BPAG-171 Solved Assignment

Question 1: Explain the National Policy on Disaster Management (2009) in a clear note.

What the NPDM (2009) is about

The National Policy on Disaster Management (NPDM), 2009 provides India’s broad policy direction for managing disasters in a modern, systematic way. Instead of treating disaster management as only “post-disaster relief”, the policy promotes a holistic and proactive approach that covers multiple hazards and uses technology along with strong institutions. A key policy idea is that disasters should be managed through a culture of prevention, mitigation, and preparedness, supported by a quick and efficient response when a disaster actually occurs. The policy also places the community at the centre, recognising that local people are often the first responders in real situations.

Vision and overall approach

The NPDM is anchored in a national vision of building a safer and disaster-resilient India. To achieve this, it recommends a “mission mode” way of working, where national, state and local institutions coordinate continuously rather than acting only during emergencies. It also emphasises participatory planning, meaning ministries, states and other stakeholders should be involved while framing guidelines and implementing actions. In practical terms, this reduces confusion during a crisis because roles, resources and coordination systems are discussed and strengthened in advance.

Major policy thrust areas (explained in student-friendly terms)

• Build a prevention-and-preparedness culture: Encourage awareness, learning, innovation and training so that families, schools, offices and local bodies know what to do before and during a disaster.
• Promote risk reduction using multiple knowledge sources: Support mitigation that uses modern technology, relevant traditional wisdom, and environmentally sustainable practices (for example, safer construction practices and local coping methods).
• Mainstream disaster management into development: Make disaster risk reduction a routine part of development planning (roads, housing, health, education, urban planning), so that development does not unintentionally increase risk.
• Strengthen institutions and compliance: Create an enabling regulatory environment with clear institutional arrangements and compliance expectations, so that disaster plans are not just “documents” but are implemented.
• Improve risk identification and monitoring: Strengthen systems that identify, assess and monitor disaster risks, so decisions are evidence-based.
• Upgrade forecasting, early warning and communication: Improve early warning systems and ensure communication remains reliable, fail-safe and supported by information technology.
• Ensure prompt response with a “caring” relief approach: Response and relief should be efficient, but also sensitive to vulnerable sections of society who face higher risk and greater post-disaster hardship.
• Use reconstruction to “build back safer”: Treat reconstruction as an opportunity to create disaster-resilient structures and safer habitats, not merely to restore what existed earlier.
• Work proactively with the media: Encourage responsible media partnership for awareness, early warnings and accurate communication during disasters.

Practical understanding (how it looks on the ground)

In real disaster situations, the difference between “policy on paper” and “policy in action” is seen in preparedness and coordination. For example, if district officials, local bodies, and community groups already know evacuation routes, shelter locations, warning protocols, and who is responsible for medical care and relief distribution, response becomes faster and more humane. That is precisely what NPDM encourages: preparedness, coordination, and safer recovery as standard practice rather than an exception.

Conclusion

Overall, NPDM (2009) shifts disaster management from a relief-focused approach to a risk-reduction and resilience-building approach. It promotes preparedness, mitigation, and mainstreaming into development, while ensuring strong early warning, efficient response, and safer reconstruction with community participation at the core.

Question 2: Analyse how disasters and development influence each other.

Introduction: why this relationship matters

Disasters and development are closely connected. Disasters can destroy development gains, but development choices can also shape how severe a disaster becomes. Modern disaster thinking therefore does not treat disasters as purely “natural events”; it treats them as outcomes influenced by vulnerability, planning, environment management and the way society develops.

How disasters harm development

When disasters occur, they disrupt normal life and cause loss of lives and property. They also divert public resources away from planned development into emergency response and recovery. Key development sectors like health, education, transport, livelihoods and housing often suffer simultaneous damage. This reduces the effectiveness of development investments and slows growth, especially in poorer regions where resilience is already limited.

How development can increase vulnerability (the “wrong kind” of development)

Development programmes can unintentionally increase disaster risk when they ignore hazard exposure and community realities. For example, poverty and marginalisation often push people into unsafe locations such as floodplains or landslide-prone slopes. Where building codes are weak or not enforced, settlements may expand with unsafe housing and poor infrastructure quality. Limited awareness and lack of education further reduce people’s ability to choose safer options. In such contexts, even a moderate hazard can become a major disaster because vulnerability is high.

How development can reduce vulnerability (risk-informed development)

Development can also decrease vulnerability when it deliberately integrates disaster risk reduction. Examples include: enforcing safer construction practices, strengthening critical infrastructure (roads, bridges, hospitals), improving water and sanitation, protecting ecosystems that reduce hazards, and investing in early warning and preparedness systems. When communities receive information, training and institutional support, they can respond faster, protect assets and reduce losses. This is why current approaches emphasise mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development and planning for “resilience building”.

Disasters as opportunities for improved development (“build back better”)

Although disasters bring destruction, recovery and reconstruction phases can be used to correct past weaknesses. Global and national efforts increasingly treat post-disaster recovery as a chance to rebuild safer: improving construction standards, relocating critical services from high-risk zones where necessary, strengthening livelihood systems, and upgrading governance systems so the same scale of loss does not repeat. This is often described as using disasters as a trigger to redesign development more intelligently.

A practical way to summarise the relationship

• Disasters can derail development by damaging infrastructure, livelihoods and public services.
• Development can raise risk if it increases exposure or ignores safety and vulnerability patterns.
• Development can lower risk when it is risk-informed and resilience-oriented.
• Recovery can strengthen development if rebuilding is safer and inclusive.

Conclusion

Therefore, policymakers cannot separate disaster management from development planning. A risk-informed development pathway reduces vulnerability, protects investments, and limits the long-term social and economic costs of disasters.

Question 3: List the statutory provisions in law that support mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR).

Meaning in brief

Mainstreaming DRR means embedding prevention, mitigation, preparedness and capacity-building into routine governance and development planning. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 contains multiple provisions that legally support this integration at national, state and district levels.

Key statutory provisions (Disaster Management Act, 2005)

• Section 6(i): Empowers the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to take measures for prevention, mitigation, preparedness and capacity-building for threatening disaster situations or disasters.
• Section 18(2)(g): Enables the State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) to review departmental development plans and ensure prevention and mitigation measures are integrated.
• Section 22(2)(b): Authorises the State Executive Committee (SEC) to examine vulnerability across the state and specify prevention or mitigation measures.
• Section 23(4)(b): Requires the State Plan to include prevention and mitigation measures.
• Section 23(4)(c): Requires the State Plan to show how mitigation will be integrated with development plans and projects.
• Section 23(4)(d): Requires inclusion of capacity-building and preparedness measures in the State Plan.
• Section 30(2)(iv): Mandates the District Authority to ensure national/state guidelines on prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response are followed by departments and local authorities at district level.
• Section 30(2)(xli): Allows the District Authority to facilitate community training and awareness programmes for prevention/mitigation with support of local authorities and NGOs.
• Section 30(xiv): Supports establishing and upgrading early warning mechanisms and public information dissemination at district level.

Conclusion

Together, these provisions make DRR a legal responsibility across governance levels, linking disaster prevention and mitigation directly with development planning, vulnerability review, early warning and community capacity-building.

Question 4: Describe the Indian Ocean Tsunami (2004) as a case study.

Event and trigger

On 26 December 2004, India faced the devastating Indian Ocean Tsunami, triggered by a series of major undersea earthquakes originating near northern Sumatra (Indonesia). The main earthquake was extremely high on the Richter scale, and it generated tsunami waves that reached several metres in height and travelled inland in many coastal areas.

Spread and affected regions in India

In India, the tsunami impacted a long stretch of coastline and affected coastal areas of states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, along with Union Territories like Puducherry, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Large sections of coastline were inundated, and many settlements close to the sea faced severe damage to houses, livelihoods and basic services.

Human impact and damages

As reported in the course material, the tsunami caused heavy loss of life, injuries, and displacement of people from their homes. A very large number of houses were damaged or destroyed, and parts of the coastline experienced significant inundation. This illustrates how a sudden-onset coastal hazard can turn into a human disaster when people, housing and livelihoods are highly exposed near shorelines.

Tamil Nadu focus (district-level picture)

Tamil Nadu’s coastal districts were among the most affected. Several coastal districts faced substantial death tolls and damages. The case study highlights that within a single state, impacts can vary significantly by district based on exposure, settlement patterns, and local vulnerability.

Response lessons: community and coordination

A major lesson from this case is the role of the local community as immediate rescuers. In many locations, community members initiated rescue efforts before external support fully arrived. Subsequently, government agencies and NGOs supported relief, coordination, and rehabilitation activities. The overall response shows the importance of pre-existing preparedness, coordination mechanisms, and the value of community capacity for the first critical hours after a disaster.

Conclusion

The 2004 tsunami case study demonstrates the scale of coastal disaster impact and underlines the importance of early warning, risk-informed coastal planning, community preparedness, and coordinated relief-to-recovery systems.

Question 5: Explain the major types of natural disasters.

Basic classification used in the course

The course groups natural disasters into four major categories. This classification is helpful because it links each disaster type to its physical origin and typical impacts.

1) Geophysical disasters (Earth processes)

• Meaning: Events originating within the earth or due to earth processes.
• Examples: Earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides and tsunamis.

2) Hydrological disasters (Water movement and distribution)

• Meaning: Harmful changes related to the quality, movement or distribution of water on the surface or below it, or linked with water in the atmosphere.
• Examples: Floods and avalanches.

3) Climatological disasters (Longer-term climate and weather patterns)

• Meaning: Events caused by medium-to-long duration climate variability and related processes.
• Examples: Extreme temperatures, drought, wildfire, cyclones (and related storm effects).

4) Biological disasters (Living organisms and disease spread)

• Meaning: Devastating effects caused by the rapid spread or unusual growth of organisms, often resulting in disease outbreaks.
• Examples: Disease epidemics and events like locust plagues.

Conclusion

This four-part classification (geophysical, hydrological, climatological and biological) is a practical way to organise natural hazards and plan preparedness and mitigation strategies according to the nature of risk.

Question 6: Briefly describe the types of traditional (indigenous) knowledge.

Concept in simple terms

Traditional knowledge refers to locally developed understanding and practices, built over generations through experience with local environments and hazards. In disaster risk reduction, it becomes valuable when combined with scientific methods and included in planning.

Types of indigenous knowledge mentioned in the unit

• Technological knowledge: Local technical practices (for example, hazard-suited construction methods in flood, coastal or mountain regions) that can reduce damage when disasters strike.
• Economic knowledge: Community-developed economic coping ideas during crises, such as low-cost temporary shelter strategies and shifting to alternative livelihoods when regular income sources collapse.
• Environmental knowledge: Observations and interpretations of environmental cues (like changes in water or clouds) that help people anticipate hazards and take preparedness steps (storing essentials, protecting livestock, etc.).

Question 7: Explain the idea of social and economic rehabilitation after disasters.

Rehabilitation in the post-disaster phase

Rehabilitation refers to actions taken after a disaster to restore basic services, support affected people, and restart normal life. It bridges immediate relief and long-term development by helping people regain stability and functioning.

Social rehabilitation

Social rehabilitation focuses on restoring social support systems and community wellbeing. Typical measures include organising counselling and educational support for affected people, arranging learning materials and activities for children, running programmes on health, stress management, nutrition and hygiene, and providing temporary support services such as day care or old age assistance. It also encourages community centres and self-help groups so that people can rebuild social networks and mutual support.

Economic rehabilitation

Economic rehabilitation aims to address livelihood and income loss caused by disasters. It commonly includes compensation and support based on an assessment of present and future risks and the actual livelihood constraints faced by affected groups. In practice, this may involve enabling people to restart small businesses, restoring access to work, or supporting changes in livelihood plans when old income sources are disrupted.

Question 8: State the key components of a disaster preparedness framework.

Preparedness as a continuous process

Disaster preparedness is described as a continuous and integrated process that organises timely rescue, relief and rehabilitation through planning, training, warning systems and resource readiness.

Key components (as listed in the unit)

• Capacity strengthening: Strengthen policy, technical and institutional capacities at regional, national and local levels, including technology, training, and human/material resources.
• Information exchange and coordination: Promote dialogue and information-sharing to support a holistic disaster risk reduction approach across stakeholders.
• Preparedness planning and periodic updates: Develop and regularly review preparedness plans and policies at all levels, with special focus on highly vulnerable areas and groups.
• Emergency funds: Encourage creating emergency funds where needed to finance preparedness measures.
• Community participation and ownership: Build mechanisms to engage stakeholders, especially communities, with a spirit of volunteerism and ownership.

Question 9: Summarise the principles of Community Based Disaster Management (CBDM).

CBDM in one line

Community Based Disaster Management is an approach that actively involves at-risk communities in identifying risks, reducing vulnerability, and managing disasters through participation and local capacity-building.

Core principles highlighted in the unit

• Active participation: Community members should take ownership in planning, implementing and managing risk reduction activities.
• Use of local resources and capacities: Start with locally available resources, skills, networks and partnerships to strengthen local response and sustainability.
• Community choice and decision-making: Communities should be able to make and own decisions about risk reduction measures that affect them.
• Capacitating the community: DRR programmes should be community-specific and should strengthen local capacities over time.
• Special focus on vulnerable groups: Give priority attention to groups that face greater risk (for example, women, elderly, disabled, marginalised social groups) across pre-, during- and post-disaster phases.

Question 10: Define epidemics in the context of disasters.

Meaning

An epidemic is an unusual increase or rapid spread of an infectious disease within a population, occurring over a short time period. It may involve a disease already present in an area (but suddenly increasing) or the appearance of a disease in a population that is usually free from it.

Why epidemics matter during disasters

Epidemics can follow disasters such as floods, cyclones, earthquakes or droughts because water contamination, overcrowding, stress, and breakdown of sanitation can increase transmission. Disease spread can be influenced by contaminated water/food and by vectors such as mosquitoes or rats, and if spread expands across countries it may become a pandemic.

$$ \text{(Helpful risk idea used in the course)}\quad \text{Risk} = \text{Hazard} \times \text{Vulnerability} $$

Understanding this idea helps explain why epidemics can become severe after disasters: the hazard (infectious agent and transmission conditions) becomes more damaging when vulnerability (poor sanitation, weak healthcare access, displacement) rises.