Flood in Tanah Bumbu - south borneo

Sustainable development that so far has been the major issue exposed by the government, in fact is still put its priority on the short term economic interest rather than sustainable living. Big flood occured in four districts in South Kalimantan last June depicts the environmental condition, especially the vast deforestation happened in the province. Not yet clearing the following impact of the flood, on August to November 2006 people in South Kalimantan have to deal with another problem--not less serious than the flood-- fire engulf forest and peatland causing a wide impact smog and threaten their health. In the rainy season dealing with flood, in the dry season facing drought and forest fire leaving most people live in burden. (Banjarmasin Post) Flood, drought ang smog disaster through out year 2006 in this province obviously is not simply caused by the nature's factor. Mainly it is resulted by the mismanagement of the natural resources and human's fault towards their environment. As stated by Kartodihardjo dan Jhamtani (2006): "Development disaster happens as a result of the allied factors of environmental crises and the natural phenomenon, worsened by the natural and environmental destruction also unjust in the social development policies."

Development only based on economical interest eventullly would threathen the security of living sustainability. When disaster attacks, the question is who would be most impacted. Is it the authorities-govern bodies, industrialists-enterpreneurs or marginalized people?

Non-environment perspective

Economic development, so far, puts natural resources as trade commodities. That is why exploitation of natural resources is done excessively and massively ignoring environmental ecologicy, social and impacts analysis aspects. Even if there are some pro-environment policies and development, still they are not enourh to tackle the fast-growing environmental destruction rate because the nature of their presence is only as "the complementary tool" so the overall development program would look accomodative and having vision of sustainable development.

Sustainable development, the government mentioned all the time, in fact still put economical (mostly short term) interestsin the mainstream rather than the sustainability of life it self. In the concept, it is the "development" that is sustainable, while the live sustainability is ignored. Natural resources' exploitation is too much for the natural suppotive capacity and far beyond the limit.

Many policy issued, whether by the local or central government, tend to ease the way of massive explotation without considering the aspect of environmental balance. Forest areas which supposed to be protected for its supporting function, are the exploitated as the govermnet legally giving mining permits to do mining activities in conservational forest areas. Padahal, deforestation has taken place in almost 50 percent forest of South Kalimantan. Installed capacity of timber industry in South Kalimantan is over three million metric cubic per year. Obviously far beyond natural supply capacity of the existing forest.

The establishment of a chip-mill in Ale-ale village, in Kotabaru Regency and the plan to build pulp mill in Sungai Cuka Village in Satui, Tanah Bumbu Regency with installed capacity as much as 600 thousand up to one million tonnes per year is widening the gap between demand and supply of timber. Thus, any effort to fill in the gap would be a thread for the existence of environment, especially the natural forest.

Meratus Mountains as one of the most important part to province's environmental condition stabil and as the last "fortress" of natural rain-forest ecosystem is continously razored by illegal logging activity or mining activities (legal and illegal ones). In addition to hundreds of newly issued mining authority letters for coal mining (Izin Kuasa Pertambangan) and PKP2B to compile about three hundreds of total mining permission in South Kalimantan, three active HPH, four active IPK, six active HTI and 46 permits for large scale plantation. That's the portrait of ignoring the environment developmet.

Harvesting disaster

June 2006, flood swept away four regency in South Kalimantan. They are Banjar, Tanah Laut, Tanah Bumbu and Kotabaru Regency. The victims are 12.2048 people, nine death, thousands of hectares farmland and houses sinked, hundreds of kilometers public road are broken, and the total estimated loss is reaching 146,457 billion rupiah. (From presentation of Vice Governor of South Kalimantan, 2006). That's the recorded data from the government, I believe the fact is more than that, especially as we talk about social loss due to the disaster.

Not long after the flood, in August 2006, another disaster occured. Forest and peatland fire. Smog becomes the main issue and reaches its peak on November 2006. According to Head of Provincial Health Agency, as noted in October 2006, air pollution standard index shows a very high level of air pollution. Level of paticulates in the air is 640 u/m3, whereas the healthy standard is no more than 150 u/m3. It means that the air is not good for human health. It then becomes the cause of some illness such as acute respiratory infection, eye and skin iritation, even psychological pressure for the people.

From the series of disaster happened, important aspect to be considered is the ecological destruction and climate pattern, and the way used by the government to cope with the disasters. In the dry season, we always run out of water and in the rainy season we have flood. It indicates that all of the infrastructure built to manipulate the environmental condition has failed. The main cause of the problem is nor properly handled. Crises and another crises caused by mis-management of natural resources leads to an inevitably ecological disaster.

Flood, drought, forest and peatland fire, and smog shouldn't only be seen as a natural cycle an incidentally occured, but it should have been seen as something caused by human fault. Humans blessed with brain and knowledge shuld have been able to have a maximum preventive action in coping with the disaster. But, almost in every disaster, only a slow reactive action applied in the handling.

Regarding the disasters, the government actually already prepare a special agency that function to deal with them. But, the government fail to optimize the capacity and function of the agency. Not to mention about the coping pattern and disaster management risk that never change to be better. In fact, we have mane experts in that field.

If we analyze, the disaster management plan applied in South Kalimantan and generally in Indonesia is done by conventional approach and by external mechanism. In planning to cope with the disaster (in the phase of prevention, mitigation, emergency action, rehabilitation and reconstruction) that stated in Decree of Minister of people welfare , the people seems only put as an object.

Tracking back the cause, disaster is misunderstood. So far, the government considers disaster as a disturbance of the normel development. Disaster is vieved as an independent phenomenon and doesn't have cause and effect with other. So only emergency action is done to deal with disaster.

The inapropriate understanding then leads to an inapropriate disaster coping strategy. The emergency action strategy used is only aimed at making thing back to the situation prior to the disaster. It takes extra budget, and tends to require more and more money every year. While the long term coping strategy in form of Disaster Management Risk, as a way to prepare for the disaster and then minimize the damage caused by disaster, is not the main attention in the coping strategy. The government has not been able to provide the people's rights of good, safe, comfort and healthy environment.

Disasters, flood, drought, forest fire and smog attack in 2006 had shown how that the unwise management of natural resources is the main cause. Besides, development plans and activities are never considering their impact towards the environment in order to anticipate disaster they may cause. In other words, there's no risk management in the development program.

Preventing disaster is not a part of development process in the country. So, in dealing with disaster, it is the emergency reaction chosen instead of disaster prevention action. In fact, if the development activity plan is combined with risk management, the disaster would have been able to be anticipated to lessen its impact.

If this time we are harvesting disasters, it is the fruit of the unwise development in the state that in turn creating ecological crises and making the people of the nation live in misery. Then, we supposed to ask ourselves the nature of the development conducted by the state. For what and for who?