Thursday, December 1, 2016

NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY - Designed for FAILURE


In 2005, the  Government of India set up a Disaster Management authority at the Central level -  called the  National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)  as did almost all the State Governments at the State level, subsequently.  The whole concept,  as  presently named,  is inherently designed to be a big failure.

The name  Disaster Management implies and enjoins upon the officials working there to “Manage Disaster”.  This means that their work begins only after the disaster occurs.  As a consequence the whole thrust is on how to manage the situation  post – disaster,  i.e. how to provide relief to the affected people after the disaster occurs.  Clearly,  therefore,  the focus is on :-

·        Arranging for evacuation
·        Providing relief material
·        Providing medical support and medical supplies
·        Sending teams of doctors and/or engineers
·        Clearing the rubble


This is a highly capital-intensive,  procurement and logistics-oriented activity with huge expenditures involved – an activity that our bureaucrats greatly enjoy and revel in. As can be readily understood,  it gives the officials huge authority and importance as a dispenser of large amount of funds to “ Manage Disasters”.  It increases their importance simply because they hold the purse-strings and have authority on “priority allocation”.

On the other hand  if this authority was renamed as  “Disaster Prevention Authority” it would see a dramatic change in the focus and drastic reduction in costs incurred and greatly move towards long term solutions.

Let’s take the example of a disaster caused by  floods. The disaster management authorities,  as already mentioned above,  would be focused on supply chain.

·   How to reach all the affected people  by using boats, helicopters,  using trained manpower, 

·        Providing shelter to the displaced people

·        Providing food and medicines to the affected population

·  Disaster Mitigation Activity like pumping out water, restoring damaged buildings to be appropriate etc.


On the other hand,  a  Disaster Prevention Authority  would actually try to go to the root of the problem as to

·        why floods repeatedly occur in the area,

·    what needs to be done to prevent such floods, (which may involve  river beds cleaning, cleaning of drains well before the monsoon, increasing the size of the drainage pipes, ensuring that the garbage that goes inside the drainage pipes is prevented from getting into it, raising embankment levels, installing early warning systems etc.)

·        at the earliest signs of flood,  ensuring greater co-ordination and information dissemination with the weather forecast departments


These activities will also entail expenditure,  but they would go towards solving of problems before hand and in giving relief in the long term.

It’s my belief that the cost of prevention would be far less than the cost of relief.

·   Cost of prevention can be planned and budgeted and spread over time,  whereas  cost of relief comes under tremendous pressure because of public suffering.

·   Politicians insist on  doing things instantly and in such a situation, any questioning of  the relief measures because it appears to be exorbitantly priced is termed as insensitive or not relevant !



Another feature that distinguishes the two is that,  under the caption of Disaster Management,  there is no pressure to do any work till the disaster strikes . By definition,  if there is no disaster  then,  where is the question of managing it ? 

On the other hand Disaster Prevention extols people in authority to continuously study

·        Likelihood of disasters

·        Probable extent of damage

·        Ways and means of preventing the disasters

·        Mitigating its damaging effects

·     Finding long term solutions either to eliminate or reduce the occurrence of disasters.

I examined the National Disaster Management Authority Website to understand what objectives they had set for themselves.

Here is what the website says.

1 Preamble 1

1.1.1 The Context 1
1.2.1–1.2.2 Disaster Risks in India 1
1.3.1 Paradigm Shift in Disaster Management (DM) 1

2 Approach and Objectives 7

2.1.1 Vision 7
2.2.1–2.2.2 Disaster Management (DM) 7
2.3.1 Approach 8
2.4.1 Objectives 8

3 Institutional and Legal Arrangements 9

4 Financial Arrangements 15

5 Disaster Prevention, Mitigation and Preparedness 17

5.1.1 Disaster Prevention and Mitigation 17
5.1.2–5.1.3 Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Mapping 17
5.1.4 Increasing Trend of Disasters in Urban Areas 18
5.1.5 Critical Infrastructure 18
5.1.6 Environmentally Sustainable Development 18
5.1.7 Climate Change Adaptation 18

Preparedness 18

5.2.1–5.2.3 Role of Central Ministries and Departments, and States 18
5.2.4 Forecasting and Early Warning Systems 19
5.2.5–5.2.6 Communications and Information Technology (IT) Support 19
5.2.7 Strengthening of the Emergency Operations Centres 19
5.2.8–5.2.9 Medical Preparedness and Mass Casualty Management 20
5.2.10 Training, Simulation and Mock Drills 20

Partnerships for Mitigation and Preparedness 20

5.3.1–5.3.2 Community Based Disaster Preparedness 20
5.3.3 Stakeholders’ Participation 20
5.3.4 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) 21
5.3.5 Media Partnership 21

6 Techno-Legal Regime 23
 ..........


Para 1.3.1  states, very encouragingly :    There will be a paradigm shift, from the erstwhile relief-centric response to a proactive prevention,  mitigation and preparedness-driven approach for conserving developmental gains and to minimise loss of life, livelihood and property.

However,  this turns out be a mere pious statement of intent with no evidence in the subsequent pages of  the entire document that the above is the focus of this august Authority/Body.


Vision

2.1.1 To build a safe and disaster resilient India by developing a holistic, proactive, multi-disaster oriented and technology driven strategy through a culture of prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response.


Objectives

2.4.1 The objectives of the National Policy on Disaster Management are:

    Promoting a culture of prevention, preparedness and resilience at all levels through knowledge, innovation and education.

   Encouraging mitigation measures based on technology, traditional wisdom and environmental sustainability.

        Mainstreaming disaster management into the developmental planning process.

  Establishing institutional and techno-legal frameworks to create an enabling regulatory environment and a compliance regime.

   Ensuring efficient mechanism for identification, assessment and monitoring of disaster risks.

  Developing contemporary forecasting and early warning systems backed by responsive and fail-safe communication with information technology support.

      Ensuring efficient response and relief with a caring approach towards the needs of the vulnerable sections of the society.

      Undertaking reconstruction as an opportunity to build disaster resilient structures and habitat for ensuring safer living.

   Promoting a productive and proactive partnership with the media for disaster management.

So while the Vision Statement  pays the ritualistic lip-service to the “concept of prevention”  the cat is immediately out of the bag when you come to OBJECTIVES  Section  where out of 9 points  only one  verbatim repeats what is written in the VISION STATEMENT on Prevention  as a fine example of an efficient cut-and-paste  job.

In all fairness, it must be said that the NDMA Policy Document has a full chapter on Disaster Prevention and Mitigation  Ch 5 Titled “Disaster Prevention, Mitigation and Preparedness”  is spread over 5 pages (P 17 to 21) but a detailed reading will show it be largely an “administrator’s dream”  with almost every page  talking of setting up of various Operations Centres at all and sundry locations at Central, State And District levels – clearly aimed at creating more work for the IAS bureaucracy and,  by natural corollary,  give them more powers, authority and bigger budgets !! 


Please sample the following extracts (by way of examples)

As a first step towards addressing disaster vulnerabilities, Central Ministries and Departments, National agencies, knowledge-based institutions and DM authorities at the State and District levels need to carry out risk and vulnerability assessment of all disaster prone areas.

The establishment of Emergency Operations Centres at the National, State, Metro
and District level and equipping them with contemporary technologies and communication facilities and their periodic upgradation, will be accorded priority.

The creation of additional bio-safety laboratories of level IV will be addressed by the Nodal Ministry. There is a need to focus on creating adequate mortuary facilities.  Proper and speedy disposal of dead bodies and animal carcasses deserves due weightage.

Efficacy of plans and Standard Operating  Procedures (SOPs) are tested and refined through training, seminars and mock drills. The NDMA will assist the States/UTs in these areas and will also conduct mock drills in different parts of the country. State and District authorities will be encouraged to generate a culture of preparedness and quick response.

The participation of civil society stakeholders will be coordinated by the SDMAs and DDMAs. Civil Defence, NCC, NYKS, NSS and local Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) will be encouraged to empower the community and generate awareness through their respective institutional mechanisms. Efforts to promote voluntary involvement will be actively encouraged.

The only actionable statement regarding prevention is the following :

It is of utmost importance that critical infrastructure like dams, roads, bridges, flyovers, railway lines, power stations, water storage towers, irrigation canals, delta water distribution networks, river and coastal embankments, ports and other civic utilities are constantly monitored for safety standards in consonance with worldwide safety benchmarks and strengthened where deficient.


Other Examples of faff

Efforts should be made for setting up IT infrastructures consisting of required IT processes, architecture and skills for quick upgradation and updation of data sets
from the PRIs or the ULBs. A National Emergency Communication Network, involving contemporary space and terrestrial-based technologies in a highly synergistic configuration and with considerable redundancy, will be developed.


I, therefore, enjoin upon the Central Government and State Governments to begin  by renaming  these bodies and then,  in consonance  with the  spirit of a Disaster Prevention Authority’s  mandate,  rewrite its objectives and change its focus from work based post-disaster to continuous vigilance,  pre-disaster.



Another article on NDMA :