[Radix] Feeling better, doing worse?

[Jonatan Lassa]

Dear all, it just came out today in the Jakarta Post....

Feeling better, doing worse?

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/02/26/feeling-better-doing-worse.html

Jonatan Lassa ,  Bonn   |  Thu, 02/26/2009 1:58 PM  |  Opinion

There is an increasing trend of social economic losses in "natural"
disasters due to the rising number of natural hazard incidents
together with the increasingly vulnerable population in Indonesia.

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(UNISDR) jointly with Leuven Catholic University's Center for Research
on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) reported recently that 2008 showed
an increase in the number of deaths and economic losses compared to
the 2000-2007 yearly average.

The recent 7.2-magnitude earthquake (S.R.) in the Talaud Islands
regency in North Sulawesi, that caused hundreds of injuries and damage
to 500 buildings according to the national media, show one important
lesson. The people not only live in a vulnerable environment in regard
to housing and infrastructure but also lack the infrastructure to
react quickly to the warning of a potential tsunami.

We witness floods in many pro-vinces in Indonesia today, which cause
losses and damage to livelihood, life and infrastructure, coming
together with "the unpleasant guests" such as dengue, malaria and
diarrhea (see The Jakarta Post , Feb. 14). Hence, one may be wrong
asserting that Indonesia is not moving forward to reduce disaster
risks amid the increasing trend of disaster risks.

On the other hand, one may share the optimistic view, asserting that
Indonesia is getting better, or far better, at disaster risk
management today than in the past. In terms of laws and regulations
concerning disaster risks, under the auspices of the National Disaster
Management Law 24/2007, followed by various ancillary regulations such
as the set up of the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB)
through Presidential Regulation 8/2008 and the government regulation
for Disaster Management Implementation 21/2008, Indonesia has gained
new momentum for a better risk management policy.

But why do many people feel worse when the government is doing better
in anticipating natural disasters? This question was once asked by
Aaron Wildavsky in 1977 within the United States' context in his
famous paper Doing Better and Feeling Worse: The Political Patho-logy
of Health Policy, published by MIT Press. It later became known as the
Wildavsky paradox.

But in the Indonesian context today, the paradox can actually be
reversed "why are we feeling better while actually we are not doing
enough?"

Recent efforts by the BNPB to take the first step in disaster risk
reduction, that is, the draft of the National Guidelines for Disaster
Risk Assessment (hereinafter NG-DRA) clearly validates the English
saying "the devil is in the details." Therefore, the optimistic view
may miss the fact of the shortcomings of the NG-DRA draft.

The critical point of this article is to propound why Indonesia needs
better national guidelines for the better practice of disaster risk
assessment. The notion that disaster risk assessment is the first step
towards better disaster risk management planning has been long held by
many international scientists working on disaster risk assessment.

The first step is crucial, as it will drive operational policy in the
field to reduce future risk, so we and our children may enjoy less
disaster risk in the future.

On the contrary, just recently, the BNPB, supported by the Safer
Communities for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDP), recruited seven
natural/physical scientists and engineering experts to the NG-DRA for
seven selected hazards (i.e. earthquake, tsunami, drought, forest
fire, flood, landslide and volcano).

The NG-DRA is one of the top priorities of the BNPB that will later be
used by at least 410 regencies and municipalities and 33 provinces.
Therefore the NG-DRA is both necessary, important and strategic to the
BNPB office, to complete the national guidelines for disaster risk
assessment as the benchmark of national disaster risk management
planning.

Unfortunatelly, the draft guidelines for disaster risk assessment only
recognise the physical events of natural hazards. It does not touch on
the social, economic, cultural, political and environmental aspects of
disasters. The models offered as the national guidelines for risk
analysis/assessment fail to adopt the latest knowledge and latest
empirical research results concerning disaster risk and disaster risk
analysis.

It fails to recognise the unequal distribution of the death toll in
the Indian Ocean tsunami between men and women showed that there is a
social and non-natural component in disaster risk.

At least four empirical researches were done in Aceh and Sri Lanka and
all came out with the convincing results that women's survival rate is
far less than men's. Thus, integrating gender as an important factor
that shapes the distribution of risk can no longer be seen as optional
but imperative.

Gender analysis of risk does not appear in the draft NG-DRA
guidelines. The guidelines also fail to recognise the interplay of
gender, age and economic vulnerability which may result in greater
risks.

The shortcoming of the guidelines may come from the assumption that
the science of doing disaster risk assessment does not really need
social sciences contribution but natural science alone.

Therefore, disaster risk assessment taking into account the physical
aspects of natural hazards without taking adequate account of the
multiple vulnerabilities will guide Indonesia's reform processes
toward ineffective and unsustainable disaster risk reduction (DRR)
practices and will move the country backward, not forward.

The writer is a Ph.D candidate with research focus on Disaster Risk
Governance at the University of Bonn.