The destruction caused by heavy rains across north India is a grim reminder of how woefully unprepared India is to respond to natural calamities. laws defining the state’s role in such situations must be framed right away
As the scenario in flood-hit Uttarakhand is heading towards being disastrously grave, where hundreds have reportedly perished, thousands more are missing and many more have been made homeless, one has reasons to wonder whether our disaster management efficiency meets the international standards, or even the very least required standards. In books, the relief measures look ubiquitous — 10,000 Armed Forces personnel are deployed with food, medicines and clothing; also, the assistance of 18 helicopters and transport aircraft paint an imposing picture. A sum of Rs 1,000 crore is being released along with Rs 1 lakh for every family where any member has perished and Rs 50,000 for families whose houses have been destroyed or damaged. The Government’s efforts to provide support seem impressive.
However, one cannot help but compare the situation with developed countries. The deadly twister that ravaged the States of Oklahoma and Missouri in the United States in May this year had in total 15 deaths across the affected area. Compare this to the following data: The catastrophic flood in Bihar in 2008 killed more than 250 people and rendered over three million homeless. Over 3,00,000 houses were gutted and 3,40,000 hectares of land were immersed under water, destroying crops worth crores of rupees.
In comparison, a much severe storm and subsequent flood in the US caused by Hurricane Sandy, which hit as many as 24 States across that country, killed less than 150 and rendered homeless about 30,000-40,000 people. The disparity of physical infrastructure obviously plays a big part in the extent of damage and death, but the preparedness level to combat natural calamities too makes a difference. This level of preparedness is a direct product of public policy towards natural disasters.
Globally, nations are drafting policies to reduce all kinds of losses due to untimely disasters. Australia developed a unique plan just to fight influenza. Under the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza, the Government increased access to anti-viral vaccinations and made available H5N1 avian influenza vaccines in medical stores nationally. Moreover, the States were empowered with legislative powers which allowed them to execute bio-security measures in line with the national quarantine policy. Similarly, Brazil has recently drafted national legislations on urbanisation, building construction and land usage in order to reduce death and loss during earthquakes and other similar disasters.
Contrast this with the situation in India, where most of the buildings, especially in the National Capital Region, ignore Floor Space Index criteria and consequently may collapse easily during a quake. The FSI is a system that defines the ratio between the built-up area allowed and plot area available; thus, more the FSI, taller is the building. But then, in order to accommodate more flats, builders ignore this ratio and construct skyscrapers without giving heed to any safety measures. Worse, evacuation is virtually impossible during emergencies and a collapse of one such building will create a domino effect in the vicinity. In the past, in Delhi and Mumbai, the collapse of multi-storeyed buildings in crowded areas has resulted in hundreds of deaths.
US President Barack Obama, in March this year, signed the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act, which reauthorises the provisions of the Project Bioshield Act. This will enable authorities to stock medical counter-measures and mobilise medical professionals during an emergency. It also forces various pharma producers to come together for national help during such emergencies. No such similar policy exists in India.
India is one of the most vulnerable nations in the world when it comes to the state’s role in combating natural disasters — disaster preparedness, disaster mitigation, disaster response, and rehabilitation and recovery. The frequency and types of such natural disasters in India is alarmingly high. They result in casualties, damage to properties, destruction of crops, and dents in livelihoods. Even relatively minor causes, like, cold waves, heat waves, avalanches, landslides, bushfires, pest attacks et al, too create havoc in our lives and result in inordinate losses.
India’s disaster management is still based on archaic post-disaster rehabilitation and damage control. The relief fund disbursement from the Union Government is mainly carried on through the Government-sponsored Calamity Relief Fund scheme in association with National Calamity Contingency Fund and the fund amount is generally based on the extent of calamity, the necessity of the relief operation, and preparedness of the State Government. That’s in direct conflict with UN guidelines that suggest the improvement of relief infrastructure and release of necessary funds before the disaster. Moreover, the overwhelming cost burden for various relief operations are laid on the shoulders of State Governments who are already suffering from a fund-crunch. Even if the State Governments are not financially crippled but are near bankrupt, levying the cost load on them implies that the centre is escaping its responsibilities.
Therefore, to prevent the kind of losses that Uttarakhand is experiencing, the Government’s approach towards disaster has to be turned upside down. Pre-calamity operations must be set off to minimise the losses and casualties in case of a natural disaster. The relief machinery lacks adequate training and management and is often found wanting in pre-planned contingency measures, relying, thereby, mostly on ad hoc measures that diminish the efficacy of its operations.
India’s poor policy measures for disaster management are a precursor of nature’s wrath. Will policy changes occur any time soonIJ
(The author is a management guru and honorary director of IIPM Think Tank)