The severe floods that have recently struck Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra have not only caused significant loss of life, widespread physical damage, and major disruption to public activities, but have also sparked intense public debate regarding disaster classification and the adequacy of government response.
The characteristics of the disaster across these three provinces are indeed complex: extreme rainfall driven by regional atmospheric dynamics, the geomorphological vulnerability of northern and western Sumatra, long-term environmental degradation, and limited capacity of flood-control infrastructure in several river basins.
The combination of these factors creates what disaster management studies refer to as a compound disaster—an event triggered by multiple hazards simultaneously, exceeding local response capacity in certain areas.
In such a context, it is understandable that the public questions whether the situation meets the criteria for a national disaster declaration. However, from a regulatory standpoint, the designation of a national disaster is based on formal parameters that are not always visible to the public, such as the scale of casualties, extent of damage, disruption of basic services, fiscal and operational capacity of regional governments, and cross-regional escalation. Without clear and tiered public communication, these differing perceptions can easily turn into social and political controversy.
In Aceh, floods have inundated hundreds of villages, with critical access points in several districts repeatedly cut off, disrupting logistics. In North Sumatra, damage to basic infrastructure has led to surging emergency needs, particularly in housing and sanitation. Meanwhile, in West Sumatra, flash floods and volcanic sediment-laden flows in upstream areas have intensified downstream flooding and landslides.
This simultaneous and dynamic situation requires strong multi-agency coordination—not only among provincial disaster management agencies (BPBD), but also between the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), the military (TNI), police (Polri), search and rescue agency (Basarnas), Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Ministry of Social Affairs, and district/city governments.
Unfortunately, coordination that is functioning on the ground is not fully reflected in public communication due to information gaps. This gap has fueled perceptions of state absence, even though search-and-rescue operations, deployment of heavy equipment, establishment of public kitchens, and logistical assistance have been carried out since day one by various government institutions.
In the era of social media, public perception often moves faster than facts, creating space for disaster politicization. Narratives have even emerged that prematurely judge national leadership, including President Prabowo Subianto, who has in fact issued cross-sectoral response directives.
In modern disaster management theory, government crisis communication is a strategic instrument that is as important as emergency response operations. Lack of message clarity, inconsistent data, and the absence of a single authoritative spokesperson significantly amplify speculation. This is evident in media dynamics and online discourse surrounding the Sumatra floods.
Strengthening Disaster Management Strategy
To address these challenges, two major agendas must be accelerated.
First, consolidation of a clear, adaptive, and information-driven command system. The Incident Command System (ICS), already adopted by BNPB, should be fully implemented, especially when disasters cross provincial boundaries.
A clearly designated commander would facilitate resource integration, accelerate decision-making, and minimize overlap among ministries and agencies. Strict implementation of ICS would also help prevent narratives suggesting fragmented government response.
Second, strengthening risk communication and crisis communication. The government must ensure that all information regarding the number of evacuees, damage status, critical locations, urgent needs, and technical explanations for disaster status classification is delivered regularly and in an integrated manner.
The ideal model of government communication is not occasional press conferences, but a sustained information flow through accessible official channels, reinforced by local governments as frontline actors. Clear explanations of why a situation does or does not meet national disaster criteria are crucial for maintaining public confidence.
In addition, this disaster momentum should be used to accelerate both structural and non-structural mitigation agendas. On the structural side, priorities include watershed restoration, rehabilitation of protected forests, construction of retarding basins, and strengthening flood-control infrastructure in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra, all of which should be integrated into current and next fiscal year priorities.
On the non-structural side, local governments must strengthen early warning systems, risk-based spatial planning, and public disaster education to improve community adaptive capacity.
The socio-political context, particularly on social media, cannot be ignored. Prolonged debates over national disaster status should not be turned into political commodities that weaken governmental legitimacy.
Instead, this event should serve as a catalyst to accelerate reform in national disaster governance. The central government can demonstrate its commitment through swift action, transparent communication, and consistent inter-agency coordination.
Conclusion
The major floods in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra have reaffirmed that Indonesia needs disaster governance that is not only technically resilient but also strong in public communication and perception management.
The complexity of disasters across these three provinces demands more structured national coordination, but also requires calm and clarity in messaging to prevent public polarization driven by misinformation.
Government response has in fact been relatively active, but its effectiveness must be strengthened through command integration, accelerated mitigation, and modernization of crisis communication. With this approach, Indonesia can not only reduce political speculation but also build a more robust disaster management system under the current leadership of President Prabowo Subianto.
[Professor of Economics, Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas YARSI, Research Director of GREAT Institute, and CEO of SAN Scientific]
