Understanding Vulnerability III Module 7

8/16/2019 Understanding Vulnerability III Module 7

1/19

Capacity Building in Asia using Information Technology Applications (CASITA) Module 7

1

UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITIES:III (Challenges in Vulnerability Reduction)

GoalTo provide an understanding of issues that promotes

or hinders disaster reduction activities at national,community and individual level.

Learning outcome After completing this session, you will be able tocritique and review existing mechanisms in yourcountry for disaster reduction

Learning objectives As you work through this session you will learn to Appreciate the need for decentralization of

disaster reduction activities

Recognize the need for appropriate disasterreduction policies, action plans and responseplans

Accept the need for knowledge dissemination andawareness creation

Discuss the necessity of mainstreamingvulnerability reduction with development

Appreciate the importance of communityparticipation

Recognize the need for public commitment Value the role of NGOs in disaster reduction work

1. Understanding Vulnerability

Myths prevail that vulnerable incumbents cause vulnerableconditions. The role of improper decisions, policies and activities ofnon-vulnerable sectors to increase vulnerability is not eithercomprehended or is deliberately ignored to shun the mantle ofresponsibility.

Vulnerability reduction is possible only through development.

However, improper development policy will increase vulnerability of asociety. For example, unsustainable development policies increasethe dependence of a nation or a community on external sources andassistance. The community becomes powerless to do anythingabout vulnerabilities caused by exogenous sources.

∗ This course material is being made available by Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC),Bangkok under Capacity Building in Asia using Information Technology Applications (CASITA) project, to the participating universities and institutions for educational purpose only. Reproduction ofmaterials for educational purpose is encouraged as long as ADPC is acknowledged.

Keywords/phrases

DecentralizationPoliciesAction plansEmergency response

plansGovernanceDissemination of

knowledgePublic awarenessScience and

technology

Standards and codes

ProfessionalcapabilityImplementationCommunity

participation

NGOPublic commitmentLearning lessons


2/19


2

2. Decentralization of Vulnerability Reduction

“Much has been learnt from the creative disaster prevention effortsof poor communities in developing countries... Prevention policy istoo important to be left to governments and international agenciesalone. To succeed, it must also engage civil society, the private

sector and the media.”Kofi Annan, Program Forum 1999, July 1999, Geneva

For a long time, the state was considered as the center of allauthority as well as action in dealing with disasters. Disasterreduction was understood in the strict sense of providing relief to thevictims, recovery from the damage, and rehabilitation of damagedinfrastructure.

Concepts have changed significantly with the shift of focus onmitigation and preparedness. As a new concept, it requires theparticipation of all, from the top of the government to an individual

potential victim.

In this context, disaster mitigation cannot be effective if the pastthinking is allowed to continue. A positive intervention is required todecentralize the efforts of disaster management. With thedecentralization of power and devolution of governance authority,mitigation efforts at grassroots levels should be supported, andnecessary funds created to support such initiatives. Centralizedfunding cannot produce decentralized disaster reduction.

Decentralization of disaster risk reduction efforts and responsibilityshould be coordinated at the municipality, wards or village level.Local institutions should bring together others such as business,trade unions and NGOs for local action and sustainable partnership.Mutual understanding and rules and regulations should be explicit,transparent and uniform. Currently, there is an institutional vacuumin many countries.

IDNDR helped to take the concept of disaster reduction from thelevel of central governments to the outside, and in terms ofresponsibilities, from central government to district or provinciallevels. Now ISDR, as the new conceptual framework, needs to assistcommunities to own and internalize the process, both in terms of

concept and knowledge, and implementation.

This requires a new structural arrangement. Countries, the UN,bilateral agencies and financing institutions, all directly or indirectlyinvolved in disaster management, should realize the need toconsider implementing projects not only with the centralgovernments but also with the local governments, the private sector,academia, NGOs and CBOs. Mechanisms need to be sorted out tosupport grassroots level development or vulnerability reductioninitiatives.


3/19


3

2.1 Appropriate disaster reduction policies

2.1.1 Review, revise, update and implement disaster risk reductionpolicies and Acts

Many developed and developing Asian (such as Bangladesh, China,India and the Philippines) have worked out policies, plans and legalinstruments in detail. But they need to be reviewed for theincorporation of the advances of recent thinking on disastermanagement, including the shift of emphasis from mitigation toresponse, and top-down centralized to bottom-up decentralizedapproaches.

Several of the weaker economies do not have detailed policy andlegal mechanisms. Their acts still focus on relief as the principleinstrument of disaster management. For instance, the NaturalCalamity (Relief) Act of Nepal, promulgated in 1982 with the latest

amendments in 1989, is focused on the better organization of relief.It naturally does not incorporate the basic findings of IDNDR orrecent advancements of the science and technology of disaster riskmanagement.

2.1.2 Review and update the national action plans for disastermanagement

Many countries prepared National Action Plans for disastermanagement in mid-90s and presented them to the IDNDRYokohama Conference. Implementation and monitoring of the ActionPlans have seen varying success in different countries. Since then,countries have learned many lessons in aspects of disastermanagement. It is now time to update the Action Plans for countriesthat have not done so thus far.

2.2 Integration of disaster management in governance

The past decade witnessed a paradigm shift in the role of thegovernment from the “omnipotent” and solely responsible agency formanaging all activities in the disaster cycle, to that of a facilitatorwhich undertakes certain key responsibilities and assists individuals,communities and the private sector in preventing exposure to risks,

and in responding to emergencies and provision of relief with clearunderstanding and acceptance that “the powers, responsibilities andresources of the governments are limited” (Wisner, 1994). Such achange in the emphasis of the role of government requires that aconsensus be developed on what government should do and whatthe individuals, communities and others should do. Clearly,government has a vital role to play in hazard mitigation and disasterresponse, but it must marshal and focus its limited resources if it is tobe effective to deliver good governance (Eisner, 1994).


4/19


4

The following responsibilities are identified as the essentials forgovernments for effective integration of disaster risk reduction ingovernance.

2.2.1 Generate and disseminate basic knowledge on potentialhazards

Governments should continue supporting departments, universitiesand research centers that conduct basic research on seismology,climatology, hydrology and other sciences to provide anunderstanding of the country’s hazard phenomena. Researchpriorities should be based on the criteria of applicability of theresearch to the immediate needs of the country in terms of hazardidentification and mitigation. Developing countries should be carefulnot to enter areas of fundamental researches (such as earthquakeprediction) that require huge resources and take a long time foreffective use of the research results for mitigation. The potential forsaving lives and properties from potential disasters, improvement of

environment, alleviation of poverty, and improvement in the quality oflife should be the basic screening criteria, especially for the leastdeveloped of the developing countries.

2.2.2 Apply science and technology in disaster mitigation

Governments should also support institutions, within or outside thegovernment, that develop and implement effective mechanism forthe translation and utilization of research findings for awarenessraising, mitigation and preparedness.

“Science and technology to the doorsteps of the potential victims ofnatural hazards” should be the guiding principle for effectivegovernance. Government officials (central and municipal) as well asprivate practitioners should be exposed to the new opportunitiesoffered by science and technology by way of seminars, workshopsand specialized training programs. The government should alsosupport public education programs, such as “disaster safety day” or“earthquake safety day”. This would facilitate widespreadunderstanding of the risks faced by the community, and catalyzethem to take measures for mitigation.

Recently developed tools like GIS and GPS offer new possibilities in

mitigation and early warning. Maximum utilization of suchtechniques, together with the use of the Internet in communication,could open new possibilities in hazard mapping and risk assessmentas well as for rescue and rehabilitation. Publication of ongoingfindings, sharing of information, knowledge and experiences, andcommunication among disaster risk managers becomes much easierusing these techniques.


5/19


5

2.2.3 Develop and implement standards and codes

Development and enactment of codes and standards to protect thepublic safety is the accepted responsibility of government, whichshould act to reflect the acceptable risk of the nation. Codes shouldcover new construction as well as retrofitting of existing structures

and infrastructure.

Development of codes or standards is easy, but implementation isdifficult because effective implementation requires prudent decisionsand confidence in their applicability and affordability.

For this, governments should set examples by implementing thecodes and bylaws in public buildings. If the government decides tobuild earthquake-resistant offices, this will set precedence, andconvince private individuals to follow disaster-resistant construction.The same is true for retrofitting of existing buildings. Governmentshould stop leasing buildings without earthquake resistance in

seismic countries like Nepal. This will positively influence marketforces to construct earthquake – resistant buildings or retrofit existingones.

2.2.3 Develop emergency response system and professionalcapability

Several jurisdictions are involved in emergency response, especiallyafter a large disaster: emergency management is much more thanmaintenance of law and order, rescue or relief operations, orprovision of emergency health care. Therefore, even emergencypreparedness planning and management cannot be vested in onlyone or two public safety institutions. It should be a system with cleardefinition of all actors, but located at the policy level of government,separate and at a higher level in the organization than operationalfunctions such as fire suppression or rescue and relief agencies. Thesystem should be able to address the need for broader managementactions that accommodate several jurisdictions and agencies.

Considering constraints in the financial resources of governments, itis necessary to incorporate private sector and non-governmentalcapabilities into preparedness and emergency response planning.

At operation levels, professional capabilities should be installed todeal with disasters specific to the country.

2.2.4 Ensure fail-safe operation of critical facilities

Existing critical facilities such as communication, electricity, watersupply, and transportation lines are usually rendered non-operationalby large disastrous events, resulting in a hindrance to effectiveresponse. For this, a two-pronged strategy should be adopted. Thefirst strategy is to develop redundancies or alternatives. Developing


6/19


6

networks of satellite telephones, VHF radios, amateur HAM radioscan be an effective alternative to regular communication. Installingappropriate generators in critical facilities can help meet electricityrequirements during a disaster. Capabilities for installing makeshiftfield hospitals and drilling of water wells could greatly assistemergency response.

The second strategy is to develop capabilities for rapid restorationfor damaged utilities. Agencies operating critical facilities usuallyhave repair and maintenance capabilities for normal wear and tear.Improvement is needed to manage emergency situations following alarge disaster.

3. Mainstreaming Vulnerability Reduction With Development

The concept of disaster risk management is rather new for manycountries, despite the IDNDR efforts at national levels. Disaster riskmanagement continues to be looked upon as a separate effort,

rather than a component of any ongoing development program.Disasters continue to be regarded as abnormal phenomena anddisassociated from the normal development process. “Most crucially,disaster management has become separated from the developmentof everyday affairs that create vulnerability (Lewis, 1999).

Such a situation hinders juxtaposition of disaster managementinitiatives with ongoing development. It is usual to respond to morepressing needs such as basic health, basic education, nutrition and AIDS programs. The result is that disaster management issues aregiven lower priority, and do not get the needful level of investment.Resource constraints are always cited as the excuse for the lack ofplanning and implementation of disaster risk reduction initiatives.

The result is that even public buildings continue to be constructed inhazardous areas without consideration of disaster vulnerability,without considering the land capability, and without incorporation ofproper mitigation measures in the design, construction, and use ofthe structures. Even international funds are being used to buildschools in flood plain areas, and multilateral funds continue to beused to build schools and health-posts without consideringearthquake resistance in highly seismic countries such as Nepal.The urgency of development and provision of basic services to the

people are taken as an excuses, not only for non-consideration ofdisaster risk potential, but also for forgetting to note that “vulnerabilityhas frequently been made, or made worse, by ‘development’”(Lewis, 1999). Poverty alleviation programs or urban developmentplans in many countries do not have built-in disaster risk reductionagenda. There is little or no practice of disaster risk assessment andmitigation in infrastructure development projects.

Risk reduction measures are now being talked about andimplemented to varying extent during reconstruction and


7/19


7

rehabilitation following a larger disaster. For example, incorporationof earthquake-resistance has been mandated for buildingreconstruction in the areas affected by the Gujarat Earthquake of2001. However, the same is not true for communities impacted bysmaller disasters, especially those not covered by the internationalpress, and consequently, not being ‘assisted’ by the donor agencies.

Thousands of buildings were damaged, many seriously, in thedistricts of Gorakha and Dhading in western Nepal by a magnitude5.1 Richter earthquake on 16 July 2001. Unlike in Gujarat, there isno formal program of reconstruction or retrofitting, and it is hard toconceive that that will be any improvement in seismic safety of thebuildings that will be reconstructed or repaired by the buildingowners in future.

There is an obvious need to emphasize the mainstreaming ofdisaster risk reduction in the development agenda, especially for theleast developed countries of Asia. This, however, is a tall order, andrequires a coordinated and comprehensive approach that includes

creating a conducive policy and legal environment; managementmechanism; awareness raising, training, and education; andincentives, controls, and penalties.

The problem of integrating disaster risk management withdevelopment suffers also from the fact that many Asian countries,especially those with weaker economies, do not have financialresources available in country and have to depend significantly onexternal donor or financial agencies. On the other hand, theinternational donors and international financial agencies do notappear to be investing much in pre-disaster mitigation and riskmanagement as they are prepared for post-disaster emergencyresponse and reconstruction. In view of the lack of preparednessplanning on a national scale, investments in emergency responseand reconstruction in most cases do not incorporate sustainabledisaster risk reduction during implementation.

3.1 Community participation

Experiences from both the development and disaster managementprocesses dictate that neither will be successful unless there is fullparticipation by communities, the end-users of the processes.Communities are not only the potential victims of disasters, but also

the first responders, the carriers of traditional coping mechanisms,and also the users of post-disaster actions. Their participation is amust for any pre-disaster mitigation or preparedness.

However, there are several constraints to effective communityparticipation in disaster risk reduction.


8/19


8

3.1.1 Lack of state-of-the-art knowledge and low general awareness

Thus far, the possibilities for effective disaster management offeredby science and technology have not reached community levels. Thisrequires the implementation of an effective awareness-raisingprogram, the sole purpose of which should be bringing in the fruits of

science and technology to the doorsteps of the potential victims in alanguage understood by the community. Knowledge is not to bedistributed but to be internalized by the communities. This requiressincere efforts on the part of those who possess and generatescientific and technological knowledge, and those who haveauthority, to transfer the ownership of ideas, methods,responsibilities and even authority to the communities.

3.1.2 Existing Coping Mechanism May Not Work Fully, but Should Bethe Starting Point

Communities have inherited coping mechanisms against disasters

over thousands of years. However, dazzling advancements inscience and technology has obscured these. Further, the existingcoping mechanism may not suffice because of changing situationsand concepts, which are also causing the slow death of traditionalways and wisdom. Changing community relationships also precludecontinuation of the old wisdom, and demand additions orimprovements to traditional wisdom.

3.1.3 Weak economies of developing countries render mitigation as ainto low priority

In many parts of Asia, the level of acceptable risk is high due torampant poverty. This precludes effective participation of society’sweakest segments, which are also the most vulnerable, in disasterrisk reduction initiatives.

Such conditions require careful planning and execution ofawareness-raising and mitigation programs. The participation ofcommunities in disaster reduction should be without anypreconditions. If disaster risk management has not been a highpriority agendum for the government, how could one demand fromthe community high level of commitments, including financialcommitments?

3.1.4 Potentials

Generally, communities do not have as strong an inertia against newideas as the government sector has, and they can internalize evencomplex concepts. However, their full participation is possible only ifthe effort is based on mutual trust, clear definition of the decision-making process, and transparency of financial expenses andmanagement. Most of the weaker segments in different countrieswant to be trusted, to have their voices heard, and to be involved in


9/19


9

the decision-making process, including implementation of mitigation.Scientists and engineers have the challenge to translate theirresearch findings into language understood by the communities, andof suggesting mitigation measures that are easily adopted by thecommunity. A low-tech approach is the only practical solution inmany cases. What the community can and wants to implement

should perhaps outweigh what is necessary as prescribed byscientists. Communities have been able to inherit the traditionalwisdom and local coping mechanism to deal with disaster and theseshould be exploited.

Community participation and involvement in disaster reduction is stillan area where not enough experience has been gathered. Advocacyfor more community-based initiatives needs to be implemented fordeveloping better insights.

3.2 Involvement of non-governmental organization (NGO)

In Asia, non-governmental organizations have been playingsignificant roles in disaster management. This was demonstrated inthe aftermaths of the 1934 Great Bihar-Nepal Earthquake, the 2001January Gujarat Earthquake and management of flood disaster inBangladesh.

In recent times, NGOs have also been involved in pre-disastermitigation planning, preparedness and implementation. Experiencesin Asia shows that primary roles of NGOs in disaster risk reductionlie in awareness-raising (e.g., organization of national days fornatural disaster reduction, hands on training such as earthquake-resistant construction), and advocacy for improvement in policiesand legal environment to reflect the necessary shift of emphasis fromresponse and relief to the proactive approach of planning andpreparedness.

Some countries of Asia, for example Bangladesh and India, havedeveloped elaborate policies, strategies, and legal and operationalmechanisms covering the participation of NGOs in developmentincluding disaster risk management. The lack of similar mechanismsin other countries creates operational difficulties for manyorganizations because of NGO status in dealing with both local andinternational institutions. In several countries, NGOs have a

tarnished reputation as corrupt and ineffective. Internationally, manyagencies are not able to work with NGOs, because they requiredirect relationships with governments. This limits fundingopportunities.

However, NGO status offers tremendous benefits. The flexibility ofthe non-government groups allows fast and cost-effective work.Their staff and programs remain stable throughout the projectduration, whereas governments and bureaucrats periodicallychange. NGOs appear to have much better institutional memories,


10/19


10

and hence the capability for learning from past lessons and forreplication of successful experiences than other institutions.

3.3 Role of private Businesses in Disaster Risk Management

With the growing economic impact of disasters, private businesses

should be encouraged to enhance their emergency preparednessand contingency planning within the business community also.

At present in Asia, there does not seem to be any effectivenetworking of business and industry, dedicated to issues of disastermanagement. It is regarded necessary to encourage businesses andindustries of the region to establish networks for emergency planningand preparedness. The Business and Industry Council forEmergency Planning and Preparedness (BICEPP, 1999) ofCalifornia may serve as an example.

4. Learning Lessons from Disasters

Disaster events provide unique opportunity to learn not only thephysical process and the intricate relationship between society andthe hazardous process, but also to reveal vulnerabilities and helpidentify the adjustments necessary in society to avoid similardestruction in future. Such events reveal the inherent weaknesses inour construction practices, approaches and coping mechanisms, andprovide the lead for prioritizing actions. The lessons are mostly validbeyond a single community, country, and region.

However, there is a tremendous gap in existing capabilities to learnlessons and implement them for vulnerability reduction. In the 1990s,there were several disastrous earthquakes in India, Turkey, Taiwan,and Japan. Each of these provided valuable lessons that have beenwell documented. Many of the lessons indicate a range of policiesand practices that if implemented could drastically reduce thedamage and sufferings from subsequent disasters. However, thedisaster and lessons-learned cycle has repeated itself several timeswith the link of implementing the lessons missing every time. Manycountries in Asia still do not have the required mechanisms toinclude the lessons learned from past disasters into their vulnerabilityreduction process. It should be emphasized that many lessons are

not costly to implement. About 85 high-rise buildings fell in Ahmedabad primarily due to the flaws in design, the detailing andquality control implementation of which would not have demandedcostly interventions when compared to the losses sustained.

Disaster victims do learn the lessons on an individual basis. Butusually, it is beyond their capability to introduce changes in asignificant way, simply because disasters are more of a socialproblem.


11/19


11

Questions therefore remain about how to create obligatorymechanisms in countries and regions to avoid cyclic repetition ofmistakes. Who is responsible for the mistakes? Who should bebooked?

5. Measuring Disaster Reduction is a Difficult Task

Measuring the progress of disaster risk reduction in a country or aregion requires different frameworks at different time scales.

In the long-term, indicators of sustainable development, such asfinancial (GNP and its growth), improvement in quality of life (growthof private consumption, improvement in nutritional status, mortalityrates, literacy, access to health, education and sanitation) andimprovement in poverty indicators can also serve to measure theextent to which a community has become resilient to disasters. Careshould be taken to look at the data not in isolation.

In the medium term, the progress of an individual country in disasterreduction could be measured indirectly by considering the extent towhich the results of the recent research in science, technology anddevelopment disciplines have been integrated into practice. For apreliminary assessment of the status of seismic zonation for selectedcountries, Hays et al (1998) used indicators such as existence ofhazard maps and use of loss estimation models, knowledge of thecausative factor of vulnerability, incorporation of integrated riskassessment and management as a legal requirement, percentage ofnational budget allocated for disaster risk reduction, prioritization andimplementation of mitigation initiatives, capacity of real timemonitoring and early warning, presence of databases, and use ofknowledge in the development and implementation of public policies.Notwithstanding the uncertainties associated, the results of a surveydid provide insights on the current status and trends in the selectedcountries.

Quantitative measurement of the impact of individual disaster riskreduction initiatives or projects, which span a relatively shorter timeperiod, is much more difficult if not impossible, unless there occurs asignificant hazardous event, damage assessment of which couldprovide data for comparison with the existing baseline before thedisaster. Implementation of established vulnerability reduction

measures will surely reduce the disaster risk, but quantitativestatements on the reduced risk is not possible at times, even for astructural intervention. Death and damage still could occur even if abuilding is constructed as per the applicable building code andprescribed measures pertaining to land use under the mostsophisticated policy and legal environment. Non-availability ofsuitable mathematical models for predicting the “risk reduction” givesgrounds to the traditional skeptics to malign the efforts, especially ina developing country. “How can you prove that you have reduced theextent of potential damage to the school building and averted the


12/19


12

deaths of school children” was the unanswered question in a schoolbuilding retrofit program recently implemented in Kathmandu.

Recourse could however be made to measure the success of suchprograms indirectly. Such indicators of the impact of disaster riskreduction initiatives could include acceptability of the disaster risk

reduction measures by communities, their involvement in thedecision-making processes and subsequent replication of themeasures in the community, raised awareness, development andenactment by the community of disaster preparedness andemergency response plans, conduct of drills, incorporation ofdisaster preparedness in school curricula, number of masons trainedin earthquake –resistant construction and their increased demandand salary.

There is yet another problem demanding attention. One measure ofthe success of disaster risk reduction initiatives could be the level ofacceptability by the community. This is based on the premise that

what is accepted is more important than what is necessary, that theoccurrence of a disastrous event larger than what was agreed asacceptable might destroy the belief on risk reduction initiatives. Thescale effect needs to be told to the community right at the beginning.Extreme disaster events are dangerous as they can significantlyundo the positive impact of a successful project.

6. Dissemination and Internalization of Vulnerability ReductionMessage

Lessons from past disasters have not been sufficiently disseminatedto the general public, and they unfortunately continued to beconfined within the affected populations or within the academic circledespite the fact that the studies and researches are done by differentnational and international groups of professionals after the eventsand reported around the world using electronic media. For example,most of the victims of the Indian (Gujarat) Earthquake would havehad very little if any knowledge of the lessons learned in the Turkeyearthquake. The lessons belong not only to the fields of betterdesign and disaster-resistant constructions, but also to individual andcollective survival from a hazardous event, or to the effective meansof managing emergencies and provision of relief. Some of thelessons of past disasters, for example those on building

vulnerabilities and proper codes, take longer time to implement nodoubt. But there are several other life-saving lessons learned thatcan be used for effectively reducing the disaster impact. Forexample, it became widely known during the Armenian earthquakeof 1988 that about 3-5% of the injured persons required immediatedialysis to flush out the poisonous toxins generated in the body dueto crush injuries. But how many medicos in the developing worldknow about this necessity? Similarly the myth of epidemic outbreakprevailed during the Gujarat earthquake of 2001, and limitedresources were diverted to contain such outbreak, whereas it is well


13/19


13

known that earthquakes did not trigger epidemics including thosefrom the decaying dead bodies.

Of more importance could be the lessons learned on the vulnerabilityof non-engineered masonry or adobe buildings constructed oftraditional materials such as brick, stone, mud and timber.

Therefore, information should be even more widely disseminatedusing organized and institutionalized approaches and mechanismsso that people not only have access to the lessons learned, but theypractice them as well.

7. Promotion of Public Commitments

The declaration by the General Assembly of the InternationalDecade for Natural Disaster Reduction was perhaps the greatestexpression of public commitments for disaster risk management onthe part of the governments. Almost all Asian countries created

IDNDR National Councils with representations largely from thevarious sectors of national economy and also from the academia,NGOs and the private sectors. They prepared the National ActionPlans that were discussed with expression of commitments forimplementation at the Yokohama Conference on Disaster Reductionin 1994. Subsequently, Asian representatives met in 1999 in theIDNDR regional meeting for Asia and the Pacific and charted an Agenda for the 21st century that called for “strengthening of existingframeworks and further regional and sub-regional professional andinstitutional frameworks”. In many countries, however, the IDNDRnational councils ceased to exist or became inactive after theDecade was over, due to various reasons, even withoutincorporating disaster risk reduction agenda in their long-termpolicies.

People of the region have realized that public commitments andaccountability for disaster reduction should cover a much longer termthan the four or five years of any political group in power in acountry.

Such commitments should be consolidated in the long-term planningdocuments and incorporated in national policies and developmentconcepts.

In Asia, there are only few developing countries (such as China andSyria) where integrated risk assessment and risk management isreported to be a legal requirement (Hays, 1998). Excepting a few,building codes are not mandatory in many countries.

Almost all governments of the region have, however, initiatedprocesses towards better risk management. Such initiatives andexpression of commitments are taken generally after a disaster. Withtime, however, these tend to be gradually forgotten, hence there is


14/19


14

the need to consolidate these in the national policies, acts, andbylaws.

Demand for increased safety from natural disaster should ideallycome from the community (bottom-up approach) so that politicianscould include it into their political agenda, especially during an

election campaign.

References

1. ADPC, (2000) Managing Disasters in Asian and the Pacific, AReview of Lessons Learned during the International Decadefor Natural Disaster Reduction, Asian Disaster PreparednessCenter, Bangkok

2. Ahammad Fariduddin. National Disaster Preparedness Plan.Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

3. Aromar Revi, et al (1992) Action Plan for Reconstruction inEarthquake Affected Garhwal. Building Materials &Technology Promotion Council, Ministry of Urban Development,Government of India.

4. Bilham, R., Gaur, V. K., and Molnar, P., (2001) HimalayanSeismic Hazard, Science, vol. 293, , pp. 1442-1444.

5. Chhetri, M. B. P. & Bhattarai, D., (2001) Mitigation andManagement of Floods in Nepal, Ministry of Home,HMG/Nepal, May,

6. Chhetri, M. B. P., (2000) Organization and System of DisasterManagement Nepal. Disaster Relief Section, Kathmandu,Nepal.

7. Dixit, A. M, (1994) Status of Seismic Hazard and RiskManagement in Nepal, Meguro, K.; Katayama, T., 1994, WSSIWorkshop on Seismic Risk Management for Countries of the Asia Pacific Region; 1993 Feb. 8; Bangkok, Thailand, Tokyo:INCEDE, Inst. Industrial Sc., Uni. Tokyo; 1994; INCEDE Rep.1994-02, Sr. No. 5: pp. 133-145.

8. East Timor; (2001) National Disaster Management Plan: ETTACabinet Amended. United Nations Transitional Administration inEast Timor (UNTAET), East Timor,

9. East Timor; (2001) Sustainable Development and theEnvironment in East Timor , Timor Aid, Dili, East Timor.

10. EMI, (1999), Proceedings of the Second InternationalWorkshop on Earthquake and Megacities, 1-3 December1999, Makati City, Philippines


15/19


15

11. GHI, (1995) The Quito Ecuador Earthquake Risk ManagementProject , GeoHazards International,.

12. Giardini, D., (1993). Global Seismic Hazard AssessmentProgram (GSHAP), Annali di Geofisica, International LithosphereProgram, Special Issue, Publication 209, Bologna, Italy, 257 pp.

13. GOG; (2001), Public – Private Partnership Programme forTotal Rehabilitation, Gujarat State Government, India.

14. GSDMA, (2001), Earthquake Rehabilitation Policy; the GujaratState Disaster Management Authority, State of Gujarat, India

15. Haseeb Athar, (1999) Disaster Management and MitigationPolicies in Pakistan – Present and Future, Disaster MitigationInstitute, Ahmedabad, India and Duryog Nivaran IntermediateTechnology Development Group, Sri Lanka.

16. IFRC, (2001) World Disaster Report prepared by InternationalFederation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, OxfordUniversity Press.

17. IGNOU, (2000) Proceedings of International Conference onDisaster Management: Cooperative Networking in SouthAsia, 28-30 Nov. 1999, New Delhi, Indira Gandhi National OpenUniversity, New Delhi

18. INCEDE, (1994) Seismic Risk Management for Countries ofthe Asia Pacific Region, Proceedings of the WSSI workshop,February 8-11, 1993, Bangkok, Thailand, INCEDE Report –1994-02, September 1994, Serial Number 5

19. INCEDE, (1999) Seismic Risk Management for Countries ofthe Asia Pacific Region, Proceedings of the 2nd WSSIworkshop, January 18-20, 1999, Bangkok, Thailand, INCEDEReport – 1999-02, October 1999, Serial Number 14

20. Institution of Civil Engineers (1995b) Structures to withstandDisasters, Thomas Telford, London, 185 pp.

21. Jibgar Joshi, (1997) Planning for Sustainable Development,Urban Management in Nepal and South Asia, Lazmina Joshi,Kathmandu

22.

23. John Twig and Mihir R. Bhatt, (1998) UnderstandingVulnerability, South Asia Perspectives, IntermediateTechnology Publication –

24. Karachi Emergency Relief Cell, (1986) Earthquake Risk andPreparedness Information for the Public. KarachiDevelopment Authority, India.


16/19


17/19


17

38. Munich Re, (1999) Topics: Natural Catastrophes, 1999,Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Munchen.

39. National Environment Commission, (1994) Government ofBhutan, Thimphu, Bhutan.

40. Nishat, Ainun (1993) Flood Action Plan of Bangladesh: ACase Study, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Bangkok,Thailand.

41. NSET-1, (1999) Kathmandu Valley’s Earthquake Scenario,National Society for Earthquake Technology – Nepal (NSET-Nepal), Kathmandu,.

42. NSET-2, (1999) The Kathmandu Valley Earthquake RiskManagement Action Plan, National Society for EarthquakeTechnology – Nepal (NSET-Nepal), Kathmandu.

43. Oxfam; (2000) Village Contingency Plan for Cyclones, Oxfam(India) Trust and Bookline, a Division of SRAS Publications,Hyderabad, India.

44. RADIUS, Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of UrbanAreas Against Seismic Disasters, “Outcome of the RadiusInitiative", RADIUS, IDNDR Secretariat, OCHA, UN, Geneva

45. Revenue Department, (1985) Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad, India

46. Rogge, John R. (1996). A UN System Disaster ResponsePlan: An Inter-Agency Project of the UN Disaster

Management Team in Tehran. The Resident CoordinatorUnited Nations System Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.

47. S.M. Nasim (1983) Pakistan Punjab Flood Plan (Provincial):Guide Book, Office of Relief Commissioner, Punjab, India.

48. Sabir P. Chohan (1993) Islamabad Residential SectorsZoning (Building Control) Regulation, 1993, CapitalDevelopment Authority, Islamabad, Pakistan

49. Shaikh, M. Amjad, (1999) Disaster Management in Pakistan.Disaster Mitigation Institute, Ahmedabad, India and Duryog

Nivaran Intermediate Technology Development Group, SriLanka.

50. Sharma, V. K.; (2001) Institutional Framework for DisasterManagement in India, Proceedings Workshop on Urban RiskReduction in Asia, 29 March, Ahmedabad, Proceedings 1, AsianDisaster Preparedness Center, Bangkok


18/19


18

51. Swiss Re, Natural Catastrophes and man-made disasters in2000: fewer insured losses despite huge floods, Swiss Re,Sigma No. 2/2001

52. U Kin Mint, (1999) Myanmar Seismic Risk Management inproceedings WSSI Bangkok Workshop on Seismic Risk

Management II, January 1999, Bangkok, INCEDE, Tokyo..

53. UNCRD, (2001) Proceedings International Workshop onEarthquake Safer World in the 21st Century: Emphasis onself-help, Cooperation and Education through CommunityInvolvement, 29-31 January 2001, United Nations Center forRegional Development, Disaster Management Planning HyogoOffice, Kobe, Japan.

54. UNDP, 1994) Human Development Report.

55. UNDRO (1978). The Assessment and Mitigation of Earthquake

Risk, Paris, 341 pp.

56. UNDRO (1990). Cooperative Project for Seismic Risk Reductionin the Mediterranean Region (SEISMED), proceedings, Geneva,3 volumes, 713 pp.

57. UNESCO (1983). Programme for Assessment and Mitigation ofEarthquake Risk in the Arab Region, Paris, and 75 pp.

58. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia andthe Pacific, 1985, Coastal Environmental Management Planfor the West Coast of Sri Lanka: Preliminary Survey andInterim Action Plan, United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand.

59. USAID; 1983, The Indonesia Mission Disaster Relief Plan, USAID, Jakarta, Indonesia.

60. USGS (1998), Report of the May 1998 Meeting of RELEMAR,USGS, Reston, Virginia, 30pp.

61. Vanda, H.E. Nhim, (2001) National Committee for DisasterManagement: Report of the Capability and Capacity ofNCDM, Five-Year Institutional Development Strategy ofNCDM, Two-Year Plan of Action for NCDM Development,Council of Ministers, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

62. Vanuatu Council of Ministers, (1985) National Disaster Plan1985, Vanuatu Government, Port Vila, Vanuatu.

63. WB, 1(980) Meeting Basic Needs: The World Bank,September.

64. WB, (1994) World Development Report 1994, Infrastructurefor Development", World Development Indicator , Publishedfor the World Bank.


19/19


65. WB, (2001) World Development Report 2000/2001, AttackingPoverty ", Published for the World Bank.

66. Wisner, B. (2001).Disasters: What the United Nations and ItsWorld Can Do? Peacework , vol. 28, issue 314, Apr

67. Write, C., (1999) BICEPP Abstract, in proceedings of SecondInternational Workshop on Earthquakes and Megacities, 1-3December, Makati City, Philippines

68. Yadav, R. P.; Singh, P. L.; Dixit, A. M.; and Sharpe, R. D.; (1994)Status of Seismic Hazard and Risk Management inKathmandu Valley, Nepal, in Issues in Urban Earthquake Risk,pp. 183-197, eds. B.E. Tucker; Kluwer Academic Publishers,Dordrecht.

69. Ye Yaoxian, (1984) Earthquake Disaster Mitigation ProgramImplementation, proc. Int. conf. On Disaster Mitigation Program

Implementation, Ocho Rios, Jamaika, 12-16 Nov., pp. 306-31

70. Ye Yaoxian, (1986) Planning and Management for thePrevention and Mitigation from Earthquake Disaster inChina", paper contribution to International Seminar on RegionalDevelopment Planning for Disaster Prevention, ShizuokaSeminar- -9-26/27, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center &United Nations Center for Regional Development

71. Zonno, G., Cella, F., Luzi, L., Menoni, S., Ober, G. and others(1998), Assessing Seismic Risk at Different GeographicScales: Concepts, Tools and Procedures, Proc. 11th

European Conf. On Earthquake Engineering , Balkema.

Documents

Understanding Vulnerability III Module 7