Journal of Global Resources

Volume 4 (01)January 2018
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print), 2455-2445 (Online)

Page 12-17

02
EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY MANAGEMENT FOR LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT AND
COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Sanjay Agarwal1 Tukaram U Fulzele2 and Garima Aggarwal3
1Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, India

Email: agarwalsanjay117@gmail.com
2

Professor, School of Management Studies,
Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, India
Email: tufulzele@ignou.ac.in
3

Project Associate, UNDP, Disaster Management Division,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, India
Email: agg.garima@gmail.com

Abstract: The disasters not only cause loss of lives, property, and livelihood but also reverse theprogress achieved by the community. The problem gets compounded when reduction of old risks
and avoidance of new risks are not addressed effectively during recovery. An earthquake, becauseof its magnitude and occurrence in large area, causes setback to the entire development. Hence,
it is essential that risk reduction shall be integrated with all the phases of disaster management
including recovery for building community resilience. This paper analyses the issue in light of theearthquake recovery projects and processes adopted in a few countries as well as in India andinvestigate the prospective role of disaster recovery management as a tool for long-term
development and community resilience. The study is based on the data collected from secondary
sources. The paper concludes that all development activities should be disaster resilient leading
to sustainable change in the lives of the community.
Keywords: Earthquake, Recovery Management, Risk Reduction, Community Resilience
Introduction
Earthquakes normally occur on and around fault lines, which could result in structural
damage, loss of human lives and destruction of infrastructure and property. The degree of risk
depends upon the magnitude of earthquake, its location, depth of epicentre, size of population
residing nearby, type of built-in environment and capacity of community to cope up with thesituation. More than 90 percent of disaster deaths take place in developing countries and over 70
percent of these in Asia alone (GoI 2007). Although economic loss in absolute terms has been
higher in the developed world, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) loss has been much higher indeveloping countries (UNISDR 2002). Indian sub-continent is amongst the world’s one of the mostearthquake prone areas. Geologists predispose approximately 60 percent of the country’s area toearthquake risk, out of which, 12 percent of the land, consisting of Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
North-Eastern states, parts of north-western Bihar, eastern sections of Uttaranchal, Kangra in
Himachal Pradesh, Srinagar area in Jammu & Kashmir and the Rann of Kutch in Gujarat, isconsidered as most vulnerable to earthquakes (GoI 2011). The major earthquakes in India in thelast 100 years are summarized in Table 1. The communities, impacted with large-scale disasters
like earthquake could not bounce back to normal and had to be dependent upon external aid formeeting their day to day needs. They further slipped into long-term poverty and deprivation due toloss of their livelihood and houses.

12

Table 1: Major Earthquakes in India (1905-2015)#

Year ofOccurrence

Location/Affected Areas

Magnitude

Deaths1

2015 (April 25)

Nepal/Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar
Pradesh, Delhi

7.9

79(India)2

2011 (Sep. 18)

Gangtok, Sikkim

6.9

7,860

3

2005 (October 8)

Kashmir

7.6

1309

4

2004 (Dec. 26)

Sumatara/ Coastal areas of Tamil
Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala

9.3

16,3895

2001 (January 26)

Kutch, Gujarat

7.7

20,005

6

1999 (March 29)

Chamoli, Uttarakhand

6.8

100

7

1997 (May 22)

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

6.0

56

8

1993 (Sep. 30)

Latur, Maharashtra

6.3

9,748

9

1991(October 20)

Uttarkashi ,Uttarakhand

6.6

2,000

10

1988 (August 21)

Bihar-Nepal Border

6.4

382

11

1975 (January 19)

Himachal Pradesh

6.2

47

12

1950 (August 15)

Arunachal Pradesh

8.5

1500

13

1934 (January, 15)

Bihar

8.3

6000

14

1905 (April 4)

Kangra, Himachal Pradesh

8.0

20,000Source: Compiled from GoI 2011, EM-DAT (www.emdat.be); IMD (www.imd.gov.in)This paper is an attempt to develop a conceptual understanding of recovery as a tool forcommunity resilience, followed by reviewing selected reconstruction programs and recovery
initiatives taken by the various countries including India. The authors collected information/ datafrom government agencies and secondary sources to analyze the issue. The study helps tounderstand the significance of recovery in building capability of the communities to withstand, adapt
and to recover from the natural disasters smoothly so that people are less impacted and continue
to lead their lives normally. The paper also suggests a broad recovery framework for reducing
disaster risk.
Significance of Recovery
The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) defines recovery as‘decisions and actions aimed at restoring or improving livelihoods, health, as well as economic,
physical, social, cultural and environmental assets, systems and activities of a disaster-affected
community or society, aligning with the principles of sustainable development, including build backbetter to avoid or reduce future disaster risks’ (UNISDR 2015). It is apparent from the definition thatthe recovery could be termed as valuable opportunity to improve living conditions and implement
disaster risk reduction measures. It is an important component of risk reduction strategy andprevents the affected community from descending into the situation of scarcity. In India, althougha holistic and integrated approach to disaster management has been adopted, it isperceived that recovery has not received adequate attention at the level of policy,
processes, financial allocations and programs. While the Disaster Management Act, 2005
mandates the government to carry out reconstruction activities, it does not explicitly refer‘recovery’ as a component of a disaster management strategy. The National Policy on
Disaster Management 2009 distinguishes ‘recovery’ as one of the six elements within thedisaster management continuum where it is linked to physical, social and economic assets
within the overall context of ‘safe development’ (GoI 2009). Government of India (GoI) in13

2016 has formulated a National Disaster Management Plan, which elucidates significanceof ‘Recovery and Build-Back-Better’ (GoI 2016). However, specific guidelines on recovery
at local level are yet to be developed.
Recovery Practices
Worldwide, studies on post-disaster reconstruction programs highlight issues related to delay in
beginning of recovery, funding for reconstruction, relocation of the earthquake affected community
and timely restoration of services. The other set of challenges in reconstruction are coordinationand communication among the agencies involved, technical experts, mobilization of equipment andresources in reconstruction (Johnson 2007). Reconstruction program in Sri Lanka, highlighted
competence issues in field staff due to lack of relevant experience or training to manage large andcomplex projects (Koria 2009). The experience in Aceh Indonesia and Tafren in Sri Lanka
suggested that the reconstruction needs to be coordinated effectively (Hidayat & Egbu 2010).
After the 1st World Conference of Disaster Reduction (WCDR) 1994, disaster risk reduction
strategies became essential ingredients and Hyogo Framework of Action 2005-2015 andsubsequently, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 were accepted by the
Nations in the 2nd and 3rd WCDR held in 2005 and 2015 respectively. These frameworks seek topromote an effective integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies andrecovery planning (www.unisdr.org). The International Recovery Platform (IRP) along with UNDP,
developed Guidance Notes on Recovery on various sectors namely Shelter, Infrastructure, Gender,
Livelihood, Environment, Governance, Climate Change, Health and Psycho-social support. Thishas collection of the successes and failures of past experiences in disaster recovery (GoI 2011).
Few experiences of recovery related initiatives in India and at the global level given in the
succeeding paragraphs are useful in devising future strategy for recovery management.
Government of Maharashtra undertook one of the largest post-disaster recovery projects
after an earthquake of 6.3 M occurred in Latur. The earthquake caused loss of 9,748 lives, 16,000
injuries and over a million people were rendered homeless. The project targeted to relocate 27,000
houses situated in 52 most-affected villages and strengthening of 200,000 houses spread over
40,000 sq. kms. The project focused on enhancement of structural safety of the buildings andcapability of the government to respond efficiently to future disasters (Greene et al 2000). Similarly,
Gujarat Earthquake Reconstruction Program was implemented by the Government of Gujarat
immediately after the earthquake of 7.7 M, occurred on 26 January 2001 in Kutch. It posed
enormous challenges due to its magnitude, intensity and geographical spread for rescue, relief andrehabilitation. Almost 20,005 human lives were lost, about 167,000 persons were injured and overa million houses were damaged and destroyed (EM DAT). The recovery program was designed toaddress the needs of the affected people through build-back-better approach by active participationof the community (Mishra P.K, 2012).
A field study was conducted by UNDP in Assam (Floods), Gujarat (Kutch Earthquake 2001)
and Odisha (Super Cyclone 1999) to analyze recovery measures implemented on ground and tolist out common issues and gaps in recovery management and lessons learned from different
disasters in India. The study emphasized upon the need for strategic guidance to various
stakeholders for a disaster recovery management framework. The study also supports need ofcommunity participation in all the stages of recovery planning and rebuilding, which was the key tosuccess of Gujarat Earthquake Reconstruction and Recovery Program (Agarwal et al 2016).
Another study on Jammu & Kashmir Floods, 2013 (Agarwal et al 2014) highlighted the issues andgaps identified during response and recovery period of flood disaster and recommended thatrecovery management planning as an apt solution for meeting these gaps and to ensure longlasting community resilience.
The Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA), USA developed a National
Disaster Recovery Framework in 2011 to promote effective recovery, particularly for large-scaledisasters. The framework provides a flexible structure that enables disaster recovery managers tooperate in a unified and collaborative manner. It also focuses on how best to restore, redevelop
and revitalize the health, social, economic, natural and environmental fabric of the community andbuild a more resilient nation (FEMA 2011). New Zealand Ministry of Civil Defense and14

Emergency Management (CDEM) developed a holistic framework for recovery in 2005. It aims toincrease the capability of local authorities, CDEM Group and government agencies to undertake
short, medium and long-term recovery activities, enabling a timely and effective response to therecovery of affected communities (Mesurier et al 2006).
After the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, the Government issued a basic policy andregulation framework for recovery and reconstruction. The planning included the land-use andpopulation relocation strategies. The policy recommends developing a shared vision for recovery
that recognizes local, cultural and life values; planning for resilient recovery; necessity for a
dedicated reconstruction agency; participatory methods which integrates the views of experts;
improve spatial planning which is an opportunity given by mega disasters; balancing of safety andlivelihood of the affected population; and open and transparent information sharing (IRP 2012). The
Wenchuan Earthquake, 2008 in China Sichuan Province had the total 43 million affected people,
out of which 15 million people were evacuated and temporarily resettled. The development based
reconstruction was started by balancing short-term recovery and long-term reconstruction (IRP2010).
Findings
From the above studies, it is pertinent that countries are largely relying upon recovery programs
designed after the disaster except USA and New Zealand who have already developed recovery
frameworks for their respective countries to facilitate long-term community resilience. In India,
although there is a policy consensus to ‘build-back-better’ during recovery, on ground there areseveral challenges which are still unattended.
The specific recommendations from the review are: firstly, there is a need to arrange fordedicated resources for comprehensive recovery planning which shall focus on capacity building,damage and loss assessment in social & economic sectors and integration of risk reduction
measures in development planning.
Secondly, it is essential to put in place an effective institutional mechanism at national andstate level which can execute short-term, medium term and long-term measures in post-disaster
scenarios. This will facilitate instant execution of disaster recovery program without exhausting
crucial time and post-disaster recovery planning. Insurance of houses, properties and assets is
another area which needs to be promoted at all the levels of the communities and government so
as to reduce financial burden on public funds.
Thirdly, it is suggested that a framework for Earthquake Recovery Management should be
developed beforehand and executed at the need of hour. It is necessary to develop this frameworkin advance for its success in the long-term, especially to prevent poverty and deprivation and toensure sustainable development for all disaster affected people, as well as to reduce any futurerisks by enabling community resilience.
Framework for Recovery Management
The recovery framework has instrumental role in developing resilient communities by ensuring longterm protection to physical and social gains of the people and their livelihoods. Recovery is not only
a set of orderly actions triggered by the impact of a disaster upon a community but also consist of
several related activities such as damage assessment, restoration of public utilities, temporary
housing, demolition, reconstruction, integration of disaster risk reduction measures into various
development activities, financial management, economic impact assessment (GoI 2016). Though
it is important to understand the community needs arising from a disaster, yet recovery framework
should be formulated beforehand. The framework should aim to provide guidance to plan andimplement post-disaster recovery in order to reduce future risks and ensure long-term sustainability(Agarwal 2014 et al). The suggestive features of a recovery framework are given in Table 2.

15

#
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Table 2: Essential Features of a Recovery Framework
Features
Tasks at Normal time
Damage & Needs• Design and development of questionnaire/formats.
Assessment to understand• Identification of professionals to undertake the task.
the actual losses and needs• Training of the assessment team.
to the people.
• Collection of actual information of people and theirassets.
Recovery Centre: Pool of• Identification of experts/disaster managers from various
experts from diverse areas tofields such as engineering, community leaders, financeassist in special tasks during& accounts, communication technology etc.
recovery phase.
• Pre-contract with the experts/concerned agencies to use
their services during the need of hour.
Inclusion of Innovative ways
• Mainstreaming of risk reduction measures infor sustainable risk reduction,
development programs, retrofitting of buildings,
damage assessment,
promotingearthquake-resistant
structures,
risk
communication and decisiontransfer/insurance, community awareness, training,making.
mock drills and response planning.
• Use of Information and Communication Technology fordissemination of warning through Emergency
Operations Centers.
• Setting up decision support system by integrating
Geographic Information System and remote sensing
based models.
• Monitoring & Evaluation through social audits.
Partnerships for coordination• Identification of concerned organizations.
between non-governmental• Delineation of their roles in early recovery, restoration oforganizations, international
services and livelihoods and relocation activity.
agencies, private sector and• Agreement
betweenstate
governmentandcommunity.
organizations.
Institutional setup for long• Identification of roles and responsibilities of recovery
term implementation ofmanagers.
recovery program.
• Constitutionofprogrammanagement
units,
implementation units and taskforces.
• Identification of team of experts, staff and leaders.
Financial mechanism: The• Identification of public funds such as state plan funds,
framework shall provide
National Disaster Response Fund, flexi-funds forsources of funding fordisaster mitigation and special funds announced by therecovery.
Government.
• Identification of non-governmental sources such asexternal aids, NGOs, communities, private sector andother potential sources.

The framework for recovery management should be developed on community based
approach which should be able to improve capacity of community to manage future risks along withsustainable livelihood opportunities. The framework could be divided in three paradigms; firstly,
recovery of housing and physical assets; secondly, recovery of basic services which includes
education, health, transport and communication, water supply and electricity; and thirdly, recovery
of livelihoods and production levels in the sectors of agriculture, livelihood, fishery, forestry,
industry, trade and commerce, mining and tourism.
Conclusion
Recovery phase after a disaster provides several mitigation and development opportunities that
may not be possible in normal conditions. If properly utilized, these opportunities can in return,improve the effectiveness of recovery and increase the coping capacity of the community towithstand possible future hazards. The present paper advocates the development of a framework
for recovery management to execute recovery programs in an effective way. The framework should
provide a gateway to practice built-back-better approach that combines risk reduction, mitigation,16

needs assessment and sustainable livelihoods through well-defined institutional and financial
mechanism. The framework not only enables early mobilization of resources but also presentsmooth transition from relief to reconstruction stage to long-term development.
References
Agarwal, S, Fulzele, T.U., & Aggarwal, G. (2014), Flood Recovery Management in Jammu &Kashmir: A Tool for Resilience, Asian Journal of Environment & Disaster Management,
Research Publishing, ISSN: 1793-9259, Volume 6.
Agarwal, S, Fulzele, T.U., & Aggarwal, G. (2016), Learning from Community on Recovery
Management in the Aftermath of Gujarat Earthquake, Disaster Response & Management
Journal, Centre for Disaster Management, LBSNAA, Vol. 4, Issue-I, ISSN: 2347-2553, by
LBSNAA, Uttrakhand, India, Dec. 2016.
ADPC (2015), Current PDNA Practices in India and the Rest of the World, Asian Disaster
Preparedness Center, New Delhi.
EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, University Catholique de Louvain,
Brussels (Belgium), www.emdat.be.
FEMA (2011), National Disaster Recovery Framework: Strengthening Disaster Recovery for
Nation, Federal Emergency Management Association, USA
Government of India (GoI) (2007), National Disaster Management Guidelines, Management ofEarthquakes, National Disaster Management Authority, New Delhi.
GoI (2009), National Policy on Disaster Management, National Disaster Management Authority,
New Delhi.
GoI(2011), Disaster Management in India, Ministry of Home Affairs-United Nations Development
Program, New Delhi.
GoI (2016), National Disaster Management Plan, National Disaster Management Auth., New Delhi.
Greene, M., Godavitarne, C., Krimgold, F., Brezev, S.N., & Pantelic, J. (2000), Overview of theMaharashtra, India Emergency Earthquake Rehabilitation Program, 12 WCEE.
Hidayat, B. and Egbu, C (2010), A Literature Review of the Role of Project Management in Post –Disaster Reconstruction, 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, Leeds, UK.
International Recovery Platform (2010), Wenchuan Earthquake 2008: Recovery andReconstruction in Sichuan Province, Kobe.
International Recovery Platform (2012), Guidance Notes on Recovery, Kobe, Japan,
IRP, Kobe University and World Bank (2012), Knowledge Note 4-2 Cluster 4: Recovery Planning,
Reconstruction Policy and Planning, Japan.
Johnson, C. (2007), Strategic Planning for Post-Disaster Temporary Housing, Disasters, 31(4),435-459.
Koria, M (2009), Managing for Innovation in Large and Complex Recovery Programmes: Tsunami
Lesson Learned from Sri Lanka, International Journal of Project Management, 27: 123-130.
Mesurier, J.L., Rotimi, J.O., & Wilkinson, S. (2006), A Comparison between Routine Construction
and Post-Disaster Reconstruction with Case Studies from New Zealand.
Ministry of Civil Defense and Emergency Management (2005), Focus on Recovery: A Holistic
Framework for Recovery in New Zealand, Information for the CDEM Sector.
Mishra P.K., The Kutch Earthquake, 2001- Recollections, Lessons and Insights, National Instituteof Disaster Management, New Delhi, 2012.
UNISDR (2015), Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations International
Development Strategy for Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland.
United Nations Development program India (2015), Draft Report on the Field Study Conducted in
Assam, Gujarat and Odisha on Disaster Recovery, New Delhi (Unpublished).
Websites referred• http://www.ndmindia.nic.in• http://www.undp.org.in• http://www.unisdr.org• http://www.ndma.nic.in• http://www.preventionweb.net• http://www.imd.gov.in• http://www.emdat.be17