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.