T

he rain has lasted longer this year and is predicted to continue until April. The Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) has released warnings from late last year that as a result of climate change, the intensity of rainfall will sharply increase and thus is likely to raise the risk of hydro-metrological disasters.

In fact floods, landslides and windstorms are being reported practically everywhere. The National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) recorded 654 cases of disasters around the country since January this year, across 25 provinces.

Into the first two months of 2017, fatalities reached the alarming figure of 61. A few days into March eight more people died after severe floods and landslides hit Limapuluh Koto in West Sumatra. Floods inundated nearly 3,500 houses while an electricity outage cost the life of a newborn.

A landslide buried eight cars — along with their passengers — and cut off the only road connecting Padang to Riau.

In two months, the disasters of this monsoon season have grown to be no less than a horror story, except that not many seem to consider it that way.

Less media attention has been given to updates on natural disasters than the President’s latest barbershop experience. Oddly, this also seems to be true in places where the disasters took place.

Jakarta is one such example. Despite coming a bit later than usual this monsoon, floods affected thousands of houses and caused at least two fatalities — one was of a cleaning worker who drowned in floodwaters with a strong current while on duty.

The sad case did make it to the news for a day or two. What emerged from the reports however, was not a discussion about how to avert future deaths.

Instead, the news of floods raised the already tense dispute between supporters of governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama and the candidate who wishes to replace him in the runoff election this April.

The feisty governor has gone to great lengths to establish a flood-free Jakarta — including by controversial means such as forced evictions and initiating various projects to normalize sewers and rivers surrounding Jakarta.

To his opponents, recurring floods indicate failed policies. Evictions in particular have been accused of being not only an unsuccessful flood-mitigation measure, but also the cause of thousands losing their livelihoods and becoming poorer.

Au contraire, to his proponents, the fact that floods came a lot later this year shows that existing policies worked and need to be continued.

Social media is rife with such a battle of claims, funnily enough, even from those who clearly do not reside in
Jakarta.

Still, fundamental questions about floods remain: Should we review existing anti-flood policies and abort them if deemed necessary? Were evictions really useless? Should projects to build a giant sea wall continue — what are the pros and cons? The list goes on.

Social and mainstream media have failed to address these issues largely because, frankly, who can provide the answers, anyway? Not claims, lest the political ones, but evidence-based responses and maybe, a solution or two.

With lack of proof and scientific proposition, such debate has merely veered toward a battle of election vituperations.

At best it is entertaining albeit tiring, at worst it’s completely useless. As politics rarely solves scientific problems, flooding or others, the debate is left mid-sentence to no avail.

And this is where our misery lies. Solving scientific issues calls for scientific evidence. So far, we have had an absence of scientific voices offering lucid arguments as to what actions are needed to prevent floods from causing more damage in the future.

But why the silence — where are the scientists? What has prevented them from jumping into what is likely the most important debate of this year and many years before?

True, media should share some responsibility. On the screen and in print, it appears that flooding is suffering the fate of a cyclical topic: one that merits superficial scrutiny and is left to the devices of political strife on social media.

Scientists, however, could make a real difference.

I am particularly keen to hear hydrologists argue about what path should be taken next: if floods are inevitable in tropical Indonesia, what policy is best to mitigate losses?

Scientists on urban planning, public works, environmental studies, climate change, or any scientist with enough concern, would likely be able to add dimensions for a more inclusive policy. A plain to-and-fro presentation on social media platforms would work well too. Any form of engagement is invaluable.

Problem-solving is luckily science’s greatest gift to humanity. This time it is needed to settle the pressing issue of flooding, although it should work for climate change, health issues, exploitation of resources, and many more problems.

To unlock this gift, however, scientists need to speak truth to power and the public.

Only when evidence is put on the table will we hopefully be able to see the logical way out of this distress.

When scientists are missing from the public discourse we lose more than just our patience over rambunctious debate on Facebook or Twitter.

For real evidence-based policy, we need to hear their voices.
______________________________

The writer currently works for CNN Indonesia and manages MendadakSains.com to promote communication of science.