Sustainable development in Aceh

Sustainable development in Aceh

Jonatan Lassa, Banda Aceh

Avian Influenza has finally found its way into Aceh. The lab test
result from the Medan was positive, based on samples taken from
Banda Aceh regency (Lamdom and Seutui districts). Serambi, a
local newspaper reported on Friday Nov. 25 that thousands of
chickens in Banda Aceh regency had died.

Rumors on the death of a child related to bird flu have
spread across Banda Aceh. Avian Influenza is another risk factor
in the path to sustainable development in Aceh.

Aceh has been "labeled" as the most disaster-prone province in
Indonesia. Even though in terms of disastrous incidents, Aceh's
natural disasters are much lower than that of East Nusa Tenggara
Province. The severity of the tsunami brings to mind previous
Indonesian disasters such as the Flores tsunami in 1992, where
2,000 people died.

The Dec. 26 tsunami has not only changed the disaster
management paradigm but also changed the landscape for global
emergency responses, including the landscape of global
humanitarian donorship.

Apart from the tsunami, one of the largest ever world
disasters, the Acehnese have experienced a series of disasters
both man-made (e.g. 30 years in conflict) and natural (from 1907
to 2005). The Dec. 26, 2004 tsunami claimed nearly 200,000 live
and made 532,898 people homeless or displaced. The extreme event
came at a time with previous vulnerabilities, most notably the
30-year conflict with the forces of the central government, where
there were already thousands of Internally Displaced Persons
(IDPs) and over 15,000 deaths over past three decades, creating a
complex web of vulnerabilities.

There have been rather "marginal" disastrous events, but still
categorized as disasters in Aceh between 1907 and 2005. The
latest one was flash flood in Aceh, where 21 died, 20 were
injured and 12,020 displaced. Aceh has frequently experienced
floods (43 percent) and earthquakes (22 percent) and epidemics
(22 percent) over the past century.

The likelihood of pandemic avian influenza in Aceh is high and
the contingency planning for tackling such a pandemic is not yet
known by the public, if there is one at all. Hence, the path of
sustainable development in Aceh is always interrupted by man-made
hazards (conflicts) and natural disasters. The path of
sustainable development is also at risk, considering the existing
geological vulnerabilities of Sumatra that are prone to
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

These "externalities" (floods, earthquakes, tsunami, volcano
eruption, epidemics) are potential threats to the communities.
While there are "internalities" known as poverty and
vulnerabilities, the social part that contributes to disasters is
rooted in the developmental policy and processes. Managing the
interactions, both the "externalities" and "internalities", must
be the basis for addressing root causes of disasters.

Quite often, people believe that funds that have been labeled
tsunami funds should not be used for the other hazards-disaster
relief. Tsunami funds are for tsunami-related business. Victims
of both conflict, flood and the most recent one such as Avian
Influenza will be raised differently. People might argue that
understanding the complexities of the context in Aceh does not
have to be followed by a flexible policy, which gives room for
better humanitarian and disaster management intervention. Still,
money labeled as tsunami funds are intended to be used merely for
the tsunami recovery. No more, no less.

Thousands of organizations sent their representatives and keep
their ears and eyes on the results of the World Conference on
Disaster Reduction. And just recently in January 2005, the Hyogo
Framework for Action was developed and thus promotes multi-
hazards management approach, a kind of holistic approach to
disaster management. However, such an expensive conference funded
from ordinary taxpayers of the whole world, resulted in a
business-as-usual conclusion, or maybe a kind of mass amnesia.

What Aceh is urgently in need of, as Ms. Eileen Shea noted
during a hearing in front of the US Senate: "...is a
comprehensive, multi-hazard approach that establishes the social
(human, institutional and political) as well as scientific and
technical infrastructure necessary to anticipate and manage
risks. If we focus only on the tsunami hazard itself, I fear that
we will be like the proverbial general planning for the past
war". I would add Avian Influenza to the list.

Aceh has been experiencing disasters, but have the development
policy makers, including reconstruction policy makers in the
government, BRR, UN agencies, NGOs, and local CSOs in Aceh
considered the dialectical relationship between disasters and
sustainable development? If the answer is no, then it is clear
why the path of sustainable development is always at risk. The
whole notion on achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
through mainstreaming risk reduction in development process is
just an empty slogan.

This resource-rich province is experiencing backwardness due
to a series of man-made disasters, war in this case. Today, bird
flu has just started to strike the region. A lack of
infrastructure in remote villages and the destruction of houses
and buildings in the due to war made people abandon their natural
assets because the situation was impossible for production,
leading to poverty and destitution.

In dealing with all natural hazards such as floods,
earthquakes, tsunamis and epidemics, not only exclusive to Aceh,
but Indonesia in general, people often ignore the "anthropogenic"
cause of disasters, especially, but not limited to, in the
response stages. However natural the hazards, it takes humans to
experience disasters. Another criticism often recited by disaster
experts is that "too much emphasis in doing something about
disasters is put on the natural hazards themselves, and not
nearly enough on the social environment and its processes.

Multiple hazards and approaches to them in the Aceh
reconstruction processes could be explained using ADPC's term
"Total Disaster Risk Management", as I understood as: Firstly,
take holistic approach and comprehensive action towards all
hazards that exist on the communities. No hazard/disaster (either
human made or natural) discrimination, even though each hazard
has its own nature. Secondly, take preventive and mitigation
efforts effectively with all kinds of hazards; in the Aceh
context, it can be meant not only for the tsunami, but also
floods, avian flu, conflict earthquakes and epidemics such as
polio and dengue fever. Thirdly, promoting multi level and multi-
dimension and multi-disciplinary responses in disaster risk
management.

For the case of bird flu, If no action is taken by all the
players in terms of livelihood intervention, specifically to
livelihood projects related to chickens, this could a harmful
approach. This is not an issue of a specific livelihood security
but of human security. My expectation is that Hyogo Protocol for
Action should not be aborted in Aceh, the place where the world
disaster management communities are keeping their eyes glued to.

The writer is the Program Coordinator for Hivos Liason Office
Aceh and is an independent DM Consultant, based in Banda Aceh.
This opinion is his own and does not reflect the interest of his
employers. He can be reached at j.lassa@hivos.or.id.