A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India - Geological & Mining ...

The Role of Non GovernmentalOrganisations in DisasterMitigation and Response – ACase Study in Uttarakhand,Northern IndiaCompleted by Erika VyeSupervised by: Jim PhelanNovember 2007Submitted to the School of Biology and Environmental Science in partialfulfilment of the Masters in Humanitarian Action

AcknowledgmentsI would to thank Dr. Ravi Chopra at the People’s Science Institute in Dehra Doonfor the invitation to work in such an incredible environment. This work could nothave been completed without the close collaboration with the members of theCenter for Disaster Mitigation and Response within PSI; in particular I would like toexpress my gratitude to Deepa Negi and Anandita Nadu for their input,contributions and more than useful discussions. I would like to thank Jim Phelan forhis guidance and support as well as Wolfgang Schmitt and Aoife Braiden for usefulcomments and support. Thanks to my family who encouraged me to return toacademia and have been a wonderful support during this time.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern IndiaI

Table of contentsChapter 1 - Introduction 1.................................................................................. 11.1 Background and problem statement ..................................................... 11.2 Study Objectives and Utility .................................................................. 21.3 Specific Objectives ................................................................................ 31.4 Research Design .................................................................................. 41.4.1 Study Region .................................................................................... 41.4.1 – a Study Area A – Rudraprayag district, Garwhal region ................ 91.4.1 – b Study Area B- Almora district, Kumaon region ......................... 101.4.2 Methods ...................................................................................... 101.4.2 - Section 1 Interviews with trained and untrained masons ............. 101.4.2 - Section 2 Preparedness Questionnaire directed at CommunityMembers ................................................................................................ 111.4.2 - Section 3 Housing Impact Assessment ....................................... 12Load Bearing .......................................................................................... 13Frame structure ...................................................................................... 13Chapter 2 – Theoretical Orientation ............................................................... 142.1 Definitions and theories ...................................................................... 142.1.1 Natural disaster ........................................................................... 142.1.2 Vulnerability ................................................................................ 162.1.3 Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness ........................................ 172.1.4 Disasters and Development ........................................................ 182.2 Natural hazards: the Indian context .................................................... 192.2.1 Natural Hazards in India ............................................................. 192.2.2 Natural Hazards in Uttarakhand .................................................. 222.3 Disaster mitigation and preparedness – role of Non GovernmentalOrganisations ................................................................................................ 232.3.1 Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness ........................................ 242.3.2 Where does mitigation and preparedness fit in the “disastercontinuum”? ............................................................................................... 272.3.3 What is the role of NGOs in DMP? ............................................. 292.4 PSI’s mitigation and preparedness programmes ................................ 332.4.1 Mitigation strategies - earthquake-safe housing .............................. 33Load-bearing .......................................................................................... 33Frame structure ...................................................................................... 342.4.2 Preparedness Initiatives ................................................................... 352.4.2 – a Mason training .......................................................................... 352.4.2 – b Disaster preparedness and awareness at community level ..... 36Chapter 3 – Present findings and conclusions.............................................. 413.1 Results ................................................................................................ 413.1.1- Section 1 Interviews with trained and untrained masons ................ 413.1.1a Demographics respondents .................................................... 42The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern IndiaII

Respondents Study Area A (Rudraprayag district): ............................ 42Respondents Study Area B (Almora district): ...................................... 423.1.1b Hazard Awareness .................................................................. 433.1.1c Features .................................................................................. 43Load-bearing ....................................................................................... 44Frame structures ................................................................................. 453.1.1d Commonly requested features/Important features .................. 453.1.1e Building trends/retrofitting ....................................................... 463.1.1f Monitoring ............................................................................... 473.1.1g Homeowner perceptions ......................................................... 473.1.1h Feedback on trainings from Study Area A ............................... 473.1.1i Recommendations .................................................................. 483.1.2- Section 2 Disaster Preparedness Questionnaire of CommunityMembers ................................................................................... 503.1.2a Demographics of respondents ................................................ 51Respondents Study Area A (Rudraprayag district): ............................ 51Respondents Study Area B (Almora district): ..................................... 513.1.2b Awareness and Dissemination of information ......................... 523.1.2c Earthquake-safe features ........................................................ 543.1.2d Additional observations ........................................................... 553.1.2e Recommendations .................................................................. 553.1.3 - Section 3 Housing Impact Assessment ................................... 583.1.3a Study Area A – Rudraprayag district ....................................... 58Load-bearing .......................................................................................... 60Frame structure ...................................................................................... 60Main Findings ..................................................................................... 61Frame structures ................................................................................. 61Masons' Overall Performance ............................................................. 62Additional findings ............................................................................... 633.1.3b Study Area B – Almora district ................................................ 643.1.3c Comparison of study regions ................................................... 67Load-bearing ....................................................................................... 673.2 Discussion .......................................................................................... 68What is the role of NGOs in disaster preparedness and mitigation? ... 703.3 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 74References ....................................................................................................... 76Glossary of terms and acronyms ................................................................... 81Appendices ...................................................................................................... 81The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern IndiaIII

List of figuresFigure 1.1: Study region – state of Uttarakhand outlined in red.Figure 1.2: Seismic hazard zoning of Uttarakhand, Study Area A indicated with blue star,Study Area B with red star.Figure 1.3: Faults in the state of Uttarakhand, Main Boundry Thrust (MBT) and MainCentral Thrust (MCT)Figure 2.1: Disaster cycleFigure 2.2a: Community based disaster plan BhiriFigure 2.2b: Community based disaster plan KunjaFigure 2.2c: Community based disaster plan UsadaList of tablesTable 1.1: Large magnitude earthquakes in IndiaTable 1.2: Damages sustained from natural hazards, January-June 2007, UttarakhandStateTable 1.3: Checklist for essential features for earthquake safe constructionTable 3.1: Damages sustained from natural hazards, January-June 2007, UttarakhandStateTable 3.2: Village wise analysis of houses built and masonsTable 3.3: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesTable 3.4: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesTable 3.5: Overall mason performance for earthquake safe constructionTable 3.6: Village wise analysis of houses built and masonsTable 3.7: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesTable 3.8: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesTable 3.9: Overall comparison of earthquake safe houses in Study Area A and BThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern IndiaIV

AbstractNatural disasters are recurrent, usually unpredictable events that require integratedpolicies and the combined efforts of a variety of groups at local, national andinternational levels. By integrating preparedness programs and working locally withexisting development projects (pre and post disaster), vulnerabilities to hazards,and the subsequent dependency on external assistance can be greatly reduced.This thesis analyses the role of Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in thefield of disaster mitigation and preparedness (DMP). NGOs are in a uniqueposition to mobilize communities at the grassroots level to develop greaterawareness strategies while at the same time advising and advocating changes inpolicy. To illustrate the vital role NGOs can play in disaster preparedness, resultsfrom a case study carried out with the Peoples Science Institute (PSI), DehraDoon, India are presented here. This study outlines the effectiveness ofearthquake safe preparedness strategies conducted in Uttarkhand, India. Thesuccess of these programs directly influences the effectiveness of disastermitigation, management of disaster planning, and reaction activities in response tosuch disasters. This directly impacts the lives of local citizens and communitieswho rely on appropriate training of masons and local groups, particularly in relationto earthquake related disasters.This case study is divided into three sections; interviews with trained and untrainedmasons regarding earthquake-safe building practices; results of a questionnairedesigned to gauge levels of disaster awareness at the community level, and animpact assessment of established earthquake-safe building construction. Thestudy confirms that PSI’s disaster mitigation and preparedness programmes havea positive impact by successfully increasing the number of earthquake safeconstructions and increasing the overall level of disaster awareness amongcommunity members. The summary of the strengths and weaknesses of PSI’sinitiatives can be used to exemplify the role of NGOs in disaster mitigation andThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern IndiaV

preparedness, and has potential to be disseminated to other organizations. It alsofurther underscores the need to mainstream disaster mitigation and preparedness.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern IndiaVI

Chapter 1 - Introduction1.1 Background and problem statementThis thesis analyses the role of Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in thefield of disaster mitigation and preparedness (DMP). NGOs offer a unique positionto mobilize communities at the grassroots level into developing better awarenessstrategies while at the same time are able to advise and advocate change in policy.To illustrate the vital role NGOs can play in disaster preparedness, results from acase study on the effectiveness of earthquake safe preparedness strategiesconducted through the People’s Science Institute (PSI) in Uttarkhand, India will bepresented.Northern India is highly vulnerable to many natural disasters including landslides,cloudbursts, floods, and forest fires. It lies in zones IV and V (V being of greatestseismic risk) of the Indian seismic hazard map and is therefore also prone to largemagnitude earthquakes. Devastating earthquakes such as those at Uttarkashi(October 1991, magnitude 6.5 on the Richter scale) and Chamoli (March 1999,magnitude 6.8 on the Richter scale) have instilled a sense of urgency and anincreased need for preparedness and disaster management planning in the state.More and more emphasis is being placed on activities in research anddevelopment, education, and improving technologies for mitigating naturaldisasters and increasing levels of awareness and preparedness in regions closelyaffected by these disasters. One example of such efforts is provided by theextensive range of programmes offered by PSI; these programmes aim atincreasing disaster awareness by means of developing task forces, providinginformation sessions on disaster awareness, street theatre etc., and throughtraining local masons in earthquake safe construction design and practice througha series of six-day-long workshops in the district of Rudraprayag.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 1

This case study investigates the impact these initiatives have had on increasinglevels of awareness among community members and improved earthquake safebuilding practices in the region.Chapter 1 presents the objectives, methodologies and utility of the study. Chapter2 provides the contextual framework, namely definitions and terminology foundwithin the text, natural disaster in the Indian context, the role of NGOs in DMP andlastly an overview of PSI’s assessed programmes. Chapter 3 presents the findingsof the case study with discussion and conclusions.1.2 Study Objectives and UtilityRecent disasters in India such as the cyclone in Orissa in 1999 and the 2001earthquake in Gujarat provide valuable lessons in preparedness and mitigationstrategies. In addition to problems with the overall response (lack of coordination,short term involvement, charity without respect for human dignity, growingdependence) a lack of community preparedness was noted in both cases. Forexample, Gujarat lies in Zone V of the Indian seismic hazard map and yet little tono information was disseminated prior to the event regarding the regionsvulnerability to earthquakes. Palakudiyil and Todd (2003) reported that a lack ofpreparedness was evident at nearly every level, for example with respect tocommunication, coordination and control, search operation and medical relief. Thelessons learned from such events should not be ignored. Instead they should beused in a way that respects the views of the community and encouragesparticipation at all stages including prevention and mitigation (Palakudiyil andTodd, 2003).The main objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the PSI disastermitigation and preparedness strategies, mainly mason training programmes anddisaster preparedness initiatives in earthquake safety. The success of theseThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 2

programs directly influences the effectiveness of disaster mitigation, managementof disaster planning, and other activities in response to disasters, in particularearthquakes. Thus, directly impacting the lives of local citizens and communitiesrelies on appropriate training of masons and local groups.An impact assessment of the quality and effectiveness of PSI’s trainingprogrammes will help to improve the overall process of constructing buildingsresilient to earthquakes in rural areas. This will also instill an increased level ofawareness and emphasize the need for education and disaster preparednesswithin local communities.A summary of the successes and failures of PSI’s initiatives can be used toexemplify how NGOs are best suited to the field of disaster mitigation andpreparedness and can subsequently be disseminated to other organisations andfurther underscore the need to mainstream DMP.1.3 Specific ObjectivesThe case study is divided into the following specific objectives:1. Evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of the mason trainingprogrammes• How effective are PSI’s mason training programmes?• Is this gained knowledge being put into practice?• What improvements can be made to the training workshops?2. Evaluation of how effective the programmes have been in mobilizingcommunities for disaster preparedness and response activities• What impact do these programmes have on increasing communitylevels of preparedness and disaster mitigation?• Are the awareness campaigns at all useful?The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 3

• What are homeowner perceptions of earthquake safe buildingfeatures?3. Evaluation of how effective the programmes have been in increasing thenumber of earthquake safe houses being built in the area.• Are houses being better built in the region as a result of theseinitiatives?• What building trends are emerging in the state?The report investigates these objectives in three sections: Section 1) interviewswith trained and untrained masons, Section 2) a disaster preparednessquestionnaire of community members, and Section 3) housing impact assessment.1.4 Research Design1.4.1 Study RegionThe study has been conducted in the northern state of Uttarakhand India (seeFigure 1.1 for a map). The population is approximately seven million with a landarea of 55,845 sq. km. The region is dominated by a hilly topography, with onlyapproximately 12 % being constituted by plains. Uttarakhand is prone to a numberof natural hazards ranging from drought, landslides, and forest fires. Notably, thestate lies entirely within zones IV and V of the Indian seismic hazard map (Figure1.2), rendering it vulnerable to large magnitude earthquakes (earthquakes ofmaximum magnitudes and frequencies, ie. magnitude 8 on the Richter scale –equivalent of 1500 Hiroshima Atom bombs (Kumar, 2001).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 4

IndiaFigure 1.1: Study region – state of Uttarakhand, India outlined in red.Figure 1.2: Seismic hazard zoning of Uttarakhand, Study Area A indicated with blue star,Study Area B with red star.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 5

Seismic activity in this area is due to the convergence of the Indo-Australianlithospheric plate toward the mainland Eurasian plate at a rate of 58±4mm/yr,generating the young Himalayan mountain range (Valdiya, 2004). “Some of theearthquakes of largest magnitudes in recorded history have occurred in theHimalayas. The continent-continent convergence ongoing at this boundary hasproduced the highest of mountain chains, and the most impressive fold and thrustmountain belt in the world.” (Guptasarma,1996). The steady source of strainassociated with this process places the Indian continent under a high level ofstress at any given time; this is particularly relevant in the northern region (Guar,2001). The study region lies in an area more specifically referred to as the LesserHimalaya, an area bordered by the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) in the south andthe Main Central Thrust (MCT) in the north (Guptasarma, 1996) (Figure 1.3). TheMBT and MCT are active fault systems with short recurrence intervals for seismicevents, frequently causing slope failures and landslides in the area.A number of large magnitude earthquakes have recently affected northern India(Table 1.1) (Rajendran and Rajendran, 2004). Chopra et al. (2005) reported on arecent scientific analysis of earthquake data in the region, drawing attention to akey prediction that “one or more great earthquakes (M> 8) may be overdue in alarge fraction of the Himalaya, threatening millions of people in that region.” Thestate of Uttarakhand has not experienced a great earthquake in over 200 years.Molnar 1996 appropriately stated that “it would be foolish to assume that greatearthquakes will not occur in segments of the (mountain) chain where suchearthquakes have not occurred in the last 200 years.” Further studies support thisstatement by estimating that the probability of a great earthquake occurring in thisarea during the 21 st century is at 89 % (Khattri 2004, 2006). This underscores theurgency and absolute necessity for disaster initiatives in the state of Uttarakhand.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 6

Figure 1.3: Faults in the state of Uttarakhand, Main Boundry Thrust (MBT) andMain Central Thrust (MCT)Table 1.1: Large magnitude earthquakes in IndiaYear Location Tectonic setting Magnitude1819 Kachchh Ancient rift 7.51897 Assam Himalaya 8.71905 Kangra Himalaya 8.61934 Bihar-Nepal Himalaya 8.31935 Quetta Himalaya 7.61950 Upper Assam Himalaya 8.71967 Koyna Peninsular Shield 6.31991 Uttarkashi Himalaya 6.51993 Killari Peninsular Shield 6.31999 Chamoli Himalaya 6.82001 Bhuj Ancient rift 7.62005 Kashmir Himalaya 7.6The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 7

The study comprises two regions: Study Area A – Rudraprayag district (indicatedby red star in Figure 1.2) and Study Area B – Almora district (indicated by blue starin Figure 1.2). These areas were selected based on the following criteria: 1) bothare located in mountainous terrain in close proximity to the MCT and MBT, 2) bothare highly vulnerable to disasters, earthquakes and landslides in particular, 3) bothhost rural communities. A recent edition of Suchetna, a quarterly newsletter issuedby PSI, provides figures on natural hazard-related damages sustained by alldistricts in the state of Uttarakhand between January and June 2007, such as lossof lives, damage to buildings, land etc. (Table 1.2).Table 1.2: Damages sustained from natural hazards, January-June 2007, Uttarakhand StateDistrict Human Livestock Buildings Barns AgriculturallivesPartial TotalLandAlmora 1 67 66 10 4 102.7Bageshwar 3 4 86 19 - 2.66Champawat 7 4 6 3 - -Pithoragath 6 14 - 26 - -Nainital 1 1 23 5 32 -Udhamsingh 2 12 - 50 - 223.50Haridwar 7 - 1 1 33 -Pauri - - - - - -Dehradun - - 1 - 150 -Rudraprayag 8 1 - - 1 -Uttarkashi 2 60 44 36 6 5.042Chamoli 10 194 114 18 24 -Tehri 4 11 44 6 1 5.3Total 51 368 385 174 251 339.202The main difference between the regions, for comparative purposes, is that StudyArea A has been exposed to extensive awareness programs through PSI andCentre for Disaster Initiatives (CDI), as well as technical training of masons onearthquake safe features and construction practices. Study Area B has had little tono exposure to disaster awareness campaigns, and no mason trainingprogrammes have been offered through PSI or other agencies. Years of workexperience in combination with a developed partnership with CDI have enabledPSI to develop a good rapport with the people in this region. Mahila Haat, a localThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 8

NGO based in the town of Almora, facilitated site selection and programmeplanning in the Study Area B.1.4.1 – a Study Area A – Rudraprayag district, Garwhal regionStudy area A comprises 24 villages in the Manadakini Valley, Rudraprayag District.An equal number of remote villages and villages with direct road access wereselected:Villages with direct road access include: Bhatwari, Kyunja, Kansili, Jabri,Machkandi, Bhanaj, Dungri, Kandara, Kinjani, Kontha in the Kyunja-gad; Bhiri inthe Kusum-gad; and Sari and Makku in the Akashkamni-gad.Villages more than 0.5 km from the nearest road include: Senna, Akhorhi, Tweri,Kalai, Kera-Talla, Rawa, Kandra in the Kyunja-gad; Dharsal and Sursal in theKusum-gad; and Dilmi, Daira, and Barangali in the Akashkamni-gad.The region is defined geographically by steephills and narrow roadways, communication issomewhat limited, internet access is notcommon in mountain communities and mobiletelephone communication is not alwaysoperational. The local language is Garwhali.This region has had a number of disastermitigation and preparedness initiatives carriedout in response to the effects of two recentlarge earthquakes, Uttarkashi (1991) andChamoli (1999), both in Garwhal.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 9

1.4.1 – b Study Area B- Almora district, Kumaon regionStudy area B comprises 22 villages in the Almora District. An equal number ofremote villages and villages with direct road access were selected:Villages with direct road access include: Chatai Tiwari, Chatai Pant, Gagashwar,Jyoli, Kanali, Maatgao, Maniaghar, Matina, Mantola, Narayan Datt Tiwari, andPapar Sali.Villages more than 0.5km from the nearest road include: Bisra, Chhani,Gardoli, Gaiyaithal, Gatura, Kachula, Nani, Pakhadhar, Sela, Shishrad, and SupyiThe area also has a predominantly hilly topography but is more developed overall,with wider roadways and better communication services. This area has not recentlyexperienced a disaster on the same scale as Uttarkashi or Chamoli. Nevertheless,it lies in Zone V and IV of the seismic hazard map but no disaster awareness orbuilding programmes have been carried out there to this date. The local languageis Kumao.1.4.2 MethodsThe study is divided into three key sections: Section 1) interviews with trained anduntrained masons, Section 2) a disaster preparedness questionnaire directed atcommunity members, and Section 3) housing impact assessment. Methodologiesfor each section are described below.1.4.2 - Section 1 Interviews with trained and untrained masonsThe assessment was conducted by means of elite interviews with 36 trainedmasons from Study Area A and 36 untrained masons from Study Area B. Masonsselected for the assessment in Study Area A all had previous training inThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 10

earthquake safe building practices through PSI (67% of respondents) or the stategovernment (33% of respondents). Surveyors obtained lists of masons living inStudy Area A that had been trained within the last five years by either organisation.Local masons were randomly selected in Study Area B. Interviews were conductedin local language and results translated and interpreted.Construction of houses in rural areas is generally solely carried out by masons,without specific input by engineers. The onus is generally on the homeowner tospecify a rough plan for the building; the mason then is largely responsible for theconstruction details. The skills and knowledge of the mason will therefore dictate abuilding's resilience to an earthquake. The 26 questions developed for theinterview were created in an effort to gauge the extent to which training workshopshave influenced and enhanced a mason's skill base with respect to earthquakesafe construction and to obtain an impression of homeowner perceptions onearthquake safe features. The interview questions were largely open-endedquestions. All responses were coded and quantified, values are expressed inpercentages.1.4.2 - Section 2 Preparedness Questionnaire directed at CommunityMembersThis section of the study presents the results of a general survey and assessmentof levels of preparedness and education programmes within the communities bymeans of a questionnaire. The aim was to determine whether or not the project hashad an impact on changing the behaviour of community members with respect todisaster preparedness.The 36 questions that constitute the questionnaire were developed to determinewhat the current level of preparedness is among community members (Annex II –questionnaire and results): levels of awareness and perceptions of hazards,preparation within the home (i.e. demanding earthquake safe housing), communityemergency plans (task forces, responsibility for keeping communication, roads,The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 11

etc. operational). The study involved the distribution of the questionnaire to 190individuals; 85 each in the Study Area A and B, respectively. The survey consistsof mainly closed questions. Responses for the few open-ended questions werecoded and quantified. Results are expressed as percentages.On average, four copies of the questionnaire were distributed in each village. Inorder to monitor the long-term effects/impact of local task forces established by thePSI in 2005, at least one task force member per village was selected in Study AreaA. The remaining participants were randomly selected. It was the aim of the surveyleaders to obtain a fair representation of the community with respect to age,gender, and level of education. Surveys were printed and conducted in locallanguage and results translated and interpreted.1.4.2 - Section 3 Housing Impact AssessmentA survey was conducted of all new constructions during the last 12 months in bothstudy regions: Study Area A – Rudraprayag district, where PSI has workedextensively on disaster awareness programmes and has trained over 200 masonsin earthquake safe building features; Study Area B – Almora district, where nomasons have been trained in earthquake safe building features and disasterawareness campaigns have not been initiated by PSI or other agencies.Assessment of recent construction was limited to the villages selected in eachrespective study area. A checklist for essential structural features was developedwith PSI engineers based on previous impact assessments, as previouslydescribed in the framework section of this thesis (Table 1.3) (for a pictorialdescription of features please refer to Annex I). In those cases where houses hadalready been plastered (making it difficult to examine the masonry with respect toearthquake-safe features) short interviews were conducted with the homeowner or,if possible, the mason to determine these features.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 12

Table 1.3: Checklist for essential features for earthquake safe constructionLoad Bearing1.single steel rod in each corner2.plinth band3.lintel band4.small openings5.light roof (RCC slab maximum 3in. thick)6.throughstones7.corner strengthening8.sill bandFrame structure9.width of column base10. distance between stirrups between 6 and12 inches11.plinth beam12.lintel Beam13.light roof (RCC slab maximum 3in. thick)14.small opening15.sill bandData on the earthquake safe features used in the houses assessed in this studyare found in Annex II. In load-bearing wall structures the minimum featuresessential to ensure earthquake-safety are a plinth band, a lintel band, smallopenings located away from corners, and light roofs. If the walls are made fromstone, the use of through stones is necessary. For framed structures it is essentialto have columns at the corners in addition to the features described above. Basedon the presence or absence of these features, the 52 houses surveyed in StudyArea A and the 23 houses surveyed in Study Area B have been classified as beingEQ safe or unsafe. “Safe” does not necessarily mean that the structure will notcollapse or be damaged during an earthquake. However, the use of the abovementioned features may maintain the structural integrity of a building long enoughto evacuate the premises.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 13

Chapter 2 – Theoretical OrientationThis chapter provides a theoretical orientation or framework for the case studypresented in this thesis; it is divided into three parts. Section 2.1 provides basicdefinitions and theories discussed herein. As the case study was conducted inNorthern India, Section 2.2 provides a background to natural disasters in the Indiancontext and more specifically in the case study region of Uttarakhand, NorthernIndia. Section 2.3 presents a literature review of the current state of the art ofdisaster mitigation and preparedness (DMP) and the roles of NGOs in this domain.Section 2.4 outlines PSI's mitigation and preparedness strategies underassessment in this case study.2.1 Definitions and theories2.1.1 Natural disastersOne of the problems plaguing the field of disaster management is how exactly toappropriately define “disaster”. Alexander (1997) stated that, while the amount ofinformation on disasters and the quality of reporting has increased, there is still acertain degree of ambiguity surrounding what passes as a clear definition of adisaster. The following paragraphs describe commonly accepted characteristicsfound in the literature of what constitutes a disaster:1) Disasters generally have a common pattern with respect to the variousphases in an emergency. This has traditionally been seen as warning, prealarm,crisis, rescue, rehabilitation and reconstruction. However, a numberof scholars (Turner, 1979; Slim, 1995) have challenged this pattern bysuggesting that communities themselves are largely responsible for howthey will be affected by a disaster in how well they mitigate and prepare forsuch events.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 14

2) A disaster will inevitably have repercussions on social and economicsystems, and in most cases this occurs abruptly when dealing with naturaldisasters.3) There is a qualitative difference between an incident and a disaster (anumber of attempts have been made to quantify disaster in certain terms;however the number of variables and parameters involved have renderedthese attempts unsuccessful (Foster, 1976; Burton et al., 1978).Nevertheless, as there needs to be some way of quantifying what qualifiesas a disaster, Alexander (1997) identified four elements that are typicallyused as benchmarks; they include: number of deaths, value of damage orlosses, impact on the social system and geophysical definitions.4) The effects of a disaster are not restricted to the immediate event. In fact thesecondary effects of a disaster may instigate an even harsher deteriorationof social well-being through, for instance, forced migration, disease, tradereductions, and environmental modifications (ECLAC, 2003). In this sensedisasters affect lives both directly and indirectly.5) There is generally more irreversible damage in developing countries, thepoorest and most vulnerable experience the greatest social, economic andenvironmental impact (ECLAC, 2003); in developed regions the availabilityof resources and higher level of technology reduce vulnerability and cannegate the impact, ex. Early Warning Systems (EWS).In summary, a natural disaster will inevitably entail a sudden and profound impacton the environment, which disrupts both in the immediate and chronic sense, socialand economic fabrics of humans. Essentially, there is no one-size-fits-all definitionof a disaster. Multi-disciplinary approaches that consider the overall social,economic, political, and environmental context are therefore crucial forunderstanding how to prepare for and respond to disasters.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 15

2.1.2 VulnerabilityVulnerability is another term frequently used in the disaster discourse albeit withconfusing undertones. Alexander (1997) proposed that the term is often confusedwith risk. To clarify, risk can be considered as “the product of hazard (the physicalagent and its impact) and vulnerability as the susceptibility to damage or injury”(UNDRO, 1982).According to Parkash (2005), vulnerability is “a factor of weakness in differentelements when exposed to a given hazardous event and is defined as apercentage or fractions of all the elements in a particular set of elements that willbe affected by a specific event. Based on the elements at risk, vulnerability can beclassified as physical vulnerability, social vulnerability and attitudinal vulnerability”.There are many factors to consider as to what makes a community vulnerable inthe first place and to what extent. What circumstances or events have led tovulnerability to the disaster? Was this disaster socially constructed? Are somegroups more vulnerable than others? What are the politics behind the disaster?What is the frequency of disasters in the area? (Comfort et al., 1999; Beck, 2005;Houghton, 2005). An understanding of the various dimensions of vulnerability andcontext or background, preventative measures can be taken both pre-disaster (ex.Early Warning Systems), and post-disaster strategies have a better starting pointfrom which reconstruction and recovery can be facilitated. Understanding wherethe problems originate reduces the risk of repeating the same mistakes in areasprone to hazard where the risk of yet another disaster striking is infallible; often“vulnerability is reconstructed instead of being reduced “ (ECLAC, 2003). A cycle ofongoing risk assessment, vulnerability mapping, and needs assessments areimportant sources of information with which NGOs can make decisions for projectplanning and sustainable strategies (Houghton, 2005; Comfort et al.,1999).Therefore, mitigation towards disaster must also tackle the arduous challenge ofreducing vulnerability through sustainable measures that help to increase acommunity’s resilience to loss (Wisner, 1993).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 16

That’s not to say that vulnerability is only used when referring to poor populations,as the term is most often associated with. In industrialized countries technologicalor technocratic vulnerability can be equally devastating, taking the example ofHurricane Katrina in the United States. For the most part, however, developingcountries suffer a higher number of fatalities, and there is a chronic inadequacy offorecasting and evacuation programmes. In comparison to developed countries,the overall financial damage may appear quite low, but its long-term impacts andeffects on sustainable programmes and will suffer harsher repercussions (ECLAC,2003).2.1.3 Disaster Mitigation and PreparednessThe terms mitigation and preparedness are used together in most cases, resultingin their definitions becoming somewhat confused and incorrectly applied. Mitigationis defined as “a type of long-term, pre-disaster planning which involves sustainedexpenditures on structural and non-structural efforts to reduce or eliminate futurerisks. Mitigation plans and activities are, in practice, usually medium to long term,and mitigation is the cornerstone of emergency management since it is an examplewhere thinking ahead pays off in the long run. Terminologically, mitigation isrelated to two other concepts of long-term planning: reconstruction andpreparedness.”(http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/431/431lect10.htm).Preparedness refers to “measures taken in anticipation of a disaster event toensure that appropriate and effective actions are employed. Disaster preparednessdeals with long-term policies and programs to minimize the impact of disasters.Legislation, urban and physical planning, and building and public works areexamples of long-term planning. Disaster preparedness is a complex concept thatstarts well before a disaster strikes and can continue into the emergency itself. Awell-planned disaster preparedness plan will have been practiced and learned bygovernment agencies, churches, NGOs and the local citizenry, so that in the eventThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 17

of a disaster everyone knows how to act, where to go and what to do.” (Habitat forHumanity, 2007).2.1.4 Disasters and DevelopmentNatural disasters have no consideration of the area they affect; they are borderlessand strike irrespective of developed or developing environments. In this sense,natural disasters inflict more suffering on disadvantaged, vulnerable people at alllevels of their economic, social and political environment. These conditions arealso a contributing factor to people living in areas highly prone to disasters. Thevulnerability cycle is difficult to break. Since 1991, two-thirds of the victims ofnatural disasters globally were from developing countries (Govt. of India, 2002).Most development programmes are aimed at reducing poverty in an effort toalleviate these poor conditions. It is of paramount importance that a dimension ofdisaster preparedness be incorporated into such programmes or the processstands to be repeated. (Benson et al., 2001). In many cases the root is usuallytraced back to poverty (ODI, 2005), so where a disaster, such as an earthquake ortsunami, may be inescapable, poverty is a preventable pathology (HumanDevelopment Report, 2005). Therefore fighting poverty is considered as a startingblock for instigating “positive change” and thereby reducing vulnerabilities incommunities. Of course, this is a major factor in development but it is impossible tospeak in absolutes. Development embodies much more than simply combatingpoverty, a substantial component of development focuses on enhancing basichuman capacities such as education, good governance, and access to health careand improved physical and social infrastructures (Allen and Thomas 2004, O’Reilly2006).The impact of a disaster is directly proportional to the level of development(O’Reilly, 2004). Therefore, an important component of reducing vulnerabilities in aregion stems directly from an increased level of development. A cognisance of towhat degree a region is developed will help in creating more sound developmentprogrammes, etc. Generally speaking, the less developed a country, the greaterThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 18

the amount of humanitarian assistance required during the relief phase of adisaster. Likewise, the less an area has invested in DMP, the greater the amount ofassistance required. Therefore, DMP, humanitarian assistance, and developmentare inherently linked. By this logic, if more money is spent on developmentprogrammes and preparedness, lives and money can be saved in the long run.Nothing exists in a vacuum; nothing is by itself. Mitigation and preparedness needto be coupled with immediate aid and development to be effective (Haroff-Tavel,2003, Beck, 2005). Additionally, natural disasters have the capacity to set backdevelopment efforts, aggravating the human and economic losses directly relatedto the disaster. Subsequently, investment possibilities may be hampered in thewake of a disaster; the problem becomes circular (Govt. of India, 2002). However,some economists argue in favour of the opposite, suggesting that the post-disasterboom associated with the ensuing construction, technology influx, and improvedinfrastructure actually facilitates positive economic development (ODI, 2005).2.2 Natural hazards: the Indian context2.2.1 Natural Hazards in IndiaIndia is highly vulnerable to a variety of natural disasters including droughts,widespread and destructive flooding from monsoon rains, epidemics, severestorms, landslides/avalanches, and earthquakes. In fact, out of the 35 states thatconstitute the Republic of India, 24 are disaster-prone (Sharma, 2004). This, incombination with poor social and economic conditions, makes India one of thecountries most vulnerable to disasters worldwide (Mountain Forum Himalayas,2007). Between 1992 and 2000 Asia has accounted for 83% of the globalpopulation affected by natural disasters; within Asia 24% of deaths related tonatural disasters occurred in India (Govt. of India, 2002, p. 5).Institutional arrangements for response to natural disasters are in place in Indiathrough trained professionals (ie. police, paramilitary, etc.). However, theGovernment's Tenth Five Year Plan highlighted some of the shortcomings ofThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 19

disaster management in the country, indicating that planning for disaster remainsto be massively improved in the future. It is also suggested to set up a commandcenter that provides data links to each state and a national standby team (exprofessionalarmy, police etc), and that urban search and rescue training efforts beincreased in light of the overwhelming lack of training noted in the wake of theGujarat earthquake in 2001. An extract from the Government of India’s Tenth FiveYear Plan document outlines institutional arrangements that are in place for DMPin India. Section 7.17 (2002, p. 6) states: "the country with its Federal system ofgovernment has specific roles for Central and State governments. However, thesubject of disaster management does not specifically find mention in any of thethree lists in the 7 th schedule of the Indian Constitution, where subjects under theCentral and State governments as also subjects that come under both arespecified. On the legal front there is no enactment either of the Central or any Stategovernment to deal with the management of disasters of various types in acomprehensive manner”.Responding to natural disasters in India is the responsibility of the StateGovernment; funds are funneled through Central Government. Events at thedistrict level are handled through the District Magistrate of Deputy Commissioner.At the local village level the Panchayat is the link to the community (Gupta, 2006).Other stakeholders include police, paramilitary, fire brigade, and NGOs.Devastating disasters such as the Gujarat (2001) and Kashmir (2005) earthquakes,or the 2004 tsunami, have instilled a sense of urgency for an increased culture ofpreparedness and disaster management planning in India. As is often the case, asudden event will alert people to the hazards they face, usually sparking a hurriedeffort to develop Early Warning Systems and other mechanisms in the region.Despite these knee-jerk reactions to prepare communities, more and moreemphasis needs to be placed on activities in research and development,education, and resulting improved technologies for mitigating natural disasters andincreasing levels of awareness and preparedness from both top-down and bottomupperspectives. In light of this requisite, a number of recent reports highlight anThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 20

awakening in India with an encouraging shift in attitude that embraces disastermitigation and preparedness strategies (Bandari, 2005; Sharma, 2004; MountainForum Himalayas, 2007).Sharma (2004) reported on various trends, changes, and recommendations todisaster management strategies specific to the Indian context; these include:1) Recognition of increasing the role of local bodies: mainstreaming preventionis difficult to achieve when competing with more immediate and visibleproblems such as social welfare and health in a country such as India. Thelocal government Panchayats are the key to mobilizing communities at thegrassroots level, and awareness campaigns need to be offered at all levels.2) Drawing more on the education sector, fostering transfer of knowledge toand between professional decision makers, NGOs (in essence, consultantsfor the poor), scientific community, etc.3) Increased use of information technology such as mass media campaigns forawareness at all levels, from easy-to-read posters to internet and television.4) Early Warning Systems– while efforts have been made in attempting toimprove early warning systems, there needs to be a clear channel ofinformation in both directions. The needs of the community need to be morecarefully considered. In the same vein, communities themselves need to bebetter informed about the benefits of EWS and their vulnerability to hazardsin their respective regions.5) Shift in mindset of mitigation and prevention: training and awareness is notlimited to community members but is also necessary for agencies (NGOs)working in the region, those developing various forecasting systems andgovernment officials responsible for decisions on how to best respond.Communication among these various groups is of paramount importance ifresponse to an emergency/disaster is to be carried out efficiently andeffectively.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 21

Despite the apparent increased consciousness of DMP, a recent Mountain ForumHimalayas (2007) report highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder process to bedeveloped and requested that policies and plans for effective disaster managementbe strengthened. Endemic to the field of DMP is the challenge of changing themindset at the individual level, incorporating basic safety features into everydaylife. Fostering behaviour change is perhaps the most difficult challenge to master.Community based disaster preparedness is therefore a well sought after solution tothis problem and is advocated by many groups working in this field.2.2.2 Natural Hazards in UttarakhandMore specific to this study, the northern state of Uttarakhand is classified as one ofthe highest disaster-prone states in the country. This region is regularly affected byearthquakes and landslides as a result of the neo-tectonic forces active in theHimalayan Mountain Range. The state has experienced a distinct rise in loss dueto natural disasters as the unplanned developments in these high risk predisposedgeophysical and geoclimatic conditions have increased. A recent history of thedisasters in the state cites several examples, e.g. Alaknanda flash floods (1970),Bhagirathi floods (1978), Uttarkashi earthquake (1991), Ukhimath landslide (1998),Malpa & Dharchula Landslides (1998), Chamoli earthquake (1999), PhataLandslide (2000), Budha Kedar landslide (2001), Varunawat landslide (2003),Lambgarh & Hathi Pravat Landslides (2004) (CDMR annual report, 2004a).Disaster prevention is case specific and cannot be facilitated with an umbrellaapproach, particularly in a country as vast and diverse as India. Joshi et al. (2001)highlight that disaster management strategies differ in the mountain regions andneed to be treated accordingly. Even the smallest of disaster can wreak havocmainly due to increased difficulties in accessibility. This is thereby amplified inlarge-scale disasters such as the Uttarkashi and Chamoli earthquakes, where thevarious agencies were overwhelmed and unable to cope properly with thesituation. All phases of the response, relief and rehabilitation are reported to havebeen rather ad hoc and thereby inadequate (Joshi et al., 2001). The variousThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 22

decision makers stand to learn much from disasters of this scale and to increasepreparedness measures. Proper strategies need to be developed keeping in mindenvironmental context and specifications. On a positive note, as Uttarakhand is anewly formed state in India (since 2001) its predisposition to natural hazards wasconsidered in its inception. It is one of the first states in India to create adepartment specifically for disaster management, the Disaster Management andMitigation Center (DMMC).Similarly to India as a whole, a change in mentality towards disaster mitigation andpreparedness has been noted within the state however; the Mountains ForumHimalayas (2007) further submit the following critical issues that need to beaddressed:1) Lack of preparedness and awareness for disaster mitigation andmanagement2) Lack of well-framed disaster management policy3) Lack of coordination in rescue and relief efforts4) Over-exploitation of natural resources5) Sensitive and difficult geophysical situation6) Inadequate information and communication infrastructure2.3 Disaster mitigation and preparedness – role of NonGovernmental OrganisationsA relevant question in the field of disaster mitigation and preparedness (DMP) iswhether a shift to a more holistic view of mitigation and preparedness is possiblewithin the existing labyrinth of the relief and development continuum. This sectionprovides an overview of the current state of the art of DMP in this continuum andthe integral role that NGOs play.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 23

2.3.1 Disaster Mitigation and PreparednessTwigg et al. (2000) have compiled a comprehensive study on the role of NGOs indisaster mitigation and preparedness. They reported that while the late 80s markeda reasonable amount of attention devoted to the subject (Winchester, 1983;Maskrey 1989) ultimately, and unlike the role of NGOs in relief and development,there is actually very little in the literature regarding NGOs in the preparedness andmitigation field; highlighting the low level of priority and importance that is placedon it (Benson et al., 2001). There have been several attempts at bringing the topicinto the sphere but it has been repeatedly pushed to the wayside (Winchester,1983; Maskrey, 1989). The views expressed in the late 1980s were of the opinionthat “NGOs are the actor with the greatest potential to bring about major change indisaster mitigation” (Winchester, 1979). Views in this light have largely held thesame since the late 1980s, contrary to the heated discussions plaguing the relief -development continuum where the role of NGOs has evolved and changed overtime (Alexander, 1997).The 1960s marked a rift in relief and development arenas which subsequentlypicked up pace in the 1970s, in turn discouraging NGOs from getting involved inDMP strategies and programmes. Events such as the famine in Africa finallyplaced disasters on the map, forcing NGOs to sit up and take note of the linkbetween development and disasters. Cuny (1983) stated “The growing awarenessby volags (voluntary agencies) of the connection between disaster response anddevelopment is the single most important trend in disaster programmes today.” AUN report on mobilising local communities as a means of alleviating the effects ofdisasters also noted a shift in the way disasters have been viewed and in themethods/mechanisms for responding to them. The report points out that in the pastdisasters were largely the sole responsibility of emergency workers, but that a shiftof taking into account more the context and the social and economic conditions hassince occurred (UNISDR). The 1990s finally marked the appearance of DMP onthe international aid agenda at all levels with such initiatives as the UN-ledInternational Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 24

Bandari (2005) provided a more exhaustive list of landmarks for global attentiontowards DMP during the 1990s: International Decade of Natural DisasterReduction (1990-2000); The Earth Summit (June 3-14, 1992); CartagenaDeclaration (1994); Yokohama Mid-term Review of IDNDR (May 23-27, 1994);Millenium Declaration (September 2000); Interagency framework for theInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2000); World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (2002); Bonn Conference on Early Warning (2003); MauritiusStrategy for Small Island State (January 2005); Hyogo Framework for Action(2005-2015) and United Nations Decade for Education on SustainableDevelopment (2005-2015). However, despite these displays of strengthened andpromised commitment, DMP would take a backseat to more dominating issuessuch as complex emergencies; disasters caused by conflict, war and state collapse(Rocha and Christoplos, 2001; Benson et al., 2001; Alexander, 1997).More recently, the ill attempts at mainstreaming DMP have been documented in arecent Tearfund study (2006) assessing EU progress in DMP. The authorsconcluded that, although the EU has expressly stated its commitment to DMP andrelated strategies, there has been a shortcoming of what the strategies will entail.One recommendation was that a more rigorous plan for integrating DMP into itsprogrammes be illustrated. There is in most cases a knee-jerk reaction to adisaster that sparks a great deal of arm waving and planning with respect to DMPin the immediate aftermath. What efforts are made, however, usually quickly abate,and only seldom are followed by sustained actions.A recent review of the international humanitarian system’s response to the 2004tsunami in southeast Asia by Telford and Cosgrave (2007) noted just how quicklythese notions are put on the backburner once the dust has settled. Theshortcomings are as follows: EWS and preparedness initiatives, particularly at thecommunity level, would have undoubtedly saved lives, had they only been in placebeforehand. Building codes and practices adapted to the level of natural hazard doThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 25

save lives. This event marked a prime opportunity for stakeholders to incorporatepreparedness programmes and to rebuild in a fashion that reduces structuralvulnerabilities. Surprisingly, given the magnitude of this event and the excess offunding available, little was done in this regard; a rather disheartening result toconsider for improvements for future disasters that may attract less mediaattention. Further to this, response and action towards the abundant calls made formainstreaming DMP and increasing EWS directly after this disaster have not beennearly as fruitful as anticipated (Christoplos, 2006, in Telford and Cosgrave, 2007).So it may safely be said that DMP has been earmarked as an important issue andthat there is a significant level of commitment towards it; however, repeatedly thereis a lack of follow through, the action behind the planned strategies is clearlylacking. Are we just simply incapable of adopting a preventative culture? Is itpossible to foster a behaviour change of such epic proportions? It is hard tofathom that at this day in age, with technology and communication being at theircurrent level, a lack in preparedness can in any way be justified. Moreover,seasonal and geographical patterns for disasters are well established and havelent themselves to the development of predetermined relief methodologies. Still,preparedness is not mainstreamed (Alexander, 1997).This lack of mainstreaming is noted at all levels, perhaps most importantly at thedonor level. A Tearfund study (2003) on donor practice and policy in natural hazardreduction indicates that, in congruence with the literature, that, while there is agrowing respect or understanding for the need for DMP it still has low priorityamong donors, and relief and development plans and processes. The Tearfundstudy offers three possible explanations for why this is:1. Knowledge – a basic lack in understanding of what risk reduction is. Thelabyrinth of terminology and the broadness of DMP make it difficult to harness aclear definition of what DMP is and entails.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 26

2. Ownership – within the continued relief and development debate, no one really“owns” preparedness and risk reduction, it lays adrift in no-mans land. Also, themisconception that by simply adopting a pro-poor development focus risk reductionwill be achieved, where in reality a heightened awareness of context and the rootof poverty would contribute more to reducing vulnerability and subsequent risk.3. Competition - the out of sight, out of mind nature of DMP can hardly competewith seemingly more pressing and visible issues such as health care or education.2.3.2 Where does mitigation and preparedness fit in the“disaster continuum”?Literature covering the debate of linking relief and development is more thanabundant and has been ongoing for some time. Documentation of DMP within thisframework, on the other hand, is scarce. As the literature implies, themainstreaming of DMP is continually recognized as an important step forward indisaster management. This begs the question why mitigation and preparednessare not more prominently included in the disaster continuum? The benefits ofpreparedness and mitigation would seem obvious to most, but ironically are rarelyfactored in, thereby confining disaster strategies and approaches to the context ofthe relief-development continuum. In fact, some would argue that DMP is regardedas “a type of activity rather than something intrinsic to sustainable development”(Alexander, 1997).Houghton (2005) stated, “disaster preparedness/mitigation is cited as the mostimportant issue to emerge from recent (humanitarian assistance) evaluations”. It isrecommended time and time again that disaster preparedness can effectively beused to educate local communities about the risks they face, and assist them indeveloping their own coping mechanisms and emergency plans for when the nextinevitable disaster strikes. In other words, an ounce of prevention is worth a poundof cure. An educated community, equipped with strategies for adequate reaction inan emergency situation, will most certainly help to ease components of a reliefoperation, and in turn speed up the process for the road to recovery. Early WarningThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 27

Systems technologies and education programmes should therefore be integratedinto development projects promoting sustainable development in areas prone tohazard (Govt. of India, 2002). Yet this appears to be a shortcoming on thissupposedly ever-evolving field of knowledge.Furthermore, the time span between immediate relief and post-disaster recoveryrequires reevaluation and increased coordination between all persons and bodiesinvolved. NGOs responding to natural disasters need to be aware of the effects oftheir actions, both societal and environmental, during the transition period (i.e.relief, rehabilitation, and recovery). What sets natural disasters apart from otherdisasters (such as conflict) is that a recurrence of the event is virtually inescapable.This presents a unique challenge to all mitigation efforts. Therefore, naturaldisasters require additional attention in the transition period to ensure thatstrategies are in place for increased preparedness and reducing vulnerabilities as ameans of mitigation for probable subsequent events. “When countries fail to factorhazard and vulnerability considerations into their development policies, strategies,and plans, economic growth and social welfare become eroded by large-scaledisaster loss while increasing demands are made on national and internationalhumanitarian assistance.” (UN Executive Report).Twigg et al. (2000) reported that varying views on the disaster continuum insist thatthere are no distinct phases and no linear progression from one phase to another.A particularly well-expressed view suggests that, ”there are no boundaries betweenrelief and development. It’s not a continuum and it’s not linear. You haveemergency situations within ongoing development, and you need to useemergency response to promote long-term development, so the two are embeddedin each other”. Perhaps an improvement to this model is a more cyclicalrepresentation illustrating the ongoing integration integral to disaster management(Sharma, 2004; Palakudiyil and Todd, 2003) (Figure 2.1).Christopolos et al. (2001) state that the confusion around where DMP falls into thebroader picture of the relief and development work has undoubtedly contributed toThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 28

it not being mainstreamed. Again, the pull of being at the frontlines of lifesaving orvisibly eradicating poverty is not to be felt with DMP; instead, to a certain extent, itsows the seeds for such activities.Figure 2.1: Disaster cycle2.3.3 What is the role of NGOs in DMP?The field of DMP involves many stakeholders, ranging from theoretical andacademic to more practical and applied arenas. Within this theory and practice, isan exhaustive labyrinth of physical and social sciences, structural and nonstructuralmitigation methods embodied by various agencies, government bodiesand the community itself. NGOs are well positioned within this pool as they havedeveloped capacities at the academic and practical level, as well as a high level ofacceptance at the grassroots level.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 29

As suggested previously, there is a need for NGOs to shed opinions circling therelief-development divisions. Part of the way forward in this respect is though therealization that disasters are not just hurdles in the big picture of development, thatawareness levels to disasters are rising due to escalating losses, and a shift frommerely attacking poverty and instead accepting that the community and theirneeds, livelihoods, vulnerabilities and previously developed coping strategies andcapacities need to be factored into the equation (Christoplos et al., 2001).The community should therefore be accepted as an institution and be recognizedas a fundamental stakeholder in the process of preventative measures (Sharma,2004). In this light, education and awareness campaigns are important tools toensure that the grassroots level is active in their own planning. Knowledge is thekey to facilitating this. The departure from the traditional view of “victims” of adisaster being aided by outside experts now aims at embracing the community andtaking the initiative before a disaster occurs by means of addressing the reasonsbehind vulnerability and including the community in the development ofprogrammes and strategies (UN/ISDR). Likewise, the Tearfund organisation statesthat its “primary strategy of vulnerability reduction is to increase the capacities oflocal communities and organisations to prevent, prepare for, and respond to theimpact of disasters” (Palakudiyil and Todd, 2003).Sustainable disaster mitigation and preparedness programmes through NGOassistance must involve the local community. Local capacity is already developedto a certain extent, in that community members have a better knowledge of theenvironmental, social, and economic context of their situation, the events leadingup to an event, and what the needs are that should be met in the event of adisaster (Beck, 2005). The function of NGOs should be to assist in reducingexisting vulnerabilities with a long-term prospect of placing responsibility forsustaining these efforts in the hands the community (Gupta, 2006; Pugh, 1998).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 30

In practical terms NGOs can be considered as the middle-man between thegrassroots communities and the top-down power structures that are oft timesfacilitating funding and making key decisions on policy and the like. NGOs are oneof the “most effective alternative means of achieving an efficient communicationlink between the disaster management agencies and the affected community”.While some NGOs are also working at the advocacy level, they typically operateand participate in the relief and response and subsequent development to adisaster. NGOs are perhaps best suited to community based DMP as they: a) offerinexpensive and practical techniques, b) have a higher level of acceptance theyare able to stimulate public awareness, c) have a long term view and vision for thearea they are working in, d) work among the poorest communities thereforeenabling access to the those most vulnerable, e) are in a position to offer technicalsupport to local people who may already be active in disaster mitigation strategies,essentially consultants for the poor, f) have a more holistic approach, NGOsanalyze the socio-economic as well as the physical environment, g) have “greaterflexibility in procedural matters compared to the government” (Twigg et al, 2000,Sharma 2004, ODI, 2005, Benson et al, 2001; Chopra, 1987).NGOs can work toward reducing vulnerability through training, education andhelping to establish a clear coordination of disaster response responsibilities(UNISDR). The main focus of NGO involvement in the field of disasters is largelywith respect to relief and development. The literature reveals that NGOs do in factalready perform a large range of activities in the field of DMP, but that thedemonstrated benefits of NGO involvement in DMP is poor. This seemingly lowlevel of direct involvement can be attributed to the blurred roles NGOs play. It is fairto say that a great deal of invisibility of involvement in DMP makes it exceedinglydifficult to quantify or document progress in this respect. This makes it difficult togauge how many NGOs are working toward disaster preparedness and in whatcapacity (Benson et al, 2001; Alexander, 1997) much less to determine emergingtrends in DMP. It is also suggested that natural disasters often take a backseat tothe complex emergencies that inevitably steer donor funding and what is prioritizedThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 31

on the main agenda (Benson et al, 2001). Importantly, the lack of literature on thesubject alone speaks volumes regarding just how arduous the task ofmainstreaming preventative culture is.Ultimately, NGO coordination with all stakeholders is necessary for DMP to besuccessfully managed. Outside of community level, coordination with governmentand the private sector are necessary. There has been an increase in the amountof coordination among NGOs in the past years as seen by the development oflarger umbrella organizations and the development of the SPHERE manual, RedCross Code of Conduct to name a few (HPG, 2003), by their very nature NGOshave to work with other agencies. Further to this, links with academia, in particularthe scientific community should be formed. Cronin et al (2004 a, b) highlight theutility of increased collaboration with the scientific community, (hazardmanagement facilitated in rural communities through a combination of traditionaland scientific knowledge) and the need for including scientific academics into theassembly of stakeholders.In summary, the commonalities among the literature on the DMP discoursesuggest that:1. DMP is on the international agenda but must be mainstreamed2. DMP is excluded from the disaster continuum as it falls between the gaps ofrelief and development3. there is a need for understanding context and improved coordination andtransfer of knowledge , all of which NGOs have a clear role in ,4. coordination among all stakeholders is necessary for success programmes5. that DMP should have an integral part in sustainable policy6. a top-down approach to DMP is not likely to succeed as it doesn’t have it’sthumb on the pulse of the interests and needs of the communities, acommunity based approach to DMP is recommendedThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 32

2.4 PSI’s mitigation and preparedness programmesAs the nature of PSI’s awareness programmes center around earthquake-safehousing and terms specific to earthquake housing will be used frequently in thepaper, a brief outline on these features is presented below. In addition, as thenature of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of PSI’s training programmesan outline of the pedagogy for the mason training workshops as well as adescription of the methods for community based preparedness and awareness areprovided.2.4.1 Mitigation strategies - earthquake-safe housingThe following section reviews earthquake-safe features used as criteria forearthquake-safe building construction within this study. Specifications andsuggested building codes by such organizations as the Indian Bureau of Standardscan be quite explicit; for further details the reader is directed to Paul (2004) for aconcise review of these features. For all intents and purposes, PSI has developedposters and training manuals (Annex I) highlighting the most important featuresalong with a simplified training manual that explains them in clear and simple termswith the desired outcome of more people employing them.Load-bearingLoad-bearing refers to structures in which the entire load of the roof is placeddirectly on the walls. In load-bearing wall structures the minimum features essentialfor earthquake safety are plinth band, lintel band, small openings located awayfrom corners and a light roof. If the walls are made of stone, then the use ofthrough stones is necessary. As all of the weight is taken by the walls cornerstrengthening is also an important feature for load-bearing structures.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 33

Frame structureFramed structures have columns and beams and the load distribution is calculatedby frame analysis. The load of the roof is distributed among the columns andbeams; essentially the entire structure moves as a single frame hence the name“frame structure”. In addition to the features used in a load-bearing structure, suchas plinth, lintel, small openings and light roofs it is essential to have columns at thecorners. The diameter of the reinforcement bars of the column should be aminimum of 10mm, the minimum diameter of the stirrups should be 8mm, thestirrups should be bent at a 135°angle, and the distance between stirrups shouldbe between 6 –12 inches.The following features have been used in this study and in previous housing impactassessments by PSI. A building is classified as being earthquake-safe or unsafebased on the presence or absence of these features. For a pictorial view ofpertinent earthquake-safe features with brief description please refer to Annex I.It is interesting to note that houses in this region were traditionally constructed withthese design features albeit with local, traditional materials such as stone, mud andwood. These techniques and use of materials have been pushed to the wayside formodern construction practices defined typically by concrete. Masons indicate thatthese practices shifted dramatically after the building boom following the aftermathof the Uttarkashi earthquake; these new methods and techniques became the localfashion (DMMC report, 2007). Therefore, the technology, or perhaps better saidknow-how for building earthquake-safe houses has been in the region for years butthe methods and materials are changing. Without properly managing this buildingtrend through training masons, development of building byelaws and awarenessprogrammes houses run the unfortunate risk of be constructed haphazardly in anarea of high seismic vulnerability, essentially a disaster waiting to happen.The only way to prepare for disasters, in particular destructive forces such asearthquakes is to ensure safe construction practices. It is not practical primarilyfrom a financial perspective, to assume that all buildings in an area can beThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 34

etrofitted to meet safe building standards, however, important buildings such asschools, hospitals and safe shelters (community centers) should be amended.Importantly, guidelines need to be developed and adhered to for building bye-laws.Increased monitoring of building is also necessary to ensure that these practicesare in fact being adhered to.2.4.2 Preparedness Initiatives2.4.2 – a Mason trainingA report by Christian Aid following the response to the Gujarat earthquake of 2001(Palakudiyil and Todd, 2003) noted that community level perceptions on buildingmaterials and practices plays a large role in the subsequent poor construction ofbuildings in the area. Problems with new materials and associated new buildingtechniques were not readily understood and houses were poorly built as a result.PSI have taken the points of these “lessons learned” into consideration in thedevelopment of their various earthquake safety programmes. The programmescombine practical hands-on training for masons as well as dissemination ofinformation to homeowners in order to promote understanding of which featuresare best for earthquake resilient housing. Pamphlets and posters illustratingspecific earthquake safety features have been developed and disseminated tomeet this end. A lack of awareness both preceding and during the constructionphase, needs to be directed at both the grassroots level as well as politicians (highpower structures) (MFH Report 2007).PSI has trained over 200 masons in earthquake-safe construction techniques since2004 in the state of Uttarakhand. In particular, Rudraprayag was used as a pilotarea in partnership with Center for Development Initiatives (CDI). Eight workshopswere organized and 130 local masons were trained in what is Study Area A of thispaper. This was part of a greater disaster awareness programme that wasimplemented over a two-year period in the area.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 35

The curriculum of the PSI workshops combines classroom lectures, discussion anda large component of practical training. Theoretical concepts are described with theaid of photographs, slide shows, films, and three-dimensional models and preparedliterature and poster sets. Topics covered include: the effects of seismic forces onbuildings, material properties and their use, site selection, building shapes,foundations, walls, tie-bands, corner strengthening, appropriate spaces for andsizes for open spaces, framed structures, temporary shelters and retrofitting.The workshops offered by other agencies in the region are similar in structure butare typically held for one day or three days. Little to no emphasis is placed onframe structures and practical training is somewhat limited due to time constraints.2.4.2 – b Disaster preparedness and awareness at community levelTo facilitate community participation in awareness programmes and campaignsComfort et al, (1999) recommend the following strategies aimed at reducing theaffects of disasters while working within the local community (pre, during, or postdisaster): a) multi-way information exchange, promoting increased sharing ofinformation surrounding risks thereby promoting self organization; b) informedaction at local levels, through training or capacity building; and c) enabling affectedpopulations, the push for locals to “manage their own environments moreresponsibly and equitably over the long term by joining in a global structure thatsupports informed, responsible, systematic actions to improve local conditions invulnerable regions”. PSI has endeavoured to employ these strategies in its DMPprogrammes.In 2005, fifty-four villages in the Rudraprayag region (Study Area A of this paper)were targeted with a series of disaster preparedness and mitigation initiatives bymeans of developing vulnerability plans, community task force groups, and variousself-help groups. The objectives of this programme were as follows:1) To create mass awareness about disaster vulnerabilities and preparednessmeasures in Rudraprayag district.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 36

2) To undertake mitigation measures in about 50 villages in a highly vulnerableregion of the district, in the vicinity of the MCT.3) To demonstrate EQ-safety measures and to ensure that these features areincorporated in new rural building construction practice as a matter of routine in theoperational area (50 villages).4) To identify the hazards in the operational area and to devise effective responsemechanisms in consultation with the local community.5) To create a human and information resources pool that can respond effectivelyto disasters in Uttarakhand and elsewhere.6) To assist the Rudraprayag district administration in developing an appropriatedisaster management plan for the district especially focusing on women and othervulnerable sections of the society.7) To undertake policy analyses and provide support to State agencies indeveloping effective disaster-related policies (CDMR Project Proposal, 2004b).Task forces were created for each of the fifty-four villages; through the task forceleaders village level meetings were held in order to create hazard and vulnerabilitymaps. Prior to the creation of the plans two task force leaders from each village(one male, one female) attended a five-day introductory training to orientthemselves to lead the development of the preparedness plans. Disasterpreparedness plans were then drafted for each village by the community led bytask force members. These plans marked all hazards, resources and areas alreadyaffected by disaster as perceived by the community. The plans were discussedwith the village in community meetings, drafted, and then finalized and digitized.Copies of these plans were provided to the village Panchayat, a copy remainedwith PSI and an additional copy with CDI. Examples of these plans are found inFigure 2.2 a,b and c.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 37

Figure 2.2a: Community based disaster plan for BhiriFigure 2.2b: Community based disaster plan KunjaThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 38

Figure 2.2c: Community based disaster plan UsadaInformation on hazard awareness and earthquake-safe building materials wasdisseminated to village members by means of skits, and sandesh yatras, and wallwriting. CDI helped to promote awareness through school competitions (ex. apainting competition on hazards that were displayed at the annual Disaster Weekproceedings) and mock drills.In addition to the five-day introductory workshop selected task force members fromeach village were trained in the following: a) three-day search and rescue training(including first aid) was offered in conjunction with the Indian Tibet Border Police;b) one-day practical training on building temporary shelters; c) five-day training onretrofitting of buildings; d) one-day orientation for earthquake houses; e) two-daygender workshop (with a one-day follow-up course).All of the above programmes were carried out in Study Area A. Conversely, nowork of this nature has been carried out by PSI or any other agency in the AlmoraThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 39

district irrespective of the fact that it lies in Zone IV and V of the seismic hazardmap and is prone to the same plethora of natural disasters. Local NGO MihilaHaat was fundamental in orchestrating the field plan for this region. Mihila Haat is adevelopment NGO that focus primarily on women’s issues and empowerment.Discussions with their staff indicate that while there is a substantial amount of workbeing carried out with respect to microfinance and self-help groups in the regionthere has been little to no attention paid to disaster preparedness and mitigation.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 40

Chapter 3 – Present findings3.1 Results3.1.1- Section 1 Interviews with trained and untrained masonsAs described in the methods section, construction of houses in rural areas isgenerally solely by masons, without specific engineering inputs. The onus istypically on the homeowner to specify a rough plan for the building; the mason isthen largely responsible for the construction details. Therefore, the skills andknowledge of the mason will dictate buildings resilience to an earthquake. Therationale behind interviewing trained and untrained masons is to gauge the extentto which training workshops have influenced and enhanced their skill base withrespect to earthquake-safe constructions and to obtain an impression ofhomeowner perceptions on earthquake features.Additionally, Study Area A has recently experienced large magnitude earthquakesin Uttarkashi, 1991 and Chamoli,1999 resulting in a number oftraining and disaster awarenessinitiatives by both non-governmentand government agencies in thestate. At this juncture it is expectedthat trained masons in the regionwill be well versed in earthquakesafebuilding features and practices.The comparison between these two regions should yield pertinent information onthe extent to which masons have incorporated their learning into practice.The following section reports on the main results of the interviews with trained anduntrained masons. An outline of the demographics of each study region ispresented, followed by a description of the main findings from the questionnairebroken down into hazard awareness, knowledge of earthquake-safe features,The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 41

etrofitting, monitoring and homeowners perceptions of earthquake-safeconstructions. Feedback on the training workshops from trained masons in StudyRegion A is outlined. The section concludes with a list of recommendations andsuggestions for further studies. For a complete list of interview questions andbreakdown of results please refer to Annex III.3.1.1a Demographics respondentsRespondents Study Area A (Rudraprayag district):Thirty-six interviews were conducted with masons trained through PSI (67% ofrespondents) and state government (33% of respondents). None of therespondents are illiterate; thirty-one percent are educated to 5 th standard and 46percent to 8 th . Experience among masons ranges from forty-six percent between10 and 20 years, thirty-one percent less than 10 years, and fourteen percentbetween 20 and 30 years. The average number of houses built or worked on isthirty. Eighty-three percent of masons interviewed claim to have training andexperience in both stone and brick materials.Respondents Study Area B (Almora district):Thirty-six interviews with untrained local masons were conducted. Masons wererandomly selected for interviewing on the one condition of having no previoustraining with respect to earthquake-safe building practices through PSI or otheragencies active in the state. Twenty percent of the respondents are illiterate; fortytwopercent are educated to 5 th standard and twenty-five percent to 8 th standard.Experience among masons is comparable to the respondents of Study Area Aranging from forty-seven percent between 10 and 20 years. However, elevenpercent has less than 10 years, and thirty-one percent between 20 and 30 years.Fifty-eight percent of masons claim to be trained in both stone and brick masonry.Thirty-six percent of masons have expertise mainly in stone.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 42

3.1.1b Hazard AwarenessA portion of the interview was aimed at gauging the level of awareness masonshold with respect to earthquakes risk in the region. Nearly all respondents in StudyArea A are aware of the region being highly sensitive to natural disasters andprone to earthquakes; in fact seventeen percent are able to identify the region asbeing within Zone V of the Indian seismic hazard map. In contrast, twenty-eightpercent of respondents from the Almora region indicate that there is no risk toearthquakes whatsoever with a further twenty-eight percent declaring the risk asvery low. Only twenty percent correctly identified the region as being a high-riskzone with respect to earthquakes. It should be noted that a component of thetraining workshops by PSI and other agencies include a brief description of thegeological context and potential for risk within the state. This information appearsto be retained by trained masons.A segment of the interview questioned masons about their estimates on thepercentage of earthquake-safe houses in the region. Sixty-four percent ofuntrained masons in Study Area B consider 75-100% of the houses to beearthquake-safe. This starkly contrasts the findings of Study Area A in which onlyeleven percent of trained masons consider 75-100% of constructions to be safe.Conversely, fifty-one percent of masons in this region regard the percentage ofearthquake-safe houses in the region to be less than 25%. This by no meansundermines the overall skills of masons in the Almora region but rather highlights alack of knowledge as to what specifications and criteria are necessary forearthquake-safe construction.3.1.1c FeaturesMasons were asked to describe the various features necessary for earthquakesafeconstructions for both load-bearing and frame structures. As predicted, resultsfrom the interviews indicate that trained masons have a greater knowledge ofearthquake-safe features and are subsequently able to describe them in greaterdetail and accuracy than untrained masons. This is particularly relevant for frameThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 43

structures as an alarming forty-five percent of untrained masons are unable tocomment on essential earthquake-safe features for frame structures preferring toomit the section of the interview entirely.Load-bearingThe following features were discussed among trained and untrained masons andare presented here in descending order according to response frequency.• Fifty-five percent of trained masons prioritized the installation of a bandevery 3 feet (plinth, sill and lintel) as an earthquake-safe feature (note:interestingly when only PSI trained mason responses are considered thisfigure increases to seventy-nine percent). Remarkably, not a singlerespondent in the untrained masons sample listed this essential feature.• Forty-four percent of trained masons and thirty-nine percent of untrainedmasons listed through stones as an important earthquake-safe feature forstonewall construction. This is not surprising as the interview results revealthat more masons in the Almora region are trained in solely in stonemasonry techniques.• There is a marked difference between trained and untrained masons inresponse to what constitutes an earthquake-safe opening. Forty percent ofuntrained masons in comparison to a mere three percent of trained masonsspecify large openings as being optimal for earthquake safety. Moreinformed on the subject, seventy-two percent of trained masons indicate thatsmall openings are an important earthquake-safe feature; fifty-one percentof untrained masons regard the same.• Overall, the percentage of trained and untrained masons able to describethe optimal thickness for an earthquake-safe roof is low. However, forty-onepercent of trained masons recognise roof thickness to be 3 inches, a further8% indicate that the thickness should be 3 inches for single storyconstructions and 4 inches for two stories. Only seventeen percent ofuntrained masons described the roof thickness to be 3 inches, whereasThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 44

forty-five percent commented that a 4-inch roof was the preferred thicknessfor an earthquake-safe construction (only 11% of trained masons statedsimilarly).• Although not an earthquake-safe feature specifically, both trained anduntrained masons remarked that the foundation must be dug until hardground is reached, depths and widths varied from 2-3ft deep and 1.5 –3ftwide.Frame structuresThe results for frame structures with respect to foundation, walls, openings androofs are generally the same as described for load-bearing structures. Additionalcomments specific to frame structures are listed here.• Trained masons from Study Area A are able to describe the optimumdistance between stirrups on the column (6 inches) and the recommendeddiameter of the steel rod and rings (8mm ring, 10-12mm rods), both anintegral component of earthquake-safe building practices. Untrained masonsmake no mention of these features listing instead various dimensions of thecolumn itself (ranging from 9x9, 9x12, 10x12 inches).3.1.1d Commonly requested features/Important featuresWhen asked which features are most requested by homeowners seventy-twopercent of trained masons, in stark comparison to eight percent of untrainedmasons, list column. Alternatively, the most commonly requested feature in theAlmora region according to ninety-one percent of respondents is simply a “stronghouse”. This is also a principle request in the Rudraprayag region (twenty-fivepercent), however the demand for additional features such as columns and bands(forty-seven percent) highlights the success of earthquake safety awarenesscampaigns in the region. If homeowners aren’t aware of what features couldimprove the structural integrity of their home then there won’t be a demand forthem as appears to be the case in Almora.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 45

Reponses for what features masons themselves consider to be most importantvary. Eight-eight percent of trained masons consider column to be the mostimportant, fifty-three list band and thirty-seven list beam. Conversely, only elevenpercent of untrained masons list column and beam and eight percent list band.Although it is simply a construction material and not an earthquake-safe feature perse, twenty-eight percent of untrained masons consider RCC to be important. Itshould also be noted that thirty-three percent of untrained masons claimed to haveno idea as to what features were most important.3.1.1e Building trends/retrofittingBoth regions appear to be following fashionable building trends including the use ofRCC roofs, bricks and frame structures. Masons in Study Area A suggest that afterthe Uttarkashi and Chamoli earthquakes a large number of constructions were, andhave continued to be built with modern materials, RCC (reinforced concrete),bricks, etc. Despite this shift in building trends seventy-seven percent of trainedmasons indicate that earthquake-safe houses can be built with traditional materials(stone, mud, wood) and that retrofitting of buildings is possible. While seventy-fivepercent of untrained masons agree that earthquake-safe constructions are possiblewith traditional materials only fourteen percent believe that retrofitting of building ispossible. Eighty-three percent declared that retrofitting is not possible at all. Again,retrofitting is a component of the workshop pedagogy and supports the suppositionthat trainees are retaining the information provided in the training courses.It has been noted that although the technical knowledge for retrofitting exists withinIndia, the actual implementation of such practices is not yet up to par (Paul, 2004).One of the ways this could be facilitated in through the development of more rigidpublic policy and stricter enforcement of building codes. Information has beenprovided by agencies such as the Indian Bureau of standards on good engineeringpractices but are not mandatory. Therefore, it is the perceptions of the homeowneror builder that will ultimately determine how closely these recommendations areadhered to. While a number of government organizations are opting to adopt theseThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 46

practices, private constructions, especially at the village level tend to ignore thesefeatures. Increased education and dissemination of information is thereforenecessary to keep homeowners and masons alike informed of practices.3.1.1f MonitoringIn the Almora region, ninety-two percent of untrained masons report that there isno monitoring of building and construction practices. In Rudraprayag forty-sevenpercent of masons recall having had their work monitored at some stage. It shouldbe noted that the overall quality of buildings is better in the trained region.However, responses were scattered and do not hold much merit as to who wasactually responsible for the monitoring process and why. In the same token,increased training not only of local masons but of the local community facilitatesparticipation in the monitoring process by means of an enhanced understanding of“best practices” for constructions and thereby better construction overall.3.1.1g Homeowner perceptionsWhen asked the reasoning behind homeowners not opting for earthquake-safefeatures seventy-six percent of trained masons suggest that this is attributed to: 1)poor economic condition (note: a common misconception is that earthquake-safefeatures are highly expensive) and 2) homeowners and community members notbeing provided with adequate information regarding earthquake-safe features andtheir costs. Among untrained masons, nineteen percent suggested lack offinances, thirty percent stated lack of knowledge, and twenty-two percent claimedto have no idea. Twenty-seven percent indicate that there are no reasons at allbehind homeowners not using earthquake-safe features insisting that they do, infact, already use earthquake features.3.1.1h Feedback on trainings from Study Area AAn interesting point to emerge from the study is that generally trained masons aremore familiar with both frame structures and load-bearing structures than untrainedmasons. A further dimension to this observation is discovered when comparing PSIThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 47

trained masons in the Study Area A sample to masons trained elsewhere; masonsnot trained by PSI are generally more familiar only with load-bearing structures.This may be attributed to the duration of the training course as those trained byother agencies indicated that training was limited to one-day workshops or threedayworkshops as opposed to the 5-day workshops provided by PSI. Longertraining periods are therefore recommended in order to cover all essential materialthereby developing a wider skill base.Overall the masons rated the workshops as follows: 11% find the workshops to besatisfactory, 47% find the course to be very good, and 11% find the course to beexcellent. 28% percent did not respond.When asked what could be done to improve or enhance the trainings 58% of therespondents were unable to provide any recommendations. Of the remaining 42%the following recommendations were made:1) training period should be longer (this was more prevalent among the DPOtrained mason who participated in a one-three day workshop),2) less technical jargon on behalf of the trainers, language should be madesimple,3) new technologies introduced each year,4) shift localities for trainings5) further training in frame structures.3.1.1i RecommendationsIt is recommended that programmes be directed at informing not only masons butalso homeowners on the benefits of earthquake-safe features. It must be stressedthat the cost involved in incorporating these features is not as expensive ascommonly perceived; in actuality only 5-7% of the overall cost of construction. Thisshould be done in conjunction with disaster awareness meetings timed in advanceof the beginning of the building boom periods in the study region, typically April andThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 48

October. Repetition of information is an essential component for behavior changeand in sustaining the endeavors of the task forces that have put in place in theregion.The study emphasizes that one of the main reasons homeowners are notincorporating earthquake-safe features in new constructions is due to pooreconomic condition. This study supports the recommendations of PSI’s 2005 and2006 housing impact assessments that suggest that this could be improved andfacilitated through incentives and/or tax benefits to ensure earthquake-safeconstruction and/or retrofitting are carried out in the state of Uttarakhand.A change in tack with respect to the training courses at PSI and other agenciesshould aim to increase the content with respect to frame structures in addition whatis covered for load-bearing practice. Practical experience should be an integral partof the training. In addition, and in congruence with the findings of the DMMC’srecent impact assessment on earthquake safety initiatives (2007), there is verylittle to no mention of bar bending techniques by any of the masons interviewed asimportant criteria for earthquake-safe construction. This should therefore beincluded to a greater extent in workshop curriculum. One day or three dayworkshops do not provide adequate time for training. It is recommended that allagencies developing training programmes seriously consider increasing the overalllength of training in addition to including frame structures as part of the overallpedagogy.The Almora region has received little to no training in earthquake-safe buildingfeatures, has had no disaster awareness campaigns and it lacking a DPO at thedistrict level. Despite this lack of planning and training it lies in Zone IV and V of theIndian seismic hazard map and is affected by natural hazards every year (Table3.1). The abundant construction taking place in the region in combination with thealarming number of untrained masons in Almora with no knowledge of framestructure construction should be addressed in training workshops. Additionally, it isThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 49

ecommended that a similar study be carried out with migrant masons (mainly fromBihar) in Almora town where a great deal of framed structure construction isobserved.Table 3.1: Damages sustained from natural hazards, January-June 2007, Uttarakhand StateDistrict Human Livestock Buildings Barns AgriculturallivesPartial TotalLandAlmora 1 67 66 10 4 102.7Bageshwar 3 4 86 19 - 2.66Champawat 7 4 6 3 - -Pithoragath 6 14 - 26 - -Nainital 1 1 23 5 32 -Udhamsingh 2 12 - 50 - 223.50Haridwar 7 - 1 1 33 -Pauri - - - - - -Dehradun - - 1 - 150 -Rudraprayag 8 1 - - 1 -Uttarkashi 2 60 44 36 6 5.042Chamoli 10 194 114 18 24 -Tehri 4 11 44 6 1 5.3Total 51 368 385 174 251 339.2023.1.2- Section 2 Disaster Preparedness Questionnaire ofCommunity MembersA survey on hazard awareness among community members was conductedprimarily to determine if PSI’s presence and training programmes in the regionhave had a positive impact on raising community awareness of natural disastersand more specifically earthquake safety. A questionnaire was developed todetermine: a) current levels of disaster preparedness and perceptions of hazardsamong community members, b) what has been done for preparation to and withinthe home (ie. demanding earthquake-safe housing), c) what exists in the way ofcommunity emergency plans (task forces, who is in charge of communications,roads etc). Overall, the questionnaire comprised an assessment of levels ofpreparedness and education programmes within the communities.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 50

The following section reports on the main finding of the survey and is broken downinto demographics of respondents, a section on awareness and dissemination ofinformation and a segment on knowledge of earthquake-safe features. The sectionconcludes with additional observations and recommendations. Please refer toAnnex III for the questionnaire format and results.3.1.2a Demographics of respondentsRespondents Study Area A (Rudraprayag district):The highest percentage of respondents fallsbetween the age of 35-40 (eighteen percent),followed by twelve percent between the age of 55and 60. Levels of education are well representedamong the population; approximately 14 percent ofrespondents fell under each of the followingcategories respectively: illiterate, basics, Class 5,Class 8, high school, intermediate, graduate andpost graduate. The primary occupation in the areais agriculture (thirty-six percent) followed bygovernment jobs (twenty percent).Respondents Study Area B (Almora district):The highest percentage of respondents also falls between the ages of 35-40(fifteen percent) with an additional fifteen percent between the 45-50. Levels ofeducation are well represented among the population, however a higher level ofilliteracy is noted in Study Area B (thirty-two percent compared to twelve in StudyArea A): postgraduate numbers were lower for this region as well (six percentcompared to fourteen in Rudraprayag). Primary occupation is agriculture (forty-onepercent) followed by businesses (twenty-four percent).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 51

3.1.2b Awareness and Dissemination of informationThe most significant finding from the preparedness questionnaire is that quitecontrary to the Rudraprayag district, there is no concept of disaster preparednessin the Almora region. To a certain degree, the term “disaster” is not part of the locallexicon. When asked what disasters their community had recently been affected bythe surveyors needed to further explain what was meant by the term “disaster”.One could argue that recent events such as the Uttarkashi and Chamoliearthquakes, having occurred in close proximity to Study Area A, are responsiblefor this instilled sense of awareness concerning natural disasters. However, higherlevels of disaster awareness can also be attributed to extensive andcomprehensive awareness strategies andcampaigns provided in the area. One hundredpercent of those surveyed in Rudraprayag indicatedthat they had recently been affected by disaster,only thirty-seven percent of respondents fromAlmora stated similarly. Overall, awareness ofdisasters is higher in Rudraprayag, sixty-eightpercent of respondents indicate that they thinkabout the possibility of a disaster occurring veryoften with a mere four percent stating never.Conversely in Almora, eleven percent report that they think of disasters often whilethirty-five percent never think of disasters. In terms of awareness campaigns,ninety-one percent of respondents from Study Area A claim to have had exposureand are able to report on the varying mediums in which that information wasdisseminated. An astounding two percent of those surveyed in Almora claim tohave had any exposure to awareness or preparedness campaigns, that beingthrough television.As mentioned in the framework component of this paper, there has been a greatdeal of work done in Study Area A with respect to disaster awareness campaigns.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 52

In fact, ninety-two percent of respondents indicate that they have receivedinformation or been a part of awareness campaigns in their region within the last 6-12 months. These figures suggest that PSI and CDI’s work with mason trainingprogrammes and community-based initiatives has influenced levels ofpreparedness. In stark comparison, eight percent of those surveyed in StudyRegion B acknowledge being included in any disaster awareness campaigns orreceiving information on preparedness strategies, the medium solely beingtelevision. The majority of respondents in Study Area A indicated that theyreceived information through various NGOs (CDI, 36% and PSI, 29%). Othermediums included social workers (people associated with the above mentionedNGOs), schools and radio.This increased level of awareness cascades into perceptions on vulnerability.Respondents in the Rudraprayag region identified earthquakes and landslides tobe the biggest threats to their communities, ninety-six percent and sixty-ninepercent respectively; nine percent of respondents considered flash floods to be athreat. When asked what resources were most vulnerable to various disastershousing and farms/crops were considered the most vulnerable, eighty percent andsixty-nine percent respectively. Twenty-seven percent were concerned aboutinfrastructure including roadways, water sources, and communication mediums. InAlmora, thirty-four percent of respondents identify earthquakes as a threat to theregion, twenty-nine percent state landslides and ten percent drought. Interestingly,twenty-four percent report that there are no threats whatsoever, a further ninepercent unable to respond to the question for lack of knowledge.More community members are active and involved in disaster prevention strategiesin the Rudraprayag region (forty-two percent of respondents). This can beaccredited to the development of the disaster preparedness task forces establishedin the area in 2005. In the Almora region not a single respondent reported that theyhave been active in disaster mitigation or preparedness strategies of any kind.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 53

It is interesting to note that when asked if one could protect their family in the eventof a natural disaster seventy-nine percent of those surveyed in Study Area Abelieved they were capable of protecting theirfamily as opposed to twenty-four percent ofrespondents from Study Area B with manyrespondents indicating that the matter is “in God’shands”. This significant difference could beattributed to the frequency of awarenesscampaigns in Study Area A. It may also be anindication that awareness campaigns run the riskof providing a false sense of security; this needsto be addressed when developing awarenesscampaigns and programmmes.3.1.2c Earthquake-safe featuresIn conjunction with mason training initiatives in Study Area A, PSI and CDI havemade a concerted effort to educate homeowners on earthquake-safe features forbuilding construction. When asked which features were most important seventy-sixpercent of respondents from this region responded that column was the mostimportant followed by bands (forty-five percent) and beams (forty-four percent).These features were scarcely reported in Study Area B, thirteen percent statedcolumn, and six percent stated beam and band. For the most part respondents inthis region were apprehensive to answer the question; sixty percent were unable torespond to the question at all. This differs significantly from Study Area A; a merefive percent of respondents stated that they were unable to respond to the questionthe remaining ninety-five percent were able to at least comment on the matter.A further point accenting the success of awareness campaigns is that when askedif they would employ a mason trained in earthquake-safe features ninety-sevenpercent respondents said yes in Study Area A as opposed to thirty-seven percentin Almora, preferring to employ local masons or experienced masons irrespectiveThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 54

of training. The benefits of increased information and knowledge of the intrinsicworth of earthquake-safe features is thereby two-fold in that it promptshomeowners to be more selective in who is building their homes and to morecarefully consider safer building techniques.3.1.2d Additional observationsThe greatest problem with respect to disaster response in the mountain regionstems from a lack of communication mediums. Fifty-seven percent of respondentsin Study Area A indicate that there are no emergency communication plans inplace within their village, seventy-five percent in Study Area B. Mobile telephoneand landlines are the main communication channels for these areas; these figuresare higher for the Almora region, which is slightly more developed (telephone:Study Area A – 56%, Study Area B – 62%; mobile: Study Area A – 48%, StudyArea B – 74%).In addition to communication issues, these regions are particularly vulnerable todisasters in that there is no “safety net” for communities to fall back on if their cropsare destroyed or homes irreparably damaged.3.1.2e RecommendationsAlmora is a prime example of a region that is prone to disasters and yet communitymembers are largely ignorant to the risks and hazards faced in their environment.Preparedness and awareness campaigns should not simply be directed at regionswhere recent events prompt a greater sense of urgency but should also be initiatedequally in all areas of high risk; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.Disaster preparedness task forces should be developed in the Almora region;despite community perceptions that Almora is unaffected by natural disasters, thestate-wide disaster data presented in the recent edition of Suchetna newsletterhave illustrated that Almora is in fact one of the most affected regions in the statewith respect to loss of land, livestock damage to buildings, etc. Simply waiting foran event to occur before taking action is a step backward and needs to be averted.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 55

Community based disaster preparedness plays an important role in reducingvulnerability to natural hazards. The work done by PSI and CDI in the Rudraprayagregion has illustrated that mobilizing communities for preparedness and mitigationstrategies has a positive impact on raising levels of awareness and have integratedpreparedness strategies and concepts into the daily agenda of communitymembers.Although information on earthquake-safe housing and preparedness has beendisseminated to the communities with success it is recommended that it beprovided with greater frequency and consistency (ex. every 6 months). As thesurvey indicates, a large percentage of people may not recall where they heard themessage but the important point is that the message is there. This is evident in theRudraprayag region as disasters are part of the local vocabulary; disasters are atthe forefront of people’s minds as opposed to Almora. Of course, having beenrecently affected by a disaster certainly plays a role in what is retained in thememory, however, the fact that community members are able to correctly listearthquake-safe features illustrates that awareness programmes play a large, andsuccessful, role in heightening awareness levels. The development of task forcesin the region was done in an effort to sustain this information flow throughout theyear and needs to be followed up as well.As results from the mason interviews have emphasized, it is of paramountimportance to provide detailed information on the costs of such precautionaryfeatures and activities in order to convince homeowners to use earthquake-safefeatures.A further recommendation is to increase the number of programmes directed at theschool curriculum. It may be difficult to spark behavior change in the adultpopulation without incentives or tax benefits. However, integrating disasterawareness information into school curriculum can effectively change the mindsetfor the next generation of homeowners. The results from the questionnaire indicateThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 56

that many respondents received information through schools. Observation in thefield also show that children are able to answer questions their parents are unableto as they remember information from skits or programmes provided throughvisiting NGOs.In regard to communication mediums, survey results indicate that people rely ontelephone and mobile phones as the main form of communication. However, thesemediums are often unreliable as coverage is very poor and often not functioning. Inthe event of a disaster communications are usually one of the first things to beaffected. It is therefore recommended that the issue of improving communication inthis region be addressed. There are a number of community radio networks in thestate, Mandakni Ki Awaz Community for example, that should be encouraged andsupported as they can facilitate information flow rapidly and to a wider audienceboth in the event of a disaster and in preparatory phases.Mandakni Ki Awaz Community radio centerThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 57

3.1.3 - Section 3 Housing Impact AssessmentIn order to assess the impact of PSI’s mason training programmes and subsequentdissemination of information on earthquake-safe features at the community level,an inspection of all new buildings erected in thestudy areas during the last 12 months (specifywhen) has been carried out. The survey wasconducted in order to determine whether or notearthquake-safe features had been incorporatedinto new constructions where masons havebeen trained in these techniques. The surveycovers two regions: 1) Study Area A –Rudraprayag district, where PSI has workedextensively on disaster awareness programmesand has trained over 200 masons inearthquake-safe building features; 2) StudyArea B – Almora district, where no masons have been trained in earthquake-safebuilding features and disaster awareness campaigns have not been initiated byPSI or other agencies. A further dimension to the study is to observe trends orshifts in building practices or materials in the region.The results of Study Area A and B are presented separately, and broken down intooverall structures, load-bearing, and frame structures. A comparison of the tworegions concludes this segment of the study.3.1.3a Study Area A – Rudraprayag districtThe survey indicates that 52 houses had been built by 50 different masons (seeTable 3.2). Of those 50 masons, 21 had attended PSI workshops. The surveyrevealed that 60% of new constructions in the region are frame structures.The data collected in this survey is compared to previous impact assessmentscarried out by PSI in 2005 and 2006 (Chopra et al., 2005; Mahmood and Soni,2006).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 58

Table 3.2: Per village analysis of houses built and masonsName of Village No. of LoadbearingFrame Total no. Trained OtherhousesStructure masons masons masonssurveyedAkhori 4 3 1 7 5 2Barngoli 1 0 1 1 1 0Bhanaj 2 1 1 3 1 2Bhatwari 7 3 4 5 1 4Bhiri 4 1 3 2 1 1Chander Nager market 3 1 2 3 1 2Daida 1 0 1 1 1 0Darshal 3 0 3 3 1 2Dungri 1 1 0 1 1 0Jabri 1 1 0 1 1 0Kandara 6 2 4 5 3 2Kalai 1 0 1 1 0 1Keda Talla 3 3 0 3 1 2Kontha 1 0 1 1 0 1Makkau 2 0 2 2 1 1Mukundi 1 1 0 1 0 1Rawa 1 0 1 1 1 0Sari 6 2 4 5 1 4Sursal 2 0 2 2 0 2Tebris 2 2 0 2 0 252 21 31 50 21 29The 52 new buildings constructed were inspected for the presence of earthquakesafefeatures in load-bearing and frame structures. In each house the surveyorslooked for the presence of the following construction features, consideredimportant for earthquake safety:The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 59

Load-bearing1.single steel rod in each corner2.plinth band3.lintel band4.small openings5.light roof (RCC slab maximum 3in. thick)6.throughstones7.corner strengthening8.sill bandFrame structure9.width of column base10. distance between stirrups between 6 and12 inches11.plinth beam12.lintel Beam13.light roof (RCC slab maximum 3in. thick)14.small opening15.sill bandHouses were considered to be safe if they met minimum requirements of keyfeatures such as a plinth band, lintel band, small openings and a light roof. Themore features included, the higher the resilience to an earthquake. Table 3.3presents a per village distribution of earthquake-safe load-bearing constructions.“Safe” is this context refers to buildings that are constructed in order to withstand amedium earthquake of magnitude 6 or less on the Richter scale. A breakdown offeatures in each of the houses surveyed is found in Annex II.LegendNOVNHSNHTMNHSENHSTMNUSNUSTMPSPSTMPSOMName of villageNumber of houses surveyedNumber of houses built by trained masonsNumber of houses built earthquake-safeNumber of safe houses built by trained masonsNumber of unsafe housesNumber of unsafe houses built by trained masonsPercentage of safe housesPercentages of safe houses built by trained masonsPercentage of safe houses built by other masonsThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 60

Table 3.3: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesLoad-bearing StructuresNOV NHS NHTMNHSE NHSTM NUS NUSTM PS PSTM PSOMAkhori 3 3 3 3 0 0 100 100 0Bhanaj 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Bhatwari 3 1 2 1 1 0 66 50 50Bhiri 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0Chander Nager market 1 0 1 0 0 0 100 0 100Dungri 1 1 1 1 0 0 100 100 0Jabri 1 1 1 1 0 0 100 100 0Kandara 2 1 2 1 0 0 100 50 50Keda Talla 3 1 2 1 1 0 66 50 50Mukundi 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Sari 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Tebris 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 021 9 12 8 9 1 57 67 33Main Findings• The proportion of earthquake-safe load-bearing structures in the region hasincreased to 57% from 40% in PSI’s 2006 housing survey.• The 2006 survey reported that 46 % of load-bearing earthquake-safehouses were built by trained masons. This number has risen to 67 %.• The percentage of earthquake-safe load-bearing houses built by PSI trainedmasons has increased from 46 % to 67 %, while the percentage of safehouses built by other masons has not changed significantly from 30 % to 33%.• As a follow up to the 2006 survey, an increased use of plinth bands hasbeen noted. PSI trained masons used a plinth band in 100% ofconstructions. This is an increase from 52 % noted in the 2006 survey.Other masons used the plinth band in 45 % of constructions; this numberhas also increased from 32 % observed in the 2006 survey.Frame structures• There is a decrease in the percentage of earthquake-safe frame structuresin the region from 85 % observed in the 2006 survey to 74 % (Table 3.4).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 61

The overall proportion of newly built frame structures has increased from 40% in the 2005 survey and 24 % percent in the 2006 survey to 60 % in thecurrent survey. This decline in safe features and increase in frame structureconstruction are an indication that these techniques and practices need tobe better presented and incorporated as part of the curriculum in the trainingworkshops. The decline may be attributed to the lull in awarenesscampaigns and training workshops in this area during the past year, furthersuggesting that information needs to be presented frequently and regularlyfor successful behavior change.Table 3.4: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesFrame StructuresNOV NHS NHTM NHSE NHSTM NUS NUSTM PS PSTM PSOMAkhori 1 1 1 1 0 0 100 100 0Barngoli 1 1 1 1 0 0 100 100 0Bhanaj 1 1 1 1 0 0 100 100 0Bhatwari 4 0 3 0 1 0 75 0 100Bhiri 3 2 3 2 0 0 100 66 33Chander Nager market 2 1 2 1 0 0 100 50 50Daida 1 1 1 1 0 0 100 100 0Darshal 3 1 3 1 0 0 100 33 66Kandara 4 3 4 3 0 0 100 75 25Kalai 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Kontha 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Makkau 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0Rawa 1 1 1 1 0 0 100 100 0Sari 4 1 1 0 3 1 25 0 25Sursal 2 0 2 0 0 0 100 0 10031 14 23 12 8 2 74 52 48Masons' Overall PerformanceThe overall performance of PSI trained masons has improved from 32 % to 63 %since the 2005 assessment. This performance was benchmarked using thenumber of safe houses constructed within this time. This is accompanied by aThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 62

decrease in the percentage of unsafe constructions by PSI trained masons, 67 %to 37 %. The number of unsafe constructions by other masons (non-PSI trained)has risen slightly (81 % to 82 %) and the number of safe constructions by othermasons has dropped slightly from 19 % to 18 % (Table 3.5).Table 3.5: Overall mason performance for earthquake-safe construction (2007)Mason performancePercentage908070605040302010063Safe37UnsafePSI trained82Unsafe18SafeOther MasonsAdditional findings• As mentioned previously, the number of frame structure constructions in thestudy area has increased in comparison to load-bearing. Out of 52 newlyconstructed buildings 60 % are frame structures. A survey and evaluation onthe impact of the mason training programme conducted by PSI in 2006revealed that only 24 % of all buildings erected between 2004 and 2006were frame structures. This is a significant shift in a positive direction forbuilding practice in the area and should be addressed by all agenciesoffering training workshops.• There is an increase in attention to detail with respect to the diameter of thestirrups and rods in frame structures. 56 % of masons or homeownersreported that the houses are built with 10-12 mm steel rod diameter and 6mm ring diameter. 30 % of the masons reported to have used a spacingThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 63

etween stirrups of 6-12 inches. Although this was verifiable in a few casesof buildings under construction, the information should not be taken at facevalue. After all, as it may be a case of masons feeling as though they werebeing tested or monitored and therefore reported on the “correct” way ofdoing things. In any case, this attention to detail is a positive sign thatmasons are in the very least aware of what the numbers should be.• As transportation of building materials in the mountainous area ischallenging, most frame structure constructions are found close to roadwaysas they require more materials and complex logistics. A further analysis hasrevealed a correlation between the distance to the nearest road and the typeof construction. In villages at a distance from the nearest road of greaterthan 1 km, 52 % of constructions are load-bearing. In contrast, villages withdirect road access have a proportion of 87 % frame structures.• The 2006 survey showed a dramatic difference in building habits betweenareas with and without PSI trained masons. Overall, 49 % of newly builthouses were safe compared to a mere 5 % in the Semgadhera region.Results from the Almora region confirm these findings and are presentedbelow.3.1.3b Study Area B – Almora districtThe 2006 PSI survey revealed that training of masons in the application ofearthquake-safe features directly translates into a higher percentage ofearthquake-safe houses. Houses in Study Area B were therefore surveyed asrepresentative of an area without mason training. Construction within the last 12months was assessed in the villages of Study Area B.The survey indicates that 23 houses had been built by 23 masons (see Table 3.6).As compared to Study Area A, construction activity is lower by more than 50 % inthe rural regions surroundings Almora, although it should be noted thatThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 64

construction is concentrated along main roadways and in Almora proper. Thesurvey revealed that 57 % of new constructions in the region are load-bearingstructures.Table 3.6: Per village analysis of houses built and masonsName ofVillageNo. ofhousesLoadbearingFrameStructureTotal no.masonsUntrainedmasonsOthermasonssurveyedArtola 2 0 2 2 2 0Barishina 1 0 1 1 1 0Chitai 4 3 1 4 4 0Dina Pani 1 0 1 1 1 0Falseema 3 2 1 3 2 1Gadoli 1 0 1 1 1 0Jyoli 1 0 1 1 1 0Maatgo 1 1 0 1 1 0Maniagar 3 3 0 3 3 0Matila 1 0 1 1 1 0Paper Sali 4 2 2 4 4 0Shishral 1 1 0 1 1 023 12 11 23 22 1As for Study Area A, constructions were considered as safe if they met theminimum requirements of key features such as a plinth band, lintel band, smallopenings and a light roof. The more features included, the higher the resilience toan earthquake. Table 3.7 presents a per village distribution of earthquake-safeload-bearing constructions. Frame structure results are found in Table 3.8. “Safe”in this context refers to buildings that are constructed in order to withstand amedium earthquake of magnitude 6 or less on the Richter scale. A breakdown offeatures in each of the houses surveyed is found in Annex II. All houses in theregion were built by untrained masons.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 65

Table 3.7: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesLegendNOVNHSNHSENUSPSName of villageNumber of houses surveyedNumber houses safe from earthquakeNumber of unsafe housesPercentage of safe housesLoad-bearing StructuresNOV NHS NHSE NUS PSChitai 3 1 2 33Falseema 2 2 0 100Jyoli 1 0 1 100Maatgo 1 0 1 100Maniagar 3 0 3 33Paper Sali 2 0 2 50Shishral 1 1 0 10013 4 9 30.76• 30 % of load-bearing constructions are considered to be earthquake-safe inthis region.• 30 % of frame structures are considered to be earthquake-safe in thisregion.• As the interviews with masons indicate, nearly half of local masons in theAlmora region are unfamiliar with frame structures. The housing surveyreveals that 80 % of frame structure constructions were built by migrantmasons (mainly from Bihar), whereas92 % of load-bearing structures werebuilt by local masons, dramatically emphasizing the need for training of localmasons. This recommendation is further supported by the low proportions ofearthquake-safe load-bearing and frame structure constructions in the area(30 % each).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 66

Table 3.8: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesFrame StructuresNOV NHS NHSE NUS PSArtola 2 1 1 50Barishina 1 0 1 0Chitai 1 0 1 100Dina Pani 1 0 1 0Falseema 1 0 1 0Gadoli 1 0 1 0Matila 1 0 1 0Paper Sali 2 2 2 10010 3 9 303.1.3c Comparison of study regionsThere is a significant difference in the numbers for earthquake-safe load-bearingand frame structure buildings between Rudraprayag and Almora. Overall, 67 % ofconstructions built by PSI trained masons are safe as opposed to only 30 % forhouses built by masons without PSI training (Table 3.9). The evaluation of theinterviews with masons in both areas support the premise that training is necessaryin all forms of construction practice in the state. Repeated training in Study Area Aand initiation of such training programmes in Study Area B is therefore strictlyrecommended.Table 3.9: Overall comparison of earthquake-safe houses in Study Areas A and BStudy Area A – Rudraprayag Study Area B – AlmoraPercentage safePercentage safeLoad-bearing 57.14 Load-bearing 30.77Frame Structure 74.19 Frame Structure 30.00Total 67.31 Total 30.43The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 67

3.2 DiscussionThe discussion segment of this thesis reviews the initial questions put forth in thespecific objectives segment of the study:How effective are PSI’s mason training programmes? Is the gainedknowledge being put into practice? What improvements can be made to thetraining workshops?The training programmes have proven to be effective in that trained masons aremore aware of earthquake-safe features than untrained masons and are in turnputting this knowledge into practice as is seen by the increased number ofearthquake-safe houses built in Study Area A. As construction details are generallyleft to the mason, it is hoped that this increased knowledge of essential featureswill continue to be incorporated into the building practice in this region and bepassed on to other masons. Both PSI trained and untrained masons claimed toadvise homeowners on earthquake-safe features, therefore this enhancedknowledge and skill base can also be passed down to the homeowners. It isstressed that repeatedly disseminating information and monitoring constructions iscritical to ensure the sustainability of these practices.There are several recommendations for improving the workshops: 1) framestructures need to be covered in greater detail in the overall pedagogy to keep upwith the shift in building trends, including a detailed segment on bar bendingtechniques, 2) course duration should be no less than five days with a largecomponent of practical training, 3) PSI should collaborate with other agenciesactive in this field in order to develop a state-wide workshop template tostandardise training, 4) information needs to be provided more frequently andintensively for both masons and homeowners in the state of Uttarakhand, withparticular emphasis placed on the costs of earthquake features.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 68

What impact do these programmes have on increasing community levels ofpreparedness and disaster mitigation? Are the awareness campaigns at alluseful? What are homeowner perceptions of earthquake-safe buildingfeatures?Although recent disasters such as Uttarkashi and Chamoli earthquakes haveundoubtedly impacted local residents' level of awareness to disasters in StudyArea A, the training programmes and associated awareness initiatives offeredthrough PSI and CDI have also proven successful in increasing the overall level ofawareness and have increased community members' recognition of earthquakebuilding features. These campaigns have proven successful in that thecommunities are sensitised to the potential for disasters and have, moreimportantly, mobilised the communities into forming groups prepared to respond tosuch events.The increased awareness to essential building features for earthquake-safeconstructions is noteworthy; however, more information should be disseminatedregarding the overall costs of such construction practices. In both regions coveredby this study, the most common misconception with respect to earthquake-safefeatures was that the costs involved are very high; in some instances respondentsbelieved that incorporating earthquake-safe features into their building woulddouble the overall costs. Community based disaster preparedness is an importantcatalyst for behaviour change; as PSI initiatives have proven successful in theRudraprayag district, it is recommended that these programmes be repeated inother areas of the state equally prone to natural disasters but lacking thisfundamental information and knowledge.Are houses being better built in the region as a result of these initiatives?What building trends are emerging in the state?The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 69

In Study Area A the number of earthquake-safe houses built by trained masonshas increased while those built by untrained masons has not changed significantly.The overall percentage of earthquake-safe constructions in Study region A isnearly 60 % higher than in Study Region B, indicating that trained masons areemploying their skills to build safer houses in the region. The assessment revealsthat the training workshops have a positive effect for increasing earthquake-safebuilding practices; masons are not simply attending workshops but are retaininginformation, and that knowledge is, as intended, being put into practice. It isrecommended that further dissemination of information be provided on a regularbasis in conjunction with monitoring of building practices. The increase in thenumber of frame structures built and the use of concrete in the region is importantto note. While the number of frame structures in the Study Area A has increased,the percentage of those that are earthquake-safe has decreased. Thesetechniques need to be mainstreamed into the training workshop pedagogy in orderto maintain the desired high level of earthquake-safe building practice in the region.As past studies have suggested (Chopra et al., 2005; Mahmood and Soni, 2006), itis recommended that construction be monitored. Changes in state policy onbuilding codes and tax incentives need to be reviewed and subsequentlydeveloped. Retrofitting projects for communities as a whole are unrealistic,however, hospitals, schools, and other community buildings should be targets forsuch mitigation strategies.What is the role of NGOs in disaster preparedness and mitigation?Perhaps the most important point to bear in mind in the context of disastermitigation and preparedness initiatives is that they will not necessarily bear fruitimmediately. Behaviour change is a slow process and may take years to becomemainstream; thus it may require on the order of a decade to alter community anddonor attitude towards mitigation and preparedness. Unlike immediate relief andthe development associated with reconstruction phases, preparedness is more of asilent growth that requires continued attention to properly develop. Results forpreparedness and mitigation are difficult to benchmark; essentially, andThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 70

unfortunately, a disaster must occur to test progress in this respect. Further, if thejob is done properly, it won’t be as obvious as the ill effects of the disaster willhopefully have been averted or at least much alleviated.Reviews of major natural disaster crises show that, in by far the most cases,inadequate and inefficient relief and rescue efforts can be traced back to a lack ofpreparedness, at all levels, and lack of commitment on behalf of the government toestablish clear and rigid policy for building in high risk areas. NGOs stand to makea difference in bridging this gap and facilitating a better understanding of whatneeds to be mandated in policy and how to pass this information on to thegrassroots level. Essentially, those affected by the disaster directly need to beincluded in the planning of mitigation efforts. While an NGO may have establisheda high acceptance level in a particular community, increased and improvedcoordination among NGOs is necessary to be taken more seriously from top-downdisaster management actors. Building better partnerships and professionalisationof the sector is therefore of paramount importance to be taken in earnest.Looking back at previous disasters in India such as Orissa (cyclone, 1999) andGujarat (earthquake, 2001), the lack of preparedness programmes was highlightedas a major shortcoming in the response evaluations (Palakudiyil and Todd, 2003).NGOs have awakened to a realisation that better preparedness programmes arenecessary and need to be mainstreamed in the disaster continuum. PSI is a goodexample of how NGOs can best use their knowledge and experience towardsDMP. The very objectives set out in their original plans are a reflection of howNGOs should be working towards this end. During the course of 2 years PSI hasachieved the following:1) mass awareness campaigns for disaster vulnerabilities and preparednessmeasures for rural communities in Rudraprayag were carried out with greatsuccess.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 71

2) mitigation measures were taken in a region highly vulnerable to naturalhazards through the promotion of earthquake-safe constructions.3) earthquake safety measures were demonstrated to both masons andhomeowners and have more routinely been incorporated in new ruralbuilding construction practice in the region. One shortcoming of this effort,however, is that homeowners still view the cost of construction for suchfeatures as very high; intensified education about the cost of earthquakesafefeatures is therefore recommended. In addition, in order to encouragemore homeowners to use these features, it is necessary that changes bemade at policy level.4) hazards have been identified in the operational area by the communitiesthemselves and effective response mechanisms have been put in place.However, it is important to continually follow-up on the sustainability of theseprogrammes as to not risk the work of three years.5) a human and information resource pool has been created that can respondeffectively to disasters in Uttarakhand and elsewhere. The development oftask forces has met this end but, again, there needs to be a sustainedinteraction with taskforce members marking continued progress.6) PSI has developed a policy recommendation document to assist theRudraprayag district administration in developing an appropriate disastermanagement plan with particular focus on women and other vulnerablesections of the society. Although this plan has been drafted, the process ofeffecting its integration is slow. Improved dialogue between NGOs,government and other stakeholders is necessary to meet this end.7) Policy analysis has been provided to support to governmental agencies indeveloping effective disaster-related policies, but again is lacking incoordination and follow through. While initiatives directed at the grassrootslevel for raising awareness levels have taken distinct shape over the lastthree years, programmes necessitating collaboration of more top-downstakeholders has been slow in progressing. To remedy this, PSI hasorganised a workshop in April 2006 as one of the first steps in bringing allThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 72

disaster management stakeholders in the state to one table. In addition, theSanja Manch platform (translated to “collective platform”) was created in aneffort to initiate a formal collaborative group of all stakeholders in the state.Despite slow reactions to PSI’s policy recommendations, the stategovernment has reacted to this lack of coordination by organizing aworkshop in June 2007: NGO Coordination for Effective DisasterManagement in Uttarakhand. The workshop was aimed at ensuring closercoordination and partnerships with NGOs on disaster related issues andimproved methods of integrating these endeavors (DMMC report, 2007).It would appear that there is a commitment at all levels to mainstream DMP intoUttarakhands state agenda. However, the process of increasing commitmentfrom top-down stakeholders is slow on uptake. The PSI has successfully helpedcommunities to mobilise themselves at the grassroots level and has played afundamental role in initiating improved coordination with all stakeholders.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 73

3.3 ConclusionsIn conclusion, the study confirms that PSI’s disaster mitigation and preparednessprogrammes have a positive impact by successfully increasing the number ofearthquake-safe constructions and overall levels of disaster awareness amongcommunity members in the Study Area A. Mitigation of natural hazards for theentire state of Uttarakhand should be a primary concern and focus. PSI has beenactive in arousing public awareness and has successfully trained masons inearthquake-safe building techniques in the Rudraprayag district. Future workshould entail further developing these programmes for statewide application inconjunction with other stakeholders. Proactive efforts towards DMP are clearlydocumented in PSI's activities, and the state government has also moved towardimproved coordination. However, more pressure needs to be exerted to reachstronger government commitment to funding training and mitigation initiatives andthe development of policy needs to mainstream DMP.The question of where disaster mitigation and preparedness fit into the disastercontinuum is seemingly unclear. The utility and long-term benefits of applied DMPare undisputed, yet it has not been mainstreamed by the various stakeholdersinvolved in disaster management programmes. As the rift between relief anddevelopment continues to widen, DMP seems to fall further and further betweenthe cracks. Lack of knowledge on what DMP is, uncertainty as to which agenciesshould be responsible for what and in what capacity, and the obvious competitionwith more visible and immediate crises offer an explanation for DMP repeatedlybeing pushed to the wayside. However, attitudes are shifting in parallel with themagnitudes, frequencies and effects of natural disasters, thereby calling for betterpreparedness to these crises. What needs further consideration is that naturaldisasters are ongoing problems fuelled by years of integrated decisions, eventsand people’s actions (Comfort et al., 1999) and not simply random, haphazardevents. It is not only about looking ahead, but reflecting on what conditions,decisions and practices have led to the disaster in the first place. The risk ofThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 74

disaster will always necessitate vulnerability mapping, needs assessments, andrecovery strategies in areas exposed to natural hazards. By integratingpreparedness programmes and working on existing local development projectspre- and post-disaster, vulnerabilities to hazard and risk, and the subsequent needfor, or dependency on, assistance can be greatly reduced.NGOs are no longer confined to offering a quick fix for short-term rehabilitation.Instead they can be a means of facilitating sustainable recovery and development,in turn empowering locals to manage their own environments. While improvingcoordination with all stakeholders, pressure can be put on top-down powerstructures responsible for the decisions that shape policy for these environments.Disaster mitigation and preparedness strategies most certainly need to bemainstreamed in the near future. NGOs are well positioned to facilitate this processthrough achieving improved coordination and a higher level of professionalismwithin this field.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 75

ReferencesAlexander, D., 1997. The Study of Natural Disasters, 1977-1997: Some Refectionson a Changing Field of Knowledge. Disasters, 21 (4): 284-304.Allen, T. and Thomas, A. (eds) 2004. Poverty and Development into the 21 stCentury. Oxford: The Open University Press. (Chapter 2)Agenda item 2: Transition from relief to development, focusing on natural disasters,Background document. Joint Meeting of the Executive Boards of UNDP/UNFPA, UNICEFand WFP, 20 and 23 January 2006, United NationsBeck, T. (2005). South Asia Earthquake 2005 – Learning from previous recoveryoperations. Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance inHumanitarian Action. Lessons Learned Studies. ALNAP, LondonBenson, C., Twigg, J. and Myers, M., 2001. NGO Initiatives in Risk Reduction: AnOverview. Disasters, 25 (3): 199-215.Bhandari, R.K., 2005. Disaster Management in India – A New Awakening. Journalon Disaster.Booz Allen Hamilton, 2005. Disaster Relief – Improving Response and Long TermRecovery. US. Chamber of Commerce, Center for Coorporate Citizenship andBooz Allen Hamilton.Bureau of Indian Standards. Status Report on Standardization Efforts in the area ofMitigation of Natural Hazards. Government of Indian, Department for HomeAffairs.”Burton, I., Kates, R.W., White, G.F., 1978. The Environment as a Hazard (1stedn.). Oxford University Press, New York. Seen in, Alexander, D., 1997. The Studyof Natural Disasters, 1977-1997: Some Refections on a Changing Field ofKnowledge. Disasters, 21 (4): 284-304.Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Response, 2004a. Progress Report 2004.People’s Science Institue.Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Response, 2004b. Project Proposal 2004.People’s Science Institue.Comfort, L., Wisner, B, Cutter, S. Pulwarty, R. Hewitt, K., Oliver-Smith, A., Weiner,J, Fordham, M., Peacock, W. and Krimgold, F. (1999). Reframing disaster policy:the global evolution of vulnerable communities. Environmental Hazards 1 pp. 39-44The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 76

Chopra, R. 1989. The Role of Voluntary Organizations. People’s Science Institute,Discussion Paper.Chopra, R., Kumar, R. & Dash, B., 2005, Impact Assessment of Masons Training –Results of a Preliminary Survey. People’s Science Institute impact assessment.Christoplos, I., Mitchell, J. and Liljelund, A. 2001. Re-framing Risk: The ChangingContext of Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness. Disasters, 25 (3): 185-198.Cronin, S.J., Gaylord, D.R., Charley, D., Alloway, B.V., Wallez, S., and Esau, J.W.2004a. Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledgefor volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu. Bulletin forVolcanology, 66:652-668.Cronin, S.J., Petterson, M.G., Taylor, P.W. and Biliki, R., 2004b. Maximising Multi-Stakeholder Participation in Governemnt and Community Volcanic HazardManagement Programs, a Case Study from Savo, Solomon Island. NaturalHazards, 33:105-136.Cuny, F.C. 1983. Disasters and Development. Oxford University Press, London..Disaster Management and Mitigation Centre, 2007. Impact of Earthquake SafetyInitiatives in Uttarakhand (India). Disaster Mitigation and Management Center,Department of Disaster Management, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehra Dun.Disaster Management and Mitigation Center, 2007. NGO Coordination forEffective Disaster Management in Uttarakhand. Workshop report, 22-23 June,2007.Economic Commission for Latin America and the Carribean, 2003. Handbook forestimating the socio-economic and environmental effects of disasters. UnitedNations, ECLAC, and the World Bank.Foster, H.D., 1976. Assesing Disaster Magnitude: A Social Science Approach.Professional Geographer, 28(3): 241-7. seen in, Alexander, D., 1997. The Study ofNatural Disasters, 1977-1997: Some Refections on a Changing Field ofKnowledge. Disasters, 21 (4): 284-304.Gaur, V.K., 2001. Earthquake Hazard in the Himalya. In Disaster Management,eds. Joshi, A.P., Kumar, R. and Rawat, K. Rohini Printers and Publishers. pp.5-12.Gupta, D.D., 2006. Community Based Preparedness, Prevention and Mitigation:Sustainable Approaches. Issue 08, August 2006, Sangamam, Tntrc.org.Government of India, HomeAffairs, 2002. Disaster Management – A DevelopmentPerspective, an extract of the chapter in the Tenth Five Year Plan Document(2002-2007).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 77

Guptasarma, D. 1996. Is the Seismic Risk similar everywhere along the HimalayanCollision Belt. Himalayan Geology, Vol. 17, pp 1-9.Habitat for Humanity International Web site.http://www.habitat.org/disaster/mitigation_preparedness/default.aspx , viewed onAugust 14, 2007.Harroff-Tavel, M. 2003. Do wars ever end? The work of the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross when the guns fall silent. IRRC September 2003, Vol.85, No. 851.Houghten, R. (2005). Tsunami Emergency Lessons Learned form Previous NaturalDisasters. Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance inHumanitarian Action Review Series. Lessons Learned Studies ALNAP, London.Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG), 2003: Humanitarian NGOs: Challenges andTrends. In: HPG Briefing, no. 12.Jennings, R. 2000. Participatory Development as a New Paradigm: The Transitionof Development Professionalism, Prepared for the “Community Based Reintigrationand Rehabilitation in Post-Conflict Settings” Conference Washington DCJoshi, A.P., Kumar, R. and Rawat, K., 2001. Disaster Management in theMountains. In Disaster Management, eds. Joshi, A.P., Kumar, R. and Rawat, K.Rohini Printers and Publishers. pp. 44-45.Khattri, K.N. 2004. A Perspective of Seismic Hazard and Risk in Northern India. InCoping with Natural Hazards: Indian Context, Orient Longman Private Limited. Pp49-58.Khattri, K.N., 2006. A need to review the current official seismic zoning map ofIndia. Current Science, v90, n5,, pp 634-636.Kumar, V. 2001. Now After Gujarat! What?. In Disaster Management, eds. Joshi,A.P., Kumar, R. and Rawat, K. Rohini Printers and Publishers. pp.13-17.La Trobe, S. and Venton, P., 2003. Natural Disaster Risk Reduction: The policyand practice of selected institutional donors. A Tearfund Research Project.Mahmood and Soni, 2006. Summer Training Report on Survey and Analysis ofImpact of Mason’s Training Programme Conducted by People’s Science Institute(PSI).Maskry, A., 1989. Disaster Mitigation: A community based approach. Oxford,Oxfam.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 78

Molnar, P. 1990, A review of the seismicity and the rates of active underthrustingand deformation at the Himalaya. Journal for Himalayan Geology, I (2) 131-154found in Guptasarma, D. 1996. “Is the Seismic Risk similar everywhere along theHimalayan Collision Belt?” Himalayan Geology, Vol. 17, pp 1-9.Mountain Forum Himalayas, 2007. Report on Disaster and Governance. Editedand published by Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA) and Mountain ForumHimalyas.O’Reilly, G. 2006. What is development? Discussion Paper Dublin: HumanitarianAid and Geopolitics Module, University Colledge Dublin, IrelandOverseas Development Institue (ODI), 2005. Briefing Paper, Aftershocks: NaturalDisaster Risk and Economic Development Policy.Palakudiyil, T. and Todd, M., 2003. Facing up to the storm - How local communitiescan cope with disaster: lessons from Orissa and Gujarat. Christian Aid.Paul, D.K., 2004. Public Policies for Hazard Management: Appropriate StructuralDesigns and Building Codes. . In “Coping with Natural Hazards: Indian Context”,Orient Longman Private Limited. Pp 71-90.Parkash, S., 2005. An Approach towards People’s Methodology for Village LevelCommunity Based Multi-Hazard Assessment and Risk Management in UttaranchalState, India. People’s Science Institute.Pugh, M. (1998). Post-conflict Rehabilitation: social and civil dimensions. TheJournal of Humanitarian Assistance http://www.jha.ac/articles/a034.htmRajendran, C.P. and Rajendran, K. 2004. Towards Better Seismic HazardAssessment: Need for an Integrated Approach. . In “Coping with Natural Hazards:Indian Context”, Orient Longman Private Limited. Pp 59-70.Rocha, J. L. and Christoplos, I., 2001. Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness on theNicaraguan Post-Mitch Agenda. Disasters, 25 (3): 240-250.Sharma, V.K., 2004. Disaster Management Strategies in India. In “Coping withNatural Hazards: Indian Context”, Orient Longman Private Limited. Pp 250-256.Slim, H., 1995. The Continuing Metamorphosis of the Humanitarian Practitioner:Some New Colours for an Endangered Chameleon. Disasters, 19(2): 110-26. seenin, Alexander, D., 1997. The Study of Natural Disasters, 1977-1997: SomeRefections on a Changing Field of Knowledge. Disasters, 21 (4): 284-304.Suchetna Newsletter, Vol. 5, 2007. PSI Quarterly Newsletter, Figures presented onstatewide disaster statistics for 2006.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 79

Telford, J. and Cosgrave, J., 2007. The international humanitarian system and the2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunmanis. Disasters, 30 (1): 1-28.Turner, B.A., 1979. The Societal Aeitology of Disasters. Disasters, 3(1): 53-9. seenin Alexander, D., 1997. The Study of Natural Disasters, 1977-1997: SomeRefections on a Changing Field of Knowledge. Disasters, 21 (4): 284-304.Twigg, J., Steiner, D., Myers, M., and Benson, C., 2000. NGO Natural Disaster andMitigation Project: A Study of International Development and Relief Organizationsbasedin the UK. Research study funded by ESCOR.UNDRO, 1982. Natural Disasters and Vulnerability Analysis. Office of the UNDisaster Relief Co-ordinatior, Geneva. Seen in, Alexander, D., 1997. The Study ofNatural Disasters, 1977-1997: Some Refections on a Changing Field ofKnowledge. Disasters, 21 (4): 284-304.United Nations, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Mobilizing localcommunities in disaster reduction”.Valdiya, K.S., 2004. Geodynamic Perspective of Natural Hazard in India. In“Coping with Natural Hazards: Indian Context”, Orient Longman Private Limited.pp. 7-36.Wisner, B., 1983. Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power and Daily Life. Geojournal30(2):127-40, seen in Alexander, D., 1997. The Study of Natural Disasters, 1977-1997: Some Refections on a Changing Field of Knowledge. Disasters, 21 (4): 284-304.http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/431/431lect10.htmThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 80

Glossary of terms and acronymsCDI – Centre for Disaster InitiativesCDMR – Centre for Disaster Mitigation and ResponseDPO – District Programme Officer (UNDP appointed)DMMC –Disaster Mitigation Management Center, Dehra Dun, IndiaDMP – disaster mitigation and preparednessEWS – early warning systemsIDNDR – International Decade for Natural Disaster ReductionMBT – Main Boundary ThrustMCT – Main Central ThrustNGO – non-government organizationPanchayat – governing body at the village levelPSI – People’s Science Institutesandesh yatras – literally translated to “message journey”, a journey to spread themessage of disaster awarenessAppendicesAnnex I - PSI training material, earthquake-safe featuresAnnex II - Mason interview questions with resultsAnnex III - Community preparedness questionnaire with resultsAnnex IV – Breakdown of earthquake-safe features in assessed houses for StudyArea A and BThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 81

Annex I – Earthquake safe featuresThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 82

The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 83

The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 84

The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 85

The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 86

The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 87

The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 88

The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 89

Annex 2 - Mason Interview ResultsStudy area A - RudraprayagTotal number of respondents 36Study Area B - Almora Total number of respondents 361. AgeRudraprayag 700 0 4 5 7 3 4 6 4 1 2 0Percentage 0.00 0.00 11.11 13.89 19.44 8.33 11.11 16.67 11.11 2.78 5.56 0.00Almora 700 0 1 6 5 8 8 3 3 1 0 1Percentage 0.00 0.00 2.78 16.67 13.89 22.22 22.22 8.33 8.33 2.78 0.00 2.782. What is your educational background?Rudraprayag Illiterate Class 5 Class 8 Class 10 Class 12 Graduate Postgraduate0 11 17 4 2 0 2Percentage 0.00 30.56 47.22 11.11 5.56 0.00 5.56Almora Illiterate Class 5 Class 8 Class 10 Class 12 Graduate Postgraduate7 15 9 5 0 0 0Percentage 19.44 41.67 25.00 13.89 0.00 0.00 0.003. How long have you lived in the village?Rudraprayag < 1 year 1-5 years 5-9 years 10-19 years >20 years0 0 0 0 36Percentage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00Almora < 1 year 1-5 years 5-9 years 10-19 years >20 years0 0 0 0 36Percentage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.004. How long have you been a mason?Rudraprayag 1 - 5 yrs 5 - 10 yrs 10 -15 yrs 15 -20 yrs 20 -25yrs 25-30 yrs 30-35yrs 35-40 >402 9 5 12 4 1 2 0 1Percentage 5.56 25.00 13.89 33.33 11.11 2.78 5.56 0.00 2.78Almora 1 - 5 yrs 5 - 10 yrs 10 -15 yrs 15 -20 yrs 20 -25yrs 25-30 yrs 30-35yrs 35-40 >401 3 5 11 9 2 2 1 2Percentage 2.78 8.33 13.89 30.56 25.00 5.56 5.56 2.78 5.56The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 90

5. How many building have you worked on?Rudraprayag 100 >2002 2 4 1 2 10 1 2 4 1 3 2 2Percentage 5.56 5.56 11.11 2.78 5.56 27.78 2.78 5.56 11.11 2.78 0.00 8.33 5.56 5.56Almora 100 >2002 0 5 4 1 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 10 7Percentage 5.56 0.00 13.89 11.11 2.78 5.56 0.00 2.78 8.33 2.78 0.00 0.00 27.78 19.446. Where does your field of expertise lie?Brick Stone BothPSI 0 5 20Rudraprayag Other 0 1 10Total 0 6 30Percentage 0 16.67 83.33Almora Brick Stone BothTotal 2 13 21Percentage 5.56 36.11 58.337. Have you been trained in the construction of earthquake safe construction?Rudraprayag Yes No36 0Percentage 100 0Almora Yes No0 36Percentage 0 1008. From where and how long?Rudraprayag PSI DPO24 12Percentage 66.67 33.33AlmoraPercentage n/a9. How would you improve the training program?10. What would motivate you/motivated you to take such a course?The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 91

11. How to make such a course more popular?Poor Good Very good Excellent No responsePSI 3 13 3 5Rudraprayag Other 1 1 4 1 5Total 1 4 17 4 10Percentage 2.78 11.11 47.22 11.11 27.78RecommendationsPSI Otherno recommendations 13 8less technical jargon 2patient behaviour of trainers 3more information on frame structures 1information on new technologies 1higher per diem 1longer training period 2 4shift localities for trainings 1AlmoraQuestions 9. 10. and 11. not applicable12. Is your region threatened by earthquakes and to what extent?Don't know Low risk Sensitive Very sensitive Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5PSI 10 6 8Rudraprayag Other 11 1Total 21 6 1 8Percentage 0.00 0 58.33 16.67 2.78 0.00 22.22Almora Don't know Low risk Sensitive Very sensitive Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 No Yes, but unsure of how sensitiveTotal 3 8 1 6 0 0 0 10 8Percentage 8.33 22.22 2.78 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.78 22.2213. Please describe as many earthquake safe features for constructing load bearing structures as possible for the following:Foundation Rudraprayag PSI AlmoraPSI Other Total % % %dig until hard ground 14 3 17 47.22 58.33 30 83.332ft deep 2 4 6 16.67 8.33 0 0.004- 8ft deep 6 5 11 30.56 25.00 10 27.782ft- 2.5ft wide 9 1 10 27.78 37.50 14 38.893ft wide 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00use flat stones 12 3 15 41.67 50.00 0 0.00if brick wall, 2.5ft wide 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00if stone wall, 3.5 ft wide 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00bricks 1.5 The ft wide Role of NGOs in Disaster 1 Mitigation 0 and Response 1 2.78 – A Case Study 4.17 in Uttarakhand, Northern India 0 0.00stone 2ft 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.0092cement in foundation 2 3 5 13.89 8.33 1 2.78RCC net hook 3 0 3 8.33 12.50 0 0.00

4- 8ft deep 6 5 11 30.56 25.00 10 27.782ft- 2.5ft wide 9 1 10 27.78 37.50 14 38.893ft wide 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00use flat stones 12 3 15 41.67 50.00 0 0.00if brick wall, 2.5ft wide 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00if stone wall, 3.5 ft wide 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00bricks 1.5 ft wide 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00stone 2ft 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00cement in foundation 2 3 5 13.89 8.33 1 2.78RCC net hook 3 0 3 8.33 12.50 0 0.00Walls Rudraprayag PSI AlmoraPSI Other Total % % %bands every 3ft 19 1 20 55.56 79.17 0 0.00flat stones 1 1 2 5.56 4.17 0 0.00bands 0 2 2 5.56 0.00 0 0.0018 inch thick for stone 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 23 63.899 inch in brick 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 2 5.56plinth 0 3 3 8.33 0.00 0 0.00lintel 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00corner band 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00throughstones 13 3 16 44.44 54.17 14 38.89column 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00RCC 0 2 2 5.56 0.00 0 0.00bricks 2ft wide 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00stone 3ft wide 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00corner strengthening 2 0 2 5.56 8.33 1 2.78single steel rod 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00Openings Rudraprayag PSI AlmoraPSI Other Total % % %small openings 20 6 26 72.22 83.33 18 50.00large openings 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 14 38.89use of iron in frame 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00far from corners 3 1 4 11.11 12.50 1 2.78depends on wall size 3 3 6 16.67 12.50 2 5.56many openings 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 2.78Roof Rudraprayag PSI AlmoraPSI Other Total % % %use of RCC 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 12 33.333 inches 11 4 15 41.67 45.83 6 16.674 inches 2 2 4 11.11 8.33 16 44.44light roof 6 4 10 27.78 25.00 11 30.56thick roof 1 1 2 5.56 4.17 4 11.11no difference, thick or thin 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.003 in - 1 story, 4in - 2 story 3 0 3 8.33 12.50 0 0.00The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 93

sloped roof 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 2.78stone 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 2.7814. Please describe as many earthquake safe features for constructing frame structures as possible for the following:Foundation Rudraprayag PSI AlmoraPSI Other Total % % %dig until hard ground 14 1 15 41.67 58.33 17 47.222ft deep 2 9 11 30.56 8.33 0 0.004- 8ft deep 4 2 6 16.67 16.67 4 11.112ft- 2.5ft wide 9 0 9 25.00 37.50 9 25.003ft wide 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00use flat stones 9 2 11 30.56 37.50 0 0.00if brick wall, 2.5ft wide 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00if stone wall, 3.5 ft wide 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00bricks 1.5 ft wide 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00stone 2ft 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00cement in foundation 3 1 4 11.11 12.50 1 2.78RCC net hook 4 0 4 11.11 16.67 0 0.00steel rod in column 2 0 2 5.56 8.33 0 0.00no idea 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 16 44.44Walls Rudraprayag PSI AlmoraPSI Other Total % % %bands every 3ft 17 0 17 47.22 70.83 0 0.009x9 inch column 3 3 6 16.67 12.50 14 38.899x12in column 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 5.5610x18in column 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 5.563x3ft foundation 1 1 2 5.56 4.17 5 13.891.5x1.5ft foundation 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 8.332.5x2.5 foundation 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 8.336 inch min b/t stirups 10 1 11 30.56 41.67 0 0.001ft min b/t rings 1 1 2 5.56 4.17 0 0.004 sut rod 14 2 16 44.44 58.33 0 0.002.5 sut rod 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.002 sut rings 10 1 11 30.56 41.67 0 0.00RCC column 2 1 3 8.33 8.33 0 0.00no idea 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 16 44.44Openings Rudraprayag PSI AlmoraPSI Other Total % % %small openings 19 2 21 58.33 79.17 2 5.56large openings 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 3 8.33far from corners 3 0 3 8.33 12.50 0 0.00depends on wall size 3 1 4 11.11 12.50 0 0.00many openings 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00no idea 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 16 44.44no repsonse 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 14 38.89The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 94

Roof Rudraprayag PSI AlmoraPSI Other Total % % %use of RCC 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 6 16.673 inches 12 1 13 36.11 50.00 4 11.114 inches 2 1 3 8.33 8.33 13 36.11light roof 5 2 7 19.44 20.83 1 2.78thick roof 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.003 in - 1 story, 4in - 2 story 3 0 3 8.33 12.50 0 0.00no idea 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 16 44.44Can an earthquake safe house be built with traditional materials and design?Yes No Don't knowRudraprayag PSI 20 4Other 8 2 2Total 28 2 6Percent 77.78 5.56 16.67Almora Yes No Don't knowTotal 25 6 5Percent 69.44 16.67 13.8915. Can already built homes be retrofitted to make them earthquake safe?Yes No Don't knowRudraprayag PSI 20 3Other 7 5Total 27 8 1Percentage 75.00 22.22 2.78Almora Yes No Don't knowTotal 5 30 1Percentage 13.89 83.33 2.7816. Are the houses you build monitored during construction?Yes No No repsonseRudraprayag PSI 13 7 3Other 4 8Total 17 15 4Percentage 47.22 41.67 11.11Almora Yes No No repsonseTotal 2 33 1Percentage 5.56 91.67 2.78The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 95

17. Do homeowners request earthquake safe features?Yes No Sometimes No responseRudraprayag PSI 10 8 6 0Other 6 5 1 0Total 16 13 7 0Percentage 44.44 36.11 19.44 0.00Almora Yes No Sometimes No responseTotal 14 7 5 10Percentage 38.89 19.44 13.89 27.7818. Do you advise homeowners on earthquake safe features?Yes No No responseRudraprayag PSI 24 0 0Other 11 1 0Total 35 1 0Percentage 97.22 2.78 0Almora Yes No SometimesTotal 22 11 3Percentage 61.11 30.56 8.3319. What is the most commonly requested feature?Column Band Light roof RCC Beam Through stone Corner strengthening Steel rod Strong home Rapid constructionRudraprayag PSI 16 13 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 1Other 10 4 1 0 0 1 0 1Total 26 17 2 0 1 1 2 0 9 1Percent 72.22 47.22 5.56 0.00 2.78 2.78 5.56 0.00 25.00 2.78Almora Column Band Light roof RCC Beam Through stone Corner strengthening Steel rod Strong home Rapid constructionTotal 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 32 0Percentage 8.33 0.00 0.00 2.78 5.56 0.00 0.00 2.78 88.89 0.0020. Why do villagers not include earthquake safe features in their homes?Lack of money Lack of knowledgeRudraprayag PSI 19 11Other 10 3Total 29 14Percentage 80.56 38.89Almora Lack of money Lack of knowledge No idea They are used No EQ's in region so no need Hurry to constructTotal 7 11 8 10 1 3Percentage 19.44 30.56 22.22 27.78 2.78 8.33The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 96

21.What misconceptions do villagers have regarding proper construction of their homes?EQ safe housing is expensive None No idea Lack of info No response Tradtional houses not safe, RCC better Column superior to single rodRudraprayag PSI 9 0 0 0 9 6 2Other 1 0 0 0 10 1Total 10 0 0 0 19 6 3Percentage 27.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.78 16.67 8.33Almora EQ safe housing is expensive None No idea Lack of info No responseTotal 12 8 15 1Percentage 33.33 22.22 41.67 2.7822. What percentage of houses do you feel are earthquake safe in the region?Rudraprayag50-75% >75%Total 18 12 2 4Percentage 50.00 33.33 5.56 11.11Almora 50-75% >75%Total 7 3 3 23Percentage 19.44 8.33 8.33 63.8923. What features do you most commonly use to construct a home?RudraprayagAlmoraPSI Other Total % %column 24 12 36 100 4 11.11beam 12 1 13 36.11 4 11.11band 12 8 20 55.56 3 8.33plinth 8 1 9 25.00 0 0.00lintel 7 1 8 22.22 0 0.00sill 3 0 3 8.33 0 0.003 inch roof 3 0 3 8.33 0 0.00through stone 3 0 3 8.33 2 5.56light roof 1 0 1 2.78 0 0.00RCC 1 3 4 11.11 10 27.78no idea 0 0 0 0 12 33.33single steel rod 0 0 0 0 4 11.11stones 0 0 0 0 8 22.2224. What features are most important for an earthquake safe home?RudraprayagAlmoraPSI Other Total % %column 12 10 32 88.89 4 11.11beam 9 2 11 30.56 4 11.11band 13 6 19 52.78 1 2.78plinth 8 1 9 25.00 0 0.00lintel 7 1 8 22.22 0 0.00sill 3 0 3 8.33 0 0.003 inch roof 3 0 3 8.33 0 0.00through stone 3 0 3 8.33 2 5.56The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 97

light roof 1 0 1 2.78 0 0.00RCC 1 3 4 11.11 9 25.00no idea 0 0 0 0.00 13 78.00single steel rod 1 0 1 2.78 3 8.33stones 0 0 0 0.00 4 11.11strong foundation 0 1 1 2.78 3 8.3325. In which conditions do homeowners request earthquake safe houses?Good economic condition Post disaster motivation Increased knowledge No responseRudraprayag PSI 17 3 3 1Other 10 0 0 2Total 27 3 3 3Percentage 75 8.33 8.33 8.33Almora Good economic condition Post disaster motivation Increased knowledge No response They do use them No idea13 4 0 2 17Percentage 36.11 11.11 0 5.56 47.2226. Any additional comments or suggestions?Rudraprayag PSI Almora provide trainingprovide more training to the homeowners and communitymasons want more informationprovide training in inexpensive technologies, more demand that way, cost reductionmonitor constructionprovide training to the villagers as well to increase awareness of featuresprovide training for what to do in the event of making repairs to housestotal response: 8 Percent 33.33Otherprovide informatiojn to the homeowners as well as the masonswant to have new technologies , modern technologies as part of workshopTotal responses: 2 Percent 16.67The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 98

Annex III - Community Preparedness Questionnaire Results1. Gender:Rudraprayag Male Female Total53 32 85Percentage 62.35 37.65Almora Male Female Total48 37 85Percentage 56.47 43.532. Age:Rudraprayag

6. How long have you lived in the village?Rudraprayag < 1 year 1-5 years 5-9 years 10-19 years >20 years0 0 0 3 82Percentage 0 0 0 3.53 96.47Almora < 1 year 1-5 years 5-9 years 10-19 years >20 years0 0 2 4 79Percentage 0 0 2.35 4.71 92.947. Which village group do you belong to (you may select more than one)?RudraprayagAlmoraGrampanchyat Mahila Mangal Dal Yuvak Mangal Dal SCG SHG Apda Karya Dal Other none8 9 20 3 15 27 8 27Percentage 9.41 10.59 23.53 3.53 17.65 31.76 9.41 31.76Grampanchyat Mahila Mangal Dal Yuvak Mangal Dal SCG SHG Apda Karya Dal Other none8 1 3 1 2 0 0 60Percentage 9.41 1.18 3.53 1.18 2.35 0.00 0.00 70.598. Do you hold an important position in your community?Rudraprayag Yes No28 57Percentage 32.94 67.06Almora Yes No8 77Percentage 9.41 90.599. Has your village recently been affected by a natural disaster?Rudraprayag Yes No Don’t know Earthquake Landslide Drought Flash flood Forest Fire85 0 0 84 27 0 0 0Percentage 100 0 0 98.82 31.76 0.00 0 0Almora Yes No Don’t know Earthquake Landslide Drought Flash flood Forest Fire (based on 37 responses)37 44 4 12 25 2 1 2Percentage 43.53 51.76 4.71 32.43 67.57 5.41 2.70 5.4110. How often do you think about the possibility of being affected by a natural disaster?Rudraprayag Very often Occasionally Never58 24 3Percentage 68.24 28.24 3.53Almora Very often Occasionally Never9 46 30Percentage 10.59 54.12 35.29The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 100

11. Please indicate the natural disasters you may be affected by:Rudraprayag Earthquake Landslide Forest Fire Drought Floods None Don't know Hail Tigers, monkeys82 58 1 4 9 0 1 0 0Percentage 96.47 68.24 1.18 4.71 10.59 0 0 0 0Almora Earthquake Landslide Forest Fire Drought Floods None Don't know Hail Tigers, monkeys29 25 4 8 5 20 8 1 1Percentage 34.12 29.41 4.71 9.41 5.88 23.53 9.41 1.18 1.1812. In your opinion, what disasters are the largest threats to your village?Rudraprayag Earthquake Landslide Forest Fire Flood Drought Hail Insect Cloud burst Don't know Tiger, monkey82 58 3 8 4 2 1 2 0 0Percentage 96.47 68.24 3.53 9.41 4.71 2.35 1.18 2.35 0.00 0Almora Earthquake Landslide Forest Fire Flood Drought Hail None Cloud burst Don't know Tiger, monkey32 27 5 5 8 1 21 1 5 1Percentage 37.65 31.76 5.88 5.88 9.41 1.18 24.71 1.18 13.51 2.7013. What resources do you consider to be most vulnerable?Rudraprayag House Farms/crops Livestock Infrastructure Land Barns Don't know Entire village No response Lose of lives73 59 5 23 16 8 4 1 0 0Percentage 85.88 69.41 5.88 27.06 18.82 9.41 4.71 1.18 0 0Almora House Farms/crops Livestock Infrastructure Land Barns Don't know Entire village No response Lose of lives33 20 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 3Percentage 38.82 23.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.59 0.00 0.00 3.5314. Have there been campaign plans for disaster awareness in your community?Rudraprayag Yes No Don't know77 4 4Percentage 90.59 4.71 4.71Almora Yes No Don't know2.00 82.00 1.00Percentage 2.35 96.47 1.1815. What medium is used for this campaign?Rudraprayag Personal meeting Posters Group Meeeting Skits Other Wallwriting64 42 50 63 12 2Percentage 75.29 49.41 58.82 74.12 14.12 2.35Almora Personal meeting Posters Group Meeeting Skits Other Wallwriting0Percentage 0 0 0 0 0 0The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 101

16. Do you have an emergency communications plan in place in your village?Rudraprayag Yes No Can't say35 48 2Percentage 41.18 56.47 2.35Almora Yes No Can't say21 64 0Percentage 24.71 75.29 0.0017. What methods are in place for communications?Rudraprayag Telephone Skilled person Loud speaker Radio Mobile Other Can't say48 14 6 7 41 1 22Percentage 56.47 16.47 7.06 8.24 48.24 1.18 25.88Almora Telephone Skilled person Loud speaker Radio Mobile Internet Can't say53.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 63.00 1.00 8.00Percentage 62.35 1.18 1.18 1.18 74.12 1.18 9.4118. Do you receive information regarding preparedness strategies for natural hazards?Rudraprayag Yes No78 7Percentage 91.76 8.24Almora Yes No7 78Percentage 8.24 91.7619. What medium do you receive information on these strategies? (You can choose more than one answer)Rudraprayag School Books Radio Social worker Leaflet Workshops/meeting Skits Other TV44 27 31 68 39 15 42 2 0Percentage 51.76 31.76 36.47 80.00 45.88 17.65 49.41 2.35 0Almora School Books Radio Social worker Leaflet Workshops/meeting Skits Other TV0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Percentage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.2420. Do you have emergency response guidelines for how to proceed during an emergency in your region?Rudraprayag Yes No No repsonseNumbers 34 49 1Percentage 40 57.65 1.18Almora Yes No No repsonseNumbers 2 83 0Percentage 2.35 97.65 0The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 102

21. Are you provided with guidelines on how to make your family and home safer from natural disasters?Rudraprayag Yes No37.00 48.00Percentage 43.53 56.47Almora Yes No1.00 84.00Percentage 1.18 98.8222. How recently have you received the above information?Rudraprayag 6 months 6 to 12 1 to 2 yrs 2 to 5 yrs >5 yrs No response7 57 11 1 1Percentage 8.24 67.06 12.94 0.00 1.18 1.18AlmoraPercentagenot applicable23. Who has provided you with these guidelines?Rudraprayag Community meeting NGOs Social worker CDI PSI Community Radio Don't know School programs DPO4 5 4 31 25 1 38 1 2Percentage 4.71 5.88 4.71 36.47 29.41 1.18 44.71 1.18 2.35AlmoraNo reponse85Percentage 10024. Do you feel that you can protect your family if a natural disaster strikes?Rudraprayag Yes No No response67 16 2Percentage 78.82 18.82 2.35Almora Yes No No response20.00 62.00 3.00Percentage 23.53 72.94 3.5325. Have you taken part in or developed preparedness strategies?Rudraprayag Yes No36 49Percentage 42.35 57.65Almora Yes No0 85Percentage 0 100The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 103

26. What activities related to the strategies have you participated in?RudraprayagNoneProvided infofor plansCreated planCollect info,gave dateHeld mockdrillOrganizedmeetingsVolunteer grouporganization48 7 9 25 1 2 2Percentage 56.47 8.24 10.59 29.41 1.18 2.35 2.35AlmoraPercentagenot applicalbe27. Do you have monitoring systems in place for potential disasters in your community?Rudraprayag Yes No9 76Percentage 10.59 89.41Almora Yes No0 85Percentage 0 10028. Do you have an evacuation plan for your village in the event of a disaster?Rudraprayag Yes No16 69Percentage 18.82 81.18Almora Yes No0 85Percentage 0 10029. Do you have a “safe place” or meeting point for your community in the event of a natural disaster?Rudraprayag Yes No79 6Percentage 92.94 7.06Almora Yes No50 35Percentage 58.82 41.1830. How could the above programs and strategies be improved?RudraprayagAlmorano responseno responseThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 104

31. Have you received first aid training in your community?Rudraprayag Yes No38 47Percentage 44.71 55.29Almora Yes No10 75Percentage 11.76 88.2432. Have you received search and rescue training in your community?Rudraprayag Yes No17 68Percentage 20 80Almora Yes No2 83Percentage 2.35 97.6533. Have you received training on building temporary shelters in your community?Rudraprayag Yes No23 62Percentage 97.75 72.94Almora Yes No1 84Percentage 1.18 98.8234. Which houses do you perceive as being safer from disasters?Rudraprayag Trad New Both Don't know46 39 0 0Percentage 54.12 45.88 0 0Almora Trad New Both Don't know44 28 7 6Percentage 51.76 32.94 8.24 7.0635. Would you be willing to spend a slightly more money on your home for EQ safe features, 5-7% of the total cost?Rudraprayag Yes No Don't know83 2 0Percentage 97.65 2.35 0Almora Yes No Don't know59 11 15Percentage 69.41 12.94 17.65The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 105

36. Would you prefer traditional masons or trained masons in safety features from outside to build your homes?Rudraprayag Yes No83 2Percentage 97.65 2.35Almora Yes No Only to village mason Experienced Bihar Traditional Don't know32 8 18 10 1 2 14Percentage 37.65 9.41 21.18 11.76 1.18 2.35 16.4737. Please discuss some construction features that may help to make your home safe (ex. depth of foundation, site selection, etc)?RudraprayagAlmora% %don't know 5 5.88 51 60.00traditional 5 5.88 0 0.00technique 7 8.24 1 1.18columns 65 76.47 11 12.94band 38 44.71 5 5.88RCC 11 12.94 17 20.00use of wood 5 5.88 3 3.53light roof 10 11.76 1 1.18single steel rod 5 5.88 3 3.53throughstone 22 25.88 2 2.35beam 37 43.53 5 5.88strong foundation 5 5.88 9 10.59use of tin 2 2.35 2 2.35location 2 2.35 0 0.00light wieght structure 2 2.35 2 2.35hooks 1 1.18 1 1.18concrete blocks 1 1.18 0 0.00slab 2 2.35 0 0.00small openings 1 1.18 0 0.00135 rim 1 1.18 0 0.00local material 1 1.18 0 0.00single story 1 1.18 1 1.18iron frames 1 1.18 0 0.00thin stones 1 1.18 0 0.00good mortar 1 1.18 0 0.00stone masonary 0 0.00 1 1.18The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 106

Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthquake safe featuresFrame structure - Study Area A - Rudraprayag DistrictVillageDistance betweenTrained mason? Column foundation Plinth beam Lintel beamstirrupsLight roof Small openings SillAkhori TM unknown unknown Y Y Y Y NBarngoli TM unknown unknown Y Y Y Y NBhanaj TM 3x3 ft 6 inches Y Y u/c u/c NBhatwari OM unknown unknown Y Y Y Y NBhatwari OM 3x3 ft 1 ft Y Y Y Y NBhatwari OM unknown unknown Y Y N Y NBhatwari OM unknown unknown Y N Y N NBhiri TM unknown unknown Y Y Y Y NBhiri OM unknown unknown Y Y Y Y NBhiri TM unknown unknown n/a unknown Y Y NChander Nager OM unknown unknown Y Y Y Y NChander Nager TM 3x3 ft 1 ft Y Y Y Y NDaida TM 3x3 ft 1ft Y Y Y Y NDarshal TM 3x3 ft 6-7 inches Y Y Y Y NDarshal OM 3x3 ft 6 inches n/a Y Y Y NDarshal OM 3x3 ft 6 inches n/a Y Y Y NKandara TM 3x3 ft 1 ft Y Y N N NKandara TM 3x3 ft 6 inches Y Y N N NKandara OM unknown unknown Y Y N N NKandara TM 3x3 ft >1 ft Y Y Y Y NKalai OM unknown unknown Y N N Y NKontha OM 3x3 ft 1 ft Y u/c u/c u/c NMakkau OM 3x3 ft 1 ft Y Y u/c N NMakkau TM 3x3 ft 5 inches Y N Y N NRawa TM unknown unknown Y Y Y Y NSari TM unknown unknown Y N Y Y NSari OM 3x3 ft 8 inches Y Y Y Y NSari OM 3x3 ft 9 inches Y N Y N NSari OM 3x3 ft 8 inches Y N N N NSursal OM unknown unknown Y Y N Y NSursal OM unknown unknown Y Y Y Y NThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 107

Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthquake safe featuresFrame structure - Study Area B Almora RegionVillage Mason origin Column foundationDistancebetween Plinth Lintel Light roof Small opening SillstirrupsArtola Bihar 4x4 ft 7 inches Y N N Y NArtola Bihar 75x 75cm 6 inches N N N N NBarishina local 1.5x 1.5ft 6 inches N N Y Y NChatai Bihar 3x3ft 1.5 ft Y Y Y N NDina Pani Bihar unknown >12 inches n/a N unknown N NFalmseema Bihar 4x4 ft 6 inches N N Y N NGadoli unknown 3x3ft 10 inches Y N N N NMatila Bihar 3x3ft 10inches Y unknown unknown unknown unknownPaper Sali Bihar 5x5 ft 12 inches Y N N N NPaper Sali Bihar 3x3ft 8 inches Y Y N Y NThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 108

Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthquake safe featuresLoad bearing: Study Area A - Rudraprayag DistrictTrained Single steel rod inVillagemason? cornerPlinthbandLintelbandSmallopeningLightroofThroughstoneCornerstrengtheningAkhori TM Y Y u/c Y u/c n/a Y NAkhori TM/TM Y Y Y Y Y n/a N NAkhori TM Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NBhanaj OM N N Y u/c u/c Y Y NBhatwari OM column Y Y N Y n/a column NBhatwari OM column Y Y N Y n/a N NBhatwari TM Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NBhiri TM unknown Y N Y Y Y N NChanderNager OM Y Y Y N N n/a Y NDungri TM Y Y Y Y N n/a Y YJabri TM Y n/a Y Y Y n/a N NKandara TM Y Y Y Y N Y Y NKandara OM N n/a Y Y Y n/a Y YKeda Talla OM N N Y Y Y Y N NKeda Talla TM Y Y Y Y Y n/a Y NKeda Talla OM N N Y Y N Y Y NMukundi OM N N N Y Y Y N NSari OM N N N Y N Y Y NSari OM N N N N Y Y Y NTebris OM N n/a N Y Y Y N NTebris TM N Y Y N u/c Y N NSillbandThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 109

Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthquake safe featuresLoad bearing - Study Area B - Almora DistrictVillageMason Single steel rod in Plinth Lintel SmallThrough Corner SillLight rooforigin cornerband band openingstone strengthening bandChitai local n/a N N Y Y N Y NChitai local N n/a Y N Y n/a N. NChitai local N Y Y N Y n/a N NFalseema local n/a N Y N Y Y Y NFalseema local n/a n/a Y Y Y Y Y NJyoli local n/a n/a N N Y Y Y NMaatgo local n/a N Y N Y Y Y NManiagar local n/a N N Y Y Y Y NManiagra local N n/a N N Y n/a N NManiagra unknown N N N N Y Y Y NPaperSali local n/a N N Y Y Y Y NPaperSali local n/a N N Y N Y Y NShishral local N Y Y Y Y n/a N NThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 110