A declaration should not be the only door to help

To the Resilience Council,

I support RS-001. A small business should not have to choose between waiting for an insurance decision and finding the cash to reopen. But I want to warn the Council about one possible unintended consequence: if bridge funding depends only on a formal disaster declaration, people with real, documented losses may still be left outside the door.

In February, water entered the place where I work in Jakarta during flooding from 11 to 13 February. I will not name my business or describe what it does. I can say what the interruption cost me: Rp8.4 million for cleaning and replacing damaged equipment, and about Rp12.6 million in income I could not earn while the space was unusable. Those figures are not a forecast or a request for special treatment. They are what I wrote down while trying to work out how to reopen.

I took photographs and kept the receipts I had. I spoke with my RT and RW and went to the kelurahan to ask what local documentation I could obtain. I also contacted BPBD DKI Jakarta to understand how to record the impact. These steps mattered: an insurer or assistance program needs evidence, and local records can help establish what happened. But gathering evidence takes time, especially when the owner is also cleaning, arranging repairs and trying to keep up with ordinary bills.

I submitted an insurance claim on 18 February. By 3 March I had not received a decision. I am not attributing a statement or motive to the insurer. My point is narrower: a claim can be pending while costs are already due. A promise of a decision within 30 days would be meaningful to me, but only if the owner knows when the clock starts and what documents

are still missing. Otherwise, “30 days” can sound definite while the file sits in uncertainty.

There is a second gap. Indonesian law provides for disaster status to be determined at the appropriate level of government; for a city or regency, that role rests with the mayor or regent. That formal process serves an important purpose. But the standard should not make a formal declaration the sole proof that a very small business has suffered a serious interruption. My understanding was that the flooding affecting my street did not have a separate citywide disaster declaration. A neighborhood can be badly affected even when the event does not produce the kind of declaration a funding program expects.

That is why I support the proposed 10-day bridge-funding goal, with a safeguard. Where there is no formal declaration, the route should remain open for a small, capped first payment based on credible local evidence—such as dated photographs, receipts, and confirmation from local administrative or disaster-management channels. That would not mean accepting every claim without checks. It would mean that the check is proportionate to the amount and the evidence, rather than making access depend on a document the owner cannot obtain.

I would also ask the Council to make the claims deadline practical. Start the 30-day decision period when the insurer has the required claim materials, but require a prompt, clear list of missing items so the owner is not left guessing. A decision should give reasons, including when a claim is refused. That protects both sides: insurers can assess properly, and owners can understand what to do next instead of losing time to repeated requests.

Finally, continuity planning support should be available before a disaster, not only afterward. A short plan that helps an owner keep copies of records, identify a way to contact staff, and understand which local offices to approach would have helped me. It need not be an expensive consultant or a thick manual. It should fit the time and capacity of a micro business.

Notes and sources

1. UNDRR, “Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises.” ↩

Sources

1. UNDRR, Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises