. Building artisans in those places havealso been trained on earthquake safe construction. Initial efforts to certify building
quality, particularly for public buildings, have also been implemented.
In the National DM Plan, fourteen hazards have been identified. The Ministry of
Public Works has aligned its settlement policies with risk reduction considerations.
For earthquake hazard, Indonesia has just developed guidelines and 9 Richter
Scale earthquake resistant building standards that have been tested and nationallystandardized. During the post Aceh Tsunami recovery, 1,000 earthquake resistanthouses have been built and the model will be replicated in earthquake-prone areas.
Indonesia has already had earthquake resistant building code up to 9 SR that has
been tested and nationally standardized. During the post-tsunami recovery, morethan 1,000 earthquake resistant houses have been built and replicated in otherearthquake-prone areas. In implementing the Green Village Program, local
governments have implemented conservation measures to reduce environmental
damage while at the same time improving the people’s livelihoods.

Context & Constraints:
One of the challenges in mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into the planning andmanagement of human settlements is the inconsistency in the implementation ofpolicies and regulations related to spatial and infrastructure planning. Besides the
weak law enforcement, safety culture has also yet to be built, so that it is difficult to28

promote the issue of disaster risk reduction integration into the planning andmanagement of human settlements.
In the future Indonesia needs to further encourage safety culture among the public,
particularly in the planning and management of its citizens’ settlements.
Development also needs to be encouraged to incorporate people’s vulnerability
considerations.

Priority 4: Core indicator 5
Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post disaster recovery andrehabilitation processes

Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
such as financial resources and/ or operational capacities
Indonesia has already possessed policies to mainstream disaster risk reduction
into post disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes through the enactment of
the Chief of BNPB regulation on rehabilitation and reconstruction. The Indonesian
National Disaster Management Plan 2010-2014 and National Action Plan for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2010-2012 also contain programs and activities to integrate
disaster risk reduction into recovery. The government, with support from several
donors, has implemented “building back better” programs in several post-disasterareas, such as in post Yogyakarta and Central Java earthquake of 2006 and in West
Sumatra after the 2009 earthquake.
Recovery of resettlement after disaster has also factored in risk reduction
considerations such as the building of temporary settlements after the Wasior Flood,the zoning of areas around volcanic areas and spatial planning after Mentawai
Tsunami 2010. BNPB and Bappenas have also applied the Human Recovery Needs
Assessments to complement the usual Damage and Loss Assessments. The
country is in the process of revising its National Standards for construction based ona newly finalized earthquake hazard analysis. With several donors the government
has also applied Post Disaster Assessment Tools for Education Sector, particularly
for school buildings post-disaster.

Context & Constraints:
The constraint faced in integrating disaster risk reduction into post disasterrecovery and rehabilitation processes is the weak coordination among the different
sectors. There has not been any agency that could coordinate a comprehensive
building back better initiative that takes DRR considerations into account. In
29

providing rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance, the challenge faced also
includes lack of transparency and accountability, embezzlement, complex
bureaucracy related to fund disbursement, and assistance that is not in harmony
with the local condition.
In the future the BNPB as the institution responsible for the conduct of disastermanagement needs to collaborate closer with the Ministry of Public Works andrelevant other institutions in socializing the integration of disaster risk reduction into
post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction. There needs to be quality control forthe implementation of rehabilitation and reconstruction. Advocacy also needs to bedone to encourage firm budget allocation for rehabilitation and reconstruction.
Cross-sectoral coordination mechanism must be built and the interests of the local
communities, particularly minority and vulnerable groups, need to beaccommodated in post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Priority 4: Core indicator 6
Procedures are in place to assess the disaster risk impacts of major development
projects, especially infrastructure.

Level of Progress achieved:
Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key aspects,
such as financial resources and/ or operational capacities
Indonesia has developed an analytical instrument to assess the disaster risk
impacts of major development projects. Infrastructure development works haveapplied Environment Impact Assessment as an effort to reduce disaster risks. The
policy towards that purpose has already been present, as stipulated in the Disaster
Management Bill and its ancillary regulations, but not yet in the form of more
operational legislation (Perka BNPB).
To date Indonesia has made it prerequisite to conduct Environmental Impact
Analysis at the individual project level. The government has also enforced theimplementation of a more comprehensive Strategic Environmental Analysis as acomplement for EIA for areas that have many development projects that may
potentially damage the environment. As a result, for instance, the proposal to build atoll road in Surabaya has recently been rejected by the local government due to its
incompatibility with the planned spatial development of the areas. The constructionof Suramadu bridge, to cite another example, that connects the Java Island to
Madura Island, has applied EIA and disaster risk reduction assessments. The caseis also true with the construction of flood barriers in Bengawan Solo river basin.

30

Context & Constraints:
The constraints faced in enforcing procedures to assess the disaster risk
impacts of major development projects include the limited budget available for thisspecific purpose and the lack of coordination for disaster risk reduction initiatives. In
the future the BNPB needs to facilitate coordination with the Ministries and Agencies
in preparing the required risk assessment instrument. As a first step, thegovernment may examine the possibility of including disaster risk analysis for major
infrastructure and development projects into Strategic Environmental Analysis.

e. Priority 5: Core indicator 1
Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and mechanisms fordisaster risk management, with a disaster risk reduction perspective are in place.

Level of Progress achieved:
Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial
Disaster risk management that employs a risk reduction perspective has been inplace, but it has yet to be implemented well. The policy has not been implemented
comprehensively in developing risk management capacity and technicalmechanisms, several programs have been developed at the central level, but its
implementation in the provincial and district/city level has not been to the maximum.
All the 33 provincial governments in Indonesia have already established their Local
Disaster Management Agencies, while approximately 60% of all districts/cities havedone so. The regions that have set-up their own BPBDs continuously strengthen
their capacity in disaster management.
In general systematic policy and commitment have yet to be observed. Several
regions such as the Provinces of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, the Capital City ofJakarta, the Special Region of Yogyakarta and a handful others have alreadypossessed disaster management policies that are relatively well developed, but still
their response capacity needs to be strengthened. On the other hand, at the centrallevel relevant ministries have endeavored to develop DRR-based school curricula,establish standards for school and hospital buildings, as well as retrofitted someschools and health facilities. At the regional level, all hospitals have set-up their
Rapid Response Teams. Up to early 2011, nearly all ministries and agencies havedeveloped preparedness programs at the community level. However, capacity for
response still needs to be enhanced and coordination in emergency response
needs to be improved.

31

Context & Constraints:
One of the constraints in this aspect is the weakness of law enforcement in thefield of disaster management. Since the shift of paradigm from response to disasterrisk reduction has relatively not been well socialized, risk management is often
hindered by the limited vision of the related stakeholders. The lack of capacity in theregions has also become an obstacle, including the fact that many civil servants
often undergo frequent official personnel rotation, so that often the personnel’s
understanding of their key duties and responsibilities is insufficient and the work
cannot be done as best possible. Particularly in the regions, the understanding of
the head of region and members of the local parliament of disaster risk reduction isstill lacking, so that these decision makers do not make disaster risk reduction as apriority issue. Also, Indonesia has yet to have a disaster database cross government
ministries and agencies that are regularly updated.
In the future the central government needs to support the regions to develop policy,
capacity and technical as well as institutional mechanism in risk management thathas a risk reduction perspective. The process may be enhanced with the creation ofdisaster management regulations, standards and protocols that are clear and firm.
The government also needs to set-up BPBDs in all hazard-prone areas andformulate development plans that have a disaster risk reduction perspective. The
quality and mechanism of coordination among the sectors and all the stakeholders
needs to be enhanced too.

Priority 5: Core indicator 2
Disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans are in place at all administrative
levels, and regular training drills and rehearsals are held to test and develop
disaster response programmes.

Level of Progress achieved:
Some progress, but without systematic policy and/ or institutional commitment
At the central level there have been several contingency and preparedness
plans that have been formulated. Similarly, at the regional and local levels, there
have only been a few provinces and districts/cities that have formulated theirdisaster contingency and preparedness plans. Roughly estimated, there have only
been around 20-30 districts/cities that have formulated contingency and/or
preparedness plans. Most of these plans, however, were not formulated by the
stakeholders, but only involved a limited number of government offices and selected
representatives of the communities. Often contingency plans stay as document thatare not simulated and even not used as a reference in emergency response.
32

Several local governments have conducted routine disaster simulation to test theircontingency plans, but there has not been any monitoring and evaluation of eachsingle hazard within a certain period, for instance once in six months. Agreement
and consensus among the stakeholders related to each party’s mandate in theemergency plan have also been lacking, which in the end result in the insecurebasis for accountability of the plan. However, whether or not these plans have everbeen simulated or tried out, there has not been any relevant data. Many disaster
exercises and simulations to test and develop disaster response programs havebeen conducted but not in a regular manner and not programmed in the best way
possible.

Context & Constraints:
One of the biggest constraints in this issue is the uneven awareness, both in thegovernment side and the community, of the importance of disaster contingency andpreparedness plans in enhancing disaster preparedness. This lack of understanding
and awareness has further influenced the political will to provide sufficient budget toformulate disaster contingency and preparedness plans at the central and local
levels.
Several districts and cities have formulated their contingency plans with support
from non-government organizations and donors, but often these contingency plans
have not been followed by further review and regular disaster exercises to try out
the plans. In addition to that, from all the contingency plans that have been made by
the relevant ministries, international NGOs and NGOs, there has not been a
database containing contingency plans that is integrated and easily accessible by
the public.
In the future there needs to be continuous socialization of the importance ofcontingency and preparedness plans. Advocacy also needs to be done toencourage adequate budgeting for the formulation of disaster contingency andpreparedness plans and encourage the integration and monitoring and evaluation ofcontingency plans that have been formulated. Also, efforts need to be done todemand accountability for the contingency plans formulated; meaning that the
stakeholders need to review them regularly and try out the plans.

Priority 5: Core indicator 3
Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place to support effective
response and recovery when required.

Level of Progress achieved:33

Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial
Indonesia has allocated disaster funds in the form of on-call budget,
rehabilitation and reconstruction budget, and contingency budget, but mostly at thecentral level government. For 2011 there has been a 400% budget increase in
BNPB (from Rp. 200 billion in 2010 to 800 billion) and around 108 billion may betransferred directly to the provinces. It is planned that in 2012 rehabilitation andreconstruction budgets may be used at the district/city level. Not all provinces anddistricts/cities have allocated disaster-related budgets, because the regulations that
stipulate this issue have been ambiguous. Contingency mechanism that supports
effective response and recovery has not been present in a systematic andcomprehensive manner, but only partial and anecdotal.

Context & Constraints:
The biggest challenge in this aspect is the absence of clear regulations andmechanisms that govern disaster budget at the national and local levels. This has
made it difficult for decision makers at the local level to allocate disaster budget. In
the future the government needs to formulate unambiguous regulations related todisaster budget. In addition to that, bureaucracy in funds disbursement needs to bemade more responsive and easier, while still maintaining the transparency andaccountability of the system.
Cross-ministerial coordination, such as that with the Ministry of Finance, Ministry ofHome Affairs, the National Planning Board, the State Financial Oversight Body
(BPK), and the other key institutions need to be enhanced to facilitate financial
mechanism in disaster management.

Priority 5: Core indicator 4
Procedures are in place to exchange relevant information during hazard events anddisasters, and to undertake post-event reviews

Level of Progress achieved:
Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor
substantial
In an emergency and disaster situation, Indonesia has already had a system for
information exchange and the materials to be disseminated. However, the standard
procedure and mechanism to exchange information have only been developed at
the national level and have not yet been able at the local and regional levels. There
have been several emergency operation centers that possess the capacity to store
34

and disseminate data, but this has not been present in the majority of hazard-prone
areas. In addition to that, nearly all state ministries/agencies have their own
database but they are still too scientific and have not been transformed into
language that may be understood easily by the public.
To date, database and risk analysis have taken into account local wisdom.
Methodology and capacity for damage and loss assessments have been developed(the Damage and Loss Assessments/DALA, Human Recovery Need
Assessments/HRNA and Post Disaster Need Assessments/PDNA). Gender aspect
has started to be included in assessment methodology. To support implementation,
human resources to conduct such analysis have been identified and trained.

Context & Constraints:
The constraints faced in this aspect include the nonexistence of policies andregulations that harmonize and standardize all forms of disaster information,
procedures and mechanisms that must be obeyed by all government institutions
and other relevant stakeholders. Besides the absence of standards to this respect,
to date investment related to the development of procedures for informationexchange during hazard events and disasters, and their post-event reviews have
only been minimum. Moreover, there is still a gap in integrating scientific data withinformation related to disaster risk reduction that is based on local wisdom.
In the future, in addition to developing the required standards for this particular field,
Indonesia needs to build disaster information systems that are accessible and easily
understood by the public. Special efforts need to be done to also enhancecoordination among the stakeholders in promoting activities to exchange disaster
information. From the viewpoint of the community, there needs to be utilization of
local wisdom in the dissemination of disaster information.

7. Recent Major Projects on Disaster Risk Reduction
Prevention and Disaster Risk Reduction
a. Create a map of Risk and Disaster Management Plan in 33 provinces andwill continue until the district / city graduallyb. Encourage the integration of disaster management in the Region Medium
Term Development Plan (RPJMD)
c. Masterplan PRB Tsunami in Indonesia
d. Establishment of village disaster resiliente. One Million Safe School in collaboration with the Ministry of Educationf.

Socialization sustainable disaster risk reduction

g. Data and information on disaster (DIBI)
35

h. Development Technology of disasteri.

Formation Pusdalops Disaster8. ADRC Counterpart (Organization Name & Contact Information)
Organization: National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB)

Office Address: Tanah Abang 2 Street, Center of Jakarta

36