1
4 April 2017
DESKTOP STUDY ON DISASTER RISK REDUCTION OF HERITAGE CITIES IN
SOUTH EAST ASIA AND SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES OF THE PACIFIC
By: Dr. Rohit Jigyasu Developed for UNESCO Office Jakarta as a preliminary study for the project entitled “Capacity Building for Disaster
Risk Reduction (DRR) of Heritage Cities in Southeast Asia (SEA) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in the
Pacific”, funded by the Malaysian Funds-in-Trust.
1. Disaster Risk Profile of South-East Asia:
Southeast Asia is one of the most disaster-affected regions in the world. With the Indian Ocean
tsunami in 2004 hitting several countries in the region and Cyclone Nargis in 2008 devastating
Myanmar, the region has seen two of the world’s deadliest mega-disasters in the last decade. More
recently, floods in Thailand in 2011 caused over US$45 billion in damages and the latest major
disaster, super typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan was the deadliest disaster in 2013, with more than 6,000
fatalities. According to the International Disaster Database, the region accounted for over 31
percent of all global fatalities from disasters and 8.83 percent of those affected by disasters from
2003-2013. Losses related to natural disasters cost the ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian
Nations) region, on average, more than US$4.4 billion annually over the last decade. (Daniel Petz,
2014)
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, was established on 8 August 1967 in
Bangkok, Thailand, with the signing of the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) by the
Founding Fathers of ASEAN, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
Brunei Darussalam then joined on 7 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and
Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999, making up what is today the ten
Member States of ASEAN. The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency
Response (AADMER), which came into force in December 2009, set the foundation for regional
cooperation, coordination, technical assistance, and resource mobilisation in all aspects of disaster
management and emergency response. The Agreement supports ongoing and planned national
initiatives of ASEAN Member States, and with supporting and complementing national capacities
and existing work programmes. Since its inception and through various initiatives, ASEAN
2
through AADMER has managed to increase both regional and national capacities for responding
to disasters in Southeast Asia.
Today, ASEAN has a population of over 600 million people with the third largest labour force in
the world, and by 2050, ASEAN is expected to rank as the fourth-largest economy in the world.
Yet, ASEAN is also the most natural disaster-prone region in the world. More than 50 percent of
global disaster mortalities occurred in the ASEAN region during the period of 2004 to 2014.
During this period, the region contributed to more than 50 percent of the total global disaster
fatalities, or 354,000 of the 700,000 deaths in disasters worldwide. The total economic loss was
US$91 billion. About 191 million people were displaced temporarily and disasters affected an
additional 193 million people. In short, about one in three to four people in the region experienced
different types of losses.
The World Humanitarian Summit Synthesis Report has outlined five (5) key areas of action to
future humanitarian action: dignity, safety, resilience, partnerships, and finance. ASEAN will need
to consider these core action areas as the guidelines for disaster management in the region are
developed. With dignity, ASEAN will need to further develop and apply its people-centered
approach as a main priority. With this approach at the centre of the humanitarian initiative will
ensure gender equality and empowerment for women, girls, the youth, and children so that they
can act as agents of their own response. (The ASEAN Vision 2025 on Disaster Management)
The ASEAN region is exposed to almost all types of natural hazards. These include periodic
typhoons, tropical cyclones, flood, drought, earthquakes, tsunami, volcanic eruption, landslides,
forest-fires, haze and pandemics, facing agricultural and resources risks as well as risks associated
with rapid urbanization, migration and socio-economic changes. The region has a history of
devastating disasters, including the December 26 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2008 Cyclone
Nargis, the 2009 Luzon earthquake in the Philippines, the 2009 typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng.
The ASEAN region is geographically diverse, covering a land area of 4.5 million square
kilometers or 3.3% of the world area, and a coastline of 173,252 km, the third longest in the
world. The region sits between several tectonic plates which cause earthquakes, volcanic eruptions
and tsunamis. Located between The Pacific and the Indian Ocean, it is susceptible to seasonal
typhoons and tsunamis in some areas. Most parts of the region have hot and humid tropical
climates, with the exception of mountainous areas.
3
The ASEAN region faces a multitude of inter-related forces and risks. These are related to food
security and agricultural risk, natural catastrophes, resource needs (food, water, energy),
population growth, unprecedented urbanization and population migration, rapid economic
advancement, wealth and income disparities, exposure to pandemics, climate change and
geopolitical instability. Despite rapid economic growth, the region has challenges related to
poverty, urbanization, and environmental degradation, which can increase risk exposure and
vulnerability of the population of the region. The ASEAN area has a population of over 593.05
million (2009). The majority of the population lives in riverine plains, low lying coastal plains and
deltas, putting them at high risk of periodic flooding. According to the ADB (2009) and the SEA-
START RC (2007) climate-sensitive sectors could be severely impacted by climate change trends,
such sea-level rise, increasing temperatures and extreme weather.
Typhoons are the most prevalent hazard in the region, causing floods and landslides. Cyclone
Nargis killed over 133,000 people, affected over 2.4 million and caused an estimated economic
loss of over $4 billion. In 2009, total damage and losses from tropical Storm Ondoy and Typhoon
Pepeng reached US$4.38 billion, or about 2.7 percent of the Philippine’s gross domestic product.
Indonesia, Philippines and Myanmar face high earthquake hazards. Except for Singapore, flood
mortality risk is high in all ASEAN Member States. Brunei has the highest percentage of
population at landslide risk, followed by Philippines and Indonesia. Both Indonesia and the
Philippines are at high risk from volcanic eruptions. In terms of area susceptible to cyclones,
Philippines has the largest area, followed by Viet Nam and Myanmar. Multi-hazard mortality risk
is higher for Philippines, Viet Nam, Myanmar and Indonesia.
Cyclonic storms cause most casualties followed by earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, epidemics,
landslides, droughts, volcanic eruptions and forest fires. Over the last 40 years (1970-2009),
cyclones/storms caused over 184,000 deaths, earthquakes 114,000 and tsunamis 83,600. With high
density of people and assets, urban areas are especially vulnerable to the adverse impacts of
disasters, especially cities Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok, Ha Noi, and Singapore. Manila faces highest
risk of earthquake, followed by Jakarta and Bangkok. Manila is also at the highest risk from flood,
followed by Jakarta, Bangkok and Ha Noi. Cyclonic risk is highest for Manila, followed by Ha
Noi and Jakarta. In terms of overall risks, Manila tops the list with Jakarta, Bangkok, Ha Noi,
Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Naypyidaw, Phnom Penh, Vientiane and Bandar Seri Begawan
4
following. According to DRMI (2010), for ASEAN, average annual losses are as follows: forest
fires ($ 512 mil), storms ($ 339 mil), floods ($ 312 mil), earthquakes ($ 244 mil), droughts ($ 46
mil), volcanoes ($32 mil), and landslides ($ 4 million).
Most vulnerable areas include the Mekong River Delta region of Viet Nam, all regions of the
Philippines, almost all regions of Cambodia, North and East Lao PDR, the Bangkok region of
Thailand and the west and south of Sumatra, and western and eastern Java in Indonesia (Yusuf
and Francisco, 2009). In terms of social vulnerability (SV), Myanmar has the highest SV ranking,
followed by Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Viet Nam, Lao PDR, Cambodia and Malaysia. In
terms of economic vulnerability (EV), Myanmar has the highest ranking, followed in descending
order by Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia. (ASEAN,
GFDRR, 2012)
2. Disaster Risk Profile of Small island developing states (SIDS):
SIDS are found in the Caribbean, Pacific, and Caribbean, Pacific, and Africa, Indian Ocean,
Mediterranean and South China Seas (AIMS) regions and are vulnerable to damaging natural
hydro-meteorological (cyclones, storm surges, extended droughts and extensive floods) and
geological (volcanic activities and emissions, earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides) disasters. All
three regions are vulnerable hotspots in terms of the extreme impacts of climate change, such as
rising temperature and sea-levels, increasing storm surges and inundation, coastal erosion and
cyclonic wind damage.
Inter- and intra-regionally SIDS may differ significantly in size, topography, geology, human and
natural resources, economic development, and relative vulnerability to the different types of
natural disasters. However, shared structural disadvantages and characteristics such as small land
area and populations, limited natural resources, geographical dispersion and isolation from
markets, vulnerability to trade-related shocks and other global conditions beyond domestic control,
place them at an economic disadvantage and prevent economies of scale. This hinders sustainable
development and makes them less resilient and able to recover after a disaster than larger and more
diversified economies.
5
Consequently SIDS are particularly vulnerable to the pervasive impact of natural disasters on their
populations, environments and economies. This includes the diversion of development funds to
immediate humanitarian relief, clean-up and rebuilding. Such impacts can have long-lasting
economic, social and environmental consequences and rehabilitation costs that are high as a
percentage of GDP. The repeated effect of multiple small and medium events over time erodes
development with accumulated impacts that may exceed those of large disasters.
SIDS are entirely or predominantly coastal entities and land is at a premium, a situation often
exacerbated by land tenure systems, soil types, topography and climatic variation. This creates
intense competition between land use options and limited resources force specialization in, and
economic dependence on, one or two sectors such as tourism and agriculture, themselves
particularly vulnerable to natural disasters.
The concentration of population, agricultural land, civil infrastructure and economic development
in the coastal zone exacerbates the inherent vulnerability of SIDS to extremely damaging natural
disasters. Rising sea levels coupled with the impacts of climate change, which may, at least in the
short to medium-term, increase the regional frequency, intensity or duration of extreme hydro-
meteorological events, such as droughts further compound their vulnerability (Neville Wright,
2013).
3. Case Study 1: Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca
(Malaysia)
3.1 Profile of Heritage City:
Melaka and George Town, historic cities of the Straits of Malacca have developed over 500 years
of trading and cultural exchanges between East and West in the Straits of Malacca. The influences
of Asia and Europe have endowed the towns with a specific multicultural heritage that is both
tangible and intangible. With its government buildings, churches, squares and fortifications,
Melaka demonstrates the early stages of this history originating in the 15th-century Malay
sultanate and the Portuguese and Dutch periods beginning in the early 16th century. Featuring
residential and commercial buildings, George Town represents the British era from the end of the
6
18th century. The two towns constitute a unique architectural and cultural townscape without
parallel anywhere in East and Southeast Asia. (UNESCO Website)
Melaka: Google Maps
7
George Town: Google Maps
8
3.2 Hazards:
While Malaysia is generally spared severe natural disasters such as earthquake, volcanic eruption
and typhoon, it faces floods, landslides and severe haze. In the past years, it has experienced several
extreme weather and climatic events, ranging from thunderstorms to monsoonal floods. The 2010
flood in Kedah and Perlis was among the worst in its history. The total economic loss and the
financial burden on the government were heavy.
9
Photo source: Academy of Science Malaysia, “SEISMIC AND TSUNAMI HAZARDS AND RISKS STUDY IN
MALAYSIA” January 2009
Here is the list of some of the major disasters which occurred in recent years.
August 1997 - Forest Fires caused economic losses of about $300 million.
December 2004 - The Great Indian Ocean tsunami impacted Penang resulting in at least 72
casualties, 6 of whom were foreign tourists.
January 2007 - Floods in the Johor-Pahang region killed 17 people, affected 137,533 people and
caused the economic loss of about $605 million.
December 2007 - Malaysia east coast floods claimed 7 lives in Kelantan, Pahang and Johor state.
More than 4,000 people were sent to relief centers.
August 2010 - Around 2,000 people were affected by flooding in Bendang, Man Kedah. By
October, the northern states of Perlis, Terengganu, and Kelantan were also hit by continuous rain,
triggering what was said to be the worst flood in 30 years. In response, domestic flood response
10
mechanisms were activated, including coordination with the National Security Council (NSC) and
the local authorities in the region. The operation lasted from 3-8 November with 688 survivors
treated at 7 evacuation centers and more than 2,500 hygiene kits distributed at 12 locations.
January 2011 - Heavy rainfall caused three of the main rivers in Johor (Sungai Muar, Sungai
Benut and Sumngai Mengkibol) to burst their banks, triggering flooding throughout the region.
The worst affected areas were Segamat, Batu Pahat, Kluang and Muar. More than 24,000 were
forced to seek refuge in 71 relief centers, and the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC)
reported that four adults and one child died as a result of the flooding.
December 2014 - Floods triggered by torrential monsoon rains in the east coast (Terengganu,
Pahang, and Kelantan states) forced almost 14,000 people to flee their homes. In addition to the
three most affected states, four other states in peninsular Malaysia (Perak, Johor, Selangor and
Perlis) and one state in East Malaysia (Sabah) also experienced floods due to the heavy rainfalls.
At least 21 people were killed, and almost a quarter of a million people were displaced. These were
considered the worst floods to hit the state.
June 2015 - A magnitude 5.9 earthquake struck near Mount Kinabalu killing 18 and stranding
more than a hundred people on the peak. The quake damaged roads and buildings, including
schools and a hospital on Sabah’s west coast. (Malaysia Disaster Management Reference Book,
2016)
3.3 Institutional Systems and Policies for DRR:
The National Security Council (NSC) Directive No. 20 promulgated in 1997 states the mechanism
on the management of disasters including the responsibilities and functions of the various agencies
under an integrated emergency management system.
The Land Conservation Act, Environmental Quality Act (1974), and the Local Government Act
(1976) and the Road, Drainage and Building Act also refer to disaster management.
The National Security Division (NSD) in the Prime Minister\'s Department is responsible for
coordination of all activities related to disaster. Disaster Management and Relief Committee
(DMRC) carries out the responsibilities of the NSC in coordinating all the activities related to
disaster management. DMRC are established at three different levels, i.e. at the Federal, State and
11
District levels, whereby the NSD is the Secretariat. At the federal level, DMRC is responsible in
the formulation of national polices and strategies regarding the alertness and the preparation of
various agencies involved in the handling of disasters.
Photo Source: Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC)
National Security Council (directive no. 20)
(The Policy and Mechanism on National Disaster and Relief Management)
Following the tragedy of the collapse of Highland Towers Condominium, the Malaysian Cabinet
made a decision to form a mechanism under the National Security Division, Prime Minister
Deparment for the management of on scene incident in major disaster on land.
12
National Security Council (NSC) is the principal policy making and coordinating body for
disaster management. The NSC coordinates and plans all activities related to preparedness,
prevention, response/relief operations and recovery/rehabilitation of disaster management.
The National Security council Directive No. 20 (NSC No. 20): The Policy and Mechanism for
National Disaster and Relief Management is the main guideline for disaster management in
Malaysia. The directive prescribes the mechanism on the management of disasters including the
responsibilities and functions of related agencies under an integrated emergency management
system. This is achieved through the establishment of the Disaster Management and Relief
Committee at three different levels (federal, state and district levels) pending the severity of the
disaster. At the Federal level, this committee is chaired by the Minister appointed by the Prime
Minister. The directive is supported by other Standard Operating Procedures which outline the
mechanism as well as roles and responsibility of various agencies for specific disasters, i.e. flood;
open burning, forest fire, haze, industrial disasters etc.
The Land Conservation Act; Environmental Protection Act; Town and Country Planning Act;
Irrigation and Drainage Act; and Uniform Building by Law complement one another to form a
comprehensive disaster mitigation framework. (ADRC)
3.4 Prevention and Mitigation
Flood is the most significant natural hazard in Malaysia. Yearly, an estimated 29,800 sq kilometers
are flooded, affecting 4.82 million people and causing physical damages amounting up to RM915
million. Rapid development, unplanned urbanization, climate change and environmental
degradation have caused worse and more frequent occurrence of flash floods especially in urban
areas. Since 1972, the Government spent billions under the “Five Year Malaysian Plan” for Flood
Mitigation Projects to reduce such risks. From 2001 to 2005 (5 years) a total of RM1.790 billion
was spent for structural flood mitigation measures. Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010)
the allocation for structural flood control works has tremendously increased to RM5.81 billion.
Apart from conventional Flood Mitigation Projects, the Storm water Management and Road
Tunnel (SMART) was constructed as an innovative solution to alleviate the problem of flash flood
in the Kuala Lumpur city centre. The 9.7 km tunnel integrates both storm water management and
motorway with the same infrastructure. The SMART system diverts large volumes of flood water
13
from entering this critical stretch of traffic at the city centre via a holding pond, bypass tunnel and
storage preventing spillover during heavy downpours.
3.5 Preparedness
The Department of Irrigation and Drainage and Federal Department of Town and Country
Planning produced several guidelines for development projects namely the Urban Storm water
Management Manual (MSMA) in 2000 and Land Use Planning Appraisal for Risk Areas (LUPAR)
in 2005. These guidelines are implemented by local authorities in the feasibility assessment and
execution of physical developments.
The Public Works Department has completed a study to develop the National Slope Master Plan
with the aim of providing a comprehensive documentation for slope management and disaster risk
reduction strategy for landslides. At the First World Landslide Forum in Japan in November 2008,
the Department was chosen as one of ten World Centres of Excellence in Disaster Risk Reduction
by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)
3.6 Early Warning Systems and Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
Flood forecasting and early warning system are put in place to disseminate early warning to the
public. This integrated system comprised of hundreds of rainfall and water level stations, manual
sticks gauges, boards and sirens installed at strategic locations all over the country.
A National Tsunami Early Warning System has been developed by the Meteorological Department
after 26 December 2004 to provide early warning on tsunami threat that may affect the country.
With this system, the Government is able to forewarn the public of the possible occurrence of
tsunami over the Indian Ocean, South China Sea or the Pacific Ocean.
Early warnings are disseminated through sirens, short messaging system (SMS), telephone,
telefax, webpage, mass media broadcasting system and public announcements. The dissemination
of information in a timely manner is crucial to ensure that the vulnerable communities and
responders are promptly informed to enable them to take necessary actions.
The ICT is also utilized to promote awareness and disseminate early warnings to the public via a
Fixed-Line Disaster Alert System (FLAS). A separate system known as the Government Integrated
Radio Network (GIRN) provides radio communication between responders during emergency or
14
disaster. Disaster reporting is now more efficient with the centralized Malaysia Emergency
Response System (MERS) emergency hotline: “999”.
The mass media is an effective platform to disaster preparedness among the public. To fully realize
this potential, the Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture has established a Disaster
unit in the Department of Broadcasting Malaysia. This is coordinated at the regional level by the
Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU).
3.7 Financial Aid
The Government has also established the National Disaster Relief Fund to provide financial
assistance to disaster victims. The types of financial assistance provided are for eventualities, such
as, loss of income, damaged/ demolished house; agricultural damage; livestock and aquaculture
damage; and burial cost for fatalities due to disasters.
Building on the experience of the widespread monsoon flood in 2006, the Government through
the Central Bank of Malaysia has allocated RM500 million worth of special relief guarantee
facility (SRGF) to be administered by all commercial banks, Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana
Malaysia.
Berhad, Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad and Agro Bank (formerly known as Bank
Pertanian Malaysia) aimed at recovering businesses and rebuilding damaged infrastructure in areas
affected by disasters. The response to the facility was very encouraging with 4,641 applications
approved, amounting to approximately RM472 million. This facility is an example of public-
private-partnership in which the commercial banks provide the financing with 2.5% interest to the
borrower whilst the Central Bank covers an additional 2.45% of interest and 80% guarantee of the
financing obtained.
The establishment of a cooperative in the form of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (The Endeavor Trust
of Malaysia) in 1987 has improved the resilience of communities previously vulnerable to
disasters. Currently, the trust fund provides service to more than 180,000 families in Malaysia.
Provided services include micro-financing, compulsory savings and welfare funds for the poor and
marginalized.
15
As the lead agency in disaster management, the National Security council (NSC) has been
organizing Community-Based Disaster Management programmes in collaboration with other
agencies such as the Malaysian Meteorological Department (MMD), the Department of Town and
Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia, the Ministry of Health and the Department of Irrigation
and Drainage throughout the country. The program is aligned with the slogan: “Community
Resilience through Disaster Awareness”. For the year 2010, 8 series of the program were done at
various locations of Malaysia involving about 2,000 communities. The program will continue the
year 2011.
Other related awareness programs on landslides, tsunami, and floods have also been organized by
the Public Works Department, the Malaysian Meteorological Department, the Ministry of
Education and the Southeast Asia Disaster Prevention Institute of the National University of
Malaysia (UKM) on their own initiatives with the supervision of the NSC.
Bordering with countries that sits on active tectonic plates like Indonesia and the Philippines,
increases the chances for Malaysia to be inflicted with earthquake related disasters and the 2004
tsunami incident bears testimony to this. As such, the NSC and the Malaysian Meteorological
Department (MMD) has been proactive in conducting drill exercises in tsunami prone areas
involving the local communities to instill awareness and equip them with knowledge on how to
properly react during disasters. Past exercises have been done in Tawau, Kuala Kedah and
Langkawi (Pantai Chenang). For 2011, exercises have been planned for communities living in
Kedah (Langkawi and Kuala Muda, Pulau Pinang (Tg. Bungah) as well as Sabah (Kudat and Lahad
Datu1).
Key Elements of DRR efforts undertaken:
Threatened by increasing and lethal seasonal floods, the 500-year old Malaysian port city of
Melaka is making considerable efforts to reduce the disaster risks that it currently faces from such
climate related catastrophic events.
1 nidm.gov.in/easindia2014/err/pdf/country_profile/Malaysia.pdf
16
Located along the Straits of Malacca, one of the world's busiest shipping routes, the city of Melaka
with support from UNISDR, the UN's office for disaster risk reduction, has embarked on peer-to-
peer learning through twinning programmes with other cities.
In June 2010, Melaka received four times the average amount of rainfall. Despite a $41 million
flood mitigation programme launched in 2009, according to newspaper reports. These disasters
have proven to be lethal and a drain on the economy. A flood in January 2007 affected 137,533
people and caused the $605 million of losses in the country's Johor-Pahang region, which includes
Melaka.
Melaka became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008 for being one of Asia's most complete
surviving settlements along the historic Malacca trade route. Its history is one of interactions with
great trading nations from Europe, East and South Asia, and the Middle East over five centuries.
This has encouraged tourism which is a blessing to the local economy. Melaka attracted more than
12.1 million tourists last year. Tourism generates more than $2.2 billion in revenue, employs more
than 25,000 workers and contributes more than 70 per cent of the city's GDP.
Investment in flood protection is one way to protect the city's heritage sites, UNISDR named
Melaka as a role model city for environmental-friendly flood control in its World Disaster Risk
Reduction Campaign - Making Cities Resilient: "My city is getting ready".
Three of Malaysia's principal cities -- Melaka, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya -- joined the Campaign
on the country's national disaster awareness day celebrations in February 2011. They are among
1,014 other cities around the world who have now joined the campaign to direct the attention of
higher levels of government to the plight of local communities.
3.8 Melaka Green City Action Plan:
Green City Action Plan is a next step towards helping Melaka reaching its vision. It is based on
the underlying premise that integrated and comprehensive approaches will lead to a greener
Melaka. Five types of actions are recommended to promote such integrated and comprehensive
approaches:
• ‘Process-oriented actions’ that institutionalize coordination, stakeholder engagement and cross-
disciplinary decision-making during implementation and monitoring;
17
• ‘Planning actions’ that require a comprehensive view of a topic to identify follow up actions
(examples include, a Watershed Plan or an Energy Plan);
• ‘Feasibility studies’ that require a detailed multi-criteria evaluation of a specific intervention
before proceeding with large investments;
• ‘Specific government programs’ aimed at achieving specific outputs that require recurring
government engagement to further integrated development; and
• ‘Demonstration projects’ that consist of specific activities that showcase best practices to raise
awareness and build capacities towards achieving a greener Melaka.
Melaka has already initiated production of renewable energy (Solar Photovoltaic)
Melaka has already embarked on production of renewable energy. The state inaugurated a 5
megawatts solar farm in 2013, and is on its way to develop a second solar farm with a capacity to
generate 2 megawatts. Further, the state has an ambitious vision to “to become a world-class solar
city … by 2025.”6 For this purpose, it has set up a Melaka World Solar Valley, an area of 7,248
hectares, where a cluster of green technology industries specializing in solar energy will be created.
Three “EEE” Concept:
Environment (The first “E”)
Think holistically about water:
Melaka owes its presence to water. However, the same geography that historically made Melaka
a leading trading center can now become a concern. Rising temperatures and sea level rise is
increasing the risk of hazards in coastal communities. In this century, Peninsular Malaysia is
expected to see increasing variability in rainfall and a potential increase of up to 30C in average
temperature7. Sea level is also expected to rise. These factors could exacerbate problems such as
monsoonal and coastal flooding, as well as put greater pressure on water supply sources. Melaka
has made a considerable effort to develop its waterfront, including transforming portions of the
Melaka River into a highly successful cultural amenity. Flooding associated with increasing
rainfall variability, sea level rise, and tidal activity could jeopardize the successful transformation
of the waterfront.
18
Under “business-as-usual” conditions, practices such as land reclamation along the shoreline,
paving over farmland and other open surfaces, and development in riparian areas and ESAs will
continue. As evident in Palau Melaka, reclamation is expensive and can be hampered by
environmental challenges (such as land subsidence). While a considerable portion of urban
development in Melaka has been a result of successful land reclamation, a more thorough
understanding of the increasing risks along the coastline is needed in the future.
Urban development also affects water quality. Some of Melaka’s rivers are already classified as
poor or moderate by the Department of Environment. Growing city and tourist population,
increasing demand from other users, increase in rainfall variability and any potential changes in
land uses in the vicinity of dams and rivers that supply Melaka could further threaten the quality
of water. Additionally, Melaka’s efforts to manage pollution in its rivers could be hampered by
actions outside its boundaries. Infrastructure shortfalls related to wastewater and wastewater
treatment (which requires large investments) further compounds the problem of water quality.
Some of the activities that will help Melaka approach water is a holistic and integrated manner
include the following:
a. Promote an assessment of the risks associated with climate change and anticipated sea level rise,
particularly for coastal areas
b. Undertake a comprehensive planning effort at the watershed scale to understand hydrological
changes resulting from urban development and from activities of other users, and develop policies
for improved and coordinated decision-making and long term management of water
c. Promote urban development practices that are sensitive to ecological considerations.
Economy (Second “E”):
Enhance tourism experiences and opportunities:
Melaka is at risk from its own success. The state’s popularity as a tourist destination continues to
rise, but there are challenges that can reduce Melaka’s ability to attract large numbers of tourists
in the future. Traffic congestion on the Toll Road during peak tourist season and weekends can
cause up to two hour delays, overcrowding of tourists in the heritage area, and concerns with
19
upkeep of historic properties, are some of the factors that can impede the growth of the tourism
industry in Melaka.
Under “business-as-usual” conditions, the reasons for some of the challenges faced will continue
to be addressed in a piecemeal manner. Traffic congestion is likely to get worse unless a
comprehensive approach is taken to address all the reasons that contribute to the problem. Reasons
that include increase in the usage of motorized vehicles by Melaka residents, heavy reliance on
personal automobiles to access Melaka from other regions, large scale and sprawling land
development in outlying areas, and limited transit opportunities. A more thorough approach
towards maintaining and enhancing the heritage area is also needed. Lack of financing towards the
maintenance of historic buildings, that are the main draw for tourists, and idling tour buses and
parking challenges in the heritage area that can cause back-ups and contribute to overcrowding,
are some of the factors that need to be addressed differently.
Some of the activities associated with a green approach that will help Melaka continue to enhance
tourism experiences and opportunities include the following:
a. Promote a comprehensive strategy to manage transportation in the state
b. Prepare a comprehensive strategy to ensure the long-term sustainability of the tourism industry
c. Provide opportunities for innovative financing to support improvements of historic properties
Equity or Inclusive Growth: (Third “E”):
Build a constituency that supports greener activities: Although, Melaka and Malaysia have a
policy framework that supports sustainable urban development, progress on implementation has
been slow. Factors include lack of awareness or capacity amongst government officials, sectoral
boundaries that limit integrated decision-making, limited financing, and lack of engagement with
residents or the private sector.
Melaka is unlike other cities where a significantly pressing environmental challenge has led to a
groundswell of interest to move towards a more integrated and balanced urban development.
Under “business-as-usual” scenario, sustainable practices will be pursued, but probably in a
piecemeal manner where implementation will depend on the capacity of individuals within
20
government departments or of individual citizens who may be concerned about one or two aspects
of the green agenda.
The GCAP provides an opportunity to build a strong constituency for sustainable development in
Melaka. With support from the IMT-GT, ADB and the national government, and under the
leadership of the Chief Minister, Melaka can institutionalize a process that engages with multiple
stakeholders to build support for integrated and balanced growth.
Some of the activities that will help to build a constituency include the following:
a. Develop a database to measure environmental performance and validate the need for a greener
approach
b. Promote capacity building efforts
c. Institutionalize a process to engage residents and the private sector in urban governance
d. Provide a platform for coordination and to ensure cross-sectoral synergies (Asian Development
Bank, 2014)
21
Photo Source: Green City Action Plan: A Framework for GrEEEn Actions Melaka, Malaysia, 2014
3.9 Hyogo Framework Progress Report:
Strategic Outcome for Goal 1
Outcome Statement:
The National Security Council Directive No. 20 is the main guideline for disaster management in
Malaysia. The Directive prescribes the management mechanism according to the level and
complexity of disaster and determines the roles responsibilities and capacities of various agencies
at various administration levels to ensure effective coordination and mobilization of resources
when handling disasters.
Strategic Outcome for Goal 2
Outcome Statement:
22
The policy, infrastructure and operational mechanism that transcend from the national, state and
district levels to enable cohesive participation and involvement of various government agencies,
non-government sector and community in disaster management. The Community-based Disaster
Management Programme has been implemented through collaboration of multi-level agencies in
several states enhanced the resilience and recovery of communities to disasters through awareness
programmes, capacity building and community-specific disaster management plan at disaster
areas.
Strategic Outcome for Goal 3
Outcome Statement:
Programmes aimed at enhancing awareness and ability of local authorities and general public to
respond during and after emergency/disaster have been constantly implemented. Multiple early
warning systems have been developed and continuously upgraded through international
cooperation, transfer of knowledge and technology enhanced the capacity of disaster preparedness
and early warning. The awareness programmes on disasters and safety practices (Safe Schools and
Hospitals), counselling to students traumatised by disasters (Smart Support Team) as well as
monetary assistance (relief funds and microfinance facility) to poor communities and school aids
to poor students (via the Ministry of Education’s Poor Student Funds) in disaster areas smoothened
reconstruction process of affected communities. The efforts of NGOs in promoting resilience at
community level to disasters and assistance in post-disaster relief also expedited disaster recovery.
(Hyogo Progress Report, 2011-13)
Questionnaire Filled by representative:
SECTION 1: FOR HERITAGE CITY’S HERITAGE AGENCY
1. Does your department have a readily accessible map with Geo-Coordinates of all the heritage sites and
institutions such as museums, archives, libraries, temples, monasteries, etc?
Yes. George Town World Heritage Incorporated has developed an online geo base GIS map for every
buildings and sites in George Town World Heritage Site at www.penangheritage.com.my
23
2. If you answer YES to the previous question, do you have the following information for each site /
institution:
a) Name of the owner? Partially but not updated.
b) Emergency contact person? No.
c) Inventory of all types of heritage elements e.g., number of buildings, number of objects? Yes.
d) Associated values or why is this heritage valuable / significant? Yes.
3. What do you think are the three main hazards / threats that could negatively impact heritage in your city/
region and what are the reasons for the same?
i. Fire, as most of heritage buildings in Penang uses timber as the main construction materials.
ii. Urban flash flood, as the George Town World Heritage Site is located at a lower sea level.
Modern structures around the town also reduce permeability of the surface thus leading to a
high quantity of water run-off. Unpredictable amount of rain water together with sea water tide
as a result from global climate change also increased the risk of floor.
iii. Earthquake from neighboring countries may cause cracks and collapse the heritage property
and in particular the dilapidated heritage buildings.
4. Do you have a list of hazard events that occurred in past 10-15 years and negatively impacted your city?
If YES, do you have record of how these events impacted the cultural heritage of the city?
Nope, as we have yet to face any major hazard.
5. Do you have any specific disaster risk management policies / plans that are focused on cultural heritage
in your city? If So, please elaborate on those.
Only a small part in George Town Special Area Plan highlighted risk management on fire prevention.
6. Which stakeholders/agencies/departments from your city you co-ordinate with for disaster risk
management of cultural heritage? Where are the gaps in coordination?
National Disaster Management Agency (NADMA), local council, police, fire fighting department, State
Secretary Department of Penang.
24
Standard of Procedures not yet formally established for cultural heritage related hazards.
7. Please list two key priorities for your agency for reducing disaster risks to cultural heritage in your city.
• To establish a taskforce with sufficient preparation to face targeted hazards.
• To create awareness among the stakeholders and residents in promoting sustainable development
thus to reduce the impact of climate change.
4. Case Study 2 – Jakarta and Semarang Old Towns
4.1 Profile of the Heritage City Jakarta Old Town (Indonesia):
Located at the mouth of the Ciliwung River in Java, the Old Town of Jakarta was established by
the VOC in 1619. Its 17th century town plan was completed in 1650. In 17th and 18th century
VOC had largest volume of trade in the world, governed from Batavia. No colonial town built
by VOC matched the grandeur and completeness (military, civil engineering, and urban
elements) of Dutch town planning & architecture of Batavia.
The nominated property: the 1650 town (1.5 km x 1 km) with 4 major areas on the Ciliwung River
sides. West side: former Jayakarta and two 18th century houses. North west side: West Warehouse,
old town wall remains, Floating Warehouse, VOC shipyard, Luar Batang Mosque. East side: East
Warehouse, Town Square, Town Hall. South east side: China Town. Kalibesar Canal with
traditional boats wharf. Islands: Onrust, Kelor, Cipir & Bidadari with shipyard and forts.
(UNESCO)
25
Jakarta: Google maps
4.2 Profile of the Heritage City Semarang Old Town:
Semarang is a colonial city par excellence. Established in 17th century, Kota Lama Semarang is a
best preserved colonial city with remarkable testimony of important historical phases of human
civilization - in economic, political and social - in the South East Asia and the World. Although it
is today a sprawling metropolis of 1.2 million inhabitants, it’s old centre retains a group of
buildings with various architectural styles coming from medieval, baroque and modern style. It’s
unique urban landscape shows a development of a fortified city which is growing in to an
international and cosmopolitan port city in its age. Therefore it is worth to preserve Kota Lama
Semarang, especially from today’s thread: extensive flooding and land subsidence.
It starts from the establishment of V.O.C. fort that is adjacent to the Semarang riverbank. The fort
has five bastions, so it is also known as De Vijfhoek. After the fortified wall was demolished in
26
1824, these site growing up as a modern trade city. The Industrial Revolution also became a trigger
to accelerate the development of the region. Simultaneously with the opening of investment
program for foreign private firms, causing this ex-fort area became crowded with commercial
transactions also loading- unloading activities. The site was dominated by office buildings,
warehouses, stores, banks, and foreign consulates. The infrastructure development have also get
the attention, such as the widening of Semarang riverbank, setting up a new harbor, and provide
the reliable transportation system for public and comodities. The site also connected to harbor
directly through railway from Tawang train station on the North side and Jurnatan train station on
the South side. During the Gemeente Samarang governor. Slowly, the city had grown up, so that
the new development focused on the southern part, so that the former region fortress was known
as the Old City/Kota Lama (oudestadt). From the history of the old city area, it can be concluded
that Semarang Old Town site has an important and significant role in the early phase of the
establishment of the Semarang city (UNESCO).
27
Semarang: Google Maps
4.3 Hazards of Semarang Town:
The city is prone to seven types of hazards: flooding, land subsidence, sea level rise, landslides,
fire, strong wind, and drought. Hazards with potentially the most impact are floods, land
subsidence, and sea level rise. Flooding predominantly affects the north coast of Semarang, due to
high rainfall intensity, land subsidence, road inundation, and poor drainage systems.
Flooding greatly impacts commercial activities. Flooding occurs more frequently in the northern
part of Semarang and mostly caused by tidal floods and poor drainage systems. Some 91 villages
28
are particularly prone to flooding. The drainage systems are ineffective and carry increasing inflow
streams during the rainy season. High sedimentation in the drainage channels downstream means
reduced capacity and greater vulnerability to floods. Fire hazards occur more frequently in the city
center, where economic activity is concentrated.
The rate of Sea Level Rise in Semarang is about 7.88 mm/year, and reaches 1.7 – 3.0 km inland.
This leads to inundation of some 7,500 to 8,500 hectares and economic losses due to disruption of
commercial activities. Landslides occur in the south, specifically the eight villages in Gunung Pati
sub district (World Bank, 2015).
Photo source: World Bank Report, “CITY RISK DIAGNOSTIC FOR URBAN RESILIENCE IN INDONESIA” 2015
29
4.4 Disaster Risks faced by the region (Indonesia):
Indonesia is among the most disaster-prone countries in the Asia-Pacific region, suffering frequent
natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and landslides. Jakarta, a
megacity with a population of more than 8.5 million, is frequently affected by flooding.
For example, the 2007 floods affected more than a half million inhabitants, and caused more than
US$900 million worth of damages and losses. Risk information is sparce at the local level thus it
is difficult to determine the city’s vulnerability, raise public awareness and effectively manage
risks. (GFDRR)
Rapid urbanization, unplanned development and the consequent impact these interrelated
processes have on environmental buffers have exacerbated existing risks and created new risks of
disasters in Asia Pacific, a UN report reveals. The 2015 Asia-Pacific Disaster Report "Disasters
without borders: Regional resilience for sustainable development" reveals that while investing in
disaster risk reduction is proven cost effective, several "neglected" disaster management issues
have put people, cities, infrastructure and economies at risk. Drought, for example, a forgotten
disaster in the Asia Pacific region, pushes vast numbers of people into debt, poverty, and
sometimes suicide.
"As Indonesia and other countries in Asia Pacific are embarking on the new agenda for sustainable
development, it is crucial that they address disaster risks in order to protect the development gains,"
the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)'s director
of ICT and disaster risk reduction division, Shamika Sirimanne, said.
Sirimanne said this on the launch of the 2015 Asia-Pacific Disaster Report, in conjunction with a
deliberation on the Indonesia Disaster Outlook 2016 of the National Platform for Disaster Risk
Reduction.
According to the ESCAP latest report, during the past decade, Indonesia has been hit by 143 out
of 1,625 disasters in the Asia Pacific region and accounted for more than 10 million affected people
by natural disasters. Half a million people lost their lives due to disaster events in the Asia Pacific
region, of which 13,300 were in Indonesia. Disasters affected more than 1.4 billion people in the
Asia-Pacific region and caused massive economic damage of more than half a trillion dollars over
the same period, accounting for close to half of the global total.
30
The report shows how the impact of natural disasters can be mitigated and analyzes the value of
end-to-end multi-hazard early warning systems. It also maps out the way to provide right
information to right people at the right time.
"The Asia Pacific Disaster Report provides the valuable regional context to the ongoing efforts in
aligning disaster risk reduction with the sustainable development goals in Indonesia," said National
Disaster Mitigation Agency, Indonesia (BNPB) secretary general Dody Ruswandi.
"Coming after the adoption of the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction, the Sustainable
Development Goals, and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the Report helps us move these
new global frameworks into a phase of regional and national implementation based on factual
analysis and good practices," UN Resident Coordinator for Indonesia, Douglas Broderick, said.
(Jakarta Post, 2016)
A study conducted in Jakarta shows, the level of environmental awareness knowledge of
community in Jakarta is 21.88%; level of knowledge about risk of floods is 43.12%, people’s
behavior on the environment in locations vulnerable to floods is 47.25%, and flood victims who
are not willing to move from flood-prone areas is 43.7%. The low level of awareness has been
influenced by the diverse cultures, science and technology, and globalization. Competition in life,
which is quite high, hard, and difficult, has left people with no time to think about caring for the
environment. It is expected that the community demonstrate positive behavior by practicing
environmentally aware actions such as the proper disposal of waste/trash, cleaning up the drainage
system from trash, and supporting the government’s flood control and risk management programs.
All efforts attempted by Jakarta local government can be considered optimum and need to be
supported by the whole community (A. Neolaka, 2012).
Floods in Indonesia
Indonesia's rainy season (which runs from December to March) usually brings plenty of rainfall.
In combination with deforestation or waterways clogged with debris, it can cause rivers to
overflow and this results in floods. Floods and landslides occur in most parts of Indonesia and can
cause hundreds of casualties, destroy houses and other infrastructure, and ruin local businesses.
Even in a mega-city as Jakarta, floods occur regularly due to weak water management in
31
combination with heavy monsoon rains. In January 2013, a large part of Jakarta was flooded,
affecting more than 100.000 households and resulting in more than 20 fatalities.
In the rainy season floods usually disturb the distribution channels and therefore Indonesia tends
to experience some inflationary pressures during the months January and February when the
monsoon rains tend to peak. Wet conditions can be aggravated by the La Nina weather
phenomenon. La Nina (basically the opposite of El Nino), a phenomenon that occurs once every
five years on average, brings cooler-than-average sea temperatures in the central and eastern
tropical Pacific Ocean. It therefore causes wetter-than-usual weather in Southeast Asia, usually in
the months November to February.
Volcanic Eruptions in Indonesia
Indonesia is the country that contains the most active volcanoes of all countries in the world. The
Eurasian Plate, Pacific Plate and Indo-Australian Plate are three active tectonic plates that cause
the subduction zones that form these volcanoes. Indonesia is estimated to have 129 volcanoes, all
carefully observed by the Centre of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (Pusat
Vulkanologi dan Mitigasi Bencana Geologi), because a number of Indonesian volcanoes show
continuous activity. There is at least one significant volcano eruption in Indonesia every year.
However, usually it does not cause great damage to the environment or cause casualties as most
of the active volcanoes are located in isolated regions. Some notable volcanic eruptions in
Indonesia's modern history are listed below. This list only contains major eruptions that led to at
least 29 fatalities.
Besides taking human lives, a volcanic eruption can cause considerable damage to local economies
by hurting small and medium enterprises that are involved in tourism, culinary, commercial
accommodation, agriculture, plantation, and livestock. A positive development is that volcano
eruptions take less human lives today due to better volcano observation methods in combination
with better organized emergency evacuations.
Earthquakes in Indonesia
32
Earthquakes are probably the biggest threat in terms of natural disasters in Indonesia as they come
suddenly and can strike in populous areas, such as the bigger cities. Earthquakes with a magnitude
of around five or six on the scale of Richter occur almost on a daily basis in Indonesia but usually
cause no or little damage. When the magnitude becomes over seven on the scale of Richter, an
earthquake can potentially do a lot of damage. Yearly, two or three earthquakes with a magnitude
of seven or higher occur in Indonesia and cause casualties and damage the infrastructure or
environment. Below is a selected list with recent earthquakes that caused severe damage and at
least 20 fatalities:
The high number of Indonesian casualties is partly inflicted by the bad state of some housing
facilities and infrastructure. This is why a moderate earthquake can in fact result in many
casualties, the collapse of many buildings and the displacement of many people. A World Bank
publication (in October 2010) expressed its concern about the devastating effects an 8.5 magnitude
earthquake can have if it would happen in a mega-city such as Jakarta.
Tsunamis in Indonesia
A submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption in the ocean can cause a tsunami water wave which
can have devastating effects on the people and objects near the sea. In 2004 a large part of the
world was rocked by the Indian Ocean earthquake and subsequent tsunami, killing over 167,000
people in Indonesia (mainly Aceh) alone. Although a massive tsunami such as the 2004 tsunami
is rare, the Sumatra region is often startled by offshore earthquakes that can potentially trigger a
tsunami.
With the 2004 tsunami still fresh in mind, the level of fear is high. Often Indonesians who live in
villages or cities close to the coast, flee to the hills (located more inland) after an earthquake has
taken place. On average, once every five years a large tsunami happens in Indonesia, usually on
the islands of Sumatra and Java. In general, damage to the infrastructure exceeds the loss of lives.
There are warning systems installed on many coastal areas but there have been reports that not all
of these systems are functioning properly.
Man-Made Forest Fires in Indonesia
33
Generally Indonesians have a low awareness of environmental sustainable practices. This is
reflected by farmers' and companies' use of slash-and-burn practices (a strategy to clear land for
plantations, usually for the expansion of crude palm oil or pulp and paper plantations), primarily
on the islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan. The slash-and-burn strategy is the cheapest option.
Although this practice is actually not allowed by Indonesian law, weak law enforcement and
corruption make it possible. However, the practice entails serious and far-reaching risks.
For example, forest fires in the months June-October 2015 ran out of hand completely. Based on
a World Bank report - released in December 2015 - some 100,000 man-made forest fires destroyed
about 2.6 million hectares of land between June and October 2015 and caused toxic haze to spread
to other parts of Southeast Asia, giving rise to diplomatic tensions. This disaster is estimated to
have cost Indonesia IDR 221 trillion (approx. USD $16 billion or 1.9 percent of the country's gross
domestic product) and it released some 11.3 million tons of carbon each day (a figure that exceeds
the 8.9 million tons of daily carbon emissions in the European Union), thus being one of the worst
ever natural disasters in human history.
The forest fires in 2015 ran out of hand partly because of unusual dry weather. The El Nino weather
phenomenon, the strongest one since 1997, brought severe dry weather to Southeast Asia and
therefore firefighters could not count on support from rain. El Nino, which occurs once every five
years on average, causes climatic changes across the Pacific Ocean leading to droughts in
Southeast Asia and therefore also has a major impact on harvests of agricultural commodities.
(Indonesia Investments, 2016)
4.5 Institutional Systems and Policies for DRR:
The Indonesian National Disaster Management Agency, known by its Bahasa acronym BNPB,
was formed in January 2008 by presidential decree. It manages 399 provincial and municipality-
level bureaus. However, many of these sub-national bureaus were weak in terms of human
resources and financing. This prompted BNPB to collaborate with local government bodies and
other partners with an interest in disaster management to boost the capacities of these bureaus.
BNPB supported several initiatives, including: conduct of disaster risk analyses and risk mapping;
organization of disaster risk reduction forums; support to contingency planning initiatives; and the
34
conduct of trainings for bureau staff. Notably, BNPB helped develop the ‘Disaster Resilient
Village’ programme. As of 18 February 2013, some 1,023 villages have signed on. (Sasakawa,
2013)
Photo Source: https://aprsaf.org/data/aprsaf13_data/2_1_INDONESIA%20DM_1515day1.pdf
• BAKORNAS PB is a national coordinating board for disaster management, chaired by Vice
President.
• SATKORLAK PB is provincial coordinating unit for disaster management, chaired by
Governor in the respective area.
• SATLAK PB is a district or municipal implementation unit for disaster management, chaired
by Bupatior Mayor of the city.
BAKORNAS PB:
• Chairman:
Vice President
35
• Vice chairmen:
Co-or. Min. Peoples Welfare
Minister of Home Affairs
• Members :
Minister of Energy & Mineral
Minister of Social Affairs
Minister of Health
Minister of Public Works
Minister of Finance
Minister of Transportation
Minister of Comm. & Information
Armed Force Commander
Chief of National Police
Chairman of Red Cross
• Secretary:
Chief Executing Officer
Policies of BNPB:
• Strengthen national capability in disaster management, especially in prevention, mitigation and
preparedness.
• Manage and mobilize all potential resources (infrastructure and manpower) in disaster
preparedness, responds and recovery
• Empower local authorities in anticipating and responding disaster in their regions.
• Coordinate all stakeholders and activities in disaster management.
• Incorporate disaster risk reduction in the framework of national development plan.
36
Strategies of BNPB:
• Disseminate disaster risk reduction and strengthen capacity through training and education.
• Prepare disaster legislation, regulations and standard operating procedures
• Set up disaster management information systems
• Disseminate hazard mapping and risk assessment
• Set up disaster management plan in all levels
• Strengthen National/Provincial/District Emergency Operation Center and Rapid Response
Team.
• Strengthen local capacity in disaster recovery
Other Related Institutions:
Risk Assessment and risk mapping: Research institutes (BAKOSURTANAL, BPPT, LIPI,
LAPAN, PU, ESDM etc.), Universities
Early Warning: BMG, LAPAN, ESDM, PU, DEPHUT, KLH
Land-use / spatial planning: PU, DEPHUT, DEPTAN, BPN, BAPPEDA2
4.6 Key Elements of DRR efforts undertaken (in general or focused on heritage) as well as
challenges encountered:
In 2015, Indonesia submitted the progress report of Hyogo Framework 2013-15. Which gives an
insight how DRR initiatives are taking place in Indonesia.
Strategic Outcome for Goal 1 (The more effective integration of disaster risk considerations into
sustainable development policies, planning and programming at all levels, with a special emphasis
on disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and vulnerability reduction.)
2 https://aprsaf.org/data/aprsaf13_data/2_1_INDONESIA%20DM_1515day1.pdf
37
Outcomes Statement: Disaster management planning has been strengthened at the provincial and
district/city levels. After equipping all provinces with DM Plans in 2012-2013, BNPB facilitated
61 districts and cities to develop their DM Plans. Currently the agency has been piloting village-
level DM Plans in 8 villages in the District of West Pasaman, Pandeglang, Jember and Sukabumi.
It is expected that these local DM Plans may facilitate local DRR stakeholders in further
mainstreaming DRR into regular development planning.
Strategic Outcome for Goal 2 (The development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms
and capacities at all levels, in particular at the community level, that can systematically contribute
to building resilience to hazards.)
Outcomes Statement: After all provinces have set-up DM agencies between 2010 and 2013,
currently more than 90 percent of the districts and cities in the country have established Local DM
Agencies (BPBDs). BNPB has continuously facilitated BPBDs and local DRR platforms to
promote DRR at the village level. Capacities for response, for risk assessment and community-
based DRR have also been developed through training and simulation exercises at the district/city
and village levels. Capacity to respond to climate-related risks, however, has not been so
significantly developed at the local level.
Strategic Outcome for Goal 3 (The systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into
the design and implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programmes in
the reconstruction of affected communities.)
Outcomes Statement: At present 122 districts and cities in Indonesia have developed their
contingency plans for multiple hazards. Efforts to engage communities and DRR stakeholders in
contingency planning and disaster emergency response exercises have also been increasing. There
is growing number of disaster simulations and exercises conducted in many parts of the country,
with the biggest one the Mentawai Megathrust Tsunami Disaster Exercise that was organized in
2013, which was participated by international partners and 18 neighboring countries.
What is the ratio of the budget allocation to risk reduction versus disaster relief and
reconstruction?
38
Risk reduction / prevention:
National budget 0.9%, Decentralized / sub-national budget 0.38%
(Hyogo Progress Report 2013-15)
39
Questionnaire filled by the Representative is also give an insight to the disaster faced and
risks to the region. (Jakarta)
1. Does your department have a readily accessible map with Geo-Coordinates of all the heritage sites
and institutions such as museums, archives, libraries, temples, monasteries, etc?
YES
2. If you answer YES to the previous question, do you have the following information for each site /
institution:
a) Name of the owner?
YES
b) Emergency contact person?
NO
c) Inventory of all types of heritage elements e.g., number of buildings, number of objects?
NO
d) Associated values or why is this heritage valuable / significant?
Jakarta Old Town is a heritage city which associated with European colonialism, VOC Port Town,
Dutch East Indies Capital City, multi-ethnic colonial city, and the Indonesian Capital City. Jakarta
Old Town represents the peak of 17th and 18th century Dutch overseas architecture and town
planning in Asia where a multi-cultural society evolved.
3. What do you think are the three main hazards / threats that could negatively impact heritage in your city/
region and what are the reasons for the same?
1) Flood
The flood is the main hazard that could negatively impact heritage buildings and museum
collections in Jakarta Old Town. The earliest record of flood in Jakarta documented at 1699.
The flood happened because of the intensity of the rain and since 1996, flood came from the
sea.
SECTION 1: FOR HERITAGE CITY’S HERITAGE AGENCY
40
2) Earthquake
Earthquake is the second hazard that could negatively impact the Jakarta Old Town. The earliest
record of earthquake in Jakarta documented at 1808. Earthquake events that impacted Jakarta
Old Town happened in 2007 and 2009, there is no building damaged.
3) Pests
Pests could negatively impact heritage buildings and especially museums collection and
archives. The seaside crowded old town of Jakarta which flood happens once yearly always
have pest disaster.
4. Do you have a list of hazard events that occurred in past 10-15 years and negatively impacted your city?
If YES, do you have record of how these events impacted the cultural heritage of the city?
1) Flood
• 2002: 57 casualties, 365.000 refugees.
• 2007: 80 casualties, 320.000 refugees.
• 2013: 47 casualties, 20.000 refugees.
2) Earthquake
• 2007: 7 Richter Scale
• 2009: 7,3 Richter Scale
• 2016: 6,5 Richter Scale
3) Pests
Pests are continuous risk in Jakarta Old Town.
I don’t have record of how these events impacted the cultural heritage of the city.
5. Do you have any specific disaster risk management policies / plans that are focused on cultural heritage
in your city? If So, please elaborate on those.
NO
41
6. Which stakeholders/agencies/departments from your city you co-ordinate with for disaster risk
management of cultural heritage? Where are the gaps in coordination?
1) Badan Pengendalian Bencana Daerah DKI Jakarta (Regional Disaster Management Agency of DKI
Jakarta)
2) Dinas Cipta Karya Tata Ruang dan Pertanahan DKI Jakarta (Department of Human Settlements
and Land Spatial Jakarta)
The gap is in the absence of any specific disaster risk management policies / plans that focus on cultural
heritage.
7. Please list two key priorities for your agency for reducing disaster risks to cultural heritage in your city.
1) Disaster Risk Reduction Policies for Cultural Heritages.
2) Coordination with National and Local disaster risk reduction agencies.
42
Questionnaire filled by the Representative (Semarang):
1. Does your department have a readily accessible map with Geo-Coordinates of all the heritage sites and
institutions such as museums, archives, libraries, temples, monasteries, etc?
Yes ( without Geo-Coordinates )
2. If you answer YES to the previous question, do you have the following information for each site /
institution:
a) Name of the owner? Yes (+/- 75%)
b) Emergency contact person? Yes (+/- 75%)
c) Inventory of all types of heritage elements e.g., number of buildings, number of objects?
Yes.
d) Associated values or why is this heritage valuable / significant?
Yes.
3. What do you think are the three main hazards / threats that could negatively impact heritage in your city/
region and what are the reasons for the same?
1. Tidal Flood : Water Management Issue, Hydrological Infrastructure Failure, Groundwater-related
subsidence
2. Human-Induced Activities: Lack of awareness & conformation to preserve site/property, theft,
heritage properties deterioration, groundwater extraction, polluted water source.
3. Heavy traffic going through the precinct, the constant vibration of which can cause damage to the
historical buildings.
4. Do you have a list of hazard events that occurred in past 10-15 years and negatively impacted your city?
SECTION 1: FOR HERITAGE CITY’S HERITAGE AGENCY
43
Yes.
If YES, do you have record of how these events impacted the cultural heritage of the city?
Yes.
5. Do you have any specific disaster risk management policies / plans that are focused on cultural heritage
in your city? If So, please elaborate on those.
- Semarang has established Resilience Strategy under collaboration with 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) . It
has a comprehensive view based on 4 dimensions: (i) Health & Wellbeing ; (ii) Socio-Economic
Development , (iii) Environmental & Infrastructure , and (iv) Leadership & Strategy.
- Semarang is also involved in Blue-Green Cities Project, which aim to recreate a naturally oriented water
cycle while contributing to the amenity of the city by bringing water management and green
infrastructure together.
6. Which stakeholders/agencies/departments from your city you co-ordinate with for disaster risk
management of cultural heritage? Where are the gaps in coordination?
Regional Disaster Relief Agency, Regional Development Agency, City Planning Agency, Heritage
Preservation Agency, Environmental Board Semarang Municipality, 100RC.
Coordination gaps:
- Isolated planning & management
- Poor public message & lack of communication
- Low education level
7. Please list two key priorities for your agency for reducing disaster risks to cultural heritage in your city.
Integrated framework & all-around coordination with stakeholders along with town’s municipality.
8. What do you think are the three main hazards/threats that could negatively impact your city/ region and
what are the reasons for the same?
44
9. Do you have a list of hazard events that occurred in past 10-15 years and negatively impacted your city?
If YES, do you have record of how these events impacted the cultural heritage of the city?
10. What are the key policies and plans for reducing disaster risks in your city? Which key stakeholders/
agencies are involved in the formulation and implementation of these policies and plans?
11. Is cultural heritage included in those policies and plans? If so, which heritage related agencies/
stakeholders are involved and how are cultural heritage concerns addressed?
12. Is the protection of cultural property included in the responsibilities of the civil protection or other
relevant emergency response units?
13. Please list two key priorities for your agency for reducing disaster risks in your city.
45
5. Levuka Historical Port Town (Fiji)
5.1 Profile of heritage city:
The town and its low line of buildings set among coconut and mango trees along the beach front
was the first colonial capital of Fiji, ceded to the British in 1874. It developed from the early 19th
century as a centre of commercial activity by Americans and Europeans who built warehouses,
stores, port facilities, residences, and religious, educational and social institutions around the
villages of the South Pacific Island’s indigenous population. It is a rare example of a late colonial
port town that was influenced in its development by the indigenous community which continued
to outnumber the European settlers. Thus the town, an outstanding example of late 19th century
Pacific port settlements, reflects the integration of local building traditions by a supreme naval
power, leading to the emergence of a unique landscape.
Levuka Historical Port Town is set amongst coconut and mango trees along the beach front of
Ovalau Island against the forested slopes of the island’s extinct volcano. From the 1820s onwards
the port was developed as a centre of commercial activity by American and European colonisers
and the town became the first colonial capital of Fiji, peacefully ceded to the British by Tui (King)
Cakobau in 1874. A stone and concrete sea wall runs the length of Beach Street, from which other
streets and lanes branch inland in a radial pattern following the contours of the land. Inland are the
sites of two former indigenous villages Totoga (Vitoga) and Nasau located on one of the three
creeks draining the slopes above the coastal plain. Copra sheds, warehouses, bond stores, port
facilities and commercial buildings developed along Beach Street, and residences, religious,
educational and social institutions grew up around the villages of the indigenous population. These
are generally single or two storied corrugated iron or weatherboard clad timber buildings with
hipped or gable roofs. Development continued beyond removal of the capital to Suva in 1882 as
companies continued to establish bases at Levuka, reflecting all stages of colonial development in
the South Pacific. Key elements include the former Totoga and Nasau village sites, the former
Cakobau Parliament House site (now the European Memorial), Morris Hedstrom bond store, the
Baba indentured labour settlement, the Hennings residence, Captain Robbie’s bungalow, Sacred
Heart Cathedral and Presbytery dating from the 1860s, the Royal Hotel founded in the late 1860s,
Deed of Cession site, former Government (Nasova) House site, Port Authority, Post and Customs
buildings together with their remnant tram tracks to the wharf, former Methodist Church and
46
mission, Levuka Public School, Town Hall, Masonic Lodge, Ovalau Club, Bowling Club, workers
cottages and the shell button factory site (UNESCO).
Levuka, Fiji: Google Maps
5.2 Hazards:
Fiji is expected to incur, on average, 79 million USD per year in losses due to earthquakes and
tropical cyclones. In the next 50 years, Fiji has a 50% chance of experiencing a loss exceeding 750
million USD and casualties larger than 1,200 people, and a 10% chance of experiencing a loss
exceeding 1.5 billion USD and casualties larger than 2,100 people.
47
Source: Risk map of Fiji : http://www.preventionweb.net/files/23466_ochafjihazardv4110606.pdf
A year-round warm tropical climate is one of the main aspects of Fiji that attracts visitors from all
over the world. However, the hot weather, humidity and its South Pacific location can also lead to
dangerous and life-threatening natural disasters, including cyclones, floods, droughts, earthquakes
and tsunamis.
Cyclones
A cyclone is a tropical type of hurricane and is the main and most wide-spread natural disaster in
the Pacific region. Severe tropical storms bring about massive rainfall and high winds, plus the
low pressure may cause the sea to rise as much as 2 meters (6.5 feet). Destruction of houses, other
infrastructure and gardens, loss of vegetation, flooding, land erosion, coastal inundation,
destruction of coral reefs and sea grass beds, and pollution of water supplies are all effects of
cyclones. Fiji's cyclone season is from November through April.
48
In December 2007, Cyclone Daman hit the northern part of Fiji with wind gusts up to 205 kmh
(125 mph) and destroyed houses, though none of the areas affected were heavily populated and no
deaths were reported.
Another cyclone, named Cyclone Gene, hit the Fijian city capital of Suva and surrounding areas
with wind gusts up to 185 kmh (115 mph) in January 2008, causing widespread flooding and
blackouts. Eight people were killed directly or indirectly by the storm.
And in December 2012, Cyclone Evan unleashed winds of up to 230 kmh (145 mph) on Fiji's main
island, Viti Levu, as well as the area to the west and northwest. The cyclone uprooted trees,
destroyed homes and caused widespread power and water outages.
Floods
Flooding in Fiji can be the result of cyclones, though it can also occur during the country's rainy
season between November and April. Fiji also has wet and dry zones, so naturally the wet zones,
which are mostly located in the southeast region of the islands, are more prone to experience heavy
rains and flooding.
One recent instance of flooding in Fiji occurred in January 2009. Four days of heavy rain poured
down on the towns of Nadi, Labasa, Sigatoka and Ba on Viti Levu. The flood damaged roads and
bridges and caused the loss of crops. Eight people were reported to have been killed, six from
drowning and two killed in a landslide.
Droughts
The areas that are driest (also called the dry zones) are the lower islands and leeward areas of the
Fiji Islands. These areas are also most vulnerable to droughts. Besides affecting water supplies,
droughts can have a negative impact on agriculture, which plays an important role in Fiji's
economy.
The 1997-98 drought in Fiji caused a F$104 million loss in revenue in the sugarcane industry
alone. The Western sides of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu and the Yasawas were the worst hit regions,
49
where 90% of the population received food and water rations. In September 1998 the Fiji Cabinet
declared a natural disaster for the prolonged drought.
Earthquakes and Tsunamis
The Fiji Islands are seismically active, which means that they are prone to experience earthquakes.
The greatest danger of earthquakes, especially severe ones, is the damage and destruction of houses
and other infrastructure, as well as natural structures such as trees.
Sometimes earthquakes can also cause tsunamis. A tsunami is a series of large waves that can be
caused by a sudden motion of the ocean floor. Besides an earthquake, the sudden motion can also
be the result of an underwater landslide or a powerful volcanic eruption.
One of the most destructive Fijian tsunamis hit Suva on September 14, 1953. It occurred right after
a 6.7 earthquake. It caused major damage and destruction to the wharf and infrastructure and
caused three deaths in Suva, as well as twelve who had reportedly drowned in Koro and Kadavu.
It was determined that the source of the tsunami was the result of a 60 million cubic meter
submarine landslide at the head of the Suva Canyon.
Another major earthquake (though without a tsunami) occurred on November 17, 1979. It resulted
in severe damage and destruction to infrastructure on neighboring islands and a landslide on the
island of Qamea3.
5.3 Institutional Systems and Policies for DRR in the city/region:
National Disaster Management Council (NDMC)
The NDMC has overall responsibility for disaster management on a continuous basis irrespective
of whether a disaster has occurred or not. It is responsible for the development of suitable strategies
and policies for disaster mitigation, preparedness, training, management development and public
education. During emergency operations, it will have overall responsibility for the efficient
3 http://www.go-fiji.com/naturaldisasters.html
50
conduct of emergency operations at National, Divisional and District levels through the respective
Emergency Operation Centres (EOCs). The Council is responsible for the preparation and
implementation of adequate rehabilitation programmes after disasters. The Council has authority
to discuss and recommend strategy and policy alternatives to the Cabinet and it is accountable to
the Cabinet for reports, briefings and recommendations.
The Government of Fiji, in 1989, decided that disaster issues should best be addressed in their
totality, i.e. prevention, mitigation, preparedness, emergency operations relief, and rehabilitation,
rather than the previous emphasis on response operations. Accordingly, in January 1990,
responsibility for disaster management, was vested in the Minister for Regional Development, he
having responsibility for the portfolio judged best suited and structured for the task. The Minister
51
now has total responsibility on Cabinet’s behalf for all disaster matters other than man-made, the
latter remaining with the Minister for Home Affairs.
The Department for Regional Development thus has the overall responsibility for an effective
national disaster management strategy, covering prevention, mitigation, preparedness, emergency
operations, relief and rehabilitation. Such responsibilities in no way absolve other government
agencies of their responsibilities for disaster management activities peculiar to their everyday role,
but under the new organization, coordination is to be effected between the appropriate agencies
through the National Disaster Management Council and its related bodies.
The previous National Emergency Services Committee (EMSEC) has been renamed the National
Disaster Management Council and is chaired by the Minister responsible for DISMAC. The
Council, is serviced by the National Disaster Management Office which in turn is managed by
permanent staff and is responsible to the National Controller i.e. the Permanent Secretary for
Regional Development.
The National Disaster Management Plan incorporates the experiences of the past and the
recommendations and ideas of a series of four disaster management seminars, convened in
September 1991 to examine the existing EMSEC Manual and advice on its replacement. In its
simplified form, it aims to re-establish essential liaison links and effect the most efficient
52
coordinated national response to disaster preparedness and emergency operations. The plan also
seeks to include the experiences during recent cyclones. The scope of the plan is wider than the
previous EMSEC Manual in that the plan also addresses disaster mitigation and rehabilitation after
disasters.
The Plan provides greater autonomy for Commissioners and District Officers, allowing them
maximum flexibility in activating emergency operations and the selection and composition of their
own Disaster Management Councils. It is in the best interests of the nation that maximum use be
made of all Agencies, including Provincial and Advisory Councils and the Non- Governmental
Organisations (NGOs). Flexibility and coordination are the two keys to the success of the Plan.
The importance of regular personal liaison and mutual trust at all levels between all agencies
cannot be overemphasized (Fiji National Disaster Management Plan, 1995).
5.4 Key Elements of DRR efforts undertaken:
Heritage Management Organizations:
In Fiji, heritage management is not the sole responsibility of an institution. There is no overarching
legislation or organization protecting heritage but a number of different institutions have
jurisdiction over the protection of national heritage. There are primarily two levels at which
heritage management occurs in Fiji – the National and Local level.
At the national level a number of institutions are directly responsible for management of tangible
and intangible heritage.
Organizations directly responsible for the management of Fiji’s intangible cultural heritage:
Organization Intangible Heritage Managed
Fiji Museum: Recordings of music, Oral history collection,
Fiji Institute of Culture: Oral traditions and Fijian Language Dictionary
Native Lands Commission: Oral traditions/Genealogies related to native land
Fiji Arts Council: Arts and Dances
Organizations directly responsible for management of Fiji’s tangible cultural heritage:
Organization Tangible Heritage Managed
53
Fiji Museum: Archaeological/Palaentological sites, Collections of cultural and historical
materials, historic photographs, art collections, rare books and document collections
National Trust for Fiji: Historic buildings and sites National Archives, Photographs and film
footage, Documents, books and photographs
Department of Town and Country Planning,Historic buildings in Levuka and Suva
At the national level, heritage management occurs through an interplay and integrated approach
from the different institutions involved in the various aspects of heritage management.
In the case of Levuka, heritage management occurs primarily at two levels – the national and local
level. Nationally the Fiji Museum and the National Trust are involved in heritage management of
Levuka. On the local level, heritage management is a concerted effort by the local residents and
the Levuka Town Council (ORACAP, UNESCO, 2000).
Strategic Outcome for Goal 1: The more effective integration of disaster risk considerations into
sustainable development policies, planning and programming at all levels, with a special emphasis
on disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and vulnerability reduction.
Outcomes Statement:
The National Platform for Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change main outcome
statement was for the formulation of a National Strategic Plan in DRR and CCA harmonizing the
CC Policy and the Natural Disaster Act supporting the Green Growth Framework and the Climate
Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR).
The Government’s national commitment to DRM is mapped out clearly in the Road map for
Change Peace and Progress and adapted into the ministerial policy and plans through the Integrated
Rural Development Framework which has special targets on the most vulnerable population in the
rural sector. The National Strategic Plan on DRR and CCA will put in place the legal framework
that will assist in implementation and monitoring of these policy statements. Before, the Policy
statements and strategies incorporating DRR and CCA in the intervening years partially covered
the housing sector, climate change adaptation and mitigation, the relocation of informal
54
settlements, a watch on child labor, bio-security authority in Fiji, marine pollution, and poverty
reduction measures, without any monitoring or evaluation tool in place.
The Implementation practices were driven through the Poverty and Monitoring Unit under the
Prime Minister’s office, the AusAid funded review of the Building Code by the Fiji Institute of
Engineers, NBSAP, REDD+. The major cyclone and flood events in 2009 through to 2012 helped
keep the focus on strengthening DRR in development planning and the rehabilitation and
retrofitting works was actually an opportunity for the Government to build back better improving
the resilience of communities especially in vulnerable rural and maritime communities.
SOPAC with assistance of Red Cross and key government departments conducted economic
analysis of flood damages costs but this can still be of more use in development planning when
mitigation and benefit options are incorporated to fulfil cost benefit analysis. There is a need for
NDMO to organize meeting between Strategic Planning, SPC and Red Cross to bring the different
Initial Damage Assessments and PDNA to a standard format. Fiji’s planned technical assistance
from SOPAC is yet to eventuate.
At the community level NGOs are very active around the country undertaking VCAs; partnerships
of government-ngos-community have grown significantly with activities in bio-diversity, food
security, micro-financing and a myriad of livelihood programmes. JICA successfully started
implementation of the Community Flood Early Warning and Response Plan for Ba and has also
initiated through SPC SOPAC the Nadi Basin Steering Committee to assess ways to reduce
flooding in Nadi. The Government has also piloted a community integrated water resources
management approach for Nadi River catchment to mitigate flood and land-misuse disasters.
Strategic Outcome for Goal 2: The development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms
and capacities at all levels, in particular at the community level, that can systematically contribute
to building resilience to hazards.
Outcomes Statement:
55
Fiji’s joint National Platform for Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change held at the
Novotel Hotel Lami from 18 – 22 August, 2014 was the first time that the two programmes are
brought under the same forum for discussion in-country. The process provided for sharing of ideas,
concepts and practices that are relevant and beneficial to Fiji in terms of disaster risk and climate
change programmes that if addressed appropriately would reduce damage and loss and promote
sustainable development and resilience to the country.
The strengthening outcomes envisaged in enacting a new DRM legislation to the 2009 NDRM
Arrangement were to improve coordination of DRM activities and imbue ownership by ensuring
stakeholders’ representation and to foster discussion in the National Platform for Disaster Risk
Management and Climate Change for a whole of country approach to DRM. The new legislation,
to repeal the 1998 Act, is still in draft form and has been approved by Attorney General’s Office
for submission to Cabinet. The national experiences of record flood levels and severe impacts of
the recent, closely sequenced flood disasters have moved Fiji to place priority on stronger
interfacing of Climate Change Adaptation with external development partners. Climate Change is
shifted from the Dept. of Environment to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and a new Climate
Change Policy and Strategy in place. There are plans to move the Climate Change Unit and
Department Of Environment to the National Disaster Management Office. Other institutional
reconstitution are simultaneously happening or under review in the on-going public service
structural reforms to attain greater efficiency as per the Peoples Charter eg. The Permanent
Secretary of the Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster Management
is also doing an in-house “change management” review to align the Ministry’s structure closer
with existing policies which includes reviewing the existing disaster National Progress Report
2011-2013 3/59management arrangements.
At the community level, the number of donor-supported NGO managed community based multi-
sector DRM programmes has increased. Most are implemented in partnerships with relevant
government agencies and with NDMO. After the election NGOs who were benefitting due to the
traditional donors political differences with Fiji’s current military backed government are
decreasing in prominence as donor partners are dealing now directly with the Government. Despite
that the legislation is still in draft, DRM mechanisms at community levels are strong, both
56
programme and project driven. Community based institutions remain strengthened following
MORDI.
In a positive approach following discussions with NDMO, FCOS has acknowledged to work at
resolving CSO coordination, as the legislated CSO coordinating forum and NDMO is also perusing
perhaps a more effective coordination entity.
The DIMS has been setup and after the National Platform for Disaster Risk Management and
Climate Change the NDMO, CC Office and SOPAC continue working jointly towards the
harmonizing the CCA Policy and the National Disaster Management Act and JNAP establishment.
Strategic Outcome for Goal 3: (The systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches
into the design and implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery
programmes in the reconstruction of affected communities)
Outcomes Statement:
Communities continue to receive training in community multi-hazard assessment training through
NDMO and other partner agencies like PCDF, Fiji Red Cross and PCIDRR. Local governments
are now programmed in for multi-hazard risk assessment and have received DM training.
Catastrophe risk mapping involving multihazard and exposure mapping in Viti Levu’s main
economic belt was done with the report published eg PCRFI. EDF10 funding from European
Union through SPC’s Steering Committee had agreed that Fiji Red Cross to coordinate efforts
through Fiji Lands Information System and SPC SOPAC to compile a complete multi-hazard
mapping for the Fiji. Increasingly rural communities and municipalities, - Lami, Nasinu, Nadi &
Lautoka - DRR starts to feature in development planning and have received recommendations for
relocations in some villages. Public education and awareness activities continue to strengthen
national preparedness and NDMO continues to monitor implementation. Training in civil-military
coordination has not happened with military now heavily involved in relief and response activities
but NDMO conducts the Disaster Training prior to the Cyclone season where it prepares standby
teams for disaster response from the Military, Police, Fire and other stakeholders.
57
Tsunami procedures have been developed and drills undertaken in Suva and again further tested
with real warning events. The bill boards are erected prominently and Government has now signed
an agreement with KOIKA for establishment of a ceaseless comprehensive National Command
and Control Center for Emergency and Disaster Risk Management in Fiji which includes
improvement in the Tsunami EWS.
(Hyogo Progress Report, 2013-15)
58
Questionnaire filled by Representative:
1. Does your department have a readily accessible map with Geo-Coordinates of all the heritage sites and
institutions such as museums, archives, libraries, temples, monasteries, etc?
YES
2. If you answer YES to the previous question, do you have the following information for each site /
institution: Most of these required information is in the Heritage Register
e) Name of the owner? YES
f) Emergency contact person? NO
g) Inventory of all types of heritage elements e.g., number of buildings, number of objects? YES
h) Associated values or why is this heritage valuable / significant? YES FOR MANY – NOT ALL
3. What do you think are the three main hazards / threats that could negatively impact heritage in your city/
region and what are the reasons for the same?
1. Tropical Cyclone – due to the deteriorating condition of some buildings, making it more
vulnerable to effect of cyclone.
2. Flooding of low-lying and coastal inundation from effect of storm surges – due to the drainage
issues and the close proximity of the heritage city to the coastline
3. Landslides – due to the rugged terrain.
4. OR FIRE due to wooden building structures not having proper fire safety structures such as
water sprinklers or fire alarm set up. In addition not all buildings have proper electrical wiring.
5. Do you have a list of hazard events that occurred in past 10-15 years and negatively impacted your city?
If YES, do you have record of how these events impacted the cultural heritage of the city? NO
6. Do you have any specific disaster risk management policies / plans that are focused on cultural heritage
in your city? If so, please elaborate on those.
There is no DRM policy that specific to cultural heritage; however the Management Plan has a section
on Risk management, specific to the heritage city.
SECTION 1: FOR HERITAGE CITY’S HERITAGE AGENCY
59
7. Which stakeholders/agencies/departments from your city you co-ordinate with for disaster risk
management of cultural heritage? Where are the gaps in coordination?
The department of National Heritage Culture and Arts, The Levuka Town Council, NDMO.
The National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) coordinate management of disaster activities through
risk at country level, however their focus is more on the humanitarian aspects.
8. Please list two key priorities for your agency for reducing disaster risks to cultural heritage in your city.
a. Establish a hazard assessment map to help with better informed decisions for managers and home
owners
b. Produce a toolkit so that this information is disseminated to all stakeholders.
6. GOOD PRACTICE CASE STUDIES
6.1 Fiji: “Beyond early warning and response: Risk-sensitive local development” UNDP Pacific
Centre
Flooding in Navua, Fiji, has caused extensive damage to crops, livestock, houses, roads and
bridges, and has been exacerbated by poor development planning. In the floods of 2003 and 2004,
hundreds of people lost their homes and belongings. Taking a long-term approach to strengthening
local level disaster risk reduction, the UNDP Pacific Centre has been working with multiple
partners and stakeholders on this comprehensive, locally-implemented project. The initiative has
raised awareness of the links between development and flooding within the planning process,
helped develop early warning systems, supported communities to assess their vulnerabilities,
drawn up plans of action and put those plans into practice.
The initiative
This is a pilot project that follows an integrated Local Level Risk Management Approach (LLRM)
to reducing flood risk. It is an ongoing long-term project that works with communities and local
government on disaster preparedness, but also increases understanding of the link between
development and disaster risk at a local level.
60
The overall objective of the project is to make development planning in Navua incorporate
community priorities, and become sensitive to flood risk. To accomplish this, the LLRM and
development-centred approach has involved:
• Active engagement with local partners
• Developing the capacity of local government, local business, community and civil society to
mainstream disaster risk reduction at the local level
• Feeding into national disaster risk reduction mainstreaming
Navua Township is situated on the flood plain of the Navua River, Fiji’s third largest, which drains
a catchment area of 1070 cubic kilometres. Floods in 2003 and April 2004 caused wide-ranging
and serious damage to crops, livestock, houses, roads and bridges. Hundreds of people lost their
homes and belongings. The 2004 floods caused FJD 90 million in damage to medical supplies and
equipment from Navua hospital which is situated immediately next to the river banks.
The way that human settlements around the flood plain have developed has helped transform a
natural hazard into a disaster. Flooding of the Navua River is associated with prolonged and intense
rainfall, which is common during the wet season from November to April. However, increased
flooding of the area has also been attributed to build-up of sediment at the mouth of the Navua
River, which raises the riverbed and increases the river’s potential to burst its banks. Studies and
field surveys suggest that several development processes are exacerbating flood risk: Abandoned
irrigation channels built in the 1990s; unsustainable land usage; deforestation of land around the
upper catchment of the Navua River; aggregate mining in the river and; dredging of the river for
mining and to control flooding.
All of these factors contribute in varying degrees to bank erosion, deforestation and sediment
build-up on the riverbed. The project addresses these problems using the LLRM approach. Disaster
risk reduction at the local level is more likely to be sustainable when projects start by addressing
local development issues, and integrating risk management into existing development initiatives.
LLRM supports communities to manage and reduce disaster risk as well as foresee and control the
emergence of new risks. This is done through work on local governance, and community planning
and preparedness, as well as through individual participation and motivation.
61
First, through using Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment methodology, communities identified
their development priorities, with particular attention to how gender roles can contribute to
vulnerability. Based on this, action plans were developed with villagers, and priorities were
identified. Community development needs were then channeled up through discussion with local
government representatives, who also take part in the assessment process.
District Officers at the local government level then submitted proposals to national counterpart
ministries, which has led to allocation of national-level funds for the project. As the National
Disaster Management Office is one of the project partners, information regarding major
development and disaster issues is constantly shared and discussed at the national level.
Two project management mechanisms were set up:
• The Steering Committee for the project was appointed with the assistance and advice of the
Provincial Administrator and was made up of focal points from local government and civil society
organizations. The Steering Committee oversaw and guided the project group’s work.
• The project group was responsible for conducting activities and was required to report back to
the Steering Committee regularly. UNDP Pacific Centre’s implementing partners are the Fiji
National Disaster Management Office, the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission
(SOPAC) The Fiji Red Cross Society, and The Asia Foundation/ Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance (TAF/OFDA). While some partners provide in-kind support in the way of technical
expertise, other implementing partners also disburse project funding and lead activities. Other
stakeholders and partners are UNV, and most importantly for project implementation, local
government and local communities. The pilot started in 2007 and will be completed at the end of
2009.
Results
• Disaster risk reduction education and public awareness campaigns are being carried out,
including through workshops held with local government.
• Gender-sensitive Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments have been conducted for provincial or
district development.
• Disaster risk reduction is being integrated into provincial development planning and budgeting.
62
• A flood warning system is being implemented. Under an EU funded project called ‘Reducing
Vulnerability of ACP States’, SOPAC- one of the implementing partners of this project – had
already worked with the Fiji National Disaster Management Office, the Public Works Hydrology
Division, the Fiji Meteorological Services, and the Provincial Administrations of Serua and
Namosi to implement a flood warning system in the Navua region.
• A flood response plan has been developed.
• Local government and community capacity has been developed.
• Relationships have been built between local government, traditional leadership (the chiefly
system) and the national government.
• Disaster risk reduction initiatives have been demonstrated.
• An action plan for disaster risk reduction at the local level was developed.
As a result of the initiative, risk sensitive development proposals have been submitted to national
Ministries by the provincial administrator, and communities designed and implemented
development projects that reduced community vulnerability, one of which is a Mangrove
Rehabilitation project. The overall process of mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into
community development has helped reduce disaster vulnerability.
The good practice
• The initiative promotes the investment of national and provincial funds in disaster risk reduction.
• Different institutionalized processes of central and traditional government are being respected.
• Communities are analyzing their own risks, vulnerabilities and development priorities, and
addressing them from within instead of relying on external forces. This has been achieved by using
participatory methods.
• Gender-sensitive participatory methods are ensuring women’s participation and that their voices
are heard.
• Local government representatives with planning and disaster risk management responsibilities
are being trained in disaster risk reduction.
• An advocacy and awareness strategy on disaster risk is being developed for local level use.
• Community action plans are aligned with the capacities and resources of the communities.
63
• There is now better communication and interaction between local and national government
representatives through joint workshops, training, meetings and participation in a Steering
Committee.
• Traditional local leadership mobilized communities.
Role of local government
The Provincial Administration of Serua and Namosi provinces were highly committed to the
initiative, showcasing the importance of local government to the locally based work of
development agencies. The Provincial Administration was instrumental in coordinating, hosting,
facilitating and participating in stakeholder meetings, workshops and trainings. It also incorporated
disaster risk reduction and development priorities identified by communities into the Provincial
Development Plan, and into proposals to national counterpart Ministries. Through their
commitment, they kept the momentum of the project alive. (ISDR, ITC, UNDP, 2010)
6.2 Indonesia: “The National Agency for Disaster Management, Indonesia The joint
management of Merapi Volcano”
The Merapi Forum is an example of a true local multi-stakeholder forum that brings together local
and national government, community volunteers, the media, educational institutes, the private
sector, NGOs and donors, to jointly manage the risks posed by the active Merapi Volcano. With a
mandated parent agency at central government level, local governments have helped coordinate
many partners to design and carry out risk mapping, preparedness planning and mass community
drills.
The Initiative
The Merapi Forum is a multi-stakeholder forum that addresses a single hazard in one area -
volcanic eruption. The forum jointly manages the risks and resources of Mt Merapi, an active
volcano in Java, Indonesia. The whole population of the four surrounding districts is vulnerable to
the possible impact of Merapi’s volcanic eruption. More than 320,000 people live in the most
hazardous areas, including along rivers potentially affected by lahar flows.
64
The forum’s goal is to foster collaboration among the people living around Merapi’s slopes,
including with stakeholders such as the government, donors, the media and the private sector. The
aims of this collaboration are not only to reduce the risks posed by the volcano but also to manage
its natural resources together.
The Forum targets stakeholders from the surrounding districts of Magelang, Boyolali, Klaten and
Sleman. The first three districts are under the authority of Central Java Province and the last is in
the Special Region of Yogyakarta Province. Membership includes:
• Community groups such as Pasag Merapi (a network of community volcano volunteers with
presence in the four districts bordering Merapi, with approximately 1,600 members)
• Four district and two provincial governments
• BPPTK (Office for the Study and Development of Volcanic Technology, a vertical institution
under the National Ministry for Energy and Mineral Resources)
• Universities, such as UPN Veteran Disaster Management Study Center
• Media
• The NGO Kappala
• PMI (the Indonesian Red Cross) in the four districts
• Donors such as Oxfam GB, UNDP, UNICEF and GLGGTZ
The secretariat of the multi-stakeholder forum is hosted by BPPTK, the national institution that
holds the highest authority over geological hazards. This has been an effective strategy because
BPPTK is perceived as more or less free from vested interests and can be accepted by all local
participants as a neutral arbiter.
The initiative was officially started in April 2006, although ground work for the collaboration
stretched back several years before this. It is an ongoing and building collaboration. More activities
are being developed, and new organizations and people are joining daily.
Results
The initiative has substantially built the capacity of local communities and local governments
through a range of practical joint activities on disaster risk reduction. Joint work has included
65
disaster simulations, contingency planning exercises and participatory risk mapping. It has fostered
mutual understanding among the different stakeholders, establishing cross-border and cross-sector
collaboration in risk reduction. This has been maintained through regular communication,
information sharing, and knowledge sharing.
The good practice
• It is a mainly local initiative, initiated by local government authorities.
• The many stakeholders have been able to focus jointly on one specific local hazard. Cross-border
cooperation among local governments has been helped by the fact that they are all affected by the
same, single natural hazard.
• The participatory process gives space for the communities to take the lead in their areas of disaster
risk reduction responsibility.
• Ownership has been fostered among the stakeholders, particularly between community members
directly facing the risks of the volcano and the local governments. There has been substantial
willingness among different stakeholders to contribute resources to the joint programs and
activities.
• Local governments have acknowledged and appreciated the work of the grassroots communities.
• Different levels of government are committed to the project. Practical support is provided by
central and provincial governments, including the Indonesian National Agency for Disaster
Management and Ministry for Energy and Mineral Resources. The complex obstacles faced while
coordinating the two provinces, four districts, and many different stakeholders, were resolved
through:
• Deliberation and consensus building.
• Actual involvement of local communities in mapping hazard risks.
• Broad-based multi-stakeholder participation – from local communities to international donors
and development NGOs, combining local wisdom on early warning with scientific findings.
Role of local government
The project was initiated by the local government authorities surrounding Mt Merapi, who have
also taken on significant coordination work. The Merapi Forum has been an excellent example of
how local governments make things happen on the ground through their mandate of reaching out
66
to all stakeholders to deliver frontline disaster risk reduction. Local governments saw that their
responsibilities to their constituent communities required good-faith cooperation across
boundaries for the common good, with national backing. Local governments actively coordinated
the different stakeholders to jointly organize drills and planning with communities, and
mainstreamed disaster risk reduction into their local development plans. (ISDR, ITC, UNDP,
2010)
References:
Petz D., “Strengthening Regional And National Capacity For Disaster Risk Management: The Case Of ASEAN” © Brookings Institution, Washington D.C., 2014
The ASEAN Vision 2025 on Disaster Management, 2016
ASEAN: “Advancing Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance in ASEAN Member States: Framework and Options for Implementation” GFDRR, ISDR, April 2012
Wright N., “Small Island Developing States, disaster risk management, disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and tourism”, Global Assessment Report Geneva, Switzerland, 2013
“Local Governments and Disaster Risk Reduction Good Practices and Lessons Learned A contribution to the “Making Cities Resilient” Campaign”, ISDR, ITC, UNDP, Geneva, Switzerland, March 2010
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6010/
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1399
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6011/
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1223
Malaysia Disaster Management Reference Hand Book, Center for Excellence in Disaster
Management & Humanitarian Assistance, 2016
Asia Disaster Reduction Center
http://www.adrc.asia/nationinformation.php?NationCode=458&Lang=en&NationNum=16
nidm.gov.in/easindia2014/err/pdf/country_profile/Malaysia.pdf
67
Krishnan G., Sandhu S.C., Prothi Aman, “Green City Action Plan: A Framework for GrEEEn
Actions Melaka, Malaysia”, Asian Development Bank, 2014
Malaysia, National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action
(2011-2013)
Indonesia, National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action
(2013-2015)
Fiji, National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2013-
2015)
Gunawan I., Sagala S., Amin S., Zawani H., Mangunsong R., “City Risk Diagnostic For Urban
Resilience In Indonesia” The World Bank Office Jakarta, October, 2015
Gunawan, I., “Using Participatory Mapping for Disaster Preparedness in Jakarta” GFDRR, 2013
Jakarta Post, 2016
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/01/26/addressing-disaster-risks-critical-sustainable-
development-un.html
Neolaka A., “Flood disaster risk in Jakarta, Indonesia”, WIT Transactions on Ecology and The
Environment, Vol 159, © 2012 WIT Press
Indonesia Investments, 2016
http://www.indonesia-investments.com/business/risks/natural-disasters/item243?
Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency, The Sasakawa, 2013
Disaster Management in Indonesia,
https://aprsaf.org/data/aprsaf13_data/2_1_INDONESIA%20DM_1515day1.pdf
http://www.go-fiji.com/naturaldisasters.html
Local Team, “Culture Heritage Management and Tourism: Models for Co-operation among
Stakeholders, A Case Study on Levuka Fiji Islands”, UNESCO Office of the Regional Advisor for
Culture in Asia and the Pacific, April 2000
68
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/23466_ochafjihazardv4110606.pdf
https://maps.google.com