Resources are a basic requirement for any organisation. However, some organisations donot have systematic processes for analysing resource requirements, flows and mobilisation options. Such exercises are useful for making clear and sustainable work plans, which have to be based on planned and sustained resource flows. There are different kinds ofresources, and various options for sourcing them. Traditionally, disaster management work has been based on government or donor funds. Currently, such resources are drying up and new avenues have to be explored. These include, local resource mobilisation and corporate social responsibility.
There are various types of resources required for disaster management. Financial and Human resources are the primary ones. Financial resources, in fact, form the single largest concern of organisations as they in turn enable acquisition of other secondary
resources required for operational purposes. Financial resources come from various sources, including, government grants, loans, institutional grants, and private donations, product and service charges and mobilisation on the part of communities. Government
grants are based on thematic areas of work, for which different government departments have schemes for grant making. These include funding of NGOs and community based organisations through the rural development department, health department etc.. Loans come in the form of soft loans with low interest rates for purposes such as livelihood support to vulnerable and disaster affected communities
Disaster relief programmes are run jointly by the State and Central governments. Disaster Management is primarily the responsibility of the States. Funds are available to the States from the Calamity Relief Fund (CRF) and the National Calamity Contingency Fund
(NCCF). The Calamity Relief Fund was set up on the recommendations of the Ninth Finance Commission though subsequent Commissions have determined the funding pattern
that establishes the relative share of the Centre and the State towards calamity relief. The break up presently is 75:25per cent between Centre and States, respectively. The Eleventh Finance Commission recommended setting up the National Calamity Contingency Fund (NCCF) replacing the earlier National Fund for Calamity Relief (NFCR). There have been several improvements in the new scheme. In comparison with the earlier existing Margin Money Scheme, the States now get a higher assistance from the Central Government for relief expenditure and the response of the State governments to natural calamities can potentially be quicker than before. The CRF scheme gives more autonomy, more responsibility and also assigns greater accountability for disaster response activities (Das and Jha, 2004). The Twelfth Finance Commission has recommended continuing the scheme of Calamity
Relief Fund (CRF) in its present form with contributions from the Centre and States in the ratio of 75:25. The size of the fund worked out at Rs. 21, 333 crore for the period 2005-10. The outgo from the fund is to be replenished by way of collection of National
Calamity Contingent Duty and levy of surcharges. The definition of natural calamity is to include landslides, avalanches, cloudbursts and pest attacks also. Hence, now the CRF shall be used only for meeting the expenditure for providing immediate relief to the
victims of cyclone, drought, earthquake, fire, flood, tsunami, hailstorm, landslide, avalanche, cloud burst and pest attack. Provision of disaster preparedness and mitigation is to be
classified plan expenditure and not calamity relief.As spelt out in the scheme for the constitution and administration of the Calamity Relief Fund, operative from the financial year 2005-06, the Calamity Relief Fund is constituted in the Public Account and classified under the head “8235-General and Other Reserve
Funds-111 Calamity Relief Fund” in the accounts of the State Government concerned and is to be invested as per provisions laid down in this regard. The accretions to the Fund together with the income earned on the investment of the Fund shall, till contrary
instructions are issued by Government of India, be invested in one or more of the Resource Analysis and Mobilisation 151
152 Disaster Management following instruments:
a) Central Government dated Securities
b) Auctioned Treasury Bills
c) Interest earning deposits and certificates of deposits with Scheduled Commercial
Banks;
d) Interest earning deposits in Co-operative Banks;
The investment of the funds is carried out by the branch of the Reserve Bank of India (having Banking Department) at the headquarters of the State, or a Bank designated by
the RBI. In the case of Jammu & Kashmir and Sikkim, their bankers shall carry out these functions. The Accountants General of India and the Comptroller and Auditor general of India do the accounting and auditing respectively (Ministry of Finance, 2005-06). A State-level Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’) is constituted by the
State Government to administer the CRF, by issue of a suitable notification in this behalf. A copy of the notification is furnished to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Home
Affairs. Composition of State Level Committees
The Chief Secretary to the State Government is the ex-officio Chairperson of the Committee. The Committee consists of officials who are normally connected with relief work and experts in various fields in the State affected by natural calamities. Sub-Committee
The State Governments and/or the State level Committees may constitute sub-committees as may be considered necessary by them in connection with the work of the Committee. Functions of the State Level Committee The Committee is to decide on all matters connected with the financing of the relief expenditure from CRF.
The Committee will arrange to obtain the contributions from the concerned Governments, administer the CRF and invest the accretions to the CRF in accordance with the norms
approved by the Government of India from time to time. The Committee is responsible to ensure that the money drawn from the Calamity Relief Fund is actually utilised for the
purposes for which the CRF has been set up, and only on items of expenditure and as per norms contained in the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The accretions to the CRF, together with the income earned on the investments of the Fund,
are used by the Committee to meet items of expenditure covered by the norms contained in the guidelines. No further financial assistance (beyond the Central Government’s yearly contribution to the CRF) is ordinarily available for the purpose.
All administrative and miscellaneous expenses of the Committee shall be borne by the State Government under its normal budgetary provisions and not from the CRF (Ministry
of Finance, 2005-06: Scheme for Constitution and Administration of the Calamity Relief Fund).
It is being realised, however, that investments are required on a more sustained basis in infrastructure development to reduce expenditure on calamity relief. In other words, there
Resource Analysis and Mobilisation 153 has to be a dovetailing of disaster mitigation with development planning. It is also true that
the amount of resource available for disaster mitigation and preparedness work is far less than the amount available for relief and recovery. Since mitigation and preparedness are non-events, which means that if mitigation and preparedness are successful then there will be no visible disaster; there is less interest in these areas. It is widely recognised that a “stitch in time saves nine”, and that every rupee invested in disaster mitigation and preparedness saves many rupees in relief and rehabilitation. Still, there is very little media interest, public involvement, and political will towards disaster mitigation and preparedness. It is therefore difficult to mobilise resources for these activities. To counter this limitation,
disaster mitigation and preparedness organisations are making increasing efforts to tap developmental resources on the plea of ‘safe development’ or ‘risk reduction’. However, it is still a difficult task and requires much effort.
The World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) have developed a proactive policy in this regard. The World Bank seeks to attain the objective through the
following measures:
Promote sustainable development policies to reduce losses from natural disasters;
Encourage risk management in member countries as integral aspects of planning and budgeting;
Encourage research in long-term consequences of disasters and how cost sharing and cost recovery affect mitigation;
Raise awareness of the benefits of disaster mitigation and how constraints could be removed in its application; and
Promote mitigation as a standard part of quality auditing process with the project cycle in each case. For this purpose the Prevention Unit has produced an information toolkit for World Bank personnel.
Out of efforts of the World Bank, a coalition of governments, international organisations, academic institutions, civil society and private sector has emerged. The Provention Consortium has taken upon itself the task/responsibility of promoting the aforesaid
objectives. The mission is, supporting developing countries in understanding risks and instituting mitigation programmes, especially targeting vulnerabilities of poorest segments in
these societies.
The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) has also taken a proactive stance in this regard. As per the new policy announced/crafted in 1999, member states would be
encouraged to provide for vulnerability reduction programmes as an essential requirement
by the following means:
Establish new financial mechanisms (loans or refundable or non-refundable technical cooperation services) to help countries undertake and strengthen disaster prevention
and risk management actions;
Engage in a dialogue with member countries on issues such as risk assessment, risk management strategies and the use of available IDB instruments for financing investments related to natural disasters;
Incorporate risk reduction in the project cycle, including risk analysis and reduction in programming and in project identification, design, implementation and evaluation.
154 Disaster Management As part of this project, a series of sectoral checklists for disaster risk management
are being developed to support the drafting of projects in various sectors; Identify focal points for disaster management at the institutional level in order
to support countries in preparing risk reduction programmes and coordinating prevention and response activities; and Build partnerships for the establishment of an integrated information and
response network that can assist in coordinating the preparation of pre-investment studies, as well as investing in prevention and reconstruction and establishing interagency
response protocols.
Accordingly, the salient features of the disaster management policy adopted in India in the context of the ADB (2005) project report are:
Recognition of linkages between disaster management and development; Connecting of specific programmes like the Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP), the Desert Development Programme (DDP), and the Wasteland Development
Programme for managing natural disasters;
Emphasis on forecasting and warning using advanced technology;
Contingency agricultural planning;
Ensuring accessibility to food grains;
Preparedness and Mitigation through specific plan programmes;
Disaster Management as a continuous and integrated process;
Setting up of National Centre for Disaster Management (NCDM);
Setting up of disaster management faculties in states;
Programmes for community participation and public awareness; and Observing natural disaster reduction day.
The Building Material and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC) in India has come up
with the following recommendations in this regard:
The extra cost involved in disaster resistant measures provided in new constructionswill automatically form part of the estimated costs, hence form part of development
cost.
The funding norms of financing institutions should recognise the need of disaster resistance and should cover the same in their funding packages with mandatory requirement of safety from disasters, as per the stipulation of standards.
Upgrading the disaster resistance of buildings may actually require extra budgeting and will have to be recognised and included as a separate budget item under plan
head of the Central and State governments.
Since systematic efforts towards disaster preparedness and mitigation will reduce the need under the category of ‘Relief’ some percentage out of the crisis relief fund may be earmarked for creating awareness, conducting studies in building typologies,
No comments:
Post a Comment