The scene at a Mount Agung evacuation post in GOR Swecapura, Klungkung regency, Bali, on Wednesday (11/10). Three weeks of living in an evacuation camp has not been easy for evacuees, most of whom have lost their livelihoods since Mount Agung was upgraded to alert status.
KARANGASEM, KOMPAS — Despite having been through many volcanic eruptions, Indonesia is still inexperienced in dealing with the disaster. The crisis related to Mount Agung in Bali is the latest example.
Aside from the limited availability of equipment and capacity for monitoring, the social economic and cultural dynamic has not been put into consideration in the disaster mitigation management. Until Sunday (15/10), or 25 days after the high alert status was issued, the end of the tunnel of the Mount Agung crisis cannot been set.
Mount Agung could erupt again, 54 years after its last eruption. Or, the volcano could also return to its inactivity for a long period. Nevertheless, whatever the final circumstance will be, the impact of the crisis has affected hundreds of thousands of evacuees as well as tourism, which is the mainstay of the Bali economy.
“Magma activity is still high and [magma] is still trying to make its way out. Tremor [levels are] high and fluctuating 800-900 times per day,” Center for Volcanology and Geological Disasters Mitigation (CVGHM) head Kasbani said in Karangase
Not followed
People have been ignoring instructions not to enter the danger zone — or within a radius of 9 kilometers from the crater — due to economic reason. For example, residents must take care of their cattle to cultivate their farmland, and to dig and collect sand.
CVGHM Mount Agung mitigation head Gede Suantika said his agency has urged residents to keep their distance but cannot force them to do so.
Such conditions show that disaster risk prevention efforts are not yet a priority, said Wisnu Widjaja, deputy head of prevention and alertness at the National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB).
Wisnu said disaster mitigation is still seen as a response and distribution of donations. Consequently, mitigation and preparations to deal with the crisis have not been carried out well.
Wisnu said that knowledge among public and the local administrations about disaster risks was still poor, partly due to the commonly long period of seismic activity.
In addition, policies and coordination among institutions, including local administrations, have not reached a consensus on disaster mitigation, including the distribution of donations.
“Until before the high alert status was issued, the local administration has not been serious in preparing the scenario for an emergency condition. The emergency scheme for Mount Agung was made in 2012, but it is not operational,” Wisnu said, adding that this placed residents in even greater danger – as evident from villagers who continue to return to the danger zone to care for their cattle.
In fact, Wisnu said, 15,000 cows owned by 3,000 people remained in the danger zone, which means that thousands of people are endangering themselves every day.
Minimal data about the eruption in 1963 has forced researchers to work harder. “There is no record of the signs prior to Mount Agung’s eruption in 1963. The available data is about the events after the eruption,” Suantika said.
