CREDIT 1

FUNDAMENTALS OF DISASTER
MANAGEMENT

SEMESTER 4TH
DISASTER MANAGEMENT
 DISASTER
• A disaster is a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or
society and causes human, material, and economic or environmental losses that exceed the
community’s or society’s ability to cope using its own resources. Though often caused by nature,
disasters can have human origins.
 
                (Vulnerability+ hazard ) / capacity   =  disaster    
 
• A disaster occurs when a hazard impacts on vulnerable people.
• The combination of hazards, vulnerability and inability to reduce the potential negative
consequences of risk results in disaster.
 HAZARD
• A hazard is a threat and future source of danger and has potential to cause harm to man, human
activities, properties and environment in future. 
• The earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cyclones, floods, landslides, accidents and other such
events are examples of natural or manmade hazards. 
• The hazards represent the “potential” to harm rather than the “harm” itself. They remain
hazards until they really lead to the harms.
• Once they cause injury or loss of human / animal lives, damage to property, disruption in socio-
economic activities or environmental degradations; they become disasters.
How a Hazard turns into Disaster?
•The environmental events themselves are no hazard. The environmental events become
hazards once they threaten to affect society and/or the environment adversely. For instance, a
volcanic eruption which does not affect human beings is a natural phenomenon but not a natural
hazard. If the same volcanic eruption occurs in a populated area, it becomes a hazard.
•When a hazardous event causes unacceptably large numbers of fatalities and/or overwhelming
property damage; it becomes a disaster. In areas where there are no human interests, natural
phenomena do not constitute hazards nor do they result in disasters.

Risk from Hazards

Risk refers to the measure of the expected losses due to a hazard event. The level of risk depends
upon the nature of the hazard, vulnerability of the people/ area, economic value of the affected
elements etc.  An area or community is said to be at risk when it is exposed to the hazards and is
likely to be adversely affected by these hazards.
Types of Hazards
Hewitt and Burton (1971) classified the hazards into the following five heads viz. Atmospheric
(Single element), Atmospheric (Combined elements / events), Hydrologic, Geologic, Biologic and
Technologic.
 VULNERABILITY

• A set of prevailing conditions which adversely affect the community’s ability to prevent,
mitigate, prepare for or respond to a hazard.
• Absence of coping strategies is also a part of vulnerability and has to be considered in
vulnerability assessment e.g. Living in hazard prone locations like near to a sea or river, above
the fault lines, at the base of a mountain etc.
Types of Vulnerabilities in Disaster Management

1. Physical Vulnerability
The physical vulnerability of an area also depends on its geographic proximity to the source and origin
of the disasters e.g. if an area lies near the coast lines, fault lines, unstable hills etc. it makes the area
more vulnerable to disasters as compared to an area that is far away from the origin of the disaster.
Physical vulnerability includes the difficulty in access to water resources, means of communications,
hospitals, police stations, fire brigades, roads, bridges and exits of a building or/an area, in case of
disasters. Furthermore, the lack of proper planning and implementation in construction of residential
and commercial buildings results in buildings that are weaker and vulnerable in earthquakes, floods,
landslides and other hazards.

2. Economic Vulnerability
Economic vulnerability of a community can be assessed by determining how varied its sources of
income are, the ease of access and control over means of production (e.g. farmland, livestock,
irrigation, capital etc.), adequacy of economic fall back mechanisms and the availability of natural
resources in the area.
3. Social Vulnerability
A socially vulnerable community has weak family structures, lack of leadership for decision making and conflict
resolution, unequal participation in decision making, weak or no community organizations, and the one in which
people are discriminated on racial, ethnic, linguistic or religious basis. Other social factors such
as culture, tradition, religion, local norms and values, economic standard, and political accountability also play a
vital role determining the social vulnerability of a community
 Social vulnerability to natural phenomena is greatest among the poorest people in developing countries owing to a
lack of information and resources with which to take the appropriate measures. Within this group, children, women
and the elderly are considered to be the most vulnerable. To reduce social vulnerability, all of the above factors
must be addressed but this requires knowledge and understanding of the local conditions, which can – in most
cases – only be provided by local actors.

4. Attitudinal Vulnerability
A community which has negative attitude towards change and lacks initiative in life resultantly become more and
more dependent on external support. They cannot act independently. Their sources of livelihood do not have
variety, lacks entrepreneurship and do not possess the concept of collectivism. This brings about disunity and
individualism in the society. Thus, they become victims of conflicts, hopelessness and pessimism which reduces
their capacity of coping with a disaster.
 EXPOSURE
• The situation of people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities and other tangible human assets located in
hazard-prone areas.
• Exposure is one of the defining components of disaster risk.
• Risk=hazard x exposure x vulnerability
• If a hazard occurs in an area of no exposure, then there is no risk.
• The extent to which exposed people or economic assets are actually at risk is generally determined by how
vulnerable they are, as it is possible to be exposed but not vulnerable.
• However, increasing evidence suggests that the case of extreme hazards the degree of disaster risk is a
consequence of exposure more than it is a result of vulnerability.
• For instance, in the case of the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami all those exposed to tsunamis were at
risk, no matter their income, ethnicity or social class.
What drives exposure?

• People and economic assets become concentrated in areas exposed to hazards through processes such as
population growth, migration, urbanization and economic development. Previous disasters can drive
exposure by forcing people from their lands and to increasingly unsafe areas. Consequently, exposure
changes over time and from place to place.

• Many hazard prone areas, such as coastlines, volcanic slopes and flood plains, attract economic and
urban development, offer significant economic benefits or are of cultural or religious significance to the
people who live there. As more people and assets are exposed, risk in these areas becomes more
concentrated.

•  At the same time, risk also spreads as cities expand and as economic and urban development transform
previously sparsely populated areas.

• Large volumes of capital continue to flow into hazard-prone areas, leading to significant increases in the
value of exposed economic assets. If global exposure continues to trend upwards, it may increase
disaster risk to dangerous levels.
 CAPACITY
• A combination of all the strengths and resources available within a community, society or
organization that can reduce the level of risk, or the effects of a disaster. Capacity may include
physical, institutional, social or economic means as well as skilled personal or collective
attributes such as leadership and management.
• Capacity may also be described as capability.
• Some examples of capacity are: permanent houses, ownership of land, adequate food and income
sources, family and community support in times of crisis, local knowledge, good leadership etc.
TYPES OF CAPACITIES IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT
1. Physical capacity
Physical capacity of a community or an area includes the equipment available, means of
communication, infrastructure available in the area like bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, drainage etc.
Availability of new water sources for drinking, irrigation and other purposes can also be counted in
physical capacity. Indigenous engineering and construction skills to build and repair infrastructure are
also a part of physical capacity.

2. Social Capacity
Social capacity includes the interpersonal and intrapersonal links in the community, relations and
motivations among the people and the amount of interaction between people. During and after a
disaster has struck in an area the ability of the local people to take action and guarantee the
sustainability of the ongoing projects. In some areas communities have organized themselves on street-
level or village level and have built small organizations for help in case of disasters or carrying our
other welfare activities in the area on volunteering basis e.g. CSO, youth organizations, CBOs etc.
3. Economic Capacity
Economics capacity comprises of the income of the community or an area, their savings,
earnings, production, business activities and availability of jobs and livelihoods. This capacity
also includes employable skills like mining, weaving, etc. GDP/ GNP of an area describes its
economic capacity.

4. Attitudinal Capacity
People fight and resist against plans and strategies that are not in line with their culture, ideology
or religion and this can limit their capacity and increase their vulnerability to disasters. Having
positive attitude towards involvement of women in community decision making, high awareness
on social issues and high motivation for projects which are of mutual benefit for whole of the
community can be regarded as an attitudinal capacity of a community e.g. if people have ‘We
perception’ instead of ‘I perception’ this brings a feeling and attitude of collectivism as opposed
to individualism in a society. 
Disaster Management Continuum or Cycle
• There are actually four phases in the disaster continuum: preparedness, response, recovery,
and mitigation.

• We refer to this as a “continuum” or “cycle” because it is continuous, and one phase may
blend into the next without a clear beginning or ending.

• The Recovery Phase starts soon after the disaster occurs and lasts an extended period of
time, even up to several years.

• How soon this phase begins and how long it lasts is directly related to the severity of the
disaster and the affected community’s level of preparedness.

• The goals of the recovery phase are to address the disaster-related needs of disaster
survivors and to restore community infrastructure. 
• Prevention – actions undertaken in advance. Sometimes this is referred to as mitigation.
Examples include back-burning or constructing sea walls to protect from tidal waves, having
alternative sources of electricity or alternative communication systems in place. Prevention
activities should be happening all the time.

• Preparedness – making arrangements, creating and testing plans, training, educating and
sharing information to prepare communities should an emergency eventuate. These are also
actions and they are happening all the time.

• Response – the assistance and intervention during or immediately after an emergency. Focus
is on saving lives and protecting community assets (buildings, roads, animals, crops,
infrastructure). Usually measured in hours, days or weeks.

• Recovery – the coordinated process of supporting emergency-affected communities in

reconstruction of physical infrastructure and restoration of emotional, social, economic and
physical wellbeing. Usually measured in months and/or years.
 Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
• DRR – disaster risk reduction – is the process of protecting the livelihoods and assets of
communities and individuals from the impact of hazards.
• The hazards can be natural or human derived, and include earthquakes, floods, cyclones,
droughts, price spikes, conflict and contagious diseases. DRR limits the negative impacts of these
events by working to reduce their size, strength or how often they occur, and building the
capacity of the people exposed to these hazards to anticipate, survive, and recover from them.
• Disasters come in all shapes and sizes, and so the tools we use to reduce risk are just as varied.
DRR can include: 
•infrastructure designed to reduce risk (like retaining walls, check dams, embankments and terraces)
•natural resource management (for example, reforestation)
•agricultural interventions (introducing crop varieties)
•behaviour change (e.g., peace-building processes and addressing some of the inequalities that make
some people more vulnerable than others)
•evacuation procedures and safe shelters
early warning systems and preparedness planning for improving response to these events when they
happen.

The first steps

DRR always starts with a risk analysis – and the projects that Concern runs under the disaster risk
reduction banner are always context specific, and address particular hazards in particular places.
Different communities deal with risk in different ways, and are exposed to different hazards in different
ways.
Hazards are influenced by lots of factors such as policies, population demographics and climate change,
and these risks can change through time.
This complexity must be understood before any meaningful intervention is made, and this is the role of a
risk analysis
Concern and Disaster Risk Reduction
In most countries where we work, we can’t expect any greater depth of analysis other than on a broad national, or
sometimes regional, level.
Here, we look into hazard dynamics at the community level, starting with an identification of all hazards that may
happen, and then understanding them in greater detail.
We also analyze vulnerability: who is most impacted by hazards and what the reasons are for the differing
impacts on different people. We also look at capacity: what the community, government, other institutions, and
Concern can or are doing to limit these risks.

Listening to communities
Understanding the risk from the community perspective is critically important.

Local knowledge
Indigenous perspectives and knowledge are doubtlessly important shapers of the way we work, and ultimately,
the people who live in risk should have the last word on how risk is addressed and reduced.
Indigenous knowledge can also be used for early warnings.

The impact of climate change

With climate change, however, these indigenous signals derived from generations of observation may be
changing; but this uncertainty can also be captured and analyzed in a risk analysis, and still used for planning.
 DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT (2005)
• The disaster management act, 2005 came to force on 26th December 2005. It permits states to
have their own legislation on disaster management. The act comprises 11 chapters and 79
sections. It defines disaster and disaster management in its own way. It provides an institutional
mechanism for monitoring and implementation of the plans. It also ensures measures by various
parts of the government for the prevention and reduction of disasters. 
• The act under section 3 provides for the establishment of the National Disaster Management
Authority (NDMA). Under section 14 of the said act, the state governments shall create state
disaster management authorities and section 25 talks about the constitution of district disaster
management authorities. The act also provides for disaster response fund and disaster mitigation
fund at national, state and district levels.
Since the enactment of the disaster management law in 2005, it has adopted a new
multidisciplinary focus on disaster prevention and risk reduction and has moved away from a
relief-centred regime.

•The institutional structure under the Law required the creation of the National Disaster
Management Authority and the state disaster management authorities as bodies responsible for
disaster preparedness and risk reduction at the respective levels.

•The Disaster Management Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs maintained the
responsibility for directing the disaster response overall.

•And instructed the Ministries and Departments involved to prepare their own plans, in
accordance with the National Plan.

•The Act also contains provisions for financial procedures, such as the creation of funds, the
National Disaster Mitigation Fund and similar funds at the state and district levels.
National Disaster Management Authority
It is an apex statutory body created for disaster management in India. It was constituted on
27th September 2006. According to the Disaster Management Act, 2005 the PM acts as the
chairperson of NDMA. He further appoints 9 members for the committee. The main function
of NDMA is to make policies, plans, and guidelines for minimizing the effect of disasters. It
also gave guidelines on the minimum standard of reliefs such as to provide shelters, food,
clothes and all the basic necessities. It also lay down special provisions for widows and
orphans. This authority is assisted by the National Executive Committee.

National Executive Committee

The National Executive Committee is constituted under Section 8 of the DM Act, 2005 to
assist the National Authority in the performance of its functions.

The Home Secretary is the former chairman.

•The NEC has been tasked with acting as a department responsible for risk management,
preparation of the National Plan, monitoring of the implementation of the National Policy and
more.
State Disaster Management Authority
•The State Disaster Management Authority is managed by the Chief Minister.
•One of the members is elected as the Vice-Chairperson of the State Authority by the Chief
Minister of that state.
•Advisory Committee of experts may be made by state authority.
•The State is responsible for the policies and plans for disaster management.
•The State Authority shall provide guidelines for minimum standards of relief.

Functions of SDMA
•Establish disaster management policies and plans for;
•Establish a state disaster management policy;
•Approved state plans in accordance with national plan guidelines;
•Establish guidelines to be followed by state departments;
•The Act maintains that the CM, in an emergency, would have the power to exercise all or some of
the powers of the State Authority, but the exercise of such powers will be subject to ex post facto
ratification by the State Authority.
District Disaster Management Authority
•Section 25 of the DM Act provides for the constitution of DDMA for all districts in a state.
•The District Magistrate / District Collector / Deputy Commissioner heads the Authority as Chairperson, in addition to
an elected representative of the local authority as Co-Chairperson, except in the tribal areas where the Chief Executive
Member of the District Council for the Autonomous District is designated as Co-Chairperson.
•In addition, in the district, where Zila Parishad exists, its Chairperson will be the DDMA Co-Chairperson.
•The District Authority is responsible for planning, coordinating and implementing disaster management and for taking
the necessary measures for disaster management, as set out in the guidelines.
•The District Authority also has the power to examine construction in any area of ​the district to apply safety standards
and provide relief measures and respond to a disaster at the district level.

National Institute for Disaster Management

The National Institute for Disaster Management was established as a statutory body under the DM Act. It is responsible
for planning and encouraging training and research in the area of disaster management, documentation and
development of an information base at the national level related to disaster management, prevention procedures and
measures to reduce it. Its main functions include:
•Development of training material.
•Formulate a comprehensive human resources plan.
•Provide inputs to governments.
•Develop educational materials for disaster management.
•Promote awareness.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR DISASTER MANAGEMENT PLAN (2016)

 Disaster management activities in the state of J&K with specific focus on the post disaster management (relief
and recovery & rehabilitation and reconstruction) activities in the wake of sept 2014 floods was undertaken in
the year 2016. The report was published and was submitted to the state legislature on 4 th July 2017.
Mandate of SAI, India
• The mandate of the SAI india, provided in the constitution of india (articles 148-151) and elaborated in the
cag’s duties, powers and conditions of service (DPC) act, 1971 legislated by parliament, includes audit of
public funds and expenditure, and operations and performance of public authorities.
• Performance audit of the proposed subject-matter, disaster management activities in the wake of floods of
sept 2014 in the state of the jammu & kashmir was covered under the mandate of the sai india and the office
of the accountant general (audit), jammu & kashmir, being the representing office of the sai, india in the state
undertook the performance audit of disaster management activities in the state of jammu & kashmir.
Scope of Audit
The performance audit was conducted as per the Performance Auditing Guidelines of the Comptroller and
Auditor General (CAG) of India by test-check of records of offices of two Heads of Departments, two
Divisional Commissioners (Kashmir and Jammu), seven Deputy Commissioners (Administrative heads of
districts) and other line departments of the districts covering the period between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
The sampled districts were selected based on profile of disasters in the State and expenditure incurred out
of the State Disaster Relief Fund (SDRF).

Audit Objectives
The prime objective of the performance audit was to assess whether disaster management structures,
institutional arrangements and policies were in place and were working effectively and actions taken for
prevention, mitigation, reduction of impact of disaster were effective, immediate and adequate. Audit also
aimed to check whether comprehensive risk assessment was conducted to identify the nature, location,
intensity and likelihood of major hazards and preparedness to deal with disasters in the future was
undertaken.
The performance audit also aimed to check whether the post-disaster activities about restoration of basic
public facilities and utilities were managed and monitored effectively.
Audit Findings
Lack of Institutional Mechanisms for Disaster Management.
The Disaster Management Act, 2005 provides for a disaster management framework that envisages
a continuous and integrated process of planning, organizing, coordinating and implementing
measures for prevention of disasters, mitigation or reduction of their risk and severity, capacity
building and preparedness to deal with any disaster, prompt response to disaster and undertaking
evacuation, rescue, relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction.
Audit observed that institutional gaps inhibited the ability of the State Government to prepare
cohesive disaster management plans and establishment and functioning of institutional mechanisms
as detailed below:
•The State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA), though established in April 2007, was not
fully constituted as its full-time members were not yet appointed [July 2016].
•the SDMA had met only once in 2012 in the last six years.
•the State Advisory Committee (SAC) responsible for making recommendations on issues relating
to disaster management had not been constituted.
•No Disaster Management Authority had been constituted at the divisional level (Jammu and
Kashmir).
•the Disaster Management Authorities constituted at the district level were non-functional.
Lack of Disaster Preparedness
The risk of inadequate disaster preparedness due to weak institutional structures was aggravated by shortcomings in the
Government’s pre-disaster preparedness and management activities as detailed below:
•The State Government had not conducted any assessment of hazards, vulnerabilities and risks in the State
•No risk maps for 13 multi-hazard districts, despite the funds for the same had been released by Government of India in
June 2014 under the Capacity Building grants for this purpose.
•The State Government established (February 2012) the State Disaster Response Force but no Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) had been prescribed for deployment of Force personnel.
•The State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) was short of its sanctioned strength by 28 per cent;
•69 per cent of its available manpower was deployed for duties not connected to disaster relief or response.
•The bulk of the Force had not undergone the mandatory orientation and specialized training courses on disaster
management.
•Specialists such as engineers, technicians, electricians, dog squads and medical/ paramedics were not available with the
Force.
•The earthquake resistant seismic designs had not been made mandatory for private buildings and disaster resistant
designs and retrofitting techniques were not ensured in re-construction of houses damaged during the floods of
September 2014;
•Disaster forecasting and early warning and alert systems were not established despite the release of funds;
•Emergency Operation Centres were not established;
•The capacity building activities including public awareness and preparedness as envisaged in the Disaster Management
Act had not been undertaken.
Conclusion
Despite multi-hazardous risks and occurrence of several disasters in recent past, the steps taken
by the Government to prepare for and mitigate the impact of disasters were not commensurate
with the task at hand. There were gaps and deficiencies in institutional arrangements, policy and
plan formulation as well as implementation of disaster measures. There was considerable scope
for improvement in the management of SDRF funds to both augment available resources as well
as to ensure its utilization for the intended objectives of disaster preparedness and relief.
The lack of preparedness as well as inadequate institutional mechanisms and processes including
internal control and monitoring mechanisms necessary to ensure efficient and timely relief and
rehabilitation on the occurrence of a disaster were self-evident in the disaster relief activities
following the drought of 2009, the Leh cloudburst of 2010 and floods of 2014. There were
deficiencies and delays in damage and need assessments, diversion of relief funds and delay in
reaching relief and assistance to the affected persons/families.