DISASTER MITIGATION

Disaster mitigation is defined as “Measures aimed at reducing the impact of natural orman-made disasters in a nation or community”(Carter, 1991).

The United Nations declared the decade of the 1990s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. The aim behind such a move was to mobilise concerted efforts on the part of the international community with active participation from the UNDP and the UNDRO towards substantial reduction in disaster-related losses round the World. These agencies will encourage and assist national governments and non-governmental agencies to tackle disaster related issues, “through projects focused directly on reducing the impacts of hazards and through incorporation of risk awareness as part of the normal operation of development projects”(Sharma, 1998).

Disaster mitigation is an evolving/ developing science. Its rudimentary development could be traced back to the mid 19th century when governments undertook to eradicate the threat of epidemics like tuberculosis, typhoid, cholera, dysentery, small pox and other deadly diseases that were claiming lives in an endemic manner around the world. The subsequent campaigns of governments against diseases followed realisation of the fact that
diseases were controllable and preventable, and ‘sanitation’ was a significant activity therein, in that it was crucial in controlling the spread of any disease or preventing its onslaught. What followed could be termed as a “sanitary revolution” in that considerable
budgetary allocations were committed to specific activities, like cleaning, disposal of waste, public facilities etc., besides impetus to R&D in treatment and vaccination against these ‘hazards.’ It demanded considerable administrative reform along with resource
commitment on the part of governments towards public health measures, in that governance thereafter had to proceed with a fresh perspective, vis a vis diseases and craft adequate policy responses to tackle the threats involved. Evidently, there has been considerable success achieved in that endeavour in that many dreaded diseases like plague, small pox, etc., have been eradicated; though countries still have to carry on with sustained efforts to achieve the same level of success with other diseases.
Notably, the change in approach was brought about by demystification of diseases following understanding of the phenomena underlying epidemics. Similarly, natural hazards
have hitherto been treated with a fatalistic approach. Currently, there is a revision of attitude/approach, as the ‘mystery’ of natural hazards is being increasingly unraveled through exploratory research. Accordingly, governments are increasingly investing in disaster mitigation, preparedness and prevention since there is growing belief that tangible gains can/will result from such investment. Scientific community as also social scientists are
engaged in understanding hazards from both technocratic and social perspectives, which imparts a holistic understanding to the phenomena of disasters; hence the development of capability to tackle them through adequate policy responses (Sharma, 1998).
In India, distinct shift in policy responses towards mitigation and prevention is now evident. As per Dhar (2002), earlier the approach was geared towards crisis management. The famine codes, scarcity relief manuals and calamity action plans, wherever these
existed, enabled administration to fight emergencies and provide relief, post occurrence of a disaster event. Policy shift towards pre-disaster preparedness planning began in the late seventies, and gradually thereafter, deliberate attempts on the part of the government towards an integrated approach towards disaster management has been discernible. It began with drought proofing wherein considerable success was achieved. The Central
Water Commission evolved a model bill for flood plain zoning, though success in this regard was limited. The main reason was that State governments were lackadaisical or constrained in enacting the bill and complying with the requirements. Now with added
emphasis, post-Yokohama, and regrettable experiences with disasters like the Bhuj Earthquake and Orissa Cyclone, renewed impetus has been provided to mitigation planning. The process is expected to proceed further along desirable lines in the future,
which augurs well for disaster preparedness in particular and administrative reform improvement in general which is imperative for disaster management. For instance, granting more say to specialists has been a much discussed reform issue over the years. Disaster management as also rural and urban development demand specialist competence, for which, organisational hierarchy would need to be reconsidered/reviewed.


DISASTER MITIGATION AND PREPAREDNESS::
Disaster mitigation embraces actions taken in advance of a disaster to reduce its effects on a community. When used in this sense, mitigation includes those actions, which are often categorised as being preparedness measures, which means, preparedness is a part
of mitigation. However, a distinction is often made between mitigation and preparedness whereby: Mitigation refers to long-term risk reduction measures, which are intended to minimise
the effects of a hazard; for example, dam construction is considered an activity that mitigates the effects of droughts. Hence, “Mitigation involves not only saving lives and injury and reducing property losses, but also reducing the adverse consequences of natural hazards to economic activities and social institutions.”
Preparedness is concerned with measures taken immediately before and after a hazard event, for example, relating to evacuation plans, health and safety, search and rescue etc. Hence the crucial issue would be logistics for which advanced preparations are necessary.
Preparedness assumes that certain groups of people or property will remain vulnerable and that preparedness would be necessary to address the consequences of a hazardous event’s occurrence.
This distinction between the two terms provides a useful division of actions because it helps to highlight mitigation as a long-term process, aimed at addressing the explanatory factors, which convert hazards to disasters. In comparison, preparedness does not aim to
correct the causes of vulnerability, which place communities at risk in the first place, rather to tackle them through speedy and effective response; hence the emphasis on readiness in this regard.
According to Coburn Sspence, Pomonis (1994 in the DMTP, UNDP), however, not much should be read into the distinction. Mitigation is defined as “a collective term used to encompass all activities undertaken in anticipation of the occurrence of a potentially disastrous event, including long term preparedness and risk reduction measures…. It has occasionally been defined to include post-disaster response, which makes it equivalent
to disaster management.”


Significance of Mitigation::

Effective measures for mitigation involve understanding of hazards and the likely damages in the event of a disaster. For example, in earthquakes most fatalities (almost 75 per cent) are caused due to building collapses, hence prevention would demand earthquake proofing of structures and retrofitting (engineering modifications) of existing ones. In floods, most deaths reportedly occur due to drowning in turbulent currents; hence, prevention strategy
would require keeping people out of the track of potential water flows or by preventing the flows from occurring. Mitigation saves the economy from losses. Industry and agriculture suffer heavily from earthquakes (damaged infrastructure) and droughts,
respectively. Besides, these are interdependent sectors, which means agro-based industries suffer if agricultural produce goes down and industries in general, if communications,
power, labour supply et al get affected (Sharma, 1998).
Mitigation is usually not given the same level of priority as preparedness or recovery. This is because there is a tendency on the part of both economists and politicians to view Disaster Mitigation 173 disasters and development in terms of “trade-offs,” with needed resources being diverted from development towards disaster mitigation. The attitude can be expressed as, “we are too concerned with day to day activities to worry about disaster problems that may not occur during our lifetime.” This is reinforced when the problems with mitigation elements are examined; when will the disaster occur? Do we know where it will be? What percentage of resources shall we spend? Therefore mitigation of disasters is often not perceived as important to the public or individual domain as other issues such as economic development, social advancement, health care systems, etc., are. Yet, disasters undermine development efforts and waste resources, which have been allocated to different sectors. They interrupt ongoing programmes and divert resources
from their intended use and beneficiaries. Hence, “When disaster-proneness is well known, failure to factor it into planning represents a serious mismanagement of resources” (Alceira Kremer, Managing Natural Disasters and the Environment, World
Bank, 1991). Hence dovetailing of disaster mitigation into development planning saves adhoc measures, which only results in less gain and much waste. Not only can mitigation
protect these other important sectors, but also, if correctly carried out, can often be justified as being cost-effective in protecting other development gains. Mitigation is therefore, a process justified and necessary for the protection it offers to a society’s development as a result of avoidance of damage and losses. It requires systematic and logical planning processes to ensure that resources allocated adequately reduce risk, and protect development. To do so, an understanding has to be reached with regard to what the effects of a disaster are likely to be and what level of protection is
required. From an economic standpoint it appears logical that the amount of mitigation, which is warranted, is that amount that can be bought for less than the expected costs of the losses.
However, it is important to note that acceptance of this principle depends on properly identifying all the costs, direct (death, injuries, capital stock and inventories), indirect (lost income, employment and services from lost production) and secondary (decreases in
economic growth, balance of trade deficits, etc.) and those associated with preparedness and emergency relief. Equally important but harder to assess are the immeasurable costs
associated with the political, social and psychological effects of traumatic events and their conversion into real losses.
Although the initiation of mitigation should be before a disaster occurs, the major opportunity to develop and implement mitigation measures occurs as the “window of opportunity” after a major disaster has taken place as politicians and public officials, in
light of public displeasure and the exigency of the situation are ready to allocate resources for the task. This is usually a short-lived period before interest and attention lessen. Therefore the opportunity should be rapidly taken up and optimised. For that, dovetailing of disaster planning with mainstream development planning is imperative.