Review of Policies and Institutional Capacity For Early Warning System and Disaster Management in Indonesia

Indonesia was one of the first countries in the region to have a regulation on disaster management  (DM), in the form of Presidential Decree No. 54 of 1961, Natural Disaster Poll Central Committee (Panitia Pusat Penampungan Bencana Alam).

The most recent version is Presidential Decree (PD) No. 83 of 2005, resulting in the National Coordination Board for Disaster Management (Badan Koordinasi Nasional Penanganan  Bencana).

A disaster management bill was proposed in early 2004, even before the tsunami, and is now in the final stages of being enacted by the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia (DPR RI, or the People’s Consultative Assembly)/House of Representatives.

The Constitution of Indonesia of 1945 outlines the duties of the government, stating that it “protects the entire people and nation of Indonesia” and also that the “President shall declare a state of danger”, the conditions and consequences being determined by law.

After the decentralization process of 1999, the Laws of Regional Autonomous Governance and other laws governing regional autonomy also have provisions for disaster management, such as dealing with emergency funds to meet emergency needs caused by certain incidents including natural disasters.

This draft DM legislation is being developed in a very consultative manner involving the civil society and various sections of the government, with very transparent and participatory reviews and discussions in the Eighth Commission (Komisi VIII DPR RI) and later in a Special Committee.

This draft seeks to make a paradigm shift on DM, in which protection and safety are basic rights, for which the government is accountable.

It promotes disaster management that goes beyond emergency response, providing a system of planning and action for sustainable development, involving all stakeholders including the  vulnerable community to manage all hazards.

The draft is almost finalized, except for some issues related to institutional arrangements, inclusion of conflict as a disaster, budget allocations, declaration of a disaster, and penalties.

The government wants to retain the Badan Koordinasi Nasional Penangulangan Bencana (BAKORNAS PB, or the National Coordination Board for Disaster Management) or reprofile it as a new body under one department to handle all activities related to DM, while the parliament insists that any such DM agency must be independent.

An agreement is likely to be reached, which would form a state agency equal to a ministry consisting of several DM-related departments. The definition of conflict as a disaster is likely to be accommodated in a separate bill.

An issue regarding the declaration of disasters remains on whether the authority to declare a state of disaster emergency rests at the regional or national level (which may or may not allow international relief organizations to assist).

The discussions also center on penalties that the public, private corporations, or even the state may be liable for in case they have caused a disaster or any damaging event.

In the absence of national legislation, discussions at the provincial and district levels on DM are restricted to the aftermath of a disaster. The output is a usually an action plan for better coordination among relevant departments, such as social welfare, public works, and health.

After Aceh and the other recent disasters, more regional and local governments want to focus on an all encompassing DM policy that incorporates principles of risk reduction into their mid-term development planning and budgeting.

For example, Padang has established the provincial SATKORLAK PB (Implementing Coordination Unit for Disaster Management) and prepared a standard operating procedure (SOP) for DM.

Only a few provincial governments, such as Central Java and Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta (DKI Jakarta, or the Jakarta Special Capital Region) have contemplated DM as being more than response or preparedness for response.

Enforcement of existing legislation also remains a weak point.

Although there are standards meant to ensure public safety, such as regulations for building permits, utilization of surrounding land, spatial management, and so on, enforcement is lax, and thus does not contribute substantially to reducing disaster risks.

Currently however, there is no policy on disaster risk reduction and all activities are
isolated in a vacuum of statutes or bills with no specific guidelines for activities related to DM.
Awareness about DM in general is growing and so is the commitment to action.

The situation is expected to get better in the area of legislative environment very soon, with the bill being enacted this year.

Great attention needs to be devoted to ensuring that policies and regulations of other sectors that have a bearing on disaster management are also included in the new policies developed after the legislation becomes a reality.

You may please click here to download full document.

Summary in power point and mind map is also available for download.