Unit 3

UNIT 3 RISK REDUCTION
Structure
3.0 Learning Outcome
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Understanding Disaster Risk Reduction
3.2.1 Risk Reduction Framework
3.3 Mainstreaming ‘Risk’

3.3.1 Rationale for Risk Articulation
3.3.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis
3.3.3 Goal Oriented Risk Reduction
3.4 Targets for Risk Reduction

3.5 Role of Science and Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction
3.5.1 Application of Information technology in Disaster Risk Reduction
3.6 Strategies for Risk Reduction

3.6.1 Disaster Planning for Risk Reduction
3.6.2 Disaster Risk Reduction by Information, Education and Public Awareness
3.6.3 Risk Reduction through Livelihood Concerns
3.6.4 Stakeholders Participation in Disaster Risk Reduction
3.6.5 Risk Sharing and Transfer
3.6.6 Risk Reduction through Disaster Prevention
3.7 International Mobilisation for Risk Reduction

3.8 Conclusion
3.9 Key Concepts
3.10 References and Further Reading
3.11 Activities
3.0 LEARNING OUTCOME

After reading this Unit, you should be able to:
• Understand the essentials of risk reduction;
• Analyse targets for risk reduction; and
• Discuss risk reduction with respect to specific natural hazards
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The focus in disaster management has currently shifted from disaster response to
mitigation. The emphasis is on mainstreaming disaster risk reduction strategies in macro
socio economic planning. Accordingly, disaster management is being approached not as a
Risk Reduction 57
contingent measure but as an integral aspect of developmental planning. Disaster management

has not been accorded requisite priority as an issue in development planning; consequently,
resource allocation has been inadequate. With the shift in emphasis, it is hoped, disaster
management would be appreciated better as an integral aspect of governance. To that
end, analysis of vulnerability factors contributing to ‘risk’ with a view to framing suitable
risk reduction strategies would be required to impart requisite ‘rationality’ (purpose and
end-orientation) to administrative decisions.
The emergence of disaster reduction as a concept that integrates development-oriented
strategies and recent innovative approaches in disaster management such as vulnerability
and risk reduction has presented a new perspective in planning as also opportunities to
address the important areas of concern that have up till now been less considered. The
concept has also been applied in policy development, usually in the context of sustainable
development and long-term socio-economic development strategies.
3.2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

Burton, Kates and White (1978) suggest that man can purposely adjust to the risk of
environmental extremes by changing habitation or resource use, community action, restorative
activity or redistribution of loss. Other adjustments are incidental but contribute to
reducing loss. Hence, man may make changes, which are innocently adaptive with respect
to the risk of environmental extremes.
To quote from the United Nations seminal document, ‘Living with Risk: A Global Review
of Disaster Reduction Initiatives’, “a disaster is a function of the risk process. It results
from a combination of hazards, conditions of vulnerability and insufficient capacity or
measures to reduce the potential negative consequences of risk… disaster reduction
strategies include, first and foremost, vulnerability and risk assessment, as well as a
number of institutional capacities and operational abilities. Essential features of disaster
reduction strategy include the assessment of the vulnerability of facilities crucial to the
social and economic infrastructure, the use of effective early warning systems, and the
application of many different types’ of scientific, technical educational and other skilled
abilities.”
3.2.1 Risk Reduction Framework

As per the document, the subject of disaster risk reduction in the modern era draws its
relevance largely from earlier contributions and previous practices in the field of civil
defence and later disaster management. The traditional focus had been on emergency
preparedness and better provision of urban services during contingencies. The approach
had consequently been predominantly short-term. Since disasters, of late, have threatened
to disrupt development altogether and increase poverty and vulnerability of people,
particularly in low-income countries, there has been a realisation of the need for protective
strategies on a sustained basis to preserve the civilisation, which has been built assiduously
over ages. Such paradigm shift is already discernible in Central American countries
following repeated devastating disasters in the year 1998.European countries too have
been forced to reassess their priorities as per their ‘exposure’ to different hazards. In
Asian countries such as China, India, Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam, more emphasis is
being placed on risk identification and management of risks as part of development
planning. Such emphasis is evident from the sources of finance for risk reduction, which
are now ‘mainstream sources’ rather than emergency contingency funds. The rationale
58 Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Analysis
behind such a shift is the common realisation that the risk of disasters is fundamentally
linked to environmental problems and unresolved issues essential for sustainable development.
Accordingly, there are two major objectives of disaster reduction policies: (1) to enable
societies to be resilient to natural hazards and (2) to ensure that development efforts do
not increase vulnerability to those hazards’.
Small dams disasters, for example, eliminate the risk of small floods, but could escalate
the impact of a massive flood catastrophe by leading to human occupation of areas
beneath. Other adjustments, for instance, warning systems etc, may lack the necessary
components to be effective (Mileti, 1975). Adoption of policies to enhance adjustment
and actual subsequent adjustments may not always be correlated; hence, not guaranteeing
effective risk mitigation to the satisfactory extent.
An important aspect in understanding human adjustment to environmental extremes is the
link or connection between adjustment activities. Isolated adjustments are less effective.
Hazard adjustment linkages are best viewed in terms of how adoption of one adjustment
would affect the adoption of others (White and Haas, 1975).
Sorenson (1975) has provided an inventory of possible linkages. Firstly, one type of
adjustment may cause the adoption of a second, for example, communities with engineering
works typically became dependent on federal relief programmes (in the US). Secondly,
an independent factor may cause the adoption of one or several adjustments, for example,
the National Flood Insurance Program enhances adoption of both insurance and land use
controls (Hutton and Mileti, 1979; Kunreuther, 1978). Finally, other scholars propose that
adjustments can interact randomly.
There is a concomitant shift in the theoretical understanding of disaster risk reduction in
that the orientation is now an attempt through planned policy interventions over time to
reduce risks through continuous research and development activities involving a network
of agencies across social economic governmental and professional sectors instead of a
specialised service limited to only security, emergency services and engineering experts.
Accordingly, the disaster risk reduction framework is composed of the following fields of
action, as described in ISDR’s publication in 2002; ‘Living with Risk: A Global Review
of Disaster Reduction Initiatives.’
• Risk awareness and assessment including hazard analysis and vulnerability and
capacity analysis;
• Knowledge development including education, training, research and information;
• Public commitment and institutional frameworks, including organisational, policy,
legislation and community action;
• Application of measures including environmental management, land-use and urban
planning, protection of critical facilities, application of science and technology, partnership
and networking, and, financial instruments;
• Early warning systems including forecasting, dissemination of warnings, preparedness
measures and reaction capacities.
3.3 MAINSTREAMING ‘RISK’

Risk remains insufficiently accounted for in decision-making, despite the current emphasis
on perceiving disaster risk as a developmental issue and not a one of contingent measure.
Risk Reduction 59
As explained in the Disaster Management Training Programme (1994), the estimation of

probable future losses is a matter of increasing interest to those concerned with
developmental planning or with management of facilities or public administration in
hazard prone areas. It is also pertinent for insurance business, economic planners and
town planners where futuristic estimates are required. Loss estimates are also required
for those involved in provision of contingent services such as civil protection, relief and
emergency services, drafting building codes or regulation to minimise losses and protect
life and property. Estimates could be physical estimates expressed in economic terms or
human losses.
3.3.1 Rationale for Risk Articulation

As brought out by Charlotte Benson, the World Bank and the United States Geological
Survey have calculated that economic losses, worldwide from natural disasters in the
1990s could be reduced by $280 billion, if $40 billion were invested in preparedness,
mitigation and prevention strategies. (Benson). The damages involved are unviable in that
other incidental and collateral losses involving related sectors could set off a multiplier
effect calling into question the entire rationale of the investment decision. In the words of
Hosseini, (2005), “development cannot be sustainable if the effects of natural and man
made hazards are not taken into account in the process of development” since disaster
related damage has spin off effects on related sectors, like, industries making food
products and other agro based industries which would suffer the impact of a fall in farm
output. Droughts adversely affect industries that supply agriculture based products such as
fertilizer.
To discuss a specific project, for making a cutting road, an engineer would chose the
steepest angle since that is the cheapest option. However, in case of heavy rainfall or
tremor, the cutting will collapse and the road may be buried or washed away. This is
basic engineering knowledge and the excuse of not having anticipated it would be
unacceptable. There have been many incidents of projects wiped out by cyclones, floods
or earthquakes. It is only wise to prevent such losses if one could (Coburn, Sspence,
Pomonis, 1994).
It should also be considered, however, that the extra cost involved in accounting for such
risks in investment decisions may actually be deterring since physical and socio-economic
vulnerabilities to be considered in every engineering and policy decision are manifold and
the costs involved are enormous. With a macro perspective, resource generation would be
difficult since tax rates are already too high, as per the ‘capacity to pay’ argument/
approach. Besides, the question remains, how safe is safe enough? To what extent can/
does one consider safety concerns? Decisions are based on ‘goal oriented risk reduction’.
Such questions, however, do not bring into question the rationality of considering risk in
decision-making, especially in hazard prone areas, since losses incurred in the absence of
such endeavour could be/indeed are staggering. Risk reduction is now imminent and an
unquestionable requirement.
3.3.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

A major decision-making tool, commonly used in the economic and financial evaluation of
public investments, is cost-benefit analysis (CBA). For new investment projects, accounting
for risk in CBA leads to more careful project selection and design to decrease potential
losses when a disaster strikes. Simple explanation of cost-benefit analysis is given by
Coburn, Sspence and Pomonis in the Disaster Management Training Programme, (1994)
as: all benefits of a project are computed in financial terms, assessed against costs,
alternative strategies assessed by the same criterion and decisions regarding the project or
alternatives, taken as per value derived, that is either positive (benefits exceed costs by
a considerable margin) or negative (converse). Since benefits are derived some time in the
future, decisions involve trade off between present and future benefits. Future benefits are
discounted to their present value (using a social discount rate, which is a consistent value
used in all project evaluations), which reveal the viability of a project in financial terms.
Estimations consider the specific ‘elements’ likely to be at risk in the decision involved.
As per Charlotte Benson, the economic costs of disasters can be broken down into three
types:
Direct Costs, which relate to capital cost of assets (such as buildings, other physical
infrastructure, raw materials, crop losses and the like,) destroyed or damaged in a
disaster.
Indirect Costs, referring to the damage to the flow of goods and services, including for
example, lower output from factories damaged, low sales, disruption of power supplies;
etc., and
Secondary effects, referring to the short and long term impacts of a disaster on overall
economic performance involving deteriorated external trade and government budget balances,
increased indebtedness, reallocations in budget, etc.
The left hand side of the following table (Table 1) presents the costing criteria in analysis
which in turn is dependent on the quality of risk information and the temporal dimension
of planning. The right hand side displays benefits (project specific and socio economic that
accrue with such measures (Vermeirin, 1990).
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Methodological Factors Expected Value

Project-specific bene
• Quality of risk information
• Reduction in
• Planning horizon/lifespan
• Reduction in
Present Value of Costs
• Losses/dama
• Cost of adhering to stricter
standards Socio-econ
• Cost of protective works • Continuity i
• Cost associated with foregoing • Contribution
the use of hazardous areas developmen
• Improved in
There are limitations, however, to CBA. One is the difficulty of assessing non-market
values. Besides, there are ethical and other intangible issues and questions, which may not
be assessed on monetary criterion. Another issue is the lack of accounting for the
distribution of benefits and costs in CBA. The difficulty arises from the non-measurability
of certain costs and benefits, which cannot be easily included in estimates. Also a lot of
futuristic thinking and planning is involved, which is not amenable to easy quantification.
Risk Reduction 61
3.3.3 Goal Oriented Risk Reduction

The concept of acceptable risk was discussed in the previous Unit. The criterion of
acceptable risk is used to determine appropriate levels of risk even though ‘acceptable
risk’ itself, depends on a number of subjective and cultural/attitudinal criteria. In California,
seismic building codes have been designed as per ‘acceptable risk ‘expressed by the
community.
Buildings should be able to:
• resist minor earthquakes without damage;
• resist moderate earthquakes without significant structural damage; and
• resist major or severe earthquakes without major failure of the structural framework
of the building or its equipment, and maintain life safety.
Since the concept of acceptable risk is ambiguous, a balanced risk criterion is adopted,
which compares risks incident from other activities to arrive at resource allocation
decisions between various risks. Another criterion is the cost-effectiveness criterion, by
which every element at risk (including human life) is treated as ‘capital’ and costs of likely
damage, computed in financial terms. Human capital loss should be avoided since it would
retard economic growth. The analyses is attempted to be as objective as possible though
no standard criterion has still been developed. Ultimately, acceptable risk could simply be
a matter of political choice.
3.4 TARGETS FOR RISK REDUCTION

The concept of elements at risk was discussed in the second Unit. Specific identification
of elements at risk is important for devising cost effective and appropriate disaster
mitigation strategies. Opportunities for natural hazard mitigation can be found anywhere
where population, infrastructure or economic activities are at risk from disruption/
destruction from extreme natural events. Which vulnerability reduction actions to consider,
will depend on what is to be protected, on the priorities set by those affected, and, on
the resources made available for their implementation. Risk information is procured from
risk analysis involving hazard assessment, vulnerability assessment for proposed project
considering ‘elements’ at risk. Mitigation measures are accordingly devised to protect
identified elements at risk. Information procured is incorporated in mitigation planning and
preparedness planning to meet or prevent contingencies effectively. The following are the
emerging agendas in integrating risk reduction with development planning: (Hosseini, 2005)
Appropriate governance
Factoring risk into disaster recovery and reconstruction
Managing the multifaceted nature of risk
As per Hossieni, bringing disaster risk reduction and development concerns closer
together requires the following steps:
The collection of basic data on disaster risk and the development of planning tools
to track the relationship between development policy and disaster risk
The collection and dissemination of best practice in development planning and policy
that reduce disaster risk
The galvanising of political will to reorient both the development and disaster
management sectors
Compensatory Risk management

Addressing gaps in knowledge for disaster risk assessment.
The greatest factor(s) in mainstreaming disaster risk into development planning is political
will and considerations of geographic equity or ‘balanced regional development. Development
policies have to be both generic and disaster specific in that vulnerable communities face
multiple threats owing to socio-economic deprivations, which can be rectified through
generic development strategies with the new perspective of disaster risk reduction. As per
Hosseini, governance for disaster risk reduction has economic, political and administrative
aspects/elements. Economic governance implies ‘rationality’ of policy in terms of resource
allocation decisions and its distributional impacts. Political governance requires inclusiveness
and comprehensiveness of policy involving all concerned stakeholders in the deliberative
process, while administrative governance implies effective implementation through
interagency coordination, community participation official accountability, periodic review
and updating. Specific activities involved would be enforcement of building codes, land
use planning, factoring ‘environmental risk’ into policy and human vulnerability monitoring
and required safety standards. Gradual integration of disaster risk analysis into developmental
plans is a must to affect the paradigm shift from emergency management to disaster
management involving prevention, preparedness, and mitigation components. Concomitant
attitude change is also imperative in that communities should not be looked upon as mere
victims but as “resource since they possess enormous knowledge and capabilities for
coping with and managing risk” (Sahni & Ariyabandu, 2003). Disquietingly though,
orientation continues to be disaster relief than disaster mitigation in any significant way.
While selecting opportunities for hazard mitigation, it is essential to remember that the
most effective approach to reducing the long-term impact of natural hazards is to
incorporate hazard assessment and mitigation activities into the process of integrated
development planning and investment project formulation and ensure implementation with
assured peoples’ participation (Jigyasu, 2002).
The following table illustrates activities, which can be taken at the family and community
level to reduce hazard threat (Vermeirin, 1993):
Risk Reduction 63
Structural and Non-Structural Mitigation

Mitigation measures are classified Structural and Non-Structural. Structural mitigation
measures include building and planning regulations for proper land-use management,
guidelines for new constructions based on earthquake mitigation measures and various
technical measures of strengthening buildings. Some other examples of structural mitigation
measures include construction of dykes to provide protection against river or sea floods
(Charlotte Benson). It is important to differentiate between engineered structures and non-
engineered structures for better analysis of structural mitigation.
In case of floods, for example, structural interventions include the construction of dykes
to provide protection against river or sea floods. In Vietnam such structures have been
built and maintained for some 2000 years. Bamboo houses are built in traditional
communities to brace against cyclones. In case of earthquakes, classification is attempted
between engineered structures and non-engineered structures. The following table from the
Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project (Vermeirin, 1993) illustrates structural and non-
structural mitigation options with planners.
Table-3
Hazard Mitigation Options

Risk Avoidance Measures Risk Spreading Measures Vu
(Non-structural measures) • Property damage Me
Discourage location of and revenue loss Ph
settlements, infrastructure and insurance en
economic activities in known • Crop diversification
hazardous areas through: • Redundancy in
• Land-use regulations, lifeline systems
ordinances
• Financial incentives or
penalties
• Disclosure of risk
information
• Public infrastructure
policy
• Natural resource
management policy
Engineered Structures: Engineered structures are those that are planned, designed and
constructed by engineers and experts in related fields. While professionals are already
trained to plan, design and supervise the construction of buildings and infrastructures, they
might need additional training to achieve necessary structural safety standards, incorporate
mitigation practices into their design of structures to make them resistant to seismic shock,
storms wind or floods. The application of sound technical principles is achieved through:
Site planning
Assessment of forces created by natural phenomena
Planning and analysis of structural measures to resist such forces
Design and proper detailing of structural component
Construction with suitable material
Good workmanship under adequate supervisions
Non-Engineered Structures: Such structures mainly comprise simple dwellings, mostly in

rural areas, which are informally constructed, and which do not follow modern engineering
norms. They are built with local materials on the basis of the local indigenous knowledge.
It is held that these structures collapse quite easily during disasters, causing large-scale
casualties. There is the other viewpoint, however, that recognises merit in local knowledge
and advocates incorporating the same in modern engineering know-how. Charlotte Benson
refers to bamboo houses found in coastal areas among tribal indigenous communities,
which are braced against cyclones. There are examples of storm masonry from Gujarat
India, which provide reportedly earthquake resistant structures (Jigyasu, 2002). Nothing
could be said conclusively however, since researches give widely divergent views, some
even suggesting that local structures are more adaptive to hazards and also more resistant.
Without being precociously judgemental however, about the safety of such structures, as
a policy measure, it should be ensured that informal structures are not built on hazardous
sites such as steep slopes subject to landslides, floodplains subject to flash floods etc.
Though there are various definitions for an earthquake resistant construction, the following
are some of the common aspects of buildings designed for earthquake mitigation as
published by the International Association for Earthquake Engineering, October, 1986,
revised edition of Basic Concepts of Seismic Codes: Vol 1 Part 2, 1980, and cited in
Jigyasu (2002). These are as follows:
• An ordinary building should not suffer total or partial collapse
• It should not suffer such irreparable damage which would require demolishing and
rebuilding
• It may sustain such damage which would be repaired quickly and the building put
back to its usual functioning
• However some of the most desirable qualities are symmetry and regularity of building
form, solid foundation base and reinforcement to improve ductility. Also there are
basically, two types of structural framing, which can withstand gravity and seismic
load viz. Bearing wall construction and framed construction. The framed construction
may again consist of
• Light framing members which must have diagonal bracing such as wood frames
• Substantial rigid jointed beams and columns capable of resisting the lateral loads by
themselves.
Above mentioned safety criteria depends on appropriate design and construction details
for which needed expertise would have to be built through proper manpower planning
implying setting up educational institutions, encouraging research, modifying syllabus etc. to
prepare trained experts in disaster proofing/retrofitting of buildings.
3.5 ROLE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
As stated in the United Nation’s Disaster Management Training Programme (1994),
disaster preparedness includes all measures that ensure the readiness/ ability of a society
to: (a) forecast and take precautionary measures in advance of an imminent threat (in case
where) advance warnings are possible); and (b) respond to and cope with the effects of
a disaster by organising and delivering timely and effective rescue, relief and other
Risk Reduction 65
appropriate post disaster assistance. The Red Cross has identified disaster preparedness
as an effective link between emergency response, rehabilitation and development programmes
(Jigyasu, 2002).
As explained in the previous Unit, the All Hazards Perspective is currently being
emphasised in America to combat the threat of terrorism stressing on interagency
collaboration and data analyses of all preceding natural and accidental mishaps. The Sub-
Committee on Disaster Reduction (SDR) of the National Science and Technological
Council (NSTC) in the United States has articulated six important areas that require
continued energy and appropriate resources to meet the challenges of hazard risk
reduction. The same may be pertinent for all countries facing the threat of terrorism, which
is the single most horrifying disaster possibility in recent times.
1) Leveraging existing knowledge of natural and technological hazards to address
terrorism events
2) Improve hazard information data collection and prediction capability
3) Ensure the development and widespread use of improved hazard and risk assessment
models and their incorporation into decision support tools and systems.
4) Speed the transition from hazard research to hazard management application
5) Increase mitigation activities and incentives
6) Expand risk communication capabilities, especially public warning systems and
techniques
Kenneth Bloem of the John Hopkins University Center for Biodefense Studies has
identified a number of parallel streams where preparation for terrorist incidents can be
enhanced by decades of research in traditional disaster areas:
• Wildfires and Arson
• Accidental explosions and bombs
• Floods and dam sabotage
• Chemical spills and chemical attacks
• Epidemics and biological terrorism
Mention may be made here of some other significant approaches to disaster management
under discussion (Guzman):
The comprehensive approach to disaster management entails inclusive strategy for
different yet complementing aspects of disaster management, i.e. prevention and mitigation,
preparedness, response and recovery, correlated for the purpose of sustainable development
strategies. The requirement is public policy based on articulated risk (s). This approach
aims to augment the overall capacity of the system to react to a disaster event with
readiness.
The all-hazards approach as already explained above, targets developing a common
framework based on knowledge from all relevant fields for handling all types of disasters.
The focus is harnessing science and technology for risk reduction from all man made/
natural disasters, including terrorism. The belief is that technical know-how for natural
hazard mitigation can be used to tackle technological and other man- made disasters.
Common preparedness helps, in that rehabilitation, medical assistance infrastructure,
manpower needed in case of emergency etc. are likely to be the same for all hazards.
The integrated approach places reliance on administrative coordination for joint strategising
for risk reduction. It proposes that all organisations, including government, private and
community organisations, are involved concertedly in risk reduction. This approach
stresses on promoting multi-sectored and inter-sectored coordination to provide a total
policy framework for disaster management. The modalities for such cooperation may need
to be worked out to prevent overlapping, coordination problems or jurisdictional disputes
between departments. Certain administrative modifications would be required, for instance,
hierarchical command control structure may be unsuited for effective policy implementation.
There is also need to ensure wide forms of public, private and professional participation
in policy formulation and implementation. Disaster risk reduction is also an educative
exercise. There is need for academic deliberation on a sustained basis wherein information
and inspiration is drawn from many different sources, viz. technical, social sciences,
anthropologists, etc. and correlated under an architectonic rubric of disaster mitigation
policy.
The prepared community concept stresses community empowerment through state initiative.
People are not passive beneficiaries but active participants in development planning and
implementation processes. Peoples’ capacities are recognised and channelised through the
‘facilitating’ role of the state. It includes analyses of the social, economic and demographic
make-up of the community and its infrastructure. Through such analyses, livelihood options
are studied, proposed and promulgated among aid providers and disaster management
practitioners. Awareness generation and training of volunteers is attempted along with
strengthening local self-governing institutions with a view to establishing participatory
democracy at the grass roots.
The developmental relief approach underlines the need of undertaking disaster relief as
part of long term development. The aim is to invest in aid with a view to building long-
term resilience instead of stopping at short-term measures. Hence, relief has to be
sustained over time and be part of a planned capacity building approach.
Besides disaster management, the other major paradigms are the vulnerability reduction
approach and the risk reduction approach, which is the latest development. The
vulnerability reduction approach is a comparatively new approach. The vulnerability of a
community is characterised by its susceptibility to risks posed by hazards, and its
resilience in the face of it. Appropriate solutions are devised using a cocktail of
approaches, scientific; social is applied to address all facets of a problem. Vulnerability
reduction epitomises the very concept of risk reduction in that it seeks to anticipate and
prevent damage from hazards through ‘developmental measures’ taken over time, rather
than allow disasters to happen to inspire policy in this regard. Vulnerability is physical,
social, economic, cultural and attitudinal.
As per Guzman, there is need for an integrating framework encompassing all the above
–stated approaches, in the form of a Total Disaster Risk Management or the TDRM
approach which is based on detailed risk analysis and ‘factors’ the same in public policy.
The question that has persisted however is how desired integration can be achieved.
Following the inadequacy of any of the above approaches in achieving satisfactory disaster
preparedness, the Risk Reduction Framework has been articulated by the United Nations.
Risk Reduction 67
Risk Reduction provides an identified ‘objective’, which makes targeted risk preparedness/
planning for mitigation possible. Earlier this concrete end had been lacking. Hence, all the
activities mentioned above as different approaches can now be geared towards, the end
objective of ‘Risk Reduction.’
3.5.1 Application of Information Technology in Disaster Risk

Reduction
Information technology (IT) has revolutionised communication, bringing within the ambit of
connectivity, remote and far flung areas and the illiterate marginalised masses, realised true
democracy and enhanced awareness of rights among people and duties among official
agencies and the lay public. Knowledge is power; hence ‘empowerment’ is the chief
contribution/result of the information communication revolution partaking in the developing
world currently. Specific applications and benefits of IT are discussed thus by N. Vinod
Chandra Menon (2003):
A) Decision Support and Public Awareness
The World Wide Web and the Internet have opened up possibilities of department
specific web sites, which provide information in specialised branches of disaster management.
Some of these web sites are accessible to people which disseminate valuable information
for interest articulation and academic deliberation in the area. There are specialised web
sites on natural hazards such as earthquakes and cyclones that provide comprehensive
information regarding specific natural hazards. Such web sites also form ‘knowledge
bases’ in that a web site on earthquakes would present all information on the hazard and
ways to deal with it. These form important decision support tools (DCS) that facilitate
knowledge transfer during critical times.
B) Information Sharing
The Information Communication Revolution has made possible the setting up of local area
and wide area networks known as INTRANETS and EXTRANETS that link up
institutions over distant regions and facilitate information sharing on a global basis. The
integration of information technology (IT) with telecommunication interfaces has made
possible facilities like video teleconferencing which provide for direct interface between aid
givers and official agencies at the emergency site, rendering relief and rescue process
highly efficient, besides providing for ‘knowledge networking’ across institutions, especially
research institutions during ‘peace times’.
Another significant development has been the Geographical Information System (GIS), by
which detailed spatial analysis of ‘at risk’ area is accomplished through satellite imagery.
Comprehensive information is collected about the area which is displayed graphically, on
a map, highlighting critical facilities and communities at risk, available communication
infrastructure etc. which guides immediate disaster response in the short run, and over the
long run, facilitates risk mapping, risk assessment, dissemination of information, public
awareness etc. which aid long term policy planning for disaster mitigation. The GIS has
greatly facilitated response effort as strategies can be devised on the basis of scientific
simulation studies and scenario analysis using information made available through remote
sensing. The Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) has commissioned a satellite
based communication system called Cyclone Warning Dissemination System for dissemination
of cyclone warning in coastal areas.
C) Policy Planning
Information Technology has greatly aided planning for disaster response and preparedness.
Information technology has made policy for disaster risk reduction more fact based and
less judgemental /‘a priori’. Even generally, policy making for traffic, transport, forest
conservation, urban congestion etc is facilitated by spatial imagery through remote sensing.
3.6 STRATEGIES FOR RISK REDUCTION

3.6.1 Disaster Planning for Risk Reduction
Disaster planning implies securing administrative arrangements, involving unity of command,
span of control, line and staff coordination, delegation, etc. precisely, principles of
organisation theory to provide the administrative arrangements to prevent small scale,
frequently occurring disasters, which keep disrupting growth and set back development by
a number of years. Planning follows risk identification to secure a facility/area from
likely risks. A disaster plan is the result of a wide range of preliminary activities
(Lindblom, 1999). Disaster planning is conducted both at the micro (at the level of an
institution, involving instituting fire protection systems, fire protection systems, electrical
systems, plumbing, and protection against environmental hazards etc.) and the macro
levels, the objectives of which are outlined as follows by Anil Sinha (2002):
• Forecasting, forewarning of disaster threat and providing the institutional and
organisational setup and logistics, personnel, inventory, finances, etc., to achieve
desired level of preparedness
• Mobilisation of resources from internal and external sources
• Taking organisational and administrative steps, including disaster action plans, regular
and periodic updating of plans and projects securing institutional wherewithal to
implement it, providing for a horizontal and vertical coordination through a network
of official and non official agencies involved viz. government departments, civil
defence military and paramilitary organisations running through the central, state and
field levels
• Placing on ground, well- equipped modern forecasting and warning system and
reliable fast communication system
• Generating capabilities for prompt and rapid rescue, relief and rehabilitation work on
the other
• Proper planning for medical assistance and health cover would be a critical requirement
• Providing for other miscellaneous needs like stocking and distribution, food, medicines,
shelter, clothing, evacuation, transportation and long term resettlement and rehabilitation
of affected communities
• Securing water management practices sine provision of clean water is often problem
and a necessity post disasters
• Government initiatives implying long term measures identified by the central government,
instituting intensive Training programmes, building data based on documentation of
disasters and lessons to be learnt there from, and, dissemination of information
Risk Reduction 69
• Integration of disaster management with overall development planning

• Improving public awareness
• Investment in R&D, use of modern technology, particularly information and remote
sensing technologies
Interventions Needed:
• Evolve model integrated district/ institution wide disaster action plans that include all
types of disasters, natural and man made, viz. land slides, accidents, earthquakes,
etc., and cover all steps namely preparedness, mitigation, risk mapping, relief and
rehabilitation;
• Evolve a model state plan to ensure a degree of uniformity of approaches, actions
and systems and their periodic updating; and
• Training covering local industries and businesses so ensure better implementation
through cooperation of the private corporate sector and the voluntary sector.
3.6.2 Disaster Risk Reduction by Information, Education, and Public

Awareness
Recently much emphasis has been put on community based proactive approaches towards
risk reduction. The aim is to improve the ability of vulnerable communities to cope with
disasters through developing their coping capacity by building on existing practices, skills
and local structures such as panchayats and community based voluntary action groups.
According to a policy statement of Red Cross 2001, adopting a community-based
approach is the best guarantee that disaster preparedness will be implemented and
sustained. Therefore people must participate in planning and preparing for disasters. All
activities and programmes should be sensitive to issues of gender and the special needs
of vulnerable groups such as the disabled and backwards sections. Such projects are
being undertaken successfully in the Carribbean, South and South East Asia (Jigyasu,
2002).
Considerable research is being attempted following recent examples of community resilience
based on traditional social support bases such as families and local coping measures such
as resilient construction technologies that minimise harm from disaster impact. Traditional
buildings were found to perform well in the Armenia Earthquake in 1988, the Turkey
Earthquakes in 1999 and 2000. Such buildings are often constructed of masonry and
timber tubble, mud and lightweight pieces of wood. These types of constructions are
found in seismically active belts that extend from Africa and Europe across Asia and also
in Central America (ibid). Hence, the emphasis is on articulation of local risk factors and
local strategies for combating the threats involved to incorporating the same, wherever
found feasible, in modern science and developmental strategies.
3.6.3 Risk Reduction through Livelihood Concerns

Poor developing countries are largely primary producing economies that are mainly
dependent on agriculture and related support activities for sustenance. Agriculture includes
farming and also animal husbandry, pastoral activities, fishing and harvesting the forest
(Bhatti, 2003). The best way to inculcate resilience in disaster prone communities is by
ensuring livelihood opportunities, which help affected people cope better in the aftermath
of a disaster. It has been observed that loss of livelihood causes people to migrate to
other places particularly adjoining metropolises in search of employment options which

create problems of urban congestion and possibilities of conflict. To endorse the point
with relevant examples, the saltpan workers in Kandla did not have any livelihood option
after the Gujarat earthquake. In Kot Murad, a flood prone village in Pakistan, where
farming is the main livelihood, 87% of the total households remain landless, since the
system is feudal and power and resources are arrogated in the hands of the rich
landowners. This social and economic vulnerable state has been compounded by annual
incidents of floods. Reducing vulnerability of these communities would involve providing
road and rail connectivity to market places and administrative and institutional arrangements
to encourage marketing of their produce to reduce the threat to their livelihood besides
structural mitigation measures such as construction of eco friendly small dams in upper
catchments of rivers protective embankments along rivers and other such water harvesting
measures. This would require replacement of the isolated departmental approach with an
integrated flood preparedness approach based in a networking of knowledge. Attention
needs to be paid to this significant dimension of disaster response and preparedness
(Bhatti, 2003).
3.6.4 Stakeholders Participation in Disaster Risk Reduction

According to E. Vayunanadan (2003), all concerned parties in disaster policy and
implementation should put in concerted effort towards disaster preparedness. This implies
continuous/consistent participation and deliberation on the part of all concerned stakeholders
with regard to new and emergent issues in town planning, administrative upgradation,
employment and livelihood in urban and rural areas, mobilisation of non government effort.
It is equally significant, that the ‘balance of power’ in such discussions is not allowed to
tilt unfairly in favour of /against any stakeholder in deliberation and planning preceding
policy formation, since that is likely to have adverse effect on implementation, in the sense
of making it lop sided. The ‘at risk’ population is an equally significant stakeholder. In
view of it there has to be equal ‘voice’ imparted to, and interest articulation for affected
‘publics’. To activate such community participation, it is imperative, that right to information
be championed effectively and isolated effort on the part of people organised and
institutionalised through ‘gram sabhas’ and community action groups. Community
empowerment in ‘peace times’ would determine its resilience in facing contingencies.
3.6.5 Risk Sharing and Transfer

Disasters divert important funds from development to disaster relief and rehabilitation.
Tools need to be developed that help the poor to manage risks more effectively with
alternative sources of finance such as insurance. According to Anselm Smolka (2003),
beyond financing future losses, more efforts need to be made towards a more proactive
strategy to reduce and prevent losses. To that end there is need for a more proactive
collaboration between financial institutions, the state, and industry and insured parties to
actively promote risk reduction measures. The following entities need to be considered in
desired partnership:
Insured Persons
Insured persons should bear some of the responsibility through measures such as
‘coinsurance’ (a percentage participation in each and every case, ranging from 10-15 %
and extending up to 75 % in many cases.) and/or deductibles (percentage of sum insured
ranging from 10-25% as per risk levels or a flat amount, insurance payments start only
after the deductibles) to maintain interest in loss reduction on the part of asset holders.
Risk Reduction 71
Besides, business owners should invest in emergency management and individual owners
too should ensure safety and security of their property (Smolka, 2003).
Insurers
“Primary insurers are expected to provide and secure capacity by:
• charging appropriate rates
• providing appropriate underwriting guidelines
• accumulation control and portfolio management
• establishing reserves for natural perils
• limiting their liability according to their financial strength, that is reinsurance protection.
Reinsurers being the major risk bearers should ensure proper risk management, which
includes:
• Balancing the risk over time and regions
• Technical support to clients in rating considerations and assessments of probable
maximum losses (PMLAs)
• Controlling and limiting liabilities (setting cession/occurrence limits, budgeting,
retrocession)
• The Capital Markets are a relatively new entrant in the field. Their function is to
provide adequate capacity for top ranking losses. This type of Alternative Risk
Transfer (ART) should be seen as a supplement rather than as competition for
reinsurers. They need to take more active interest in insuring disaster losses. The
state is the insurer of the last resort for very extraordinary and unserviceable losses.
The state should focus on mitigation measures to protect its critical facilities, design
and enforce building regulations, and overall, provide for disaster response and
preparedness.
• The Private Insurance Sector has made fewer inroads into the markets in developing
countries though they could significantly contribute to developing micro finance
options. Even otherwise, the insurance sector has not had an active role to play in
risk management, particular in developing countries because of short-term financial
perspectives, as the time scale for possible positive outcome is too long. According
to Smolka, insurance should undertake periodic assessments of insured stocks and
make risk reduction a condition for providing insurance. The same was attempted in
the United States with regard to earthquake proofing of establishments with
considerable success. The state should also consider granting tax exemptions to
catastrophe reserves of private insurers. Moreover, banks could set disaster reduction
as a precondition for granting loans.
3.6.6 Risk Reduction through Disaster Prevention

Disaster prevention involves activities to provide outright avoidance of the adverse impacts
of hazards and means to minimise environmental, technological and biological disasters. An
example of prevention measure is an early warning system instituted to predict the onset
of a hazard like a cyclone, storm surge or tsunami. Prevention could be better understood
with reference to certain commonly occurring natural hazards:
Landslides
According to R.S Tolia, Rakesh Sharma, R.K. Pande, and J.K Pathak (2001), apart
from natural causes like excessive rainfall, earthquakes, and changes in soil slope
composition, in structure, hydrology or vegetation, anthropogenic interferences with the
environment are also responsible for causing landslides. In Uttarakhand, major landslides
occur because of blastings carried out for road cuttings. Other man- made factors include,
construction of dams or reservoirs, housing schemes, roads, agricultural practices on steep
slopes etc., implemented without proper environmental impact assessments. Deforestation
also contributes to soil erosion. Public policy with preventive provisions is required to
protect against landslide hazards such as minimising the exposure of facilities and
populations to landslides. Even natural causes are not altogether beyond control, if right
impetus is given to research and requisite authority and say granted to specialists.
Preventive and remedial measures are studied within the purview of environmental
geomorphology.
Cyclones
Best prevention against cyclones is provision of warning systems and second line
unconventional communication infrastructure, since mainline infrastructure is the first casualty
in cyclones. Such facility is known as Amateur Radio, which has emerged as one of the
most important second line communication systems during disasters. Though the facility as
yet is not as commonly applied in India as it is in Japan and other western developed
nations, the Andhra Pradesh government has taken considerable initiative in this regard.
The National Institute of Amateur Radio (NIAR) has established HAM radio networks
along the coastal belt of Andhra Pradesh. Other measures include providing cyclone
shelters at regular distances to help save lives, natural coastal shelter belts like mangroves,
trees like casuarinas, eucalyptus, tamarind, neem etc. which act as natural buffers, building
concrete houses to withstand strong winds and tidal waves, grains that do not shred easily
in the face of strong winds, and securing cooperation of local folks like fishermen
providing training and cooperation of community action groups, which is held imminent
now for the success of any measure. The Andhra Pradesh government has implemented
all these measures successfully (Naidu, 2001).
Droughts
Drought is a slow onset disaster. It can be controlled through timely action and proper
monitoring of the drought prone area through remote sensing. Citing the report of the
Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Dehradun, Alka
Dhameja (2001) feels that topsoil erosion and rapid deforestation is shrinking the supply
of groundwater, leading to hydrocide or death of rivers. Soil erosion is part of a wider
environmental problem of desertification which is explained as a “a process of
environmental degradation that leads to the abandonment of irrigated fields and pasture
lands because of salinisation, water-logging or other forms of soil erosion.” Dhameja
recommends revival of traditional water storage and harvesting systems such as the
Kundis (saucer shaped concrete structures used to store rainwater) of Rajasthan and the
Virdas (shallow well s dug in low depressions or jheels to collect water) and the system
of temple tanks, as was practiced in ancient times in South India.
Other recommended measures include, planting drought resistant seed varieties, educating
farmers in drought management and powers to the district magistrate (DM) to intervene
at the right time to relieve distress of farmers. It is also felt that employment generation
Risk Reduction 73
schemes should be formulated and run at the state level instead of being dictated and
controlled by the Centre, such as the State Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra,
since it would make timely intervention on the part of the District Collector possible. The
said scheme has run successfully in Maharashtra.
Earthquakes
Though earthquakes cannot yet be predicted with certainty, drafting seismic codes,
building regulations to ensure adoption of earthquake resistant technology, retrofitting of
old structures that do not satisfactorily comply with safety regulations and regulation of
informal settlements like ‘jhuggis’ in hazard prone areas are some of the preventive/
mitigation measures that can be attempted. Proper town planning and effective enforcement
of legislation and codes for mitigation can effectively prevent loss of life from earthquakes.
For administrative preparedness for quick response regular drills of paramilitary forces,
simulation studies, data collection across quake-hit regions of the world with a view to
diagnosing vulnerability can minimise losses during earthquakes. Manpower planning would
be required to create specialist manpower to plan for and implement safe building
measures.
Floods
Undesirable side effects of dams and embankments have shifted focus to non-structural
mitigation measures to prevent losses from disasters. While dams result in large-scale
displacement of populations and environmental degradation of surrounding areas,
embankments cause siltation and water logging problems, creating fresh opportunities of
floods rather than preventing their occurrence. Floodwaters carry a heavy load of
sediments, which raise the riverbed overtime, making it necessary to raise the embankments
to contain the waters. Rainwater is also blocked from flowing into rivers naturally because
of embankments. Seepage of water underneath creates water logging in adjoining areas
(Kulshreshtha, 2001). Experts now feel that total flood disaster prevention is almost
impossible in case of floods since costs involved are prohibitive and information of all
possible consequences difficult since engineering know how is limited. Hence the focus is
now on non structural measures which aim to reduce susceptibilities such as rehabilitation
safeguarding public health, better crop planning to derive maximum benefit from fertile
flood zones, regulation of construction in flood prone areas as per hazard assessment and
feasibility studies, disaster resistant communication infrastructure, proper drainage in urban
areas for flood mitigation, provision of flood insurance, etc. (Rangachari, 2001).
In case of structural mitigation measures, the emphasis is now on inter-regional cooperation
(for areas such as the Ganga –Brahmaputra- Meghna (GBM) Basin covers India, Nepal,
Bhutan and Bangladesh which are low income countries and cannot afford disaster losses)
in instituting early warning systems, sharing of hydro-meteorological data, especially in
downstream areas regarding upstream water levels for better forecast of floods, warning,
provision of drainage facilities for easy discharge of excess water from dams and
reservoirs, water harvesting for dry seasons, water management through water storage in
common river upstream areas, regular monitoring of dams for regulating water storage and
periodic release of excess water, and statistical analysis for risk assessment and estimation
of the intensity and hazard occurrence probability with respect to common hazard threats.
To clarify further, as per Rangachari, the terrain of Nepal and Bhutan, as well as the
upper reaches of the GBM basin in India offer excellent sites for possible storage of
water. Bangladesh and the plains of India offer no such facilities. Similarly, when the rivers
emerge into the terrain/plains from the hills, they spread out, spill and meander. Construction
of embankments could create political controversy. From an engineering perspective, as

well, cooperation would be necessary between neighboring countries for better dam and
embankment facilities and their maintenance. Each of the above mentioned natural hazards
would be treated more comprehensively in subsequent Units.
3.7 INTERNATIONAL MOBILISATION FOR RISK

REDUCTION
Continuing the context provided above, given the increasing concern about the impact of
disasters, the UN General Assembly declared 1990-1999 as the International Decade for
Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). Under the theme ‘Building a Culture of Prevention’,
work was done to advance a wider commitment to activities that could reduce the
consequences of natural disasters. The Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a
Safer World (Yokohama strategy), conceived at the World Conference on Natural
Disaster Reduction in Yokohama in 1994, stressed that every country had the sovereign
and primary responsibility to protect its people, infrastructure and national, social or
economic assets from the impact of natural disasters.
Inter-Agency Secretariat of the ISDR
The Inter-Agency Secretariat of the ISDR (UN/ISDR) is the focal point within the UN
system for coordination of strategies and programs for disaster reduction and ensuring
compatibility between disaster reduction activities and activities in the socio-economic and
humanitarian fields.
The Secretariat also serves as an international clearinghouse for the identification, management
and dissemination of information pertaining to the current state of knowledge and the
range of activities underway that could contribute to the progress of disaster risk reduction
efforts around the world.
The Secretariat also develops advocacy campaigns to promote wider understanding about
natural hazards and disaster risk to motivate a worldwide commitment to disaster
reduction. A particularly important role is to encourage both policy and advocacy studies
through national committees, networks or platforms dedicated to disaster reduction, closely
aligning regional initiatives.
The Secretariat plays a facilitating role, bringing agencies, organisations and different
disciplines together on a common platform to deliberate on the scope of disaster risk
reduction. Furthering the end the Secretariat supports the Inter-Agency Task Force on
Disaster Reduction in developing universal policies/innovative strategies on disaster reduction.
The Task Force, supported by the ISDR Secretariat, formulated in 2001 a framework for
action for the implementation of ISDR with four main objectives:
1) To increase public awareness to understand risk, vulnerability and disaster reduction;
2) To promote the commitment of public authorities to disaster reduction;
3) To stimulate multidisciplinary and intersect oral partnerships, including the expansion
of risk reduction networks; and
4) To improve scientific knowledge about the causes of natural disasters, as well as the
effects that natural hazards and related technological and environmental disasters have
on societies.
Risk Reduction 75
In pursuing these objectives, the framework for action proposed, outlines the following
areas of common concern:
• Recognition and incorporation of special vulnerability of the poor and socially
marginalised groups in disaster reduction strategies;
• Environmental, social and economic vulnerability assessment with special reference to
health and food security;
• Ecosystems management, with particular attention given to the implementation of
Agenda 21;
• Land-use management and planning, including appropriate land use in rural, mountain
and coastal areas, as well as unplanned urban areas in mega-cities and secondary
cities, and
• National, regional and international legislation with respect to disaster reduction.
Regional Cooperation
A particular issue area in regional cooperation is sharing and management of common
environmental units, for example over an expanse of the ocean. More regional co-
operation is needed to institute risk reduction regarding shared resources.
As explained by Pardeep Sahni and Madhavi Malalgoda Ariyabandu (2003), there is
need for networking of knowledge and expertise at the regional level to develop credible
data base for development of policy science and risk identification for disaster mitigation
policy on a regional scale. Some examples could be noted thus: The Intermediate
Technology Development Group (ITDG) is an international development organisation that
has been engaged in disaster risk reduction technology in Latin America, Asia and
elsewhere. It is currently engaged in risk identification for the purpose of disaster risk
reduction policy for the South East Asian Countries with the financial support of the
Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department (CHAD) of U.K. The focus of research is
“Livelihood Options for Disaster Risk Reduction South Asia. On the basis of empirical
research in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the following key issues
have been highlighted.
• Risk accumulation has occurred over time because of neglect of small-scale disasters,
which have increased in frequency and compounded existing hazards.
• Local level self governing institutions and community action groups should be held
primarily responsible for tackling such risks. National and International effort would
not be that efficacious.
• Without active participation of vulnerable communities, such programmes or policies
could never be meaningful.
• The focus should be on enhancing the coping capacities of communities
• There is little evidence to suggest that risk is being incorporated into development
planning.
The Pro-Vention Consortium was launched in February 2000. As per the account given
by Pardeep Sahni and Madhavi Malalgida Ariyabandu (2003), it comprises 43 governments,
international organisations, academic institutions, banks, private sector organisations and
civil society organisations. Some of the notable members are the Munich Re, University
of Kyoto, Japan, University of Pennysylvania, Renaissance Reinsurers, Asian Development
Bank, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies among many more international institutes of repute.
Disasters have close linkages with Development. At times, it is development that causes
disasters and there are occasions when after disasters, new development takes place.
The Disaster Risk Index developed by UNDP has made an attempt to bring-forth the
relationship between development and disaster risk based on scientific, methodical and
systematic analysis of data. Eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG):
1) Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger
2) Achieving Universal Primary Education
3) Promoting Gender Equality and Empowering Women
4) Reducing Child Morality
5) Improving Maternal Health
6) Combating HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases
7) Ensuring Environmental Sustainability
8) Developing a Global Partnership for Development;
These goals have been set up by the General Assembly of the United Nations to be
achieved by the year 2015. UN/ISDR publication entitled, “Disaster Risk Management,
Governance and Development” (2004) has pointed out that six out of the above stated
eight Millennium Development Goals (that is, Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger;
Promoting Gender Equality and Empowering Women; Reducing Child Morality; Combating
HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases; Ensuring Environmental Sustainability; and
Developing a Global Partnership for Development) paved the way for formulating policies
towards reducing disaster risks. Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger could be
achieved by reducing disaster risks through alternative livelihoods, creation of jobs,
participatory approach to urban development, building social security and risk sharing and
transfer, especially in cases which are not covered through insurance. Another Millennium
Development Goal, that is, Promoting Gender Equality and Empowering Women,
could have initiatives like women empowerment, more participation of women in making
decisions at different levels, participation of women in setting development agenda, better
employment rights to women and more accessibility to health and education, which could
go a long way in reducing disaster risk to women. Likewise, Reducing Child Mortality
could reduce disaster risks by emphasising on better childcare and by facilitating extended
families to adopt and support orphanages. People become more vulnerable when affected
by disasters like HIV/AIDS and Malaria, etc. Disaster risks can be reduced through
better health care facilities and preventive health, designing such innovative programmes in
the case of natural disasters which bring-forth quantitative rate of illness. Ensuring
Environmental Sustainability, one of the Millennium Development Goals, impresses upon
Governments, Non-Government Organisations, Civil Society Organisations, Community-
based Organisations and Citizens to develop innovative mechanisms for ensuring
environmental sustainability and thus helping in reducing accumulated risks. As mentioned
earlier, developing Global Partnership for Development, the 8th Millennium Development
Goal can play a substantive role in meaningfully reducing disaster risks. Different countries,
Risk Reduction 77
developed and developing need to cooperate and collaborate with each other for
reducing, if not completely eliminating, disaster risks. It won’t be out of place to mention
here that the World Bank has helped in initiating certain projects, in important countries
of South Asia, which not only help in achieving the Millennium Development Goals but
also facilitate in reducing disaster risks (“Development, Planning and Administration”,
2003). Some of these projects in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are:
Bangladesh: Social Investment Programme Project; Rural Electrification and Renewable
Energy Development Project; Financial Services for the Poorest Project; Public Procurement
Reform Project; Female Secondary School Assistance Project; Legal and Judicial Capacity
Building Project; Post-Literacy and Continuing Education for Human Development Project;
and Poverty Alleviation and Micro-finance Project;etc.
India: Andhra Pradesh Rural Poverty Reduction Project; Uttar Pradesh State Roads
Projects; Technical/Engineering Education Quality Improvement Programme Project; Andhra
Pradesh Community Forest Management Project; Mumbai Urgan Transport Project;
Gujarat Emergency Earthquake Reconstruction Programme Project; Banking Sector
Restructuring and Privatisation Project; National Leprosy Elimination Project; etc.
Pakistan: Community Infrastructure and Services Project; Banking Sector Technical
Assistance Project; NWFP On-Farm Water Management Project; Bio-diversity Conservation
Project; Trade and Transportation Facilitation Project; etc.
Sri Lanka: Economic Reform Technical Assistance Project; National AIDS Prevention
Project; Renewable Energy for Rural Economic Development Project; Central Bank
Strengthening Project; Land Tilting and Related Services Project; Distance Learning
Project; etc.
Such international mobilisation is needed for better understanding of the phenomenon
related to disasters and frame suitable policy drawing upon the experience and expertise
of different countries round the globe. Also, policy at individual state levels needs to be
synchronised under an international umbrella for better coordination in emergency situations.
3.8 CONCLUSION
Because disasters are seen as a humanitarian concern, development professionals are
rarely exposed to disaster risk reduction issues with the result that the role of risk
reduction in pro poor development is largely overlooked. Disasters do not just happen;
to a large extent they result from failures of development which increase vulnerability to
hazard events. Hence risk reduction is an essential development concern, not a contingent
measure (DFID, 2004).
Risk reduction is an ongoing effort, not piecemeal or ad hoc like disaster response, and
needs sustained commitment on the part of governments for integration in development
planning. A shift of emphasis has been discernable lately, in disaster mitigation strategy
from disaster response to disaster risk reduction with active participation of people. There
are economic imperatives behind the shift, in that prevention is a cost effective option as
also more ethical as the government’s primary duty is to ensure sustenance and survival
of its populace. Such sustenance cannot be ensured in the wake of the looming threat of
disasters. Disasters have led to terrible loss of life and property due to lack of effective
planning for their prevention and mitigation. Disaster Planning is an integral aspect of
developmental planning which requires preemptive policy and coordinated effort on the
part of all concerned agencies, public, private and non-government apart from active
community participation for risk articulation. In the new globalised set up, integration of
such efforts at the supra- state level that is at the level of the United Nations and
international regional groupings such as the SAARC is needed for better formulation and
implementation of risk reduction strategies on a regional level.
To conclude, disaster risk reduction is a primary responsibility of governments since
welfare state has the responsibility to safeguard the health and property of its subjects.
Government is the instrumentality of the state and hence has the legal and moral obligation
to do all in its power to protect the life and property of its inhabitants.
3.9 KEY CONCEPTS

Capacity Building : Efforts aimed at developing human skills and societal
infrastructure within a community or organisation to
reduce the level of risk. Capacity building also includes
development of institutional, financial, political and other
resources, such as technology at different levels and
sectors of/in the society.
Capacity : Capacity refers to physical human and social capital
inherent in a community. Hence it is a combination of
all the strengths and resources available within a
community, society or organisation that determine its
resilience in the face of a disaster catastrophe Capacity
may also be described as capability.
Coping capacity : Coping capacity refers to the means available in terms
of resources, technical know how and ability in terms
of human health and strength to face adverse
consequences of particular kind; epidemic, or flood or
earthquake etc. In general, this involves managing
resources, both in normal times as well as during
crises or adverse conditions. Training, awareness
generation, better public health and nutrition standards
etc. determine coping capacity of a community.
Resilience : Resilience is explained as a resultant of inherent capacity
and coping capacity with respect to particular crisis.
The capacity of a system, community or society to
adapt, by resisting a threat or changing in accordance
with changed situations in order to survive to the best
extent possible. Resilience is determined by the degree
to which the social system is capable of organising
itself to increase its capacity for learning from past
disasters for better future protection and to improve
on indigenous risk reduction measures.
Disaster Risk Management : Disaster Risk management is the systematic process
of using administrative decisions, organisation,
operational skills and capacities to implement policies,
strategies and coping capacities of the society and
Risk Reduction 79
communities to lessen the impacts of natural hazards

and related environmental and technological disasters.
This comprises all forms of activities, including
structural and non-structural measures to avoid
(prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness)
adverse impacts of hazards. (ISDR)
Disaster Risk Reduction : Disaster Risk Reduction gives the conceptual
framework of elements considered with the
possibilities to minimise vulnerabilities and disaster risks
throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit
(mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of
hazards, within the broad context of sustainable
development. (ISDR)
Emergency Management : Emergency management involves plans, structures and
arrangements established to engage the normal
endeavours of government, voluntary and private
agencies in a speedy, comprehensive and coordinated
way to respond to the whole spectrum of emergency
needs. (ISDR)
Retrofitting (or upgrading) : Reinforcement of structures to become more resistant
and resilient to the forces of natural hazards. Retrofitting
involves consideration of changes in the mass, stiffness,
damping, load path and ductility of materials, as well
as radical changes such as the introduction of energy
absorbing dampers and base isolation systems.
Examples of retrofitting include the consideration of
wind loading to strengthen and minimise the wind
force, or in earthquake prone areas, the strengthening
of structures. (ISDR; as per official United Nations
Explanations)
3.10 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

An Interim Report of the Sub Committee on Disaster Reduction, July 2003,”Reducing
Disaster Vulnerability through Science and Technology,” National Science and Technology
Council, Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, at http://www.sdr.gov/
SDR_Report_ReducingDisasterVulnerability2003.pdf.
Basic Terms of Disaster Risk Reduction at http://www.unisdr.org and http://www.undp.org.ir/
Prevention.htm
Benson, Charlotte, “The Cost of Disasters”, online at www.benfieldhrc.org/SiteRoot/
activities/misc_papers/DEVRISK/BENSON.HTM - 19k -
Bhatti, Amjad, 2003, “Disaster Risk Reduction through Livelihood Concerns and Disaster
Policy in South Asia,” Pardeep Sahni, Madhavi Malagoda Ariyabandu (Eds), Disaster
Risk Reduction in South Asia, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi.
Brooks, Nick, 2003, “Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework,”

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 38-Principal Vulnerable
Elements.
Burton, I., R.W. Kates, and G.F. White, 1978, The Environment as Hazard, Oxford
University Press, New York.
DFID, 2004, “Disaster Risk Reduction: a development concern,” at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
pubs/files/disaster-risk-reduction.pdf
“Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Measures” at http://www.waikato.ac.nz/igci/downloads/
hazardsD.pdf.
“Development, Planning and Administration”, 2003, Course material for Commonwealth
Executive Masters in Public Administration, Commonwealth of Learning, Vancouver.
“Disaster Risk Reduction, Governance and Development”, 2004, UN/ISDR, Africa
Educational Series, Volume 2, Issue 4.
“Disaster Vulnerability Types” at http://www.c-iarn.ca/app/filerepository/
337D68566F604DB0A8A3F5BDCAB58795.pdf.
Dhameja, Alka, 2001, “Drought and Floods: A Case for Dying Wisdom”, Pardeep Sahni,
Alka Dhameja and Uma Medury (Eds), Disaster Mitigation: Experiences and Reflections,
Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi.
Dhar, T.N, 2002, “Disaster Management- Policies and Action Imperatives,” Paper
Presented in the Training Programme on Disaster Management, The Department of Public
Administration, University of Lucknow.
Gilbert, R. and. A. Kreimer, 1999, Learning from World Bank’s experience of Natural
Disaster Related Assistance World Bank Research Paper, DMR Washington D.C.
Guzman, M.D. Emmanuel, 2002, “Total Disaster Risk Management Approach: Towards
Effective Policy Action in Disaster Reduction and Response,” Regional Workshop on
Total Disaster Risk Management, Asian Disaster Reduction Center and the UN OCHA
Kobe, at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN009657.pdf.
Hosseini, Mahmood, “The Relation between Disaster risk Management and Quality
Management”, at, http//www.qmconf.com/Docs/0170
http:// www.oas.org/CDMP/hazmap/volcano.ppt.
Hutton, Janice and Dennis S. Mileti, 1979, “Analysis of Adoption and Implementation of
Community Land Use Regulations for Floodplains,” Report to the National Science
Foundation. San Francisco, CA: Woodward Clyde.
Hutton, J, G. A. Mileti and Kreps- (Eds), 1979,Sociological Inquiry and Disaster
Research, at arjournals.annualreviews.org/ doi/pdf/10. 1146/annurev.so.10.080184.001521
International Association of Earthquake Engineering, October 1986, revised edition of
Basic Concepts of Seismic Codes, Vol. I part 2, 1980.
Izadkhah, Y. O, and M. Hosseini, 2004, “Towards Resilient Communities in Developing
Countries through Education of Children for Disaster Preparedness”, to appear in The
Risk Reduction 81
International Journal of Disaster Management, Hazard Research Centre, University

College, London. (viewed in draft)
Jigyasu, Rohit, 2002, Ph.D.Thesis, “Reducing Disaster vulnerability through Local Knowledge
and Capacity, The Case of Earthquake Prone Rural Communities in India and Nepal,
Trondheim, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Architecture and
Fine Art Department of Town and Regional Planning, at http://www.ntnu.no/~rohit/
Rohit%20Dr.ing%20final.pdf
Kulshreshtha, S.M, 2001, “Floods, Embankments and Dams,” Pardeep Sahni, Alka
Dhameja, Uma Medury (Eds), Disaster Mitigation: Experiences and Reflections,
Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi.
Kunreuther, Howard, 1978, Disaster Insurance Protection Public Policy Lesson, New
York, Wiley.
Lidstone, J, 1999, “Disaster Education in the School Curriculum”, Jon Ingleton (Ed),
Natural Disaster Management.
Lindblom, Patkus Beth, 1999, “Disaster Planning”, Technical Leaflet Emergency Management
Section 3, Leaflet 3 Preservation Consultant, M.A. Walpole and Karen Motylewski,
Formerly Director Of Field Service Northeast Document Conservation Center.
“Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: A Tool For Development Organisations”, at
http://www.unisdr.org
Mileti, D.S. 1975, “Natural Hazard Warning System in the U.S.A: Research Assessment”,
Behavioural Sciences, University of Colorado.
Mileti, D.S, 1980, “Human Adjustment to the Risk of Environmental Extremes.”
Mileti, Dennis S, Janice Hutton and John Sorensen, 1981, “Earthquake Prediction
Response and Options for Public Policy”, Boulder, CO, Institute of Behavioral Science.
Research Working Paper 38, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change.
“Modern Risk Management”, at http://www.who.or.jp/home/Director_WCDR_Speech.pdf
Naidu, Raghavulu B, 2001, “Disaster Mitigation Measures for Cyclone Prone Areas of
Andhra Pradesh,” Pardeep Sahni, Alka Dhameja and Uma Medury (Eds), Disaster
Mitigation: Experiences and Reflections, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi.
Rangachari, R, 2001, “ Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation in Flood Management:
Cooperation and Networking Among Countries”, Pardeep Sahni, Alka Dhameja and Uma
Medury (Eds), Disaster Mitigation: Experiences and Reflections, Prentice-Hall of
India, New Delhi.
Sahni, Pardeep, Alka Dhameja, Uma Medury (Eds), 2001, Disaster Mitigation:
Experiences and Reflections, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi.
Sahni, Pardeep and Madhavi Malagoda Ariyabandu (Eds), 2003, Disaster Risk Reduction
in South Asia, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi.
Sinha, Anil, 2002, “Disaster Management: Lessons Drawn and Strategies for the Future”,
Paper Presented in the Training Programme on Disaster Management at the Department
of Public Administration, University of Lucknow.
Smolka, Anslem, 2003, “The Principle of Risk Partnership and the Role of Insurance in
Risk Management,” Pardeep Sahni and Madhavi Malagoda Ariyabandu (Eds), Disaster
Risk Reduction in South Asia, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi.
Sorenson, J, 1983, “Knowing How to Behave Under the Threat of Disaster. Can it be
explained?” Environment and Behavior, 15, (4).
Tolia, R.S, Rakesh Sharma, R.K. Pande and J.K. Pathak, 2001, “Landslide Problems in
the Uttarakhand Region”, Pardeep Sahni, Alka Dhameja, Uma Medury (Eds), Disaster
Mitigation: Experiences and Reflections, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi.
Trobe, La Sarah and Ian Davis, 2005, “Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction”, at http:/
/ www.tearfund.org
Twigg, J, 2001, Guidance Notes on Participation and Accountability, Banfield Greig
UNDP Report, “Nothing Natural about These Disasters,” at http://www.infochangeindia.org.
UNDP, “Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development”, 2004, United Nations
Development Programme, Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery,
UNDP, 2004, “Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development”, United Nations
Development Programme, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, at http://
www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/english/regions/asia/iran.htm
UNISDR, 2004, Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives,
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat,
Geneva.
Vayunanadan, E, 2003, “Stakeholders’ Response in Disaster Risk Reduction”, Pardeep
Sahni and Madhavi Malagoda Ariyabandu (Eds), Disaster Risk Reduction in South
Asia, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi.
Vermeirin, Jan, C, 1993, “Disaster Risk Reduction as a Development Strategy,” “Caribbean
Disaster Mitigation Project”, Implemented by the Organisation of American States, Unit of
Sustainable Development and Environment for the USAID Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance and the Caribbean Regional Program, at http://www.oas.org/en/cmdp/document/
loddrdn.htm
“Water Hazards, Resources and Management for Disaster Prevention: A Review of the
Asian Conditions”, IDNDR, 1991-1999, IDNDR –ESCAP Regional Meeting for Asia:
Risk Reduction & Society in the 21st Century, Bangkok, 23-26 February, 1999, Actions
Required to Mitigate Future Hazards, at http://www.unescap.org/enrd/water_mineral/disaster/
watdis7.htm#_Toc44864450
“White Paper on Disaster Management in South Africa, Part-1”, 1997, Rohit Jigyasu,
Ph.D. Thesis, 2002, “Reducing Disaster vulnerability through local knowledge and Capacity,
The Case of Earthquake prone rural communities in India and Nepal, Trondheim,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art
Department of Town and Regional Planning.
White, G.F. and J.E. Haas, 1975, Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards.
Cambridge, MIT Press.
Risk Reduction 83
Whyte, A, 1986, “From Hazards Perception to Human Ecology,” R. Kates and Ian
Burton, (Eds), Themes From the Work of G.F. White University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
“Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World”, Guidelines for Natural
Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation 23-27 May 1994, World Conference on
Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama, Japan.
3.11 ACTIVITIES
1) What do you understand by risk reduction? Discuss Yokohama principles for
disaster risk reduction
2) Discuss the role of science and technology in disaster risk reduction by quoting
suitable examples.
3) Disaster planning and prevention play a role in risk reduction. Discuss.

Unit 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIT 3 RISK REDUCTION

3.3 Mainstreaming ‘Risk’

3.4 Targets for Risk Reduction

3.6 Strategies for Risk Reduction

3.7 International Mobilisation for Risk Reduction

3.0 LEARNING OUTCOME

contingent measure but as an integral aspect of developmental planning. Disaster management

3.2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

3.2.1 Risk Reduction Framework

3.3 MAINSTREAMING ‘RISK’

As explained in the Disaster Management Training Programme (1994), the estimation of

3.3.1 Rationale for Risk Articulation

3.3.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

Methodological Factors Expected Value

3.3.3 Goal Oriented Risk Reduction

3.4 TARGETS FOR RISK REDUCTION

Compensatory Risk management

Structural and Non-Structural Mitigation

Hazard Mitigation Options

Non-Engineered Structures: Such structures mainly comprise simple dwellings, mostly in

3.5 ROLE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN

3.5.1 Application of Information Technology in Disaster Risk

3.6 STRATEGIES FOR RISK REDUCTION

• Integration of disaster management with overall development planning

3.6.2 Disaster Risk Reduction by Information, Education, and Public

3.6.3 Risk Reduction through Livelihood Concerns

other places particularly adjoining metropolises in search of employment options which

3.6.4 Stakeholders Participation in Disaster Risk Reduction

3.6.5 Risk Sharing and Transfer

3.6.6 Risk Reduction through Disaster Prevention

of embankments could create political controversy. From an engineering perspective, as

3.7 INTERNATIONAL MOBILISATION FOR RISK

3.9 KEY CONCEPTS

communities to lessen the impacts of natural hazards

3.10 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Brooks, Nick, 2003, “Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework,”

International Journal of Disaster Management, Hazard Research Centre, University

You might also like