An Effective Emergency Response and Emergency Preparedness
I start to write this article when i received a bunch of interview calls for this position. when we refer to the words of emergency response and emergency preparedness, people oftenly see it as more to rapid response actions, such as aid relief distribution, volunteers mobilization, search and rescue, etc. These actions do take part in this sector, yet again i would like to get into details about the mean of both words: emergency response and emergency preparedness.
Basically emergency response is any action that are taken to minimise the casualties, damages and lossess from disaster events. To do so, it needs a rapid respond time, an effective actions, and well planned or standard operation procedures. Some actions that are partly part of it, include: search and rescue, evacuation, damage and needs assessment, logistic management, aid relief distribution and basic needs fulfillment, protection, and recovery of vital asset and infrastructure. All of these actions should be done immediately within seconds after disaster struck. These to anticipate the greater loss of lives and minimize the impact and damages from disaster.
Emergency response should be done within one command and direction, an official and appointed institution or agency that is responsible and designated by the government and or local authority should leads the response. An effective emergency response can be achieved if there is a clear SOP (standard operating procedure) that is developed, agreed, and socialized in the communities. Through SOP, each of the agencies, whether government, private sectors, NGOs, universities, etc know exactly their role and responsibility during the emergency response. This SOP should consist of information related to: background of the area or location related, organization, task and function, mechanism of implementation, activities, coordination, communication, controlling, and information, and budgeting.
An SOP should be seen as a living document, instead of regulation or legal standard. Furthermore, an Emergency/Incident Command System (ICS) should be set. in Indonesia, the ICS is arranged by the BNPB as the National Agency for Disaster Management. within the system, the Incident Command is set based on several steps, include: early information, designation of rapid response team, emergency status, and establishment of disaster emergency response command. The process in setting up this command is regulated through Head of BNPB Regulation Number 10 Year 2008. Meanwhile, the Post for Disaster Emergency Response Command is legalized through Head of BNPB Regulation Number 14 Year 2010.
As for Emergency Preparedness is more in combination between preparedness and response, whereas all activities on preparedness that aimed to improve response mechanism. This can be conducted from family to national level. Some activities related to Emergency Preparedness, including: ensuring the availability of adequate emergencies supplies and access to basic needs, monitoring alert and warning service, establishment of information post or centre, coordination mechanism, standby personel, etc. Emergency Preparedness ideally should be conducted during slow onset disaster that can be predicted, such as flood, volcano eruption, landslide, drought and wild fire. There are several disaster situations that happened in Indonesia that were not well on emergency preparedness, this include: eruption of Mount Sinabung and Rokatenda, include the recent floods that happened across the provinces.
Despite the fact of enormous aid relief and assistances were provided by INGOs and NGOs in responding to both eruption and flood that happened in Indonesia recently, yet if looking on the high number of affected people and inequality of aid relief that was distributed, both show that there was lack of emergency preparedness in responding to disasters above. If take a closer look on Rokatenda Eruption, the activities of this volcano has been shown months before the eruption happened on August 2013. Yet, the main problem at that time was in relocating the people from Palue island where the volcano is located to the safer areas.
On November 2013, i received an invitation to assist in facilitating a training for IDPs in Maurole, one of the relocation area of Rokatenda IDPs. it took 4 hrs drive from the main city with rocky road and crossing over the hill and mountain. There were not much NGOs that are assisting the communities there, so far i can remember only CARITAS and HFI that exist there with the support from HRF from UN OCHA. Even, there is not local disaster management agency or BPBD that is established there.
Based on information from one of CARITAS's staff, due to limited access of clean water in Maurole (coastal and isolated area), everyday, this organization has to distribute clean water (1 gallon/household) to the communities. Beside NGOs, local catholic church also assisted in providing the needs of IDPs. Based on this case, the Province Government of NTT and NGOs with CSOs should work togather in developing operational plan before the eruption. As NTT is one of the under developed province in Indonesia, the public including INGOs should also aware that they have the obligation in providing support to the communities in eruption area. I still remember when a Country Director (CD) from my previous INGOs said to me that "we dont have the capacity to respond the situation", This statement would not probably given by the CD if disaster happen in area that easily accesible and have a value to sell to donors, such as Jakarta Flood and EQ Aceh.
Same situation also happened with Sinabung eruption. I still remember that the volcanic activities of Sinabung was increasing since May 2013 and started on October 2013, coordination meeting cross agencies was conducted several times and continously in discussing the Sinabung response preparedness, but so far that i can remember, most people at that time were focusing in providing health services and support, also distributing mask. The eruption finally happened on January 2014. Yet, still there are a lot of complain on lack of aid relief and inadequate assistance in responding to the situation.
As for Jakarta Flood, the number of affected people increased compare to last year which was 134,662 persons from 90,582 or 38,672 households from 23,675, with number of area that affected decreased 186 to 100 villages in Jakarta area. I migh preassumed that the infrastructure in flood mitigation was working well, yet for improving the capacity of the communities in responding flood might not worked well. surprisingly, as most of humanitarian agencies are base in Jakarta. this might be interested for public to evaluate the related flood management in particular for flood preparedness and response, and how much money that have been put in managing flood in Jakarta. since not many organizations ever done cost benefit or socio economic impact study or even KAP Survey about it. Since the flood that happened in Jakarta is categorized as slow onset. Meanwhile in Manado, the total number of people that were affected from flood also increasing compare to last year from 41,683 people to 40,000 household.
As conclusion based on the analysis on above cases, i would concluded that in term of effectove response and preparedness that: 1) despite the fact that most of DRR Program that are being implemented by many agencies, incl.government and non-government, Emergency Response still the best interest to be intervened for getting more funding, 2) not much science base project or research are conducted by the agencies, most of them simplify by using tangible indicators, such as how many people have been trained, how many mitigation project have been conducted, etc, 3) not much forum or joint initative are being done by the agencies, each of them using their own budget for implementing the program instead having earmarked with the government and working in line with them, and 4) what do we know and what did we learn from previous disaster event that continuously happen in the same province? lack of warning, absent of information system, etc. In the end, i really wish that we can actually say that all works that we have been done or invested are contributing to build the nation's resiliency. Source of information: reliefweb and trusted national online media.
Fact on Rokatenda on 7-13 August 2013
News sources noted that a mandatory evacuation order had caused some residents to evacuate prior to the eruption on 10 August, but nearly10,000 still remained on the island. After the eruption, a rescue team was sent to evacuate about 2,000 people that remained inside a 3-km exclusion zone. A team member noted that rescuing people was difficult since they were reluctant to leave their livestock and homes, but also that the ground was hot and covered in 10-20 cm of ash. The VAAC reported that during 11-12 August ash plumes rose to an altitude of 1.8 km (6,000 ft) a.s.l. and drifted 110-130 km W. A news article noted that the eruptions were smaller on 12 August, but pyroclastic flows continued to be observed. The Alert Level remained at 3 (on a scale of 0-4).
Fact on Sinabung on 15-21 January 2014
http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=261080
PVMBG described activity at Sinabung during 10-17 January based on observations from a post in the Ndokum Siroga village, 8.5 km away. Each day brownish white or gray and white ash plumes rose as high as 5 km, pyroclastic flows traveled 0.5-4.5 km E, SE, and S, and incandescent material was observed on the S and SE flanks as far as 3 km. Seismicity remained high, with constant tremor, hybrid earthquakes indicating a growing lava dome, and volcanic earthquakes. The number of low-frequency earthquakes continued to drop, however. The Alert Level remained at 4 (on a scale of 1-4). As of 20 January, the number of IDPs has increased to 28,536 persons or 8,967 households.The displaced families from 31 villages of four sub districts within Karo District are sheltering in 42 displacement centers.The Incident Command extends emergency phase from 18 to 28 January 2014
Fact on Jakarta and Manado' Floods
http://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/indonesia-situation-updates-21-january-2014
Emergency response should be done within one command and direction, an official and appointed institution or agency that is responsible and designated by the government and or local authority should leads the response. An effective emergency response can be achieved if there is a clear SOP (standard operating procedure) that is developed, agreed, and socialized in the communities. Through SOP, each of the agencies, whether government, private sectors, NGOs, universities, etc know exactly their role and responsibility during the emergency response. This SOP should consist of information related to: background of the area or location related, organization, task and function, mechanism of implementation, activities, coordination, communication, controlling, and information, and budgeting.
An SOP should be seen as a living document, instead of regulation or legal standard. Furthermore, an Emergency/Incident Command System (ICS) should be set. in Indonesia, the ICS is arranged by the BNPB as the National Agency for Disaster Management. within the system, the Incident Command is set based on several steps, include: early information, designation of rapid response team, emergency status, and establishment of disaster emergency response command. The process in setting up this command is regulated through Head of BNPB Regulation Number 10 Year 2008. Meanwhile, the Post for Disaster Emergency Response Command is legalized through Head of BNPB Regulation Number 14 Year 2010.
As for Emergency Preparedness is more in combination between preparedness and response, whereas all activities on preparedness that aimed to improve response mechanism. This can be conducted from family to national level. Some activities related to Emergency Preparedness, including: ensuring the availability of adequate emergencies supplies and access to basic needs, monitoring alert and warning service, establishment of information post or centre, coordination mechanism, standby personel, etc. Emergency Preparedness ideally should be conducted during slow onset disaster that can be predicted, such as flood, volcano eruption, landslide, drought and wild fire. There are several disaster situations that happened in Indonesia that were not well on emergency preparedness, this include: eruption of Mount Sinabung and Rokatenda, include the recent floods that happened across the provinces.
Despite the fact of enormous aid relief and assistances were provided by INGOs and NGOs in responding to both eruption and flood that happened in Indonesia recently, yet if looking on the high number of affected people and inequality of aid relief that was distributed, both show that there was lack of emergency preparedness in responding to disasters above. If take a closer look on Rokatenda Eruption, the activities of this volcano has been shown months before the eruption happened on August 2013. Yet, the main problem at that time was in relocating the people from Palue island where the volcano is located to the safer areas.
On November 2013, i received an invitation to assist in facilitating a training for IDPs in Maurole, one of the relocation area of Rokatenda IDPs. it took 4 hrs drive from the main city with rocky road and crossing over the hill and mountain. There were not much NGOs that are assisting the communities there, so far i can remember only CARITAS and HFI that exist there with the support from HRF from UN OCHA. Even, there is not local disaster management agency or BPBD that is established there.
Based on information from one of CARITAS's staff, due to limited access of clean water in Maurole (coastal and isolated area), everyday, this organization has to distribute clean water (1 gallon/household) to the communities. Beside NGOs, local catholic church also assisted in providing the needs of IDPs. Based on this case, the Province Government of NTT and NGOs with CSOs should work togather in developing operational plan before the eruption. As NTT is one of the under developed province in Indonesia, the public including INGOs should also aware that they have the obligation in providing support to the communities in eruption area. I still remember when a Country Director (CD) from my previous INGOs said to me that "we dont have the capacity to respond the situation", This statement would not probably given by the CD if disaster happen in area that easily accesible and have a value to sell to donors, such as Jakarta Flood and EQ Aceh.
Same situation also happened with Sinabung eruption. I still remember that the volcanic activities of Sinabung was increasing since May 2013 and started on October 2013, coordination meeting cross agencies was conducted several times and continously in discussing the Sinabung response preparedness, but so far that i can remember, most people at that time were focusing in providing health services and support, also distributing mask. The eruption finally happened on January 2014. Yet, still there are a lot of complain on lack of aid relief and inadequate assistance in responding to the situation.
As for Jakarta Flood, the number of affected people increased compare to last year which was 134,662 persons from 90,582 or 38,672 households from 23,675, with number of area that affected decreased 186 to 100 villages in Jakarta area. I migh preassumed that the infrastructure in flood mitigation was working well, yet for improving the capacity of the communities in responding flood might not worked well. surprisingly, as most of humanitarian agencies are base in Jakarta. this might be interested for public to evaluate the related flood management in particular for flood preparedness and response, and how much money that have been put in managing flood in Jakarta. since not many organizations ever done cost benefit or socio economic impact study or even KAP Survey about it. Since the flood that happened in Jakarta is categorized as slow onset. Meanwhile in Manado, the total number of people that were affected from flood also increasing compare to last year from 41,683 people to 40,000 household.
As conclusion based on the analysis on above cases, i would concluded that in term of effectove response and preparedness that: 1) despite the fact that most of DRR Program that are being implemented by many agencies, incl.government and non-government, Emergency Response still the best interest to be intervened for getting more funding, 2) not much science base project or research are conducted by the agencies, most of them simplify by using tangible indicators, such as how many people have been trained, how many mitigation project have been conducted, etc, 3) not much forum or joint initative are being done by the agencies, each of them using their own budget for implementing the program instead having earmarked with the government and working in line with them, and 4) what do we know and what did we learn from previous disaster event that continuously happen in the same province? lack of warning, absent of information system, etc. In the end, i really wish that we can actually say that all works that we have been done or invested are contributing to build the nation's resiliency. Source of information: reliefweb and trusted national online media.
Fact on Rokatenda on 7-13 August 2013
http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=264150
According to news articles, a partial lava-dome collapse at Paluweh on 10 August generated a pyroclastic flow that traveled N towards a beach village and killed at least 5 people. A volcanologist at the monitoring post for Paluweh noted that the eruption lasted seven minutes, and that the pyroclastic flow burned trees around the beach and villages, making it difficult to reach the victims. Pyroclastic flows continued to be reported hours after the initial eruption. Based on analyses of satellite imagery and wind data, the Darwin VAAC reported that an ash plume rose to an altitude of 4.3 km (14,000 ft) a.s.l. and drifted 130 km W.News sources noted that a mandatory evacuation order had caused some residents to evacuate prior to the eruption on 10 August, but nearly10,000 still remained on the island. After the eruption, a rescue team was sent to evacuate about 2,000 people that remained inside a 3-km exclusion zone. A team member noted that rescuing people was difficult since they were reluctant to leave their livestock and homes, but also that the ground was hot and covered in 10-20 cm of ash. The VAAC reported that during 11-12 August ash plumes rose to an altitude of 1.8 km (6,000 ft) a.s.l. and drifted 110-130 km W. A news article noted that the eruptions were smaller on 12 August, but pyroclastic flows continued to be observed. The Alert Level remained at 3 (on a scale of 0-4).
Fact on Sinabung on 15-21 January 2014
http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=261080
PVMBG described activity at Sinabung during 10-17 January based on observations from a post in the Ndokum Siroga village, 8.5 km away. Each day brownish white or gray and white ash plumes rose as high as 5 km, pyroclastic flows traveled 0.5-4.5 km E, SE, and S, and incandescent material was observed on the S and SE flanks as far as 3 km. Seismicity remained high, with constant tremor, hybrid earthquakes indicating a growing lava dome, and volcanic earthquakes. The number of low-frequency earthquakes continued to drop, however. The Alert Level remained at 4 (on a scale of 1-4). As of 20 January, the number of IDPs has increased to 28,536 persons or 8,967 households.The displaced families from 31 villages of four sub districts within Karo District are sheltering in 42 displacement centers.The Incident Command extends emergency phase from 18 to 28 January 2014
Fact on Jakarta and Manado' Floods
http://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/indonesia-situation-updates-21-january-2014
- Jakarta Floods As of 21 January 2014, approximately 134,662 persons or 38,672 households in 100 urban villages are directly affected by floods, with 12 casualties. At least 62,819 persons are displaced and staying in 253 displacement centers. GoI has indicated the emergency readiness phase for 30 days starting from 13 January 2014 until 12 February 2014. National response has been mobilized. GoI indicated that it has the capacity to respond to both short and longer term needs created by the floods. GoI also welcomes technical assistance from the international community in the country, particularly for relief aid logistic management.
- Manado Floods: As of 19 January 2014, at least 15,000 persons from two cities and six districts are displaced. 19 casualties are reported. The Governor of North Sulawesi Province declared provincial emergency phase from 15 to 28 January 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment