desktop study on disaster risk reduction of ......1 4 april 2017 desktop study on disaster risk...

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.


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.


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

http://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

https://aprsaf.org/data/aprsaf13_data/2_1_INDONESIA%20DM_1515day1.pdf

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


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.



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.


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.



1) Flood

• 2002: 57 casualties, 365.000 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.



NO

41



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.


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):



Yes ( without Geo-Coordinates )


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.



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.



43

Yes.


Yes.



- 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.



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


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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_management

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_infrastructure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_infrastructure

44



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.

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/23466_ochafjihazardv4110606.pdf

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

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:



YES


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



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.


If YES, do you have record of how these events impacted the cultural heritage of the city? NO


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.


59



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.


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



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





http://www.adrc.asia/nationinformation.php?NationCode=458&Lang=en&NationNum=16

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,



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

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/01/26/addressing-disaster-risks-critical-sustainable-development-un.html

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/01/26/addressing-disaster-risks-critical-sustainable-development-un.html

http://www.indonesia-investments.com/business/risks/natural-disasters/item243



68


https://maps.google.com


https://maps.google.com/