By: Dr. Kumar Raka, Editor-ICN & Rebecca Brindza, Editor, ICN International
A moderate intensity earthquake of magnitude 5.5 on Richter scale hit parts of Assam on Wednesday, Sept 12th morning. The tremors were felt as far as Patna in Bihar and Siliguri in West Bengal. The quake lasted for around 15-20 seconds. More than 125 individual seismic incidents of low to moderate intensity on the Richter scale have been recorded by Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) alone in India since the beginning of the year 2018. The increasing seismic activity in the Indian subcontinent and worldwide continuously hint that a large scale earthquake may strike in the region. To what degree is India prepared for a large intensity earthquake in an urban environment? Would Delhi, Mumbai or any other metropolitan city be prepared and equipped enough to deal with a Kathmandu (2015) like catastrophe?
The recent floods in Kerala, Uttarakhand and other parts of the country have given indications that states are still not equipped to mitigate and efficiently respond to hydro-meteorological disasters (floods and cyclones) where early warning is available if not before weeks, at least days in advance. As per the 2005 Disaster Management Act (DM), disaster management is a State subject; hence States need to prepare themselves for both natural and man-made disasters. In this sense, the Central Government is supposed to interfere and respond to disasters only when they fall beyond coping capabilities of the State Government and receive requests for Central assistance.
The ideals of policy makers enshrined in the 2005 DM Act resemble a visionary shift from a relief-centric approach to a proactive approach for disaster management. Embodied this is the Vision statement of National Disaster Management Authority, Govt. of India (NDMA) states: “To build a safer and disaster resilient India by a holistic, pro-active, technology driven and sustainable development strategy that involves all stakeholders and fosters a culture of prevention, preparedness and mitigation”. However, 13 years after enactment of the Act and establishment of NDMA, how far has the Indian Disaster Management system truly progressed? Are they really proactive, and do they consistently apply a holistic and technology driven approach for prevention, preparedness and mitigation of disasters?
Are we a disaster resilient country and do we observe any resilience during or aftermath of the disasters? Resilience of individual, community, State or Nation is directly related to the concept of empowerment, the notion to sustain and survive against all odds. Since the surge of this paradigm, the word ‘resilience’ has resolved to commit all resources and efforts to strengthen institutions, create new technologies and infrastructure, as well as improve current systems attempting to develop societies that are equipped to successfully overcome any hazard and preserve its functionality and structure. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) notion of resilience tends to be all-encompassing as it views resilience as “the capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt through resistance or change to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure” (UNISDR, 2005). The UNISDR definition of resilience assumes that resilient communities have the capacity to ‘bounce forward’ (Manyena, 1998, 2011) and move on following a disaster. The question is whether the resilience observed amongst different Indian communities has been inherited as result of efforts of NDMA/DM Act 2005 or is it ‘forced resilience’- as there is no other option available and the community or the State has to bounce back better due to a question of survival. However, the ambition to become a ‘resilient community’ now over-emphasizes technology and material resources, neglecting the vitality of the so-called social capital, the very individuals who comprise the society intended to empower in the first place (Raka & Jimenez, 2018).
The next important point for policy makers to ponder upon is whether India is using a holistic, pro-active and technology driven approach to prepare better and mitigate disasters. Floods and/or droughts in India are a yearly occurrence, with some States suffering perennial flooding in monsoon season. The riddle goes as this- When the subcontinent Monsoon is strong, floods are bound to occur; however, with a weak Monsoon, droughts are unavoidable. With current technology, these weather related hydro-meteorological disasters are easily predictable and can be mitigated if the disaster management system at State level starts using a holistic, pro-active and technology driven approach. Yet, our preparedness and response mechanism is still response-centric and disaster specific, not pro-active and holistic.
Enactment of the 2005 DM Act, creation of the NDMA and especially raising, modernizing and equipping of National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) have been path-breaking initiatives in the history of Disaster Management in India. The NDRF was raised and trained as a specialized, stand-alone Force specifically to respond to disasters of Level 3 and above. Under the 3-tier federal disaster management and response system States were advised to raise their own State Disaster Response Force (SDRF), on the lines of NDRF, to handle and respond to Level 1 & 2 disasters. Some of the States in India that have established their State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMA) have raised SDRF and excelled, but a majority of Indian States are still in the nascent phase. The 3rd and last-mile connectivity District Disaster Management Authorities (DDMAs) are still a dream to be achieved. NDRF with its 12 Battalions located in 12 different parts of the country, based on a vulnerability profile of the region, is capable and efficient enough to handle all natural and man-made disasters within the lowest possible deployment time, and the saviours (NDRF) have achieved great recognition for specialized response operations within India and abroad. Yet, the presence of NDRF and its ease of availability to States is one of the prime reasons that States are not serious enough to raise their own SDRF. Instead of responding to Level 3 disasters specifically, NDRF, since its creation, has handled numerous Level 1 & 2 disasters, as small as bore-well rescues and drowning cases, on requisition of State Governments.
In present, it stands that India is response centric with disaster-specific approach orientation; thus, are we prepared for something as grave as a devastating earthquake? With their inability to predict, earthquakes (including tsunamis) are the most deadly form of natural disaster, accounting for 55% of the disaster deaths over the 20 year period between 1994 and 2013, claiming nearly 750,000 lives (CRED, 2018). During the last decade alone, the world has witnessed several major earthquakes claiming a heavy toll in human lives and economic damages, with Pakistan, Indonesia, Haiti, New-Zealand, Japan, Nepal, Iran and Italy just to acknowledge a few.
As the majority of earthquake injuries result from structural collapse (WHO, 2016), releasing trapped individuals from underneath the rubble during immediate response is under the auspices of Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams. Most often, the local USAR capacity is overwhelmed with international USAR teams swooping in to help aid affected areas. These teams are comprised of highly skilled professionals, equipped with rescue dogs and advanced machinery, technology and know-how for extricating the trapped. Most of these teams are subjected to classification, accreditation and rigorous standards set by the United Nations’ (UN) International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) in joint collaboration with the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and The United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC). Though NDRF was amid the process of INSARAG classification starting in 2009-10 onwards, the occurrence of intense bureaucratic and policy roadblocks have resulted in an NDRF that still lacks INSARAG certification.
Yet, while highly trained teams are the most prepared for immediate response, they are often restricted by geographical and temporal constraints. Thus, the majority of earthquake victims are most often rescued by the individuals, most commonly family members, neighbors, friends, or bystanders. Accumulated data from a number of case studies highlights that untrained individuals are responsible for upwards of 50–95% of rescues within the first 24 to 48 hours. These individuals, which have no formal training, use whatever they can find to support their efforts from metal rods to car jacks and more (McGuigan et al, 2002; Uscher-Pines, 2012; Peleg, 2015).
With this in mind, the more of our general public that can be educated with basic Light Search and Rescue (LSR) skills, the better of society will be. Empowering members of the public and training them to assume basic life-saving skills during emergencies can considerably increase the availability and accessibility of rapid care for casualties and, consequently, upsurge survivability. The model for such is Israel, which, in the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year, began training all 10th graders in Light Search and Rescue. The Israeli Government believes this move will generate a pool of more than 100,000 people capable of performing life-saving tasks in case of emergency annually (Peleg et al, 2018). A true example of society coming together to save lives that India could benefit from if it followed suit.
Fortunately, after the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, India has yet to experience a major earthquake in any urban area, except Sikkim earthquake 2011 where the rescue efforts of specialized first responders were far from appreciated. In light of the plethora of buildings that are far from following safety codes, a major earthquake in any urban area or mega city is likely to be a devastating event resulting in grave losses in both life and property. Policy makers will be forced to rethink the disaster management mechanism practiced in India over the last 13 years, and better to do so before disaster strikes and not in the wake of its devastating midst. We most certainly do not need wait for a catastrophe to occur to make beneficial changes. Best practices worldwide that provide a holistic, proactive, technology driven and sustainable development strategy towards disaster management are available; all we have to do is start enforcing them. When there’s a will, there’s a way, and the will to save lives should run deep through our societal fabric in both policy and action.