Tsunami in Sulawesi underscores weaknesses of disaster warning mechanism

In late September, the Indonesian province of Sulawesi was hit by a strong earthquake, followed by a tsunami that devastated coastal cities in the region. The death toll reached 1,200 in matter of days and many infrastructures especially in the town of Palu were either destroyed or badly damaged. Scenes of despair were beamed across the world as emergency personnel scrambled to rescue those trapped underneath the rubble, while survivors struggled to cope with their losses. Looting was also reported in some areas as supplies of food, water and fuel became scarce.

As the country grieved, questions also emerged regarding the disaster warning mechanism used by the authorities that lifted a tsunami warning, 34 minutes after the initial earthquake. Some Indonesians vent their frustration on social networking sites and accused the geophysics agency, BMKG, of mishandling the data and claimed that lives could have been saved if the warning was kept in place. Despite this, the agency defended its move, saying that the warning only ended after the tsunami hit. The sentiment was agreed by experts who said the timing could have made very little difference. This is because earthquakes are rather complicated and the recent one in Palu was also highly unusual as the tsunami was generated from seismic activities on land. Despite this, some still expressed worries on the state of the warning system that has been in operation following the deadly tsunami in Aceh in 2004.

As mentioned by the head of BMKG, the lack of data concerning the latest tsunami is something that the authorities must evaluate, and he was right in saying so. There have been reports that some of the tidal buoys (used to monitor changes in sea level) were not working due to vandalism, causing them to miss the giant waves as only a “insignificant” 6 cm wave was recorded. The latest mishap is a reminiscent of another event in October 2010 when the early warning system failed due to operational difficulties. It had only been activated for two years before it fell into a state of disrepair one month prior to the earthquake.

Although the Indonesian government has promised to improve its early warning mechanisms since the Aceh tsunami in 2004, the latest event in Palu is a clear indication that the present system is still inadequate and does not fulfill its supposed role. The frank admission by the Indonesian national disaster agency (BNPB) that some of the 60 tidal buoys were broken since 2012 is also a grim reminder that bureaucracy and funding issues are hampering efforts in procuring potential life-saving measures and equipment. Co-ordination and co-operation between various agencies are also critical in this regard as such systems requires various expertise. While the immediate task is on rescue and relief efforts, policymakers should also begin to figure out ways to ensure a functional early warning system for a country that is prone to such natural calamities.