We are Not yet Alert on Earthquake
Having not yet been fully dealing with the emergency response the impacts of the Lombok earthquake on July 28, 2018, which killed 20 people, Indonesian people -- especially in West Nusa Tenggara, notably Bali and Lombok -- were again shocked by the 7.0 magnitude earthquake.
This earthquake devastated the northern part of the island of Lombok with the impact of shocks that could be felt up to Bali. The National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) recorded 98 casualties with 236 others being injured. This number still has the potential to continue to increase.
Once again, a quirky question must be raised to evaluate our preparedness after a series of major earthquakes in Aceh in 2004, Nias in 2005, Yogyakarta in 2006, Padang in 2009 and Aceh again (Pidie Jaya) in 2016. What have we done to really reduce the potential for damages and losses of life due to the earthquakes?
Even though the death toll is quite large and the calculation of material losses due to damages to buildings and infrastructure is still being carried out, according to me, we still have to be grateful that the earthquake with the epicenter on land at a very shallow depth [15 km according to the Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) version and 31 km to the American Geological Agency version] occurred in areas that are relatively not too densely populated with less infrastructure.
The experience when the earthquake shook the Yogyakarta area in 2006 showed that, despite its magnitude was only 6.4, the earthquake had caused devastating damages because the fault occurred in densely populated areas.
Lessons from the earthquakes
The various previous earthquakes have actually given us a very clear lesson that it is not the earthquakes that kill, but buildings and infrastructure, which are constructed without meeting earthquake resistant standards. At any earthquake location in the world, the majority of victims die of being crushed by debris or trapped in collapsed buildings because they are not earthquake resistant. Therefore, if we talk about preparedness to face an earthquake, the direction of the discussion must be on how to reinforce buildings and infrastructure to be earthquake resistant.
Preparedness for earthquakes does not mean readiness for "evacuation" like in tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. Why? Because if a volcanic disaster has the potential danger which can be estimated several hours to a few days beforehand -- or in the event of a tsunami we have a few minutes to several hours after the earthquakes before the waves come -- to evacuate.
In the earthquake case there are no early signs before the disaster, which could be used as a guide for the community to be able to save themselves or at least get out of the buildings.
The experience from major destructive earthquakes, such as the earthquake in 1995 in Kobe, Japan, and in 2006 in Yogyakarta and 2009 in Padang, shows that damaging shocks during the earthquake occurred
in less than 20 seconds. So, the question is, to what extent can we run or exit houses and buildings in earthquake conditions, in less than 20 seconds?
Urgent for mitigation
The above facts show that the direction of earthquake mitigation discussion in the context of implementation must be in the form of structural mitigation. For the Japanese case, for example, referring to the damages caused by the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, the Japanese Government allocated a very large amount of funds to build a retrofitting structure for 18,240 school buildings. They audited a total of 48,000 school buildings and found that 38 percent of them was not earthquake resistant.
There are two very important things here. First is the building audit and second the building structure strengthening. In the case of buildings for public facilities, social facilities, and residential buildings, the audit of structural resilience must be carried out periodically. If the buildings from the beginning are not designed to withstand earthquakes like most buildings in Indonesia, then structural strengthening (retrofitting) must be done. This process must start now in all earthquake-prone locations in Indonesia.
Based on regions
The implementation of the above process can be done based on the regency/city as the party authorized to issue building permits (IMB). Why? Because in the future the concept of increasing community preparedness for disasters must be based on local government, both at the provincial and regency/city levels.
Therefore, not all disaster events must be responded to directly by the head of state, or not all post-disaster emergency response activities must be handled by BNPB. It is time for the regions to also have good and right independence and preparedness in dealing with disasters.
During the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011, nearly all coastal cities in Japan, which were affected by the tsunami, were localized due to the destruction of transportation infrastructure such as toll roads, ports and airports. It took at least one week for a country as prepared as Japan, even in the face of a disaster to repair essential facilities in the emergency response phase. The aim was that aid could be distributed immediately.
In a critical stage where the area is localized due to this disaster, the ability of the community and local government to manage the existing resources is very important to enable them to survive independently. Besides reducing the potential impact of material losses, regional preparedness will also play a significant role in preventing an increase in post-disaster casualties. Does it need funds? Of course!
Indeed it is time for us to allocate sufficient budget for disaster mitigation. In countries with good mitigation system, such as Japan, every government level from national to regional administrations allocates at least 1 percent of their total annual budget for disaster mitigation activities (T Pardede, 2014).
Then, don\'t forget that the best phase to initiate integrated disaster mitigation activities being developed is during post-disaster reconstruction. That is why reconstruction in countries with good
disaster management system allocates at least 10 percent of the reconstruction budget to build disaster mitigation facilities and infrastructure: both structural and non-structural.
Make it better
The reconstruction concept of building back better must be the basis and truly realized. Don’t let us build public facilities, social facilities, and post-disaster housing in areas that are exactly the same as the previous location and with quality that is not much different from the quality of buildings before the earthquake.
Regulations and rules that support the strengthening of the physical components of buildings have actually been available for a long time. There are SNI 1726-2002, SNI 1726-2012, up to the Technical Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Houses and Buildings by the Ministry of Public Works, which were issued in 2006.
Therefore, now and in the future, we as a community as well as objects that have the potential to be affected by disasters such as earthquakes must also understand that earthquake mitigation starts from individual awareness. Let us pay attention to our respective homes and properties, as much as possible we correct them if we have not adopted the provisions of earthquake resistant buildings.
Building reinforcement technology from the simple one using bamboo plaits to strengthen the brick structure on the walls of the houses to advanced ones such as the iron structure and the use of hydraulic pumps for high-rise buildings can easily be found on the websites of cyberspace.
The only question now is where we want to change or not? (Abdul Muhari, Disaster Mitigation Practitioner; Chairman of the Sentinel Asia Tsunami Working Group)