Day 5, Friday, started off differently: We were divided in groups and sat down with our new teammates, which was nice, as it encourages interaction with more people. Dr. Arry Retnowati of the UGM replaced Dr. Radiya Jati’s speech about Disaster and Public Policy as our first lecture. She expanded on what we learned yesterday at the Parangtritis Geomaritime Science Park, though her focus was more on the river feeding into the sea there and the different problems that come with it, both natural and man-made. Natural problems include floods, riverside erosion, and transportation of sediments; men-made ones include faming, husbandry, mining, increased population in the area and all the different types of pollution and changes in the environment, including deforestation, that come with it. Then, each group choose a country and there a river to investigate the different problems that happen upstream, middle stream and downstream, as there often are distinct patterns to what type of pollution or other hazards can be found in which area. The chosen areas included Boracay Island, Philippines; Malacca, Malaysia; Ystad, Sweden and Davao del Norte, Philippines. Some presentations were more extensive, while others really embodied the “short and sweet” stereotype. During the Q & A session afterwards, Mr. Arindam Chowdhury, a fellow participant of the class from India, gave a very detailed explanation on fluvial geomorphology and the theory of the normal cycle of erosion – namely the stages of a river course and types of watersheds. It was basically an impromptu presentation, which was quite impressive and shows his passion for his chosen field of study.
After another delicious lunch, Dr. Henry Yogaswaralipi, an Anthropologist of the Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI) held a very interesting presentation. Titled “Local Knowledge on DRR: Post Disaster Reconstruction and Rehabilitation”, the talk had a stronger focus on the local knowledge than Reconstruction or Rehabilitation. It was focused on the so-called LINKS, the local indigenous knowledge system, which includes local knowledge, “wisdom” and technical knowledge of indigenous people. This is often however a type of hybrid knowledge, as homogeneity is hardly ever the case – usually, the knowledge is already mixed, with knowledge from other places as well as modern knowledge. The strengths of this system are that local knowledge can be adapted and transferred to others, it increases the participation and the empowerment of the indigenous people, it brings invaluable information for the local context and the non-formal means in which indigenous knowledge is disseminated provides a successful model for further DRR education. It is however only valid if this knowledge is based on experience, tested over centuries, adapted to local culture and the environment and remains dynamic and changing, as both people and our environment keeps changing.
It can be difficult to include though, as some of the knowledge is not scientifically provable – or maybe not yet. The fine line between inclusion and not allowing people to cry wolf without proof is a difficult one to walk on, and most governments rather opt to ignore local knowledge, experience and wisdom rather than to try to adopt and include it in their DRR and DM practice. It is a pity, as in Yogyakarta – an outlier in Indonesia in that it places great value on local knowledge and wisdom in its DRR – seems to have profited quite a lot from it, especially around the Merapi Volcano. It needs to be kept in mind though that experience is not always the key to successful tactics: the gatekeeper of Merapi died in the 2010 eruption, as he stayed in a place close to the volcano that had never before been hit by the eruption. However, as circumstances and the environment change around us, local knowledge has not yet had the chance to adapt – and can thus become fatal, if it is the only knowledge contingency plans are made with. This lecture was great, as it sparked quite a bit of discussion and gave me something to mull over and to further research – including local people and their knowledge is generally one of the goals in Disaster Management in all phases. But how that is put in practice differs greatly from region to region and from country to country, so I was glad to learn about the practices in Indonesia and the Philippians.