The Impacts

This section reviews the impact of both disasters—the December 2004 tsunami in Aceh and the March 2005 earthquake in Nias.

3.1. Human Loss and IDPs

Within days of the December 2004 tsunami international news reports led the world to expect huge losses in Aceh. Nevertheless, it was several months before the world knew of the real extent of the death toll and the numbers missing, and of the continuing plight of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Aceh. Indeed, different agencies provided different numbers. The official death toll in Aceh was estimated at close to 167,000 by the Department of Social Affairs in mid-March 2005, and the number displaced was put at 811,000, of whom 920 were in hospitals while approximately 477,000 were living in refugee camps. Based on information collected during field visits and interviews, several organisations reported that children, women, and the elderly accounted for more than two-thirds of the tsunami victims (see also Athukorala and Resosudarmo, 2005). This meant that the demographic structure of many villages and towns hit by the tsunami had changed dramatically. By 1 June 2005, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, described the Aceh tsunami as “the largest natural disaster the organisation has had to respond to on behalf of the world community, in the 60 years of our existence” (UN Press Release SG/SM/9666 IHA/978, 6 January 2005).

In contrast, Nias did not suffer greatly as a result of the tsunami. The March earthquake resulted in a high local death toll which was, however, small in total compared to that in Aceh. The official BRR report reported that 850 people had been killed and 6,000 injured (BRR Nias, 2005).

As noted earlier, in response to the need for accurate demographic data after the disaster, BPS conducted the Aceh-Nias population census (SPAN 2005) in September 2005 (Table 2 [ PDF 103.4KB | 1 pages ]). The earthquakes and tsunami displaced a total of almost 900,000 people. In September 2005, almost 260,000 people still held IDP status. The data indicate that the districts of Aceh Jaya, Aceh Barat, Aceh Besar, and the city of Banda Aceh suffered most from the tsunami. Table 3 [ PDF 100.5KB | 1 pages ] provides rough estimates of the number of people killed and missing per region. Though it is impossible to determine the exact numbers more precisely, this seems to provide a reasonably accurate picture of the overall impact in terms of the numbers of people killed and missing. However, the impact of the earthquakes and tsunami was indeed concentrated in these areas.

It is important to note that the relatively high percentage of IDPs on Simeulue Island was not preceded by a high death toll. Only seven deaths were recorded on the island despite the fact that Simeulue is situated only about 100 kilometres from the epicentre of the March earthquake. The island was indeed severely hit by the December tsunami: approximately 5,500 houses were destroyed and hundreds of people were injured (Kompas, 1 April 2005). There are two probable explanations for the relatively small number of fatalities. First, the coastal ecosystem—the coral reef, sea grass, and mangrove forests—softened the force of the giant waves. Second, local customs and traditions on the island include important information about the warning signs of a tsunami: According to local tradition a tsunami is always preceded by the retreat of the sea, knowledge that has been transferred from one generation to another. Indeed, the retreat of the sea did occur on the morning of 26 December 2004. Local inhabitants who recognised the signs of an impending tsunami ran to the closest hills shouting “smong . . . smong . . . smong” (tsunami in the local language). Others took up the warning, running to the hills while contributing to the chorus of “smong . . . smong . . . smong”. This simple procedure proved to be very effective in Simeulue when the tsunami struck (Wetlands International–Indonesia Programme, 2005; Kompas, 1 April 2005). Sadly, in other areas of Aceh and North Sumatra such simple traditional mitigation procedures imbedded in local cultures had never existed or had been long forgotten. The experience in Simeulue suggests it is important to develop programs strengthening local knowledge about natural disasters. One way of doing so would be to introduce special training courses on natural disasters into the national elementary education system across Indonesia.

SPAN 2005 also provided information on the impact of the disaster on personal livelihoods and the daily lives of affected people (Table 4 [ PDF 83.3KB | 1 pages ]). Almost 265,000 people in Aceh and over 85,000 in Nias lost their sources of income; over 190,000 people in Aceh and almost 62,000 in Nias lost their houses; and around 391,000 people in Aceh and 539,000 in Nias suffered damage to their houses.

3.2. Physical Impacts

The immediate physical impacts of the December tsunami in Aceh and the March earthquake in Nias were tremendous. The tsunami wiped out practically all physical objects in many parts of Aceh’s western and northern coastal areas, flattening hundreds of thousands of houses, infrastructure of all kinds, and many other facilities (Table 5 [ PDF 104.3KB | 1 pages ]).

While the disasters in Aceh and Nias wrought similar types of devastation on local people, there was an important difference as to the causes. In Aceh, a great wave smashed buildings, cars, trees, people, and everything else in its path. Most of those who were able to climb up trees or onto roofs or those in higher storey premises, survived. In Nias, the earthquake preceding the December tsunami did not do much damage and caused few deaths. But things were quite different in March. The March earthquake in Nias destroyed numerous buildings. The fact that the March earthquake occurred when most people were asleep added to the toll because when the earthquake struck, houses collapsed and many sleeping occupants were buried. In addition, the typical construction of houses in urban areas in Nias also added to the fatalities. As is the case in other towns in Indonesia, typical urban houses in Nias are made of bricks that have usually replaced previous wooden structures. The foundations are usually not sufficiently strong for a brick structure because compliance with building codes is mostly lax. Worse, some homeowners add a second storey imposing additional strains on the inadequate foundations. This non- compliance with building codes is the main reason why four out of five houses in Nias were damaged (BRR Nias, 2005).

In many cases in poorer areas of Aceh and Nias, the heavy physical damage to infrastructure (such as falling bridges) was apparently due to the low quality of the structures or insufficient maintenance rather than to the severity of the natural disasters. In rural areas, lack of proper maintenance probably contributed to the destruction of schools or health facility buildings. In December 2005, the BRR announced its initial estimates of physical damage in Aceh and Nias caused by the natural disasters. In April 2006, the BRR corrected its estimates of damages, particularly regarding damages in Nias (Table 6 [ PDF 75.6KB | 1 pages ]).

3.3. Economic Impacts

The World Bank’s assessment of the total damage caused by the Aceh tsunami was US$4.45 billion, almost equal to Aceh’s GDP in 2003.⁵ Of this total, 60 per cent was estimated to be physical damage and 40 per cent was from losses of income flows through the economy. Almost 80 per cent of total damage and losses was borne by the private sector while the rest was borne by the public sector (World Bank, 2005). The Institute for Economic and Social Research (LPEM) at the Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia, estimated the total damage in Aceh to be slightly higher than the World Bank’s estimate at US$4.6 billion (LPEM, 2005). The World Bank also estimated the damage of the March earthquake in Nias to be around US$392 million. Therefore, after adjusting for predicted inflation, the World Bank put the expected cost of repairing the damage caused by the two disasters at around US$5.8 billion (BRR and International Partners, 2005).

According to the World Bank, Aceh’s GDP in 2005 could contract by 7–28 per cent of the 2004 level (World Bank, 2005). LPEM (2005) arrived at a slightly lower estimate than the World Bank’s upper estimate (22 per cent). The destruction in the province of North Sumatra was mainly concentrated in Nias, the poorest district in the province and one whose contribution to the overall regional economy is rather small. In Nias, the island economy was predicted to contract by around 20 per cent (BRR and International Partners, 2005).

The oil and gas industry in Aceh escaped the tsunami virtually unharmed. The most seriously affected sector in terms of both the number of casualties and capital destroyed was agriculture, particularly fisheries. (Soesastro and Ace, 2005).

According to information gathered by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, by mid-January 2005 approximately 55,000 fishermen and aquaculture workers were confirmed dead (approximately one-half of the total number of fishermen in Aceh) and around 14,000 were still missing. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported that 40–60 per cent of coastal aquaculture ponds along coastal Aceh and between 36,000 and 48,000 hectares of brackish-water aquaculture ponds (which mainly produced shrimp and milkfish) were seriously damaged. It is estimated that about 65–70 per cent of the small-scale fishing fleet and associated gear was destroyed in Aceh (FAO, 2005a).

In Aceh about 30,000 hectares of rice fields—around 10 per cent of the area under rice cultivation in the province—were badly affected. Soil salinity problems were the main concern. Fortunately, because of humid conditions, salt-polluted arable land was cleaned by rainfall and by irrigation water relatively quickly. A survey carried out by FAO in early 2005 indicated that salt deposited in more than two-thirds of the affected agricultural land was leached out within a few months allowing planting to resume in April and May 2005. It was estimated that only 9,000 hectares could no longer be used for farming (China View, 31 March 2005; FAO, 2005b).

The impact of the decline in Aceh’s GDP on Indonesia’s overall economic performance is expected to be small. Both the World Bank and the LPEM estimated that Indonesia’s GDP growth in 2005 was expected to be no more than around half a per cent less than the pre-tsunami growth forecast (World Bank, 2005; LPEM, 2005). An increase in poverty is probably the most serious economic problem caused by the tsunami and earthquake. In 2004, the Indonesian Central Agency of Statistics calculated that almost 30 per cent of people in Aceh were living below the poverty line. LPEM predicted that this figure could grow to around 50 per cent.

Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 1MB| 62 pages ].

Post a Comment

We welcome your feedback on this publication. Post a comment. ADBI is not obliged to acknowledge or publish comments and may abridge or edit them before web posting.

Comment(s)

There are [0] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.