Yogyakarta — Indonesia stands as one of the most volcanically active nations on the planet, cradled within the volatile tectonic intersection known as the Pacific Ring of Fire. Geological data indicates the archipelago hosts a staggering total of 127 active volcanoes distributed across its vast maritime expanse. However, despite this immense geothermal hazard exposure, critical vulnerabilities persist in the country’s disaster mitigation infrastructure. Recent expert disclosures highlight a stark disparity in technological readiness, revealing that only a single volcanic observatory possesses a fully comprehensive, state-of-the-art monitoring facility.
The scope of Indonesia’s volcanic challenge requires continuous oversight by the Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (PVMBG), operating under the Geological Agency of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM). As experts debate the efficacy of current disaster response mechanisms, structural reforms and budgetary constraints have emerged as central themes in a nationwide discourse on public safety, institutional efficiency, and real-time early warning capabilities.
Categorization and Technological Disparities in Volcanic Surveillance
Volcanic activity across the archipelago is officially classified into three distinct categories by geological authorities. The primary focus of daily monitoring centers on Type A volcanoes—defined as active volcanic systems with documented records of magmatic eruptions dating back at least to the year 1600 AD. Out of the 127 active volcanoes nationwide, approximately 76 are classified as Type A, demanding rigorous, uninterrupted surveillance.
Speaking at a recent academic forum at Gadjah Mada University (UGM) in Sleman, Special Region of Yogyakarta, volcanologist Agung Harijoko emphasized the uneven distribution of monitoring technology. While numerous remote monitoring stations have been erected across distant islands and highlands, their technological sophistication varies drastically.
"In terms of quantity and observation posts, the facilities still differ widely because the most complete one is located at Mount Merapi," Agung stated during the panel discussion. "Mount Merapi has the most comprehensive monitoring, with the best technology available."
For other active volcanoes situated in remote areas, the PVMBG maintains regional geophysical stations. These posts feed seismic data back to headquarters in Bandung, West Java, which subsequently disseminates updates to the public via digital communication channels.
Nevertheless, Agung pointed out that basic early warning systems (EWS) rely fundamentally on real-time observation, primarily driven by seismometers. While many remote posts are considered operationally adequate, their reliance on basic seismic monitoring means they capture only the fundamental precursors of unrest. Furthermore, because these regional posts must first report their findings back to the central PVMBG office before public dissemination, communities living in isolated areas often face information delays unless they actively monitor official channels.
The Institutional Dilemma: Budget Constraints and Eselon Placement
The systemic challenges facing Indonesia’s volcanic monitoring network extend beyond hardware limitations into the realm of institutional governance and fiscal prioritization. Dwikorita Karnawati, former head of the Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysical Agency (BMKG) and a professor of environmental geology and disaster mitigation, highlighted that organizational structure significantly impedes the allocation of adequate resources.
Dwikorita noted that the PVMBG currently occupies an echelon II structural position within the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Because the ESDM portfolio predominantly oversees heavy economic sectors such as mining, energy resources, and mineral extraction, disaster mitigation frequently struggles for fiscal priority.
"So it loses out; disaster mitigation becomes the absolute last priority. The budget is lacking, even though volcanoes are becoming increasingly active and there are so many of them. They need technology that is truly commensurate with the challenges faced," Dwikorita explained.
Drawing from historical precedent, Dwikorita pointed to the transformation of the BMKG during the administration of former President Megawati Soekarnoputri. By elevating the agency’s status from an echelon II or echelon I office into an independent state agency, the government enabled a proportional expansion of authority and technological capability to meet contemporary meteorological challenges.
Proposals for Institutional Integration: Merging PVMBG with BMKG
In light of these persistent structural hurdles, Dwikorita has renewed her advocacy for a major institutional realignment. She proposes integrating the PVMBG directly into the BMKG, establishing it as a dedicated deputy agency possessing echelon I status, parallel to other major technical bodies.
This proposal diverges from alternative governmental directives—such as directives previously issued under President Prabowo Subianto—which have considered placing volcanic monitoring under broader geological frameworks. Dwikorita’s rationale stems from operational bottlenecks experienced during her tenure leading the BMKG. She recounted instances where her agency bore the statutory responsibility of issuing public early warnings for geological hazards, yet lacked direct control over the monitoring equipment and data-gathering infrastructure, which remained exclusively within the purview of the PVMBG.
"Because the lesson learned was that we could not issue early warnings directly, all facilities, monitoring equipment, and so forth were at the Center for Volcanology, while the early warning responsibility was with us," Dwikorita recalled. "Consequently, we could not perform the necessary analysis or calculations directly."
She first formally submitted this structural integration proposal in 2019 and reiterated the recommendation in 2023. According to Dwikorita, the separation of hazard monitoring from the issuing agency creates procedural friction that slows down critical response times during emergencies.
Learning from International Models: The Japan Meteorological Agency Paradigm
To substantiate her proposal, Dwikorita referenced international benchmarks, pointing specifically to the organizational framework of the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). In Japan, a nation similarly battered by seismic and volcanic hazards, all atmospheric, meteorological, and geophysical disaster management functions are consolidated within a single overarching institution.
This unified approach allows the JMA to orchestrate rapid responses to multifaceted crises—such as simultaneous tsunamis and volcanic eruptions—because all telemetry, seismic sensors, and atmospheric monitoring networks report to a centralized command structure.
"So for tsunami and volcanic eruption responses in Japan, it happens extremely fast because all facilities are housed within one institution. That is why we proposed this integration," she emphasized.
Crucially, Dwikorita clarified that her proposal does not advocate for absorbing the entire Geological Agency into the BMKG. The Geological Agency retains a broad mandate encompassing groundwater management, marine geology, mineralogy, and energy resource exploration—sectors unrelated to rapid-onset disaster response. Absorbing the entire agency, she warned, could dilute the BMKG’s core mission.
Instead, she advocates for carving out the specific volcanic and geological hazard mitigation functions of the PVMBG and merging them with the BMKG. This targeted merger, she argues, would eliminate bureaucratic duplication, align overlapping duties, optimize state budgets, and streamline disaster response protocols for an archipelago perpetually vulnerable to the wrath of its fiery peaks.
