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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: The Role of Non GovernmentalOrganis
Page 3 and 4: Table of contentsChapter 1 - Introd
Page 5 and 6: List of figuresFigure 1.1: Study re
Page 7 and 8: preparedness, and has potential to
Page 9 and 10: This case study investigates the im
Page 11 and 12: • What are homeowner perceptions
Page 13 and 14: Seismic activity in this area is du
Page 15 and 16: The study comprises two regions: St
Page 17 and 18: 1.4.1 - b Study Area B- Almora dist
Page 19 and 20: etc. operational). The study involv
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation
Page 23 and 24: 2.1.2 VulnerabilityVulnerability is
Page 25 and 26: of a disaster everyone knows how to
Page 27 and 28: disaster management in the country,
Page 29 and 30: Despite the apparent increased cons
Page 31: 2.3.1 Disaster Mitigation and Prepa
Page 35 and 36: Systems technologies and education
Page 37 and 38: As suggested previously, there is a
Page 39 and 40: on the main agenda (Benson et al, 2
Page 41 and 42: Frame structureFramed structures ha
Page 43 and 44: The curriculum of the PSI workshops
Page 45 and 46: Figure 2.2a: Community based disast
Page 47 and 48: district irrespective of the fact t
Page 49 and 50: etrofitting, monitoring and homeown
Page 51 and 52: structures as an alarming forty-fiv
Page 53 and 54: Reponses for what features masons t
Page 55 and 56: trained masons in the Study Area A
Page 57 and 58: ecommended that a similar study be
Page 59 and 60: 3.1.2b Awareness and Dissemination
Page 61 and 62: It is interesting to note that when
Page 63 and 64: Community based disaster preparedne
Page 65 and 66: 3.1.3 - Section 3 Housing Impact As
Page 67 and 68: Load-bearing1.single steel rod in e
Page 69 and 70: The overall proportion of newly bui
Page 71 and 72: etween stirrups of 6-12 inches. Alt
Page 73 and 74: Table 3.7: Percentage of safe house
Page 75 and 76: 3.2 DiscussionThe discussion segmen
Page 77 and 78: In Study Area A the number of earth
Page 79 and 80: 2) mitigation measures were taken i
Page 81 and 82: 3.3 ConclusionsIn conclusion, the s
Page 83 and 84:
ReferencesAlexander, D., 1997. The
Page 85 and 86:
Guptasarma, D. 1996. Is the Seismic
Page 87 and 88:
Telford, J. and Cosgrave, J., 2007.
Page 89 and 90:
Annex I - Earthquake safe featuresT
Page 91 and 92:
The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitiga
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Annex 2 - Mason Interview ResultsSt
Page 99 and 100:
11. How to make such a course more
Page 101 and 102:
sloped roof 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 2.78s
Page 103 and 104:
17. Do homeowners request earthquak
Page 105 and 106:
light roof 1 0 1 2.78 0 0.00RCC 1 3
Page 107 and 108:
6. How long have you lived in the v
Page 109 and 110:
16. Do you have an emergency commun
Page 111 and 112:
26. What activities related to the
Page 113 and 114:
36. Would you prefer traditional ma
Page 115 and 116:
Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthqua
Page 117:
Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthqua
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?