DISASTER RISK MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT

1 COMPARE AND CONTRAST SELECT GLOBAL BEST

PRACTICES IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT WITH
INDIA'S APPROACH.
Globally acknowledged best practices in disaster management emphasize a whole-of-society
approach that combines science-driven early warning, risk-informed land use, resilient
infrastructure, strong local governance, community participation, pre-positioned finance and
logistics, continuous learning, and transparent accountability. Leading examples include:
Japan’s strict enforcement of seismic building standards and regular nationwide drills;
Bangladesh’s community-based cyclone shelters, early-warning-to-evacuation chain and
investment in coastal embankments; the Sendai Framework’s focus on risk reduction, targets
and indicators; and many high-income cities’ integration of real-time sensor networks,
interoperable emergency communications and pre-arranged insurance/contingent finance
mechanisms.

India follows many elements of these global practices but with differing levels of
implementation across scale and place. India’s national architecture — including the Disaster
Management Act (2005), the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), state
disaster management authorities (SDMAs), the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF)
and a growing legal/regulatory framework — reflects global principles: institutionalization of
DRM, emphasis on preparedness, and multi-hazard planning. India has also adopted early
warning systems (for cyclones, floods, heatwaves), community awareness programmes, and
national policy alignment with the Sendai Framework.

Key contrasts and comparative observations:

 Institutional framework and policy

o Global best practice: Clear legal mandate, well-resourced local implementation,
and strong vertical & horizontal coordination (national ↔ state ↔ local; agencies
↔ NGOs ↔ private sector). Countries like Japan and the US combine national
standards with local enforcement and continuous investment in public drills and
infrastructure.
o India: Strong national policy and institutional set-up (NDMA, NDRF, state-level
bodies). Implementation varies widely between states and local governments
because capacity, resources and political will differ. Local-level DRM in many
Indian municipalities remains under-resourced relative to need.
 Early warning & science-to-action
o Global best practice: Highly automated forecasting that links directly to
community-level evacuation actions and predefined operational protocols (e.g.,
warning thresholds → pre-planned actions).
o India: Excellent progress in meteorological forecasting and hazard monitoring
(IMD, ISRO, CWC). Translating forecasts into timely, localized actions is
improving but inconsistent—successes (e.g., improved cyclone warning and
evacuations in coastal states) contrast with gaps in inland flood and urban flash-
flood response.
 Community-based preparedness

1|Page
 DISASTER RISK MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT

o Global best practice: Community ownership, drills, local shelters and early-
warning receivers integrated into daily life (Bangladesh model).
o India: Growing emphasis on community awareness and volunteer training; NGOs
and local governments run programmes, but many urban informal settlements are
still poorly integrated into preparedness planning.
 Land-use planning & enforcement
o Global best practice: Strict hazard zoning, risk-informed development controls
and incentives to avoid high-risk areas.
o India: Planning laws and building codes exist (e.g., National Building Code,
various state rules) but enforcement is often weak. Urban expansion into
floodplains and unstable slopes is common due to land pressure and informal
development.
 Resilient infrastructure & retrofitting
o Global best practice: Routine retrofitting of critical infrastructure, backup
systems, resilient lifelines.
o India: Retrofitting and resilience upgrades are uneven; critical infrastructure in
many regions remains vulnerable and underfunded.
 Finance & insurance
o Global best practice: Pre-arranged catastrophe finance, sovereign risk pools, and
insurance penetration that enables rapid liquidity.
o India: Steps like the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and state disaster
funds exist; insurance coverage remains limited, and timely finance at local level
can be constrained.
 Learning, evaluation and technology adoption
o Global best practice: Regular after-action reviews, investment in modern
communication/monitoring tech, and integration with development planning.
o India: Increasing adoption of technology and after-action learning, but
institutionalizing lessons across all states and urban local bodies remains a
challenge.

Summary: India’s DRM architecture and many operational capabilities align with global
best practice on paper and in pockets of excellence (e.g., cyclone management). The main
gaps are consistent implementation at local level, enforcement of land-use/building
regulations, financing at scale, and equitable inclusion of vulnerable urban populations.
Strengthening these areas would move India further toward international best practice.

2 EVALUATE THE ROLES OF NGOS, COMMUNITY-

BASED ORGANIZATIONS (CBOS), AND ARMED FORCES
IN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND
RECOVERY
These three actors are complementary: NGOs and CBOs embed local knowledge and social
capital; armed forces provide scale, logistics and technical capacity; together they fill gaps
that government alone often cannot cover.

2|Page
 DISASTER RISK MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT

2.1 NGOs

NGOs typically operate across the disaster cycle and bring flexibility, technical expertise and
community trust.

 Preparedness: NGOs train communities, run awareness campaigns, develop local

contingency plans, conduct drills, and support early-warning dissemination. They
often work with schools, women’s groups and community leaders to build social
preparedness.
 Response: In immediate relief they rapidly provide food, medical care, temporary
shelter materials and psychosocial support. NGOs can access vulnerable groups and
negotiate localized needs more quickly than larger bureaucracies.
 Recovery & reconstruction: NGOs implement livelihood restoration, capacity
building, participatory reconstruction, and small-scale infrastructure rehabilitation.
They often pilot innovative resilient construction techniques and community-driven
rebuilding.
 Strengths & limitations: Strengths include local networks, speed, innovation and
donor support. Limitations include funding volatility, variable technical capacity, and
challenges scaling up beyond local areas.

2.2 Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)

CBOs (resident welfare associations, women’s self-help groups, local cooperatives) are the
frontline agents of resilience.

 Preparedness: They maintain local hazard knowledge, identify vulnerable

households, organize evacuation plans and sometimes operate community shelters.
They promote social cohesion that helps during displacement and recovery.
 Response: CBOs assist with immediate search/rescue (where trained), community
alerting and distribution of relief at the last mile. They prevent exclusion of marginal
households from aid.
 Recovery: They lead participatory decision-making on repair priorities, labor
mobilization for rebuilding, and local monitoring of reconstruction.
 Strengths & limitations: Strengths are legitimacy, trust and local knowledge.
Weaknesses include limited technical resources and dependence on external support
for large-scale recovery.

2.3 Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Paramilitary)

Armed forces provide unmatched capacity for large-scale logistics, engineering and rapid
deployment.

 Preparedness: Armed forces train in disaster response, maintain rapid reaction units
and infrastructure (airlift, amphibious capability, heavy earthmoving equipment).
They can support national-level contingency planning.
 Response: They excel at large-scale search-and-rescue, mass medical evacuation,
distribution of relief supplies, restoring critical infrastructure (bridges, airstrips),
clearing debris and providing temporary shelters. Their chain-of-command allows
fast, coordinated action in chaotic situations.

3|Page
 DISASTER RISK MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT

 Recovery: Military engineering units can reconstruct critical lifelines (roads,

bridges), restore power/water temporarily, and support large reconstruction projects
when civil capacities are overwhelmed.
 Strengths & limitations: Strengths include speed, scale, discipline, logistics and
engineering. Limitations are that their involvement is usually short-term, non-civil in
nature (command-driven), and long-term community engagement or social recovery is
better led by civilian actors.

2.4 Coordination & comparative evaluation

 Complementarity: Best results occur when NGOs/CBOs handle local engagement

and social protection while armed forces address bulk logistics and engineering.
Governments must coordinate these contributions to avoid duplication and ensure
rights-based recovery.
 Challenges: Coordination suffers from fragmentation, unclear mandates, and
communication gaps. Ensuring respect for civil authority, protecting humanitarian
principles, and handing over operations smoothly from armed forces to civilian
agencies during recovery are key challenges.

3 HOW CAN LAND USE PLANNING AND BUILDING BYE-

LAWS CONTRIBUTE TO DISASTER-SAFE
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES?
Land use planning and building bye-laws are foundational levers to reduce exposure and
vulnerability before a disaster occurs. They set the “rules of the game” that determine where
and how people build, and therefore strongly influence long-term risk.

3.1 How land use planning contributes

 Hazard zoning and avoidance: Risk-informed zoning designates high-risk areas

(floodplains, steep slopes, coastal erosion zones) where new construction is restricted
or prohibited, thereby keeping people and assets out of harm’s way.
 Preserving natural buffers and open spaces: Planning can protect wetlands,
floodplains, mangroves and urban green belts that attenuate floods and storm surges,
provide infiltration, and reduce heat-island effects.
 Providing land for lifelines & evacuation: Reserving corridors for evacuation
routes, emergency access and temporary shelter sites ensures functional mobility
during disasters.
 Managed retreat & relocation strategies: Through land-use policy and incentives,
planners can implement phased relocation from recurring hazard zones to safer
serviced sites (with social safeguards).
 Densification and compact planning: Directing growth to well-served areas reduces
pressure on hazard-prone peripheries and lowers infrastructure costs that might
otherwise fail in disasters.
 Integration with infrastructure planning: Coordinating drainage, stormwater
management, sewage networks and critical services with land-use decisions reduces
cascading failures.

4|Page
 DISASTER RISK MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT

3.2 How building bye-laws contribute

 Minimum structural standards: Bye-laws can mandate hazard-resilient building

norms—seismic detailing, wind-resistant roofing, flood-resistant plinth heights,
foundation requirements and materials standards—so that buildings perform better
under stress.
 Site-specific requirements: Bye-laws can require site investigations (soil, slope
stability, groundwater) and engineered designs for vulnerable locations rather than
one-size-fits-all construction.
 Retrofitting and upgrading rules: Regulations can require or incentivize retrofitting
existing vulnerable buildings (schools, hospitals, lifeline infrastructure) to meet
resilience benchmarks.
 Control of density and floor-area ratios (FAR): Limiting FAR and plot coverage in
hazard-prone zones prevents overcrowding and reduces rescue/evac challenges.
 Utility and lifeline resilience: Bye-laws can prescribe resilient utility installations
(elevated electrical panels, secured water supplies) and redundancy for critical
systems.
 Quality assurance & certification: Requiring licensed professionals for design and
construction, third-party inspections, and post-construction certification increases
compliance and safety.
 Incentives and enforcement mechanisms: Combining incentives (subsidy for
resilient materials, fast-track approvals for compliant designs) with strong
enforcement (penalties for non-compliance, demolition of unsafe structures) improves
adherence.
 Inclusion & affordability provisions: Bye-laws can promote safe low-cost housing
options (standard resilient design templates), enable incremental upgrading of
informal settlements, and integrate affordable serviced land to reduce risk-driven
informal growth.

3.3 Implementation and governance considerations

 Capacity building: Municipalities need trained planners, engineers and enforcement

staff to apply bye-laws and interpret hazard maps.
 Data-driven planning: Up-to-date hazard maps, cadastral records and GIS systems
are necessary to make risk-informed decisions.
 Community engagement: Regulations work best when communities are consulted;
local knowledge can guide practical rules (e.g., culturally appropriate designs).
 Phased and rights-based enforcement: Enforcement must protect vulnerable
households (avoid sudden evictions) and offer alternatives like in-situ upgrading or
planned relocation with compensation and services.
 Monitoring and iterative review: Regularly updating bye-laws to reflect new hazard
science, climate projections and post-disaster lessons institutionalizes learning.

5|Page