India rushing to Nepal’s aid hours after the devastating earthquake in the Himalayan nation should leave no doubt about the agility of our disaster response system. However, are we showing the same foresight and preparedness when it comes to the pre-emptive aspects of disaster management, that is, mitigating the possibility of loss of life and property, given nearly 57% of the country’s area falls under high seismic zone classification? In Delhi, which has a seismic threat classification of Zone 4—any quake here carries a “high damage risk”—only 14.3% schools in the Southeast district are quake-proof, as per a report by The Indian Express. Similarly, Gurgaon, also with a Zone 4 classification, sits on seven fault lines. Yet, of the city’s estimated 1,000 high-rises, a large proportion aren’t quake-resistant.
India’s problem perhaps is that there is scant recognition of the need for pre-emptive measures to minimise the impact of disasters. The little that India has in terms of regulating construction for quake-proofing—the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) norms on earthquake engineering (IS 1893:1984, 4326: 1993, 13935:2009 and a few others)—is poorly enforced, as is evident from the examples of Gurgaon and Delhi. While very few buildings across the country meet the BIS’s Criteria on Earthquake Resistant Design, the standards themselves need to be revised, with the last update having happened in 2009. Further, by often being at odds with the country’s development needs, measures to mitigate the impact of potential disasters have also been a tricky issue for policy makers. For instance, in
Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, the Bhagirathi Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) hangs fire, thanks to its master-plan greatly limiting the state government’s plans for infrastructure expansion and setting up hydel power projects in the region. Uttarkashi is part of the fragile Himalayan ecosystem, which is why the ESZ is an absolute necessity, but it could come at the cost of the region’s economic health if the planned infrastructure and power projects were to be shelved.
Despite warnings from USAID in 2013 on the need to have up-to-date building codes, Nepal moved very slowly on implementing at the municipality-level a building code adopted by its central government a decade ago—that too, when the country sits squarely on the intersection of two tectonic plates, India and Eurasia. For India, preparedness will have to begin with the updating of construction norms for quake-proofing. Then, inspection of all construction, old and new, must be made a priority to check for adherence. In old buildings, measures to address vulnerability, such as retro-fitting with steel structures, have to be implemented compulsorily. Lessening the potential damage, as much as responding to a disaster, needs to be part of India’s disaster management strategy.
For Updates Check Editorials and Columns; follow us on Facebook and Twitter