GS Notes

4. Disaster Management Notes 03

13 min read

Elaborate Notes

Proactive Approach to Disaster Management

The modern paradigm of disaster management (DM) is defined by a proactive, cyclic approach, a significant departure from the earlier reactive, relief-centric model. The National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) of India, aligned with global frameworks, embodies this shift.

  • The Disaster Management Cycle: This is a conceptual framework illustrating the continuous process of managing disaster risks. It is typically divided into pre-disaster and post-disaster phases.

    • Pre-Disaster Phase: This phase focuses on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR).
      • Mitigation: Structural and non-structural measures undertaken to limit the adverse impact of natural hazards. For example, constructing cyclone shelters (structural) or enforcing zonal building codes in seismic areas (non-structural).
      • Preparedness: Activities and measures taken in advance to ensure an effective response to the impact of hazards. This includes developing early warning systems, conducting mock drills (e.g., the national-level earthquake preparedness drill ‘HimVijay’ conducted by the NDMA), and maintaining emergency response teams like the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF).
    • Post-Disaster Phase: This phase is initiated immediately after a disaster strikes.
      • Response: Actions taken immediately following a disaster to save lives, meet basic human needs, and reduce economic losses. This includes search and rescue (SAR) operations by teams like the NDRF, and providing immediate relief like food, water, and first aid.
      • Recovery: The process of restoring and improving the community’s conditions post-disaster. It is a long-term process with two key components:
        • Rehabilitation (Rehab): The initial stage of recovery focusing on immediate needs to restore normalcy. This includes providing temporary shelters, food, and essential medical support to the affected population.
        • Reconstruction: The long-term process of rebuilding infrastructure, services, and livelihoods. Modern approaches emphasize the principle of ‘Build Back Better’ (BBB). As articulated by the United Nations after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and formally integrated into the Sendai Framework, BBB means using the recovery and reconstruction phase as an opportunity to build more resilient communities by improving building standards, diversifying livelihoods, and strengthening governance systems. For instance, after the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, new constructions in Gujarat were mandated to follow stricter seismic codes.

  • Shift from Managing Disasters to Managing Risk: The cyclic approach signifies a fundamental shift from merely managing disasters (a reactive stance) to proactively managing disaster risk. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is central to this, focusing on systematically analysing and reducing the causal factors of disasters. It involves reducing exposure to hazards, lessening vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improving preparedness.

Evolution of International Approaches to Disaster Management

The global understanding and framework for disaster management have evolved progressively over the past six decades, driven by major catastrophic events and a growing consensus on the need for international cooperation.

  • 1970s - The Genesis: Following a series of devastating disasters in the 1960s, including the 1970 Bhola cyclone in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) which killed an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people, the international community recognized the need for a coordinated response. This led to the establishment of the Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator (UNDRO) in 1971. Its primary mandate was to mobilize and coordinate international relief efforts.

  • 1990s - The Decade of Reduction: Based on the experiences of the 1970s and 1980s, the UN General Assembly, through Resolution 44/236 in 1989, designated the 1990s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) (1 Jan 1990 – 31 Dec 1999). The goal was to reduce loss of life, property damage, and socio-economic disruption caused by natural disasters, especially in developing countries, through concerted international action.

  • 1994 - The Yokohama Strategy: At the midpoint of the IDNDR, the first World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction was held in Yokohama, Japan. It produced the Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World. This was a landmark document as it marked the first formal international articulation of a shift from a post-facto response to pre-disaster proactive measures, introducing concepts of prevention, preparedness, and mitigation into the global discourse.

  • 1999 - Institutionalization of Strategy: At the conclusion of the IDNDR, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) was established to act as the successor to the IDNDR secretariat. In 2019, its name was updated to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) to more accurately reflect its focus on risk rather than just disasters.

  • 2005 - The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA): The Second World Conference on Disaster Reduction was held in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, in the immediate aftermath of the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. It adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. The HFA was instrumental in solidifying the concept of resilience and emphasized the need to integrate DRR into sustainable development policies and planning, thereby completing the conceptual disaster management cycle by linking recovery with mitigation.

  • 2015 - The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR): The Third UN World Conference on DRR in Sendai, Japan, adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. It is the current global blueprint for managing disaster risk. It is a comprehensive, people-centred framework with a clear scope, targets, and priorities.

    • Four Priorities for Action:
      1. Understanding disaster risk: Involves comprehensive risk assessment based on hazard, exposure, and vulnerability data.
      2. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk: Emphasizes clear institutional, legal, and policy frameworks.
      3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience: Advocates for both public and private investment in structural and non-structural DRR measures.
      4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction: Focuses on improving response mechanisms and ensuring that recovery efforts reduce future risk.
    • Seven Global Targets:
      • (a) Substantially reduce global disaster mortality.
      • (b) Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally.
      • (c) Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global GDP.
      • (d) Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services.
      • (e) Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local DRR strategies.
      • (f) Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries.
      • (g) Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information.

  • Integration with Global Agendas (Post-2015): The year 2015 was pivotal, witnessing the adoption of three other major global frameworks: the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the New Urban Agenda. There is a strong coherence among these frameworks. For example, achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities), and SDG 13 (Climate Action) is intrinsically linked to the targets of the Sendai Framework. Similarly, the Paris Agreement’s focus on adapting to climate change directly addresses the need to manage the increasing frequency and intensity of climate-related hazards (droughts, floods, storms), a key concern of the SFDRR. This convergence promotes a ‘risk-informed sustainable development’ approach, where development actions are designed with a clear understanding of potential disaster risks.

Chronology of the Development of the DM Framework in India

India’s approach to disaster management has mirrored the global shift from a reactive to a proactive model, catalysed by major domestic disasters.

  • Constitutional Position: Disaster Management as a subject is not explicitly mentioned in the Union, State, or Concurrent Lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. However, several committees have recommended its inclusion.

    • The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2002) recommended its inclusion in the Concurrent List.
    • The High Powered Committee (HPC) on Disaster Management, set up in 1999 under the chairmanship of J.C. Pant, also made a similar recommendation.
    • The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in its third report, “Crisis Management” (2006), reiterated this suggestion to ensure a uniform and robust legal and administrative framework across the country. To date, this recommendation has not been implemented.

  • Pre-2005: The Ad-hoc, Reactive Era:

    • Following the Yokohama Strategy (1994) and the declaration of the IDNDR, India established a crisis management cell. However, the nodal ministry was the Ministry of Agriculture, reflecting a focus primarily on drought and flood relief.
    • The approach was ad-hoc and event-based. After a disaster, relief and response were organized, and once normalcy was restored, the ad-hoc setup was dismantled. Political decision-making was vested in bodies like the Cabinet Committee on Security.
    • The 1999 Odisha Super Cyclone, which caused over 10,000 deaths, was a watershed moment that exposed the inadequacies of this relief-centric approach and highlighted the need for a permanent, proactive institutional mechanism.

  • Post-1999 Reforms and the DM Act, 2005:

    • In response to the Odisha tragedy, the Government of India set up the High Powered Committee (HPC) under J.C. Pant. Its key recommendations were:
      1. Shift the nodal responsibility for disaster management from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
      2. Create a separate entry for ‘Disaster Management’ in the Concurrent List of the Constitution.
      3. Enact a comprehensive national law on disaster management to create a permanent institutional framework.
    • The government accepted most recommendations. In 2002, the subject of Disaster Management was transferred to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami further accelerated the legislative process, leading to the enactment of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

  • Post-DM Act, 2005: The Institutional Framework: The Act established a comprehensive, three-tiered, and integrated institutional structure for disaster management in India.

    • National Level:
      • National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA): The apex body, chaired by the Prime Minister, responsible for laying down policies, plans, and guidelines for disaster management.
      • National Executive Committee (NEC): Chaired by the Union Home Secretary, it assists the NDMA and is responsible for preparing the National Plan and monitoring the implementation of policies.
      • National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM): Responsible for human resource development, capacity building, training, research, and documentation in the field of DM.
      • National Disaster Response Force (NDRF): A specialized force for responding to threatening disaster situations or disasters.
    • State and District Level: The Act mandates the creation of a similar institutional structure at the state and district levels to ensure vertical and horizontal integration.
      • State Level: State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) chaired by the Chief Minister, and a State Executive Committee (SEC) chaired by the Chief Secretary.
      • District Level: District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) chaired by the District Collector/Magistrate.

Prelims Pointers

  • UNDRO: Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator, formed in 1971.
  • IDNDR: International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (1990-1999).
  • First World Conference on Disaster Reduction: Held in Yokohama, Japan in 1994. It adopted the Yokohama Strategy.
  • UNISDR: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, established in 1999. Renamed UNDRR (UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) in 2019.
  • Second World Conference on Disaster Reduction: Held in Hyogo, Japan in 2005. Adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015).
  • Third UN World Conference on DRR: Held in Sendai, Japan in 2015. Adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030).
  • Sendai Framework Four Priorities:
    1. Understanding disaster risk.
    2. Strengthening disaster risk governance.
    3. Investing in DRR for resilience.
    4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better”.
  • Sendai Framework Seven Global Targets: Reduce mortality, affected people, economic loss, infrastructure damage; Increase countries with DRR strategies, international cooperation, and access to early warning systems.
  • Nodal Ministry for DM in India before 2002: Ministry of Agriculture.
  • Nodal Ministry for DM in India after 2002: Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
  • High Powered Committee (HPC) on DM (1999): Chaired by J.C. Pant.
  • The Disaster Management Act was enacted in India in 2005.
  • NDMA Chairman: Prime Minister of India.
  • NEC Chairman: Union Home Secretary.
  • SDMA Chairman: Chief Minister of the State.
  • DDMA Chairman: District Collector / District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner.
  • Committees that recommended placing DM in the Concurrent List: NCRWC, J.C. Pant Committee (HPC), and 2nd ARC.

Mains Insights

The Paradigm Shift: From Reactive Relief to Proactive Risk Reduction

  • Cause-Effect Analysis: The global and national shift in disaster management philosophy was not academic but driven by catastrophic events. The increasing frequency and intensity of disasters, coupled with spiralling economic losses and human casualties (e.g., 1999 Odisha Cyclone, 2001 Bhuj Earthquake, 2004 Tsunami), demonstrated the unsustainability of a purely post-disaster, relief-based approach. The realisation that “a dollar spent on prevention is worth many more spent on relief” became a policy driver. This shift moves the focus from the ‘event’ (the disaster) to the ‘factors’ (vulnerability and hazard), aiming to address the root causes of risk.
  • Historiographical Viewpoint: Early disaster management was seen through a lens of ‘Acts of God,’ implying events that were unavoidable and to which humanity could only react. The modern viewpoint, influenced by scholars like Kenneth Hewitt (“The Vulnerability of a Place is a Socially Constructed Phenomenon,” 1983), reframes disasters as a product of the interaction between a natural hazard and a vulnerable society. This perspective places the onus on governance, development planning, and social structures to reduce vulnerability, thereby mitigating disaster risk.

Integration: The Key to Resilience

  • DRR and Development: The Hyogo and Sendai frameworks critically underscore that DRR cannot exist in a silo; it must be mainstreamed into all development planning. Ill-conceived development projects (e.g., construction in floodplains, deforestation of slopes) can create new risks or exacerbate existing ones. Conversely, ‘risk-informed development’—where infrastructure projects, urban planning, and agricultural policies are designed with disaster risk assessment—builds long-term resilience.
  • DRR and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA): The concerns of the Sendai Framework and the Paris Agreement are deeply intertwined. Climate change is a key driver of disaster risk, amplifying meteorological and hydrological hazards. Therefore, effective CCA strategies (e.g., developing drought-resistant crops, building coastal defences against sea-level rise) are also effective DRR measures. Integrating these two fields avoids duplication of effort, optimizes resource allocation, and creates synergistic outcomes for building resilience.

Challenges in the Indian DM Framework

  • Implementation Gaps: While the DM Act, 2005, provides a robust legal and institutional framework, its implementation on the ground remains a challenge. DDMAs in many districts are often dormant or lack the financial and technical capacity to perform their functions effectively. The focus often remains on response rather than on mitigation and preparedness planning.
  • Financial Constraints: The primary financial mechanisms, the National and State Disaster Response Funds (NDRF & SDRF), are mandated to be used primarily for response and immediate relief. There is a need for dedicated, accessible funding for mitigation projects at the local level to translate risk reduction plans into action.
  • Last-Mile Connectivity: While early warning systems have improved significantly (e.g., IMD’s cyclone warnings), ensuring that these warnings reach the most vulnerable communities in a timely and understandable manner remains a critical challenge. Community-based disaster management and participatory risk assessment need to be strengthened.

The Constitutional Debate: DM in the Concurrent List

  • Argument for Inclusion: Placing Disaster Management in the Concurrent List, as recommended by the 2nd ARC, would provide a strong constitutional mandate and legal uniformity. It would enable the Union government to frame a national law that states must comply with, ensuring a minimum standard of preparedness and response across the country. It would also facilitate better Centre-State coordination in resource mobilisation and deployment during large-scale disasters.
  • Argument Against Inclusion (and Counterview): Critics argue this could lead to over-centralization and encroach upon the domains of states, as ‘public order’ and ‘public health’ are state subjects. However, the multifaceted and often trans-boundary nature of disasters necessitates a coordinated national effort that a Concurrent List entry could legally facilitate, without necessarily undermining the state’s primary role in implementation. The framework could be designed to be cooperative rather than coercive.

Graph View