CHAPTER- 4: PREPAREDNESS
19 | Page PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF
Natural Disaster in Uttarakhand, June 2013 Response, Relief Restoration of the Damaged Infrastructure of Immediate Nature
after 2008 due to shortage of staff and the position in respect of meetings held by the DDMAs could not be substantiated with the information provided by the respective district administrations.
4.2 Mainstreaming Disaster Management into developmental plans
National Policy on Disaster Management NPDM advocates that in order to bring about a paradigm shift from the relief centric approach to one covering prevention, preparedness and
mitigation, efforts would be made towards mainstreaming prevention and mitigation measures into the developmental plans and programmes by enlisting cooperation from all the stakeholders.
Audit scrutiny of records in the test-checked districts showed that i the line departments had not made any budgetary provision for mainstreaming disaster mitigation process into their respective
development plans; and ii the departments had also not made any effort in encouraging convergence of different departmental schemes with both the Central and the State schemes and
programmes with a view to promote ecologically sustainable development. On being pointed out, the Department replied that the aspect of building of disaster mitigation in the development
process has not found place in the central plans as well as in the plans of other States. The reply of the Department is not reasonable as the State of Uttarakhand is more prone to disasters as
compared to other States. Therefore, efforts to factor in different aspects of disaster mitigation in the developmental process by way of providing adequate provisions and taking up different
schemes under the ambit of convergence, should have been accorded priority.
4.3 Hazard Safety Cell
The NPDM lays down the provision for safe construction practices in order to minimise the impact of hazards that is caused by inadequately designed and badly constructed buildings during
disasters like earthquakes and landslides. The State Government had established a Hazard Safety Cell May 2005 to ensure compliance of building by-laws and safe construction practices and
provide technical support to the State Government in carrying out retroitting of lifeline buildings and systems.
Besides, planned intervention for disaster risk reduction was to be also given attention. Audit scrutiny showed that in the absence of any budget provisions, the Hazard Safety Cell was no longer
in existence. There was no formal process for regularly reviewing and deciding which hazards the State should prepare for facing as warranted by the Act. It could also not be established whether
any assessment had been made regarding the level of preparedness of the State. Thus, the State was unprepared to meet exigencies posed by dangerous or dangerously located structures in the
event of a large-scale emergency, particularly like the one witnessed in June 2013. Further, in the
CHAPTER- 4: PREPAREDNESS
20 | Page PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF
Natural Disaster in Uttarakhand, June 2013 Response, Relief Restoration of the Damaged Infrastructure of Immediate Nature
absence of hazard safety units in the test-checked districts, the threats posed by structures which were hazardous to public or could aggravate potentially the effects of a disaster, had not been
demolished till date. On being pointed out, the DDMA assured that necessary action would be
taken. In the exit conference and subsequent replies, the Government stated that after the enactment of
the Act, the functions of the HSC are being taken care of by the SDMA and the DDMAs. The reply of the Government is not acceptable as the same could not be substantiated with the information
provided by the Department.
4.4 Standard Operating Procedures SOPs
