💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Disaster Management

  • What is disaster resilience? How is it determined? Describe various elements of a resilience framework. Also mention the global targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030).

    As per Hyogo Framework of Action, Disaster resilience refers to the ability of individuals, communities, systems, and nations to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and recover from the impacts of hazards while retaining essential functions.

    Determination of disaster resilience

    Exposure to Hazard – Settlements on riverbanks or seismic zones are more vulnerable. Eg- Joshimath (Uttarakhand)

    Adaptive or Coping Capacity – Ability to anticipate, respond, absorb and recover from a disaster. Eg- Japan’s high adaptive capacity to earthquakes

    Socio-economic Conditions – Poverty, marginalisation and inequity increase susceptibility to harm. Eg- Disaster induced migration

    Governance and Institutional Readiness– Eg- Singapore’s Integrated crisis management agency (SCDF)

    Environmental resilience increases or reduces hazard impact. Eg- ‘Day Zero’ in Chennai due to wetland encroachment.

    Social Networks and Support Systems: – Communities with strong social cohesion, community organizations, and support networks are more resilient to respond to and recover from disasters.

    Health status and access to healthcare services – Eg- Elderly and Children are less resilient to post disaster illness

    Elements of a Disaster Resilience Framework

    Risk Knowledge – Hazard mapping, vulnerability analysis, and risk assessments to understand who is at risk and why. Eg-GIS-based flood and landslide susceptibility maps.

    Early Warning Systems– Eg-IMD’s cyclone early-warning system reduces mortality drastically.

    Preventive Measures – Nature-based solutions, resilient infrastructure, land-use planning, seismic codes, floodplain zoning. Eg-Mangrove restoration under MISHTI.

    Preparedness & Response Capacity – Training volunteers, conducting mock drills, strengthening NDRF/SDRF capacities. Eg-Aapda Mitra programme in 350+ districts.

    Institutional ‘capacity building’ – Strong governance, coordination between NDMA, SDMA, district authorities, and urban bodies.

    Recovery, Rehabilitation & “Build Back Better” – stronger housing, better planning, safer infrastructure. Eg- Japan’s Post-2011 Tōhoku Earthquake & Tsunami Reconstruction

    Social & Community Resilience – Inclusive decision-making, empowering women, local groups, and indigenous knowledge systems.

    Financial Resilience – Insurance, disaster funds (NDRF/SDRF), parametric insurance, contingency financing.

    Global Targets of the Sendai Framework (2015-2030)

    Reduce Global Disaster Mortality – Substantial reduction by 2030 compared to 2005-2015 baseline.

    Reduce Number of Affected People – Significant decrease in people injured, displaced, or needing basic services during disasters.

    Reduce Economic Losses – Lower global disaster-related economic losses relative to global GDP.

    Reduce Damage to Critical Infrastructure – Protect health facilities, water systems, schools, and public infrastructure.

    Increase Number of Countries with DRR Strategies – All nations to develop national and local disaster risk reduction strategies.

    Enhance International Cooperation – Increase support from developed to developing countries for capacity-building, technology, and finance.

    Ensure multi-hazard early warning systems and accessible risk information for everyone.

    Priorities for Action

    Understanding disaster risk in all its dimensions

    Strengthening disaster risk governance

    Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience

    Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, and to Build Back Better

    The Sendai Framework’s proactive approach is essential for making Bharat a ‘weather-ready and climate-smart’ nation.

  • How ACs catch fire, and the role temperature plays in it

    Why in the News?

    A major fire in a residential apartment in Delhi’s Dwarka area, allegedly triggered by an AC blast, led to fatalities during an intense heatwave. The incident has drawn attention to the rising number of air-conditioner fire accidents during summers, as prolonged AC usage and extreme temperatures increase overheating and electrical risks.

    What are Air Conditioners (ACs)?

    Air conditioners (ACs) are electrical cooling devices that reduce indoor temperature and humidity by removing heat from enclosed spaces and releasing it outside through a refrigeration cycle. 

    They work using components such as a compressor, condenser, evaporator, and refrigerant gas to maintain comfortable room temperatures, especially during extreme summers and heatwaves.

    Why are AC fire incidents increasing during extreme summers?

    1. Heatwave Conditions: Rising ambient temperatures force ACs to operate continuously for longer hours, increasing thermal stress on internal components.
    2. Higher Cooling Load: Elevated outdoor temperatures reduce cooling efficiency, compelling compressors to work harder and consume more electricity.
    3. Urban Dependence: Increased AC penetration in cities raises cumulative electricity demand and appliance stress, particularly in densely populated apartments.
    4. Climate Linkage: More frequent and intense heatwaves have expanded cooling requirements, converting household cooling devices into a potential urban safety concern.
    5. Delhi Case Example: The Dwarka apartment fire allegedly linked to an AC blast highlighted the severe consequences of overheating in enclosed residential spaces.

    How do air conditioners catch fire?

    1. Overheating: Continuous operation during peak summers causes excessive heat generation in internal components, wiring, and insulation systems.
    2. Insulation Damage: Excessive heat degrades insulation materials inside the AC, exposing electrical parts and increasing ignition risk.
    3. Short Circuits: Electrical current may flow through unintended paths due to damaged wiring, overheating, or loose electrical connections, generating sparks capable of igniting combustible materials.
    4. Electrical Overload: Excessive current flow places stress on circuits and electrical systems, increasing fire probability.
    5. Faulty Components: Damaged compressors, malfunctioning parts, and ageing electrical systems increase operational risks.
    6. Indoor Unit Vulnerability: While external compressor units generally overheat, indoor AC units pose higher fire risks because electrical sparks generated internally can ignite surrounding household materials.

    Major causes of AC overheating

    How do blocked filters increase fire risk?

    1. Blocked Air Filters: Dust accumulation restricts airflow, forcing the AC to work harder and causing overheating.
    2. Cooling Inefficiency: Reduced ventilation decreases heat dissipation capacity and elevates internal temperature.

    How do electrical faults trigger AC fires?

    1. Short Circuits: Loose wiring or damaged electrical circuits create sparks that may ignite nearby combustible materials.
    2. Voltage Fluctuation: Irregular power supply damages sensitive AC components and accelerates system wear.
    3. Poor Wiring Quality: Faulty or substandard wiring increases overheating probability.

    Why are gas leaks dangerous in AC systems?

    1. Refrigerant Leakage: Leakage creates pressure imbalances and operational stress that may increase fire vulnerability.
    2. Compressor Stress: Improper refrigerant circulation forces compressors to overwork and malfunction.

    Why does prolonged usage increase overheating?

    1. Extended Operation: Running ACs continuously for long durations during summers overheats internal components.
    2. Component Fatigue: Persistent use accelerates wear and malfunction in motors, compressors, and circuit boards.

    Are inverter ACs safer than non-inverter ACs?

    1. Inverter Technology: Inverter AC compressors regulate speed gradually according to room temperature rather than repeatedly switching on and off.
    2. Reduced Stress: Continuous speed modulation lowers operational pressure on electrical components.
    3. Energy Efficiency: Inverter systems consume less power during sustained operation.
    4. Non-Inverter Limitation: Conventional ACs repeatedly restart compressors at full speed, increasing mechanical stress and overheating risks.
    5. Conditional Safety: Inverter ACs are relatively safer but remain vulnerable to poor installation, electrical faults, voltage fluctuation, and lack of maintenance.

    What are the warning signs of an unsafe AC system?

    1. Frequent Tripping: Repeated circuit breaker shutdown indicates excessive load or electrical faults.
    2. Unusual Noise: Buzzing or abnormal sounds may indicate compressor or motor malfunction.
    3. Burning Smell: Smell from wiring or components signals overheating.
    4. Irregular Cooling: Reduced cooling performance may indicate blocked filters, gas leakage, or compressor problems.
    5. Frequent On-Off Cycling: Repeated switching suggests electrical instability or malfunction.

    Safety measures that can reduce AC fire incidents

    How can maintenance reduce overheating risks?

    1. Regular Servicing: Ensures cleaning, component inspection, refrigerant checks, and early detection of faults.
    2. Filter Cleaning: Maintains airflow and prevents internal overheating.
    3. Dust Removal: Cleaning indoor and outdoor units reduces heat accumulation.

    How does electrical protection improve safety?

    1. Circuit Breakers: Ensures automatic disconnection during overload or short circuits.
    2. Dedicated Wiring: Supports safe electricity flow and reduces overloading.
    3. Voltage Stabiliser: Protects AC units from frequent power fluctuations.

    What temperature practices improve efficiency and safety?

    1. Optimal Temperature Setting: Maintaining temperatures between 24-26°C reduces compressor burden and energy consumption.
    2. Controlled Usage: Prevents prolonged continuous operation during extreme heat.

    Why does this issue matter for urban governance and climate resilience?

    1. Urban Fire Safety: Requires stronger residential electrical audits and appliance safety standards.
    2. Climate Adaptation Challenge: Rising temperatures are increasing dependence on cooling infrastructure.
    3. Power Infrastructure Stress: Greater electricity demand during heatwaves increases risks of overload and voltage fluctuations.
    4. Public Awareness: Safety education regarding AC maintenance and heatwave preparedness remains limited.
    5. Building Regulation: Strengthens need for fire-compliant residential design and electrical inspections.

    Conclusion

    AC fire incidents illustrate how climate change is interacting with urban infrastructure vulnerabilities to create new public safety risks. Rising temperatures, prolonged cooling demand, and inadequate electrical preparedness have increased overheating hazards. Strengthening appliance maintenance, electrical safety compliance, heatwave preparedness, and resilient urban infrastructure remains necessary to reduce climate-linked fire vulnerabilities.

    India Cooling Action Plan (ICAP), 2019India Cooling Action Plan (ICAP), launched by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), is the world’s first comprehensive national cooling strategy aimed at addressing rising cooling demand while ensuring environmental sustainability and energy efficiency.Cooling Demand Reduction: Targets a 20-25% reduction in cooling demand by 2037-38 across residential, commercial, transport, and cold-chain sectors through sustainable cooling technologies and better urban planning.
    Energy Efficiency: Encourages adoption of energy-efficient cooling appliances, including higher star-rated ACs and sustainable building designs to reduce electricity consumption.Climate Sustainability: Promotes reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and transition toward environmentally safer refrigerants with lower global warming potential.
    Thermal Comfort for All: Ensures affordable and accessible cooling, especially for vulnerable populations facing heat stress.Skilling and Innovation: Supports workforce development for cooling technicians and promotes domestic manufacturing under sustainable standards.

    Why is ICAP relevant to AC fire incidents?
    Reduced Cooling Load: Efficient cooling systems lower overheating risk during prolonged use.Energy Management: Reduced electricity demand decreases chances of voltage fluctuations and electrical overloads during heatwaves.Safer Cooling Infrastructure: Encourages improved appliance efficiency and maintenance practices.
    National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA): Heatwave Guidelines. The NDMA has issued heatwave management guidelines to reduce mortality, infrastructure stress, and public health risks arising from extreme temperatures.
    Preparedness: Encourages Heat Action Plans (HAPs) at city and district levels involving early warning systems, emergency coordination, hospital readiness, and inter-agency planning.
    Early Warning Systems: Facilitates temperature alerts through IMD forecasts to prepare citizens and institutions for extreme heat events.
    Public Awareness: Promotes behavioural adaptation through advisories on hydration, avoiding peak heat exposure, efficient appliance use, and household safety.
    Infrastructure Resilience: Encourages cooling shelters, green cover expansion, and urban heat mitigation measures.
    Vulnerable Group Protection: Prioritises elderly persons, outdoor workers, children, and economically weaker populations during heat stress.
    Why are NDMA Heatwave Guidelines relevant here?
    Heatwave-Driven AC Usage: Prolonged extreme temperatures increase AC dependence, overheating risks, and electricity demand.
    Urban Risk Management: Heat preparedness indirectly reduces appliance-related fire hazards.

  • Wind plus heat: The triggers for deadly UP storm

    Why in the News?

    More than 100 deaths in Uttar Pradesh due to pre-monsoon thunderstorms have brought renewed attention to India’s growing vulnerability to compound weather events. In such events, multiple meteorological factors combine to intensify disasters. The event stood out because of its unusual intensity, wider geographic spread, and exceptionally high wind speeds. Several districts recorded winds above 100 kmph and touching 130 kmph, far exceeding normal pre-monsoon conditions.

    Why did the Uttar Pradesh thunderstorm become unusually deadly this year?

    1. Higher Fatality Burden: More than 100 deaths were reported, making it one of the deadliest thunderstorm events in recent years in northern India.
    2. Geographical Spread: The destruction was more widespread than usual, affecting multiple districts rather than isolated pockets.
    3. Extreme Wind Speeds: At least eight districts recorded wind speeds exceeding 100 kmph. Some locations witnessed gusts of nearly 130 kmph, substantially above the normal 40-60 kmph range associated with pre-monsoon storms.
    4. Infrastructure Vulnerability: Walls collapsed, electricity poles were uprooted, hoardings fell, and loose objects became projectiles, increasing casualties and injuries.
    5. Lightning Risk: Lightning strikes contributed to deaths, consistent with India’s recurring vulnerability to thunderstorm-associated lightning fatalities.

    How do pre-monsoon thunderstorms normally develop over northern India?

    1. Seasonality: Pre-monsoon thunderstorms are common during April and May, sometimes extending into July, particularly in northern India.
    2. Surface Heating: Intense land heating raises surface temperatures, creating unstable atmospheric conditions conducive to thunderstorm formation.
    3. Moisture Inflow: Moist southeasterly winds from the Bay of Bengal transport humidity inland, providing the moisture required for cloud formation.
    4. Atmospheric Instability: Warm moist air near the surface rises rapidly, generating cumulonimbus clouds associated with thunder, lightning, rainfall, hail, and gusty winds.
    5. Global Occurrence: Such storms are not unique to India and frequently occur in arid and semi-arid regions globally.

    What meteorological conditions intensified the storm beyond normal levels?

    1. Extreme Heat Conditions: Temperatures crossing 45°C across several regions increased surface heating and strengthened convective activity.
    2. Strong Southeasterly Winds: Persistent moisture transport from the Bay of Bengal extended unusually far inland, reportedly reaching even northwestern Uttar Pradesh.
    3. Western Disturbances: Rain-bearing systems originating beyond Iran introduced cool, dry air in the upper atmosphere, creating a sharp contrast with the warm, moist lower atmosphere.
    4. Thermal Contrast: Cool upper air interacting with hot lower air created severe instability, a classic condition for powerful thunderstorms.
    5. Compound Interaction: The storm emerged not from one factor but from the coincidence of multiple meteorological triggers operating simultaneously.

    Why are strong winds during thunderstorms particularly destructive in northern India?

    1. Wind Intensity: Normal thunderstorm winds range between 40-60 kmph, but speeds above 90 kmph are sufficient to uproot trees and damage structures.
    2. Urban Exposure: Billboards, electricity poles, weak infrastructure, and informal settlements increase disaster exposure.
    3. Flying Debris: Loose construction materials and roadside objects transform into dangerous projectiles during high-speed winds.
    4. Agricultural Losses: Standing crops, orchards, and rural infrastructure remain vulnerable during pre-monsoon storm episodes.
    5. High Population Density: The densely populated Gangetic plain amplifies human and economic losses from weather extreme.

    Why was forecasting unable to fully anticipate the scale of destruction?

    1. Forecast Availability: The India Meteorological Department (IMD) had already issued weather bulletins and warnings regarding thunderstorms.
    2. Underestimation of Wind Speed: Initial IMD forecasts predicted winds of up to 60 kmph, later revised to 70 kmph.
    3. Real-Time Escalation: Nowcast systems later indicated potential winds of 80-90 kmph, yet several districts experienced speeds exceeding 100 kmph.
    4. Forecasting Complexity: Thunderstorms are highly localised and dynamic phenomena, making precise prediction of intensity difficult.
    5. Evacuation Constraints: Unlike cyclones, thunderstorms lack a clear directional pathway, limiting targeted evacuation measures.

    How does this event compare with earlier extreme thunderstorm episodes?

    1. Historical Similarity: The meteorological pattern resembled 2018, when a similar thunderstorm event caused over 100 deaths in northern India.
    2. Recurring Hazard: Northern India experiences dozens of deaths annually from thunderstorms of varying intensity.
    3. Changing Risk Profile: Recent events indicate increasing concern regarding high-intensity short-duration weather extremes, potentially linked to broader climate variability.

    What governance and disaster-management lessons emerge from the Uttar Pradesh storm?

    1. Forecast Modernisation: Strengthens the need for high-resolution local forecasting systems and improved nowcasting capacity.
    2. Infrastructure Resilience: Ensures storm-resistant electricity networks, urban signage regulation, and structural safety standards.
    3. Early Warning Dissemination: Facilitates last-mile communication through SMS alerts, local administration, and community networks.
    4. Lightning Preparedness: Supports expansion of lightning detection systems and public advisories, especially in rural regions.
    5. Climate Adaptation: Reinforces the need for district-level climate-risk planning for compound extreme events.

    Conclusion

    The Uttar Pradesh thunderstorm demonstrates how heat stress, moisture transport, and upper-atmospheric disturbances can combine to produce severe local disasters. The event highlights the limits of conventional forecasting and reinforces the need for hyperlocal warning systems, resilient infrastructure, and climate-adaptive disaster planning. This has to be done to manage increasingly volatile pre-monsoon weather.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What is the phenomenon of ‘cloudbursts’? Explain

    Linkage: The PYQ tests conceptual understanding of extreme atmospheric phenomena, weather instability, and disaster geography. Both thunderstorms and cloudbursts involve intense atmospheric instability caused by heat, moisture, and upper-air interactions.

  • Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services and ‘Kallakkadal’ Monitoring

    Why in the News

    Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (INCOIS) has installed a second Coastal Flood Monitoring System (CFMS) near Kollam Harbour to improve forecasting of ‘Kallakkadal’ or swell surge events along India’s southwest coast.

    What is ‘Kallakkadal’?

    • “Kallakkadal” is a Malayalam term meaning: “Sea that comes stealthily”
    • It refers to:
      • Sudden high-energy swell surges
      • Coastal flooding without local storms or rainfall

    Purpose

    • Improve accuracy of coastal flood forecasts
    • Study nearshore wave transformation
    • Build better early warning systems

    About Coastal Flood Monitoring System (CFMS)

    • A scientific monitoring system developed by Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services for:
      • Real-time monitoring of coastal wave activity
      • Early warning for swell surges

    Components of CFMS

    • The system integrates:
      • Coastal Automatic Weather Station
      • Four high-frequency pressure sensors
    • Installed at: Shallow depths of 3 to 7 metres

    Why Kollam?

    • Kollam Harbour was selected because:
      • Kerala’s southwest coast frequently experiences swell surges
      • Fishing communities are highly vulnerable
    [2017] At one of the place in India, if you stand on the seashore and watch the sea, ‘you will find that the sea water recedes from the shore line a few kilometers and comes back to the shore, twice a day, and you can actually walk on the seafloor when the water recedes. This unique phenomenon is seen at 
    a. Bhavnagar 
    b. Bheemunipatnam 
    c. Chandipur 
    d. Nagapattinam 

  • [1st April 2026] The Hindu Oped: Counting people is not counting disaster risk

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2019] Vulnerability is an essential element for defining disaster impacts and its threat to people. How and in what ways can vulnerability to disasters be characterized? Discuss different types of vulnerability with reference to disasters.Linkage: The PYQ tests core concepts of vulnerability, exposure, and disaster risk assessment, which form the foundation of GS-3 Disaster Management. The article directly critiques flawed vulnerability measurement (income-based proxy), reinforcing the need for multidimensional vulnerability assessment as demanded in the PYQ.

    Mentor’s Comment

    There is a critical flaw in India’s disaster financing architecture, the shift from risk-based assessment to population-based allocation. The issue is in the news due to concerns over the 16th Finance Commission’s disaster risk funding formula, which paradoxically allocates higher funds to States with larger populations rather than those with greater disaster exposure. This marks a sharp departure from earlier approaches and undermines decades of progress in disaster preparedness. The scale of the problem is significant, States like Odisha, with the highest hazard score (12), receive less effective consideration than States like Bihar (224.2) and Uttar Pradesh (413.2) due to population weighting.

    What structural flaw exists in the disaster funding formula?

    1. Multiplicative Risk Formula: Uses Disaster Risk Index (DRI = Hazard × Exposure × Vulnerability), but distorts outcomes due to flawed exposure metrics.
    2. Population-Based Exposure: Defines exposure as total population (scaled 1-25), ignoring actual hazard-prone zones.
    3. Bias Toward Larger States: Ensures States like Uttar Pradesh receive higher weight despite lower hazard intensity.
    4. Departure from Previous Approach: Replaces additive model of 15th Finance Commission, which treated hazard and vulnerability separately.
    5. Outcome Distortion: Rewards demographic size rather than disaster risk, contradicting risk-based allocation principles.

    Why is ‘exposure’ measurement scientifically flawed?

    1. Incorrect Definition: Uses total population instead of hazard-zone population.
    2. IPCC Standard Ignored: Defines exposure as people in hazard-prone areas, not administrative boundaries.
    3. Misleading Comparisons: Inland plateau populations treated equal to cyclone-prone coastal populations.
    4. Example: Odisha’s high-risk coastline equated with safer inland regions in other States.
    5. Result: Artificial inflation of exposure scores for populous but less vulnerable States.

    How does vulnerability measurement misrepresent actual risk?

    1. Income-Based Proxy: Uses per capita NSDP, which measures fiscal capacity, not vulnerability.
    2. Multidimensional Nature Ignored: Overlooks housing quality, health infrastructure, and early warning access.
    3. Kerala Case Study: Despite ₹31,000 crore flood damages (2018), receives low vulnerability score (1.073).
    4. Hidden Inequality: Average income masks intra-state disparities and disaster susceptibility.
    5. Outcome: Underestimates real vulnerability in disaster-prone but relatively richer States.

    Why does the formula penalize disaster-prone States?

    1. Population Bias: Prioritizes demographic size over risk intensity.
    2. Funding Paradox: Odisha (highest hazard score) loses out due to lower population score.
    3. Disproportionate Allocation: Bihar (224.2) and UP (413.2) overshadow Odisha despite lower hazard exposure.
    4. Kerala’s Loss: Loses 0.78 percentage points despite high vulnerability ranking.
    5. Systemic Inequity: Smaller, disaster-prone States receive inadequate fiscal support.

    What are the implications for disaster governance in India?

    1. Misallocation of Resources: Funds diverted away from high-risk zones.
    2. Reduced Preparedness: States with higher hazard exposure face fiscal constraints.
    3. Climate Risk Escalation: Cyclones, floods, and droughts increasing in intensity and frequency.
    4. Regional Inequality: Coastal and northeastern States disproportionately affected.
    5. Policy Credibility Issue: Undermines objective of risk-based disaster financing.

    What reforms are required in disaster risk assessment?

    1. Hazard-Zone Mapping: Measures exposure based on population in disaster-prone areas.
    2. Composite Vulnerability Index: Includes housing, health, agriculture, and infrastructure indicators.
    3. Use of Data Systems: Integrates Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC) Vulnerability Atlas, National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5), Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) database, National Health Mission (NHM) facility surveys, and India Meteorological Department (IMD) monitoring records. 
    4. Institutional Mechanism: Mandates NDMA to publish annual State Disaster Vulnerability Index.
    5. Policy Continuity: Institutionalizes methodology across Finance Commissions. 

    Conclusion

    A population-based approach to disaster funding undermines the principle of risk-sensitive governance. A shift toward hazard-specific exposure mapping and multidimensional vulnerability assessment is essential to ensure equitable and effective disaster resilience in India.

  • [12th March 2026] The Hindu OpED: A seismic decision: On revision to India’s earthquake zoning, rollback 

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2021] Discuss about the vulnerability of India to earthquake related hazards. Give examples including the salient features of major disasters caused by earthquakes in different parts of India during the last three decades.Linkage: It highlights India’s seismic vulnerability and the need for accurate hazard assessment. The revision of the earthquake zoning framework and adoption of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment strengthen disaster preparedness and risk mapping.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The rollback of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) revision of India’s earthquake zoning framework has revived debate over seismic risk assessment. The proposed revision sought to replace the simplified fixed seismic zoning model with probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, a method widely used globally. It also introduced a new high-risk Zone VI covering vulnerable regions such as Kashmir and the Himalayan belt. However, stricter zoning raised economic concerns, as construction costs could increase by about 20% with a one-zone rise and nearly one-third with two zones. 

    Why does India require a revised earthquake zoning framework?

    1. Urban Expansion and Risk Exposure: Rapid urbanisation increases population and infrastructure in seismically vulnerable areas. Large infrastructure such as metro systems, dams, highways, and power stations require updated seismic design standards.
    2. Disaster Preparedness: Accurate zoning enables safer city planning, infrastructure design, and disaster management strategies. It reduces casualties and economic losses during earthquakes.
    3. Climate and Disaster Resilience: Earthquake-resilient infrastructure contributes to broader climate-resilient development and sustainable cities.
    4. Infrastructure Protection: Critical infrastructure projects must incorporate seismic design standards to prevent catastrophic failure during earthquakes.

    What is the current earthquake zoning system in India?

    1. Fixed Zoning Model: India currently uses a simplified seismic zoning map, dividing the country into fixed categories based on historical seismic activity.
    2. Seismic Zones: India’s seismic classification includes Zones II, III, IV and V, with Zone V representing the highest risk areas.
    3. Limitations of Fixed Zoning: Fixed zones rely heavily on past earthquake records and may not fully capture future seismic probabilities or micro-level risk variations.
    4. Urban Planning Integration: These zones influence building codes, infrastructure design standards, and urban planning guidelines.

    What changes were proposed in the BIS revision?

    1. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA): Introduces probability-based simulations to estimate earthquake intensity and frequency rather than relying solely on historical data.
    2. Introduction of Zone VI: Adds a new highest-risk seismic zone, covering Kashmir, parts of the Himalayan belt, Kutch in Gujarat, and the northeast.
    3. Improved Risk Modelling: Uses dynamic modelling of ground motion probabilities to improve earthquake preparedness.
    4. Alignment with Global Practice: Aligns India’s seismic risk assessment methodology with advanced economies and seismically active regions worldwide.

    Why did the proposed revision face opposition?

    1. Economic Cost: Construction costs could rise significantly.
      1. One-zone increase: Costs may rise by around 20%.
      2. Two-zone increase: Costs may rise by nearly one-third.
    2. Infrastructure Cost Escalation: High-value projects such as metro systems, dams, and power stations may face substantially higher structural design costs.
    3. Development Concerns: Urban planners fear stricter zoning could slow infrastructure development in economically fragile regions.
    4. Housing Informality: Nearly 80% of India’s housing stock lies in the informal sector, raising concerns that stricter regulations may increase unregulated construction.

    What are the broader governance and policy challenges?

    1. Institutional Coordination: The proposal faced resistance from multiple agencies including Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Home Affairs, Central Water Commission, and National Dam Safety Authority.
    2. Policy Consultation Gap: Large regulatory changes require extensive consultation across government agencies, industry stakeholders, and technical experts.
    3. Balancing Safety and Affordability: Stricter building standards improve safety but increase construction costs and housing affordability pressures.
    4. Implementation Capacity: Enforcement challenges remain significant due to informal housing markets and limited regulatory capacity.

    How does the debate intersect with climate and sustainability goals?

    1. Construction Sector Emissions: The construction sector is among the largest dispersed sources of carbon emissions in India.
    2. Infrastructure Lifecycle: Seismic-resilient structures reduce the need for reconstruction after disasters, lowering long-term carbon and economic costs.
    3. Resilient Urban Development: Disaster-proof infrastructure supports climate adaptation strategies and sustainable urbanisation.

    Conclusion

    Revising India’s earthquake zoning framework remains essential for ensuring disaster-resilient urban growth and infrastructure safety. However, scientific improvements must be accompanied by broad institutional consultation, economic feasibility assessments, and strong implementation mechanisms. A balanced framework that integrates advanced risk modelling with practical governance capacity is critical for strengthening India’s long-term disaster resilience.

  • NDMA’s first ever guidelines for identification of disaster victims

    Why in the News

    The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has issued India’s first Standard Operating Procedures for Disaster Victim Identification. This comes after several recent mass fatality incidents such as the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad, the chemical factory explosion in Sanand, floods in Dharali, and the Balrampur earthquake.

    Earlier, India did not have a uniform national system to identify disaster victims. Identification was often ad hoc, poorly coordinated, and slow, causing logistical problems and long delays for families. The new guidelines shift India from fragmented local practices to a standardised, scientific, and dignity-based national framework for handling disaster victims.

    Why were Disaster Victim Identification Guidelines Needed?

    1. Absence of Standardisation: Lack of a national protocol resulted in inconsistent identification methods across States.
    2. Operational Gaps: Shortage of forensic experts, poor inter-agency coordination, and logistical constraints delayed identification.
    3. Humanitarian Deficit: Families faced prolonged uncertainty due to delayed or incorrect identification of remains.
    4. Rising Mass Fatality Events: Increase in industrial accidents, floods, fires, earthquakes, and aviation disasters heightened systemic risk.

    What is the Scope of the NDMA Guidelines?

    1. Applicability: Covers identification of victims in mass fatality incidents across natural and man-made disasters.
    2. Geographical Reach: Designed for uniform adoption across States, districts, and local administrations.
    3. Lifecycle Coverage: Extends from disaster site management to final handover of identified remains to families.

    What Forensic and Scientific Methods are Prescribed?

    1. Forensic Archaeology: Supports recovery and documentation of remains at disaster sites.
    2. Forensic Odontology: Enables identification through dental records.
    3. DNA Profiling: Facilitates identification when bodies are fragmented or decomposed.
    4. Anthropology and Pathology: Assists in age, sex, and injury profiling.
    5. Medical Records Integration: Enables cross-verification using antemortem data.

    How do the Guidelines Address Operational Challenges?

    1. Inter-Agency Coordination: Defines roles of police, forensic teams, health authorities, and district administration.
    2. Logistical Planning: Addresses gaps in storage, transport, and preservation of remains.
    3. Administrative Clarity: Reduces jurisdictional overlaps between local, State, and Central agencies.
    4. Capacity Constraints: Acknowledges shortage of forensic branches and specialists across States.

    How is Sensitivity Towards Victims’ Families Ensured?

    1. Cultural Sensitivity: Mandates respect for community customs during handling of remains.
    2. Counselling Support: Emphasises emotional support for affected families.
    3. Transparent Communication: Ensures timely and accurate dissemination of identification status.
    4. Dignified Handling: Treats victim identification as both a technical and humanitarian exercise.

    Who Drafted the Guidelines and How Were They Developed?

    1. Institutional Leadership: Drafted under NDMA’s Joint Advisor.
    2. Expert Committee: Included specialists in forensics, archaeology, odontology, and pathology.
    3. Learning from Past Disasters: Incorporated lessons from earthquakes, floods, industrial accidents, and aviation crashes.
    4. Consultative Process: Involved State governments and central agencies over multiple years.

    Conclusion

    The NDMA’s Disaster Victim Identification guidelines institutionalise scientific rigour, administrative clarity, and humanitarian ethics in post-disaster management. By standardising procedures nationwide, they strengthen disaster governance, enhance public trust, and ensure dignity and closure for affected families.

    PYQ Relevance 

    [UPSC 2018] Describe various measures taken in India for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) before and after signing ‘Sendai Framework for DRR (2015-2030)’. How is this framework different from ‘ Hyogo Framework for Action, 2005’?

    Linkage: The question relates to GS-III disaster management, highlighting India’s shift from relief-based response under Hyogo to risk reduction and institutional accountability under the Sendai Framework. Sendai embeds ethics in disaster governance by stressing human dignity, compassion, and state responsibility in disaster response.

  • Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) Guidelines 

    Why in the News?

    India has released its first ever national guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures for Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) to address long standing gaps in identifying victims of mass fatality disasters.

    What is Disaster Victim Identification (DVI)?

    • A scientific and systematic process to identify deceased persons in mass fatality incidents
    • Used in air crashes, earthquakes, floods, fires, industrial accidents and terror attacks
    • Ensures accurate identification and dignified handover of remains to families

    Organisations Involved

    • National Disaster Management Authority as nodal agency
    • National Forensic Sciences University for technical and drafting support
    • State police, health departments, forensic laboratories and emergency responders
    • Aligned with global best practices of Interpol DVI framework

    Aim of the Guidelines

    • Ensure accurate identification and legal certification of deaths
    • Create a uniform national protocol for mass fatality management
    • Integrate modern forensic science and digital tools into disaster response
    [2014] Consider the following statements: 1. Animal Welfare Board of India is established under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 

    2. National Tiger Conservation Authority is a statutory body. 

    3. National Ganga River Basin Authority is chaired by the Prime Minister. 

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? 

    (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 2 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • NDMA’s first ever guidelines for identification of disaster victims

    Why in the News

    The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has issued India’s first Standard Operating Procedures for Disaster Victim Identification. This comes after several recent mass fatality incidents such as the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad, the chemical factory explosion in Sanand, floods in Dharali, and the Balrampur earthquake.

    Earlier, India did not have a uniform national system to identify disaster victims. Identification was often ad hoc, poorly coordinated, and slow, causing logistical problems and long delays for families. The new guidelines shift India from fragmented local practices to a standardised, scientific, and dignity-based national framework for handling disaster victims.

    Why were Disaster Victim Identification Guidelines Needed?

    1. Absence of Standardisation: Lack of a national protocol resulted in inconsistent identification methods across States.
    2. Operational Gaps: Shortage of forensic experts, poor inter-agency coordination, and logistical constraints delayed identification.
    3. Humanitarian Deficit: Families faced prolonged uncertainty due to delayed or incorrect identification of remains.
    4. Rising Mass Fatality Events: Increase in industrial accidents, floods, fires, earthquakes, and aviation disasters heightened systemic risk.

    What is the Scope of the NDMA Guidelines?

    1. Applicability: Covers identification of victims in mass fatality incidents across natural and man-made disasters.
    2. Geographical Reach: Designed for uniform adoption across States, districts, and local administrations.
    3. Lifecycle Coverage: Extends from disaster site management to final handover of identified remains to families.

    What Forensic and Scientific Methods are Prescribed?

    1. Forensic Archaeology: Supports recovery and documentation of remains at disaster sites.
    2. Forensic Odontology: Enables identification through dental records.
    3. DNA Profiling: Facilitates identification when bodies are fragmented or decomposed.
    4. Anthropology and Pathology: Assists in age, sex, and injury profiling.
    5. Medical Records Integration: Enables cross-verification using antemortem data.

    How do the Guidelines Address Operational Challenges?

    1. Inter-Agency Coordination: Defines roles of police, forensic teams, health authorities, and district administration.
    2. Logistical Planning: Addresses gaps in storage, transport, and preservation of remains.
    3. Administrative Clarity: Reduces jurisdictional overlaps between local, State, and Central agencies.
    4. Capacity Constraints: Acknowledges shortage of forensic branches and specialists across States.

    How is Sensitivity Towards Victims’ Families Ensured?

    1. Cultural Sensitivity: Mandates respect for community customs during handling of remains.
    2. Counselling Support: Emphasises emotional support for affected families.
    3. Transparent Communication: Ensures timely and accurate dissemination of identification status.
    4. Dignified Handling: Treats victim identification as both a technical and humanitarian exercise.

    Who Drafted the Guidelines and How Were They Developed?

    1. Institutional Leadership: Drafted under NDMA’s Joint Advisor.
    2. Expert Committee: Included specialists in forensics, archaeology, odontology, and pathology.
    3. Learning from Past Disasters: Incorporated lessons from earthquakes, floods, industrial accidents, and aviation crashes.
    4. Consultative Process: Involved State governments and central agencies over multiple years.

    Conclusion

    The NDMA’s Disaster Victim Identification guidelines institutionalise scientific rigour, administrative clarity, and humanitarian ethics in post-disaster management. By standardising procedures nationwide, they strengthen disaster governance, enhance public trust, and ensure dignity and closure for affected families.

    PYQ Relevance 

    [UPSC 2018] Describe various measures taken in India for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) before and after signing ‘Sendai Framework for DRR (2015-2030)’. How is this framework different from ‘ Hyogo Framework for Action, 2005’?

    Linkage: The question relates to GS-III disaster management, highlighting India’s shift from relief-based response under Hyogo to risk reduction and institutional accountability under the Sendai Framework. Sendai embeds ethics in disaster governance by stressing human dignity, compassion, and state responsibility in disaster response.

  • Cyclones