See: Yokohama declaration

Read about earthquake measurement here:

http://www.insightsonindia.com/2015/05/14/1-more-and-more-earthquakes-are-
detected-and-measured-around-the-globe-with-each-passing-year-write-a-note-on-
the-latest-technologies-involved-in-measuring-intensity-and-magnitude-of-
earthquakes-al/

(In anything to do with disaster management, find a way to work in:

 Differentiate between hazards and disasters; the former doesn’t necessarily
lead to the latter. It’s a question of the degree of resilience of infrastructure
to withstand the hazard
 Unity of command, assigning properly defined duties to various levels of
government
 Maintaining transparency all through the process
 Prevention is better than cure
 Vulnerable sections (children, women, and the elderly) should always be
kept in mind while doing anything
)

Globally, the frequency and magnitude of all kinds of natural disasters are on the
rise, due to changing global climatic patterns.

Types of crises:

1. Caused by acts of nature: climatic events (cyclones, floods, drought),

geological events (earthquakes, tsunamis etc.)
2. Caused by man’s effect on nature: environmental degradation, disturbance of
ecological balance
3. Accidents: nuclear, industrial, fire-related
4. Biological activities: public health crises, epidemics etc.
5. Hostile elements: war, terrorism, extremism, insurgency etc.
6. Failure of major infrastructure systems, such as grid electricity, large strikes
etc.
7. Crisis of crowds getting out of hand

Traditionally, the focus of state has been on emergency relief and immediate
rehabilitation, rather than holistic crisis management. Ideally, the responsibility of
the state should be to coordinate with local bodies, the civil society, and corporate
bodies, to address the factors leading up to the crisis, ideally to prevent their
occurrence, or at least try to reduce their ill effects.

There should be five-fold mainstreaming of disaster management through five

processes: Political, Technological, Socio-Educational, Developmental, and
Humanitarian.
Very often, crises do not emerge out of nowhere, but have a ‘life cycle’, that have
associated disaster management requirements:
 Pre-crisis, focus should be on preparedness to reduce risk, such as building of
embankments, developing warning systems, increasing plantations so reduce
landslides, improving watershed management to avoid droughts etc.
 During crisis, focus should be on emergency response, like evacuation,
search and rescue, provision of basic needs such as food, clothing, medicines
etc.
 Post crisis, focus should be on recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction

Focusing on pre-crisis risk reduction should be the cornerstone of any disaster

management strategy, as this has the potential to save thousands of life by adopting
simple preventative measures. The move towards creating such a preventative
disaster management strategy requires the existence of a ‘safety culture’, which
develops on the basis of inputs such as education, training and capacity building.

A framework for disaster management would incorporate the following elements:

 A policy framework backed by appropriate legal and institutional mechanism
 Assessment of risk including hazard analysis and vulnerability
 Risk awareness and planning for risk mitigation
 Developing early warning and quick response systems

India’s situation

Given its extent and geo-climatic conditions, large parts of India are susceptible to
earthquakes, floods, cyclones, droughts etc., and some areas are also vulnerable to
industrial, chemical and biological disasters. Even mid-intensity disasters cause
much more damage in India than they would in developed countries. These
disasters take a huge toll on resources; between 1996-2000, India lost about
2.25% of its GDP due to natural disasters. Much of this expenditure could have
been avoided with better planning, and measures for prevention and mitigation
research shows that every dollar spent on mitigation saves 3 to 5 dollars on relief
and rehabilitation.

Some of the major crises that India faces are:

1. Earthquakes: Major fault lines exist around the Himalayas; about 60% of all
the area in India falls within seismic zones 3-5 which can face moderate to
high intensity earthquakes. Our present state of knowledge doesn’t allow for
prevention or prediction of magnitude of earthquakes, so the best remedy
available is better building structures, and preparedness for R&R.
2. Cyclones: 76% of coastline is prone to cyclones and tsunamis. An effective
cyclone disaster prevention and mitigation plan requires efficient cyclone
forecast and warning services, rapid dissemination of warnings to the
 government agencies and the public, construction of cyclone shelters in
vulnerable areas, and a ready machinery for evacuation of people to safer
areas and community preparedness
3. Tsunamis
4. Floods: These occur regularly over about 10% of India’s area; during
monsoon months, almost all of the country is prone to flooding, including
even Rajasthan! Floods also affect urban areas like Mumbai, reflecting poor
urban planning, and continued lack of investment in storm water drainage
and sewerage
5. Droughts: Droughts occur when there is a serious shortage in the availability
of water. About 70% of all cultivable area in India is drought-prone. India
receives a very high amount of annual rainfall on average, but the variability
is also very high. Also, most of this rainfall is received in only about 100 days
during the monsoons. Our agriculture is heavily rain dependent.
6. Landslides and Avalanches: Occur frequently in tectonically active Himalayan
regions. Control measures include micro zonation so as to regulate
settlements in hazard prone areas, non-interference with the natural water
channels, construction of retaining walls against steep slopes etc.
7. Nuclear and Industrial Disasters: May be caused by chemical, mechanical,
civil, electrical or other process failures in an industrial plant due to accident
or negligence. After Bhopal, a number of stringent laws were put in place and
as a consequence, no other major industrial disaster has occurred; however,
smaller disasters continue to rise, with the rise in industrialization
8. Epidemics: water-borne, vector-borne, air-borne, person-to-person

These were examples of what one would call ‘rapid onset disasters’; the other
category of disasters is ‘creeping disasters’ or ‘slow onset’ disasters; some examples
of these are global warming, droughts, desertification and soil erosion, sea erosion,

Disaster management in India:

 First coordinated legislation in this regard was brought in 2005 in the form
of the Disaster Management Act of 2005; this act established the NDMA
under the PM’s leadership; it also provided for the setting up of SDMAs and
DDMAs; disaster management, thus, now has legal backing. The act also
provides guidance on budgetary allocations for this field. However, as of
2012, only a few states had properly functioning SDMAs and DDMAs
 While the 2005 Act mandated the setting up of National, State and District
level Disaster Relief and Disaster Mitigation Funds, only the national and
state disaster funds have become operational
 Disaster management as a subject does not find any mention in any of the
three lists of the Indian constitution- state, central, or concurrent. However,
the basic responsibility of disaster management has often rested with the
state governments, who have a Crisis Management Committee under the
Chief Secretary
  Panchayats are not at a stage to react effectively, so the basic responsibility
lies with the district administration, with the collector at its head
 The union government plays a key supportive role in terms of physical and
financial resources, and providing complementary measures such as early
warning systems and coordination of union departments, ministries, and
organizations; the National Crisis Management Committee under the Cabinet
Secretary oversees the efforts
 Funding comes out of the State Calamity Relief Funds (CRF), and top-up
assistance, if needed, is provided by the National Calamity Contingency Fund
(NCCF)
 The army maintains a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF)

Legal and Institutional Framework:

Given the multidisciplinary nature of disaster management, a totally centralized/
decentralized system won’t work well; it’s best if resources are drawn from various
levels of the government, and some functions drawn from the center, while others
from the states.

Thus, the legislation for disaster/crisis management needs to create agencies/

authorities at local/district/state and national levels, to create bottom-up
machinery, where the responsibility of immediate rescue and relief rests with the
district administration, financed by the state government, and topped up by the
central government.

The Disaster Management Act of 2005 defines disaster as a natural or man-made

event that causes substantial loss to life, property, and environment. It’s most
notable feature is that it set up a National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)
that has wide ranging powers; it does not only coordinate various different arms of
the governments, but also makes policies and issues executive orders. This is
counter intuitive, as this impinges upon the executive powers of the state and
district administrations, and is sub optimal.

In the interest of ensuring that front-end functionaries at the district and state levels
retain their autonomy in disaster operations, the act should be amended to ensure
that the NDMA (and the central government) plays a largely coordinating role. The
functions of the National Disaster Management Authority should ideally be:

 To recommend policies and lay down guidelines for preparation of different

disaster management plans and standard operating procedures
 To promote and organize vulnerability studies, research and evaluation
 To advise on parameters of categorization and on declaration of national and
state level disasters
 To develop expertise and knowledge in the field of crisis/disaster
management and disseminate to the field
 To develop and organize training and capacity building programmes
  To coordinate early warning systems
 To advise on use of the Disaster Management Funds

Even internationally, the practice is not to create a centralized command structure,

but to allow executive powers to the front-end functionaries. In India, thus, the state
and district administrations, and not the NDMA, should continue to have the
primary responsibility for disaster management. Executive authority in the hands of
administration that is closer to the actual scene of the disaster will ensure quicker
decisions.

Aside from ensuring this, the act should define types and levels of disasters, and
recommend appropriate level of government that should handle it. Disaster
management should also be taught as a subject in management and public
administration.

Risk Reduction

 Can be achieved by accurate forecasting, advance preparation, and manipulating

the natural hazards that can be manipulated

 Communities and local governments need to be actively involved with any

disaster risk reduction exercises; special efforts should be made to increase
awareness, particularly using all kinds of media, including social media

 Relevant laws such as land use laws, building byelaws, safety laws, and
environment laws should be effectively implemented

 Hazard and vulnerability analysis should become an integral component of all

disaster management plans:
 Seismic micro zonation of vulnerable areas, GIS and GPS mapping for flood-
prone areas, involvement of ISRO, NIC, NIDM etc. in the process, ranking of
areas on the basis of their vulnerability
 After identification of vulnerable areas, Disaster Management Plans should be
made (both Long Term Mitigation Plans, and Emergency Response Plans), and
these plans should be incorporated within the development plans of line agencies
and local bodies such as panchayats and municipal bodies

 Instruments should be developed for disaster mitigation:

 Proper environmental management
 Hazard reduction measures (such as construction of disaster resistant
dwelling, major civil engineering works, making appropriate zoning
regulations; existing schemes such as the IAY can be tweaked to make the
dwelling made under the scheme more disaster prepared
  In general, existing government schemes like IAY, Rajiv Gandhi Drinking
Water Mission, JNNRUM, NRHM should be appropriately tweaked to be more
disaster sensitive (think how)
 Effective enforcement of laws on encroachments, public health and safety,
industrial safety, fire hazards, safety at public places should be ensured. The
same applies to zoning regulations and building byelaws
 Early Warning Systems: Communications networks, with sufficient
redundancies should be established between the data collection point to the
points where hazard is likely to occur
 Resilience of communities should be built up: location specific community
training programmes should be undertaken, crisis management should be
brought into mainstream education
 Citizens in vulnerable areas should be encouraged to take out insurance
against disaster, maybe with some state help

Emergency Response Plan

This should have the following characteristics:

 Emergency plan should be made, and known to and accepted by all the
stakeholders. Unity of command should be the underlying principle of the plan,
clearly identifying responsibility at various levels
 Relief should be coordinated effectively as soon as possible, and with utmost
transparency
 Understanding of ‘Civil Defense’ by specialized agencies should be expanded to
include natural disasters
 Policemen, firemen, and home guards should be adequately trained in handling
crises

Recovery

 After a disaster, damage assessment should be carried out by multidisciplinary

teams in a transparent and participatory manner; NGOs should be involved, as
should the local communities
 Minimum standards of relief should be developed, and mobilized as quickly as
possibly, and should especially cater to special needs of the vulnerable
population (children, women, and the elderly)
 National Disaster Mitigation Fund and National Disaster Response Fund should
be maintained with enough funds

CAG Audit Report (2012)

Summary:

Findings:
 Despite considerable progress in setting up institutions and creating funding
arrangements, there are critical gaps in the preparedness level for various
disasters. The NDMA’s functioning in core areas is ineffective, and it has little
information or control over state-level work. NDMA’s guidelines are not binding
over the states. Coordination between NDMA and various nodal agencies remains
weak.

 National Disaster Response Fund is being utilized for various purposes other
than core disaster management functions; National Disaster Mitigation Fund was
yet to be established in 2012 (and there’s nothing on the internet about it still, so
doesn’t look like it’s been prepared).

 There has been some monetary outlays for communication systems for disaster
preparedness, such as Aerial Radars, Doppler Weather Radars etc., and in some
cases equipment has been purchased, but even where this has happened these
systems are not yet operational

 NDRF has a shortage of manpower, training facilities, and equipment. Only 7

states have SDRFs, and Regional Response Forces (RRFs) suffer from lack of
clarity about their role

 For specific disasters such as earthquakes, floods, cyclones/ tsunamis, droughts,

forest fires, chemical, biological, and nuclear disasters etc., in a large number of
cases no plans have been prepared for mitigation and management. Where such
plans have been made (such as in case of floods), only a handful of states have
done so, and even in them, infrastructure and capability remain weak.

Recommendations
 Summarize after reading the report

Introduction

NDMA characterizes disaster into 4 levels:

 L0 (preparatory phase, where focus is on institutionalizing disaster
management plans at all 3 levels of government, capacity building etc.)
 L1: Districts can handle
 L2: States can handle
 L3: Center has to get involved

Disaster Management Act, 2005

 Laid down the legal, institutional, financial, and coordination mechanisms at the
national, state, and district levels
 Focus moved from relief provision to preparedness and mitigation
 Made provision for formulation of NDMA under PM as the apex body to formulate
National DM policy (NPDM) and its monitoring; SDMAs under CMs, and DDMAs
under DMs
 NEC was to be the executive committee of NDMA
 Central government was to make a ND Relief Fund and a ND Mitigation Fund, also
an NDRF (force), that would hold 10 specially trained battalions (NDRF was
formed)

 National Institute for Disaster Management (NIDM) was set up to ensure capacity
building in the area of DM
 Nodal agency at the center moved from Dept. of Agriculture to Ministry of Home
Affairs; MHA was to be responsible for providing financial assistance in the wake
of natural calamities
 The DM policy, NPDM, was cleared by cabinet in 2009

Implementation progress:
 NDMA has been created, but given the state of flux, the erstwhile structure and
the new structure both coexist- in addition to the 3-tier structure of NDMA,
SDMA, and DDMAs, older NCMC (under Cabinet Secretary) and HLC continue to
function
 NDMA was meant to handle all kinds of disasters, but some kind like those
involving use of security forces or intelligence, like terrorism, hijacking, bomb
blasts etc. continue to be handled by NCMC
 NEC was to meet every 3 months, but between 2006-2012, met a total of 4 times.
It’s functioning was being done by MHA, including over the power to disbursed
the National Disaster Response Fund (was to be done by NEC, is being done by
MHA)
 NDMA has started taking on several projects, such as earthquake risk mitigation,
school safety, flood risk mitigation, micro-zonation of cities etc., but till 2012
hadn’t completed a single one, and oftentimes it found out that such projects
were already done by other agencies, so it quit =>better coordination is required
with nodal agencies
 In most states, SDMAs had never met since their constitution; by and large, state
and district level authorities were ineffective and non-functional
 NEC and MHA hadn’t formed a plan for DM until 2012 (this plan is meant to
address response, mitigation, and capacity building)
 Only a handful of states had formed state-level plans; NDMA thus failed at
coordinating
 National Disaster Mitigation Fund hasn’t been operationalized; some activities
that should have been covered under NDMF are illegally being conducted under
funds from ND Response Fund
 Communication capability focused projects such as National Database for
emergency Management, DM Synthetic Aperture Management Radar, Satellite
Based Communication Network, Doppler Weather Radars etc. haven’t been
completed and have been languishing
 Current programme of NIDM need to be evaluated to see if they provide any
value for money

There is thus a huge lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities, and coordination