From Relief to Resilience: ChangingParadigms of Disaster Management in

IndiaChandrani Bandyopadhyay1

PJ Philip2

AbstractThe Indian civilization has faced many upheavals and calamities through itsexistence over millennia. References of droughts, famines, tidal surges andnatural phenomena leading to ground impact are found in ancient texts likeRgveda, Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas. In modern times too, Indiais a well-acknowledged disaster hotspot. Multi-hazard vulnerability whereindifferent disasters occur simultaneously or one after the other is a unique featurein India. The inter-linkages between physical, social and economic factors makefor a critical hazard risk scenario. With worldwide concern and deliberations ondisaster management during the International Decade for Natural DisasterReduction (IDNDR) and thereafter the International Strategy for DisasterReduction (ISDR), India has committed itself to reducing disaster risks andmaking communities safer. The resulting paradigm shift from a relief centricmechanism to a risk management centric administrative structure has led to far-reaching changes in terms of legal and policy backup, institutional system,regulatory mechanisms etc. In the context of the complexity of risks andvulnerability of the country, the authors argue that there is a need for synergicaction to reduce disaster risks and take the path of sustainable development. Asystemic approach to resilience signifies an adaptive system that functionsduring shocks and upheavals. The authors argue that resilient systems in termsof physical, social, environmental and governance systems coordinated within a

1 Assistant Professor, National Institute of Disaster Management, NewDelhi

2 Professor & Head, Dept of Business Administration, National Instituteof Technology, Kurukshetra

1

framework of activities would be effective in pursuing the goals of disaster riskreduction and sustainable development.

IntroductionDisasters and the Indian civilization are inextricablylinked together. Over millennia, disasters of varyingmagnitudes have repeatedly struck the country leading toresigned acceptance of such calamities among the people as“divine retribution.” Indian mythology and history isreplete with instances of destruction and devastation due todisasters, which include drying up of the great riverSaraswati, drought and desertification of northwesternIndia, sea-water ingress, leading to considerable casualties(Iyengar, 2004). In modern times too, India is a well-acknowledged disaster hotspot. Its location with unique geo-climatic features, coupled with a high population densitymake for a remarkable mix of vulnerability and resilience.

Multi-hazard vulnerability wherein different disasters occursimultaneously or one after the other is a unique feature inIndia. The vast expanse of land that the country covers,ranging from highest mountains to coasts, deserts, forestsand plateaus resulted in contrasting climatic andtopographical features, that cause or aggravate disasters.The mighty Himalayas, extending over 2500 Km, are theworld’s youngest fold mountains, still adjusting to tectonicmovements, also sustains the largest non-polar glacialdeposits. The Indo-Ganga-Brahmaputra basin that stretchesparallel to the Himalayan arc carries water and silt fromwide catchments through the longest alluvial plain in theworld. About 60% of the Indian landmass is prone toearthquakes and landslides of different magnitudes and about12% of its geographical area (about 40 million hectares) issubject to riverine and flash floods of which about 8

2

million hectares are susceptible to annual flooding. Partsof northeastern states of India receive the highest rainfallin the world while parts of northwest have the scantiest,just as some areas of trans-Himalayas are among the coldestinhabited places while part of Thar Desert is among thewarmest. This wide variation of rainfall and climate makemany regions of India susceptible to various hazards likedroughts, flood, hailstorm, cloudburst, avalanche, heat andcold wave that claim lives, livelihood and property (DharChakrabarti, 2006). In addition to the hazards generated by natural factors,social factors like poverty, malnutrition, reproductivehealth issues only aggravate the total risk. Associatedfactors like urbanization, climate change also play a majorrole in adding to the existing risks. The inter-linkagesbetween physical, social and economic factors make for acritical hazard risk scenario. Between 1974 and 2003, SouthEast Asia has faced a total of 736 disasters, 303 of whichwere in India alone (Guha-Sapir et al, 2005).

Managing Disasters – Genesis and Evolution of Thought

Historically, world over, disasters have been managed asafter-event activities, initiated on the basis of damageassessment and deployment of relief and personnel to theaffected areas. Even for recurrent disasters like floods,relief and reconstruction were the primary interventions.Pre-disaster activities in terms of mitigation or riskprevention were woefully inadequate or even absent.Gradually concern over disasters occurring frequentlythereby wiping away years of development benefits in amatter of hours or minutes shifted the focus to managingdisasters, rather than coping with them. Acknowledging this

3

concern and the need for greater attention to the issue, theUN General Assembly adopted Resolution 44/236 in 1989 andformally decided to observe the 1990s as the InternationalDecade for Natural Disaster Reduction. The objective ofIDNDR was “to reduce, through concerted internationalaction, especially developing countries, the loss of life,property damage and social and economic disruption caused bynatural disasters...”3.

The United Nations observed the International Decade forNatural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) during 1990- 2000, duringwhich time, few great impact disasters shook the world (KobeEarthquake (Japan 1995), Northridge Earthquake (California,USA 1994), Latur earthquake (India 1993), Bangladesh Cyclone(1991), Orissa Supercyclone (India, 1999), to name a few.These high-impact disasters, along with IDNDR interventionsresulted in a gradual shift in thinking, from a post-disaster relief based approach to a pre-disaster mitigationbased strategy. A conference of the IDNDR programme was heldin Yokohama in May 1994, where a plan of action called theYokohama Strategy was evolved. The strategy called foraccelerated implementation of a Plan of Action based onevolving a global culture of prevention, an integratedapproach to disaster reduction, unequivocal politicalcommitment for vulnerability reduction, communityparticipation, improved risk assessment, broader monitoringand communication of forecasts and early warnings.

At the close of the century, the International Strategy ofDisaster Reduction (ISDR) was formed to carry forward theglobal momentum created by IDNDR. The International Strategyfor Disaster Reduction (ISDR) is a multi-disciplinary andmulti-stakeholder platform to enable societies to increase

3 http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-44-236.pdf retrieved April 12, 2012

4

their resilience to natural, technological and environmentaldisasters and to reduce associated environmental, human andeconomic and social losses. A range of United Nationsorganizations and international partners participate incooperation with Governments and civil societyorganizations.

In January 2005, the World Conference on Disaster Reduction(WCDR, 18-22 January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan) took placeand represents a landmark in worldwide understanding andcommitment to implement a disaster risk reduction agenda.This commitment was captured in the Hyogo Declaration and theHyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations andCommunities to Disasters adopted at the WCDR.

The Hyogo Framework constitutes the essential guide forimplementation of the International Strategy for DisasterReduction in the coming years and it constitutes anunprecedented conceptual shift that takes account of thecomplexity of action in disaster risk reduction and thelarge variety of actors whose inputs are required in thepursuit of this objective. It provides the basic conceptsand prescribes and expected outcome; details three strategicgoals for disaster risk reduction and a set of five priorityareas for action; and assigns tasks to stakeholders atdifference operational levels to reach the expected outcome.The priorities for action for the nations refer to ensuringdisaster risk reduction as a national and local priority,improving the early warning technology and disseminationsystems, use of knowledge, innovation and education toincrease resilience at all levels, reduce underlying riskfactors and enhance preparedness for response at all levels.

5

Since 1994 and the Yokohama Declaration, the South Asiancountries have gradually integrated a system of disasterprevention in their policies, strategies and institutionalframeworks. Nepal enacted the Natural Disaster Relief Act in1982, which has provided for Disaster Relief Committees atthe Central, Regional, District and Local levels. InBangladesh, the Ministry of Food & Disaster Management isthe main coordinating organ of the government. The DisasterManagement Bureau (DMB) is the focal point for disasterpreparedness at the national level. Two key documents, i.eStanding Orders on Disaster (SOD) and a draft comprehensiveplan are the sources of clarity for roles andresponsibilities of institutions and personnel. In Pakistan,disaster management gained momentum in the aftermath of the2005 earthquake and institutions like the National Disastermanagement Authority, Earthquake Reconstruction &Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) were established. In SriLanka, the Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act no 13 of 2005provided for establishment of a National Council of DisasterManagement and Disaster Management Centre. India has enactedthe Disaster Management Act 2005 which provided forestablishment of Disaster Management Authorities at thenational, state and district levels.

Disaster Management in India

References to natural calamities like floods, droughts,famines and epidemics and people’s suffering are found inarchaeological evidences over a large time- span, from theHarappan cultural context to the beginning of the Christianera. One of the earliest references of a long-durationfamine due to drought is found in the Rg Veda (X.98) and inYaska’s Nirukta (Biswas, 2000). References of droughts,famines, tidal surges and natural phenomena leading to

6

ground impact are found in ancient texts like Rgveda,Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas (Iyengar, 2004). Withfrequent references to disaster events, ancient texts likethe Ramayana and the Arthshastra lay stress on the welfarefunctions of the state and duties of kings for managing suchcalamities. The Arthashastra lists out measures like statecontrol of prices, emergency cess for the rich, distributionof seeds and provisions to affected subjects, constructionof reservoirs and ponds during drought, medical interventionfor pestilence and epidemics and evacuation of people fromriver-banks and low-lying areas during floods for copingwith disasters (Biswas, 2000). As the civilization expandedover the sub-continent, so did its interface with disastersleading to the establishment of a response system.

References to disasters, especially related to recurrentfloods and droughts abound in medieval texts as well, but itis with the devastating famines in the late eighteenthcentury that a system of administrative response was set up,which, though modified, continues even today. The firstFamine Enquiry by any Government of India was set up in1861. After the Orissa Famine in 1866, Sir George Campbell,in his report, advocated for a “humane policy” to alleviatethe sufferings of the affected people. As a result, reliefdoles and gratuitous relief was disbursed to the affectedpeople during the Rajputana Famine of 1868. The GreatSouthern India Famine (1876-78) that spread to parts ofCentral and North-western India and killed 6-10 millionpeople and affected more than 50 million, created theurgency to set up an institutional mechanism to deal withsuch calamities. A Famine Commission was set up underGeneral Strachey, which laid down the general principles ofrelief administration, preventive and “protective” measures

7

and formulated the provisional Famine Code (Report of theIndian Famine Commission (1898). Subsequent Commissionsimproved upon the provisions of the Code. Following Independence, in the context of food scarcity, theMinistry of Agriculture took on the nodal responsibility fordisaster response and relief. The initial focus on droughtsand food security gave way to dealing with all naturaldisasters within the Department of Agriculture & Cooperationin the Ministry. The primary focus remained post-disasterrelief assistance in accordance with the Relief Codes andManuals developed by states. This approach of dealing withdisasters through post-event relief measures gave rise to arobust relief administration with well laid down proceduresand financial aspects governed by successive FinanceCommissions.

With the advent of IDNDR and concern over increasing lossesfrom disasters, India started taking tiny steps forward intoa more holistic framework according to the YokohamaStrategy. Gradually, the paradigm of a response-centricapproach was replaced with prevention and mitigation basedapproach wherein pre-disaster, during disaster and post-disaster activities were considered as equally important.Seen as a cycle, pre-disaster activities like riskassessment, mitigation, prevention and preparedness arefollowed by response and relief during disasters andreconstruction and rehabilitation post the event. Eachcomponent of the cycle is a mosaic of activities andinterventions that range from policy and regulation, earlywarnings, structural safety and safe construction practicesto supply chain management, capacity building ofcommunities, risk transfer mechanisms and education andtraining. The idea was to look at disaster management as

8

continuous process rather than stand-alone activities to betaken up only after an event had occurred. The concept ofinculcating a Culture of Prevention by involving each stake-holder through an agenda of partnership gained prominence.

Devastating disasters like the Gujarat earthquake (2001) andthe South Asian Tsunami (2004) that shook the nation withtheir ferocity and destruction in the new millennium raisedthe momentum for a change in governance. Following Gujaratearthquake, the subject of disaster management was shiftedunder the charge of the Ministry of Home Affairs. At sub-national levels, Gujarat State Disaster Management Authoritywas constituted in February 2001 and Gujarat State DisasterManagement Act 2003 notified. States like Orissa, Gujarat,Madhya Pradesh were front-runners in setting up of a legaland institutional base to disaster management. Maharashtra,on the other hand, led the way for district level disastermanagement planning.

The shifting paradigm has manifested within the system ofgovernance through the Disaster Management Act 2005, whichset up an institutional system at the national, state anddistrict levels. The new system aims to create a dedicatedmechanism for comprehensive interventions at all stages ofdisaster management viz. Pre, during and post disaster. TheDisaster Management Act 2005 is one of the most significantinitiatives taken by the Government of India for putting inplace an institutional system dedicated to disastermanagement. The Act aimed towards creating a hierarchy ofinstitutions for policy and planning, implementation,capacity building, response force, thereby ensuring aholistic effort towards disaster management. The Act waspromulgated to provide for the “effective management ofdisasters and for matters connected therewith or incidental

9

thereto.” Enacted by Parliament, it automatically extends tothe entire Indian territory for dealing with disasters. TheAct, therefore, attempts to define and deal with disastersin a holistic way, linking causes, both natural and man-made, impacts, including life, property and environment,with community resilience. The emphasis remains as much ondisaster prevention, mitigation and capacity building as onresponse, reconstruction and rehabilitation, thus coveringall phases of pre, during and post disaster activities.

DISASTER MANAGEMENT CONTINUUM

Source: National Policy on Disaster Management, 2009.The National Policy on Disaster Management 2009 enunciates aholistic and integrated approach on a multi-stakeholderpartnership platform for promoting multi-sectoral synergy.The holistic approach is enunciated through emphasis laid oncommunity-centric disaster management, capacity building,consolidation of best practices and lessons learnt on the

10

one hand and institutional strengthening, inter-agencycoordination and international cooperation on the other topromote a Culture of Prevention. As enunciated in theDisaster Management Act 2005, the National DisasterManagement Authority has also prepared 16 Guidelines onmanaging various natural and man-made disasters likeearthquakes, landslides, floods, cyclones, tsunamis,chemical and biological disasters as also guidelines basedon issues such as psycho-social care, strengthening ofcommunication systems and sectors like NGOs, civil defenceetc.

Thus, we see that India has progressed considerably in thelast two decades from a relief-centric to a risk management-centric system. However, in a country of such colossalproportions and complex layers of vulnerability, there is aneed for tying up all development initiatives into asynergic action for a safe and sustainable future. Thisentails creating vertical and horizontal linkages betweenorganizations, sectors and activities. Coordinated actiontowards safe development will effective reduction ofdisaster risk and facilitate resilience of the people andsystems. Promoting Resilience through Risk Reduction: Need forSynergic Action

Disaster Risk Reduction is defined by UN-ISDR as “Theconceptual framework of elements considered with thepossibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risksthroughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit(mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts ofhazards, within the broad context of sustainabledevelopment.” DRR therefore transcends the premise of merely

11

managing the disasters through prevention, mitigation,preparedness, response and rehabilitation measures throughreducing the vulnerability and thereby reducing the risk. Bylinking it with sustainable development, socio-economicissues that aggravate vulnerability have also been broughtinto the ambit of risk reduction. Locational or situationalvulnerability is aggravated by factors like poverty,malnutrition, lack of access to resources and decision-making, social access and mobility norms etc. Therefore,reducing risks comprehensively involves looking into thesetacit but crucial factors as well. Successful DRR promotessafe development, thereby leading to sustainability in thedevelopment process. This concept therefore inextricablylinks together development and DRR through the paradigm ofsustainability.

Safe development as a function of sustainable developmenthas manifold implications in the present context of climatechange and rapid urbanization. While climate change isexpected to manifest in extreme weather conditions andincreased intensity of particularly hydro-meteorologicaldisasters. Therefore, initiatives for disaster risk shouldtake into account increased vulnerabilities in future due toincreasing complexities of disasters. In the scenario ofvariable climatic patterns, relatively safe areas willincreasingly become vulnerable to disasters. Rapidpopulation increase and uncontrolled urbanization may leadto complex disaster vulnerability, with one or moredisasters occurring simultaneously. Effective disaster riskreduction presupposes its integration with environmentalsystems, urban systems and governance systems. Vulnerablecommunities should be at the centre of the entire process.

12

Intrinsically related to sustainable development, disasterrisk reduction should become an integral part of thedevelopment initiatives, both at the global and the locallevel. This follows from the premise that each disastertakes back, in a short span of time, years of developmentbenefits and create a cycle of vulnerable communitiesrendered more vulnerable by coping with repeated disasters.In addition, flawed development strategies often aggravatedisaster impacts. For example, floods and drainagecongestion in urban areas are often the result of planningand development initiatives taken up without dueconsideration to the hazard scenario and possiblecalamities.

A Systemic Approach to Resilience and Disaster RiskReduction

Community resilience is the mainstay of the risk reductionapproach. Resilience is defined as “The ability of a system,community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb,accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in atimely and efficient manner, including through thepreservation and restoration of its essential basicstructures and functions.” Resilience therefore encapsulatesthe capacity of physical, social, environmental andoperating/governance systems to withstand the shocks ofdisasters and resume their functions at the earliest.Physical systems embody the structures, infrastructures,networks and linkages, while the socio-economic structure ofthe community including the vulnerabilities and capacitiesmake up the social systems. The adverse impact of disasterson the local environment brings to the fore the need forbringing in resilience in the environmental systems.Resilient operating or governance systems are a pre-

13

requisite for managing disasters efficiently, provide quickresponse and “build back better.” Increasing resilience ofall four systems concurrently would lead to effective DRRand sustainable development.

Physical systems comprise of the built environment includingall structure, infrastructure and networks that functionwithin a community. The core essence of resilience is toenhance the capacity of the components of the system toreduce failure probabilities, reduce the consequences offailure or in other words, the impact of disasters and toreduce time for recovery (Bruneau et al, 2003). Within thephysical system, life-line structures provide the vitallinks to cope with a devastating calamity; their operationalability and rapid restoration are crucial for effectivedisaster response. Robustness, redundancy, resourcefulnessand rapidity are considered to be the primary attributes ofresilience, which gives a system the ability to adjust andadapt to sudden shocks and demands generated by disasters(ibid. p735). While structural and non-structural repairand retrofit are essential activities to bring aboutphysical resilience, preparedness measures for restorationof life-line supplies like water and power services,critical-care hospitals, community response systems likeschools and evacuation centres, control rooms for managementof the event need to be sincerely implemented for minimumpossible disruption.

Resilience of social systems denotes persistence androbustness to withstand shock and maintain function.Likewise, the adaptive capacity of a system, learning andinnovation capabilities form the basis of social resilience(Folke, 2006). Socio-economic characteristics of a communitylike food security and access to health, education and

14

sanitation, options for safe livelihood and social cohesionempowers a community to be socially resilient. The notion ofresilience as the ability of a system to adjust and adapt tosudden shocks or changes denotes both strength andflexibility (Bruneau, 2003). It also signifies the abilityto learn from the shocks and increase capacity for futureadaptation. Thus an adaptive social resilience framework isessentially a combination of stake-holder interests to suitthe local conditions. Resilient social systems can beensured if knowledge, incentives and learning capabilitiesare built into institutions and organizations that managesocial development in local, regional and global contexts(Folke, 2006). Thus in the context of disaster riskreduction, the goals for sustainable development need to beintegrated with the social resilience framework. The cycleof vulnerability that depletes the resources of the poorafter each disaster, pushing them into greater poverty andthus greater vulnerability should be broken to promotesocial resilience. This can only be done if socialdevelopment goals are mainstreamed with those of safe andsustainable development.

Disasters and the environment are intrinsically connected toeach other through a cause and effect relationship. Whilemany disasters are caused by environmental imbalances,disasters often leave lasting impacts on the localenvironment. Human activities often affect the environmentand aggravate the vulnerability of the local community. Asan example, destruction of the mangroves in Mumbai to makeway for the development needs of the city is attributed as amajor cause of the devastating floods in 2005. Communitiescoping with environmental degradation face increased impactof disasters, thus emphasizing the need for resilience ofenvironmental systems. The present reality of climate change

15

has especially made environmental resilience imperative fordisaster safe development. Climate change is expected toincreased occurrences of extreme weather events that wouldnecessitate concerted action from the vulnerable communitiesand policy-makers alike for mitigation of impacts andadaptation to the new scenario. Therefore, resilience ofenvironmental systems requires not only adaptation to thepresent climate scenario but also future hazards that mayoccur due to the changing climate and warming earth.

Operational or governance systems are a part of the largerframework of social systems, but are crucial for effectivefunctioning of other systems. Governance systems provide theessence of organized, efficient actions for adjusting to acalamity and adapting to the requirements of the system in anew context. Resilient governance systems are thuscharacterized by clear instruments of management like legaland policy support, guidelines, plans and developmentschemes, regulatory mechanisms, standard operatingprocedures, monitoring mechanisms etc that ensure smoothoperation of the systems. A resilient governance systemtherefore has the capacity to absorb disruption, is capableof self-organization to adjust to pressures and has thecapacity to restore its functioning while adapting to thenew scenario (Folke, 2006). The degree of resilience of sucha system depends on the pace of transition towardssustainable development through adaptive governance. Aresilient system would have meticulously laid downmitigation strategies and preparedness drills that ensurethe system to respond to a disaster with minimum loss oftime. In view of the multiplicity of agencies in politicalsystems and the need for coordination, a resilientoperational system to control, manage and organize response

16

to bring immediate succour to the affected people, aresilient governance system is required.

The four systems of resilience are inter-related and cannotbe seen in isolation. Rather, they are complementary witheach other to fit into a comprehensive systemic approach.Ensuring resilience of one system in exclusion of otherswould be self-defeating as ingrained risks of one systemwould only serve to aggravate the vulnerability of anotherrelated system. For example, lack of implementation ofbuilding bye-laws (governance system) would result in unsafeconstructions and encroachment (physical system)jeopardizing the safety of the entire community. Therefore,resilience of systems entail taking up such activities thatincrease the resilience of each system as a part of acomprehensive system of DRR and sustainable development.

Conclusion

India’s experience of facing disasters and coping with themhas a long history, as old as the civilization itself.Frequent disasters and coping with them have shaped theculture, governance and built environment of the country. Inrecent years, high impact events and India’s participationin the global discourse has manifested in increased momentumin disaster risk reduction initiatives. Given the complexvulnerability of the country, the need of the hour is forconcerted action to reduce the underlying risk factors andwork for development that would be safe and sustainable.

References Books & Journals

17

1. Bandyopadhyay, C (2007): Disaster Preparedness for NaturalHazards – Current Status in India, International Centre forIntegrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu

2. Biswas, Atreyi (2000): Famines in Ancient India GyanPublishing House, Ansari Road, New DelhiISBN: 81-212-0660-X

3. Carter, W. Nick (1991): Disaster Management: A DisasterManager’s Handbook, Asian Development Bank, ManilaISBN – 971-561-006-4

4. Dhar Chakrabarti, PG: Emerging Disaster ManagementFramework in Yojana Vol 50, May 2006

5. Godschalk, David R, Beatley, T, Berke, Philip, Brower,David J, Kaiser, Edward J (1999): Natural HazardMitigation, Recasting Disaster Policy & Planning, Island Press,Washington DC. ISBN: 1-55963-602-5

6. Guha-Sapir, D, Hargitt, D, Hoyois, P (2005): Thirty Yearsof Natural Disasters, 1974-2003, The Numbers, Center forResearch on Epidemiology of Disasters, Brussels

7. Iyengar, R.N (2004): Profile of a Natural Disaster in AncientSanskrit Literature in Indian Journal of History of Science(39.1) pp 11-49, Indian National Science Academy, NewDelhi.

8. Sharma, Vinod K (ed.) (1994): Disaster Management, IndianInstitute of Public Administration, New DelhiISBN – 81-86641-06-8

9. Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India (2011): DisasterManagement in India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt ofIndia.

Reports10.Report of the Indian Famine Commission (1898): Agricole

Publishing Academy, New Delhi, Second Reprint 1989

18

11.Report of the Indian Famine Commission (1901): AgricolePublishing Academy, New Delhi, Second Reprint 1989

12.Famine Inquiry Commission Final Report (1945): Usha Publications, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Reprint 1985

13.Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2006): Crisis Management From Despair to Hope Third Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, Government of India, NewDelhi

On-line sources14.Government of India: Disaster Management Act 2005http://www.nidm.gov.in15.National Disaster Management Authority, Govt of India:

National Policy on Disaster Management 2009 http://nidm.gov.in/PDF/policies/ndm_policy2009.pdf

16.Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer WorldGuidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigationhttp://www.undp.org/cpr/disred/documents/miscellanous/yokohamastrategy.pdf

17.UN-International Strategy for Disaster Reduction(2005): Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building theResilience of Nations & Communities to Disastershttp://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-

english.pdf18.UN/ISDR (2008): Indicators of Progress: Guidance on Measuring

the Reduction of Disaster Risks and the Implementation of the HyogoFramework for Actionhttp://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/isdr-publications/15-indicator-of-progress/Indicators_of_Progress_HFA.pdf

19.Folke, Carl (2006): Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspectivefor Social-Ecological Systems Analyses in Global Environment Change16 (2006) 253-267ftp://ecosistemas.uchile.cl/pub/Docencia/Sistemas_ecosociales/Literatura/Clase_3/Folke_2006.pdf

19

20.Bruneau,M. Chang,SE, Eguchi, RT, Lee,GC, O’Rourke, TD,Reinhorn, AM, Shinozuka, M, Tierney,K, Wallace, WA,Winterfeldt, D (2003): A Framework to Quantitatively Assessand Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities in EarthquakeSpectra, Vol 19, No.4, pp733-752, November 2003.http://civil.eng.buffalo.edu/~reinhorn/PUBLICATIONS/Bruneau%20et%20al%20(2003)%20EERI%20Spectra%20Resilience%20-%20Paper%20Body%2019(4)%20733-752.pdf

20