This paper reviews, compares, and analyzes the legal and institutional frameworks of the Disaster Management (DM) systems in India and Nigeria. This research aims to study the effectiveness and efficacy of the DM systems in both countries to identify the strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations for enhancing the current systems. The study initially provides a comprehensive introduction of Indian and Nigerian DM systems, including the countries' disaster profiles and the current DM policies and institutional frameworks, then compares them from various perspectives to identify the similarities, differences, common challenges, and lessons learned. An intense documentary survey of relevant literature is applied in this study to obtain data and information. The study finds that India, by developing better legal and institutional frameworks, creates a more effective DM system than Nigeria in terms of the integration and prioritization of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) efforts, community participation and coordination, and collaboration mechanisms. The research also discovers that both nations struggle to mobilize, manage, and utilize DM funds due to a lack of transparency in funding sources, particularly at the state and local/district levels. The findings also show that both countries’ DM systems are mainly focused on natural disasters, with little emphasis provided on effective preventative and regulatory measures to deal with the risks and consequences of man-made hazards. The paper concludes that due to administrative and financial issues, none of the two countries achieved total success in capacity building activities.

本文回顾、比较和分析了印度和尼日利亚灾害管理 (DM) 系统的法律和制度框架。本研究旨在研究两国 DM 系统的有效性和效力，以确定优势和劣势，并为加强当前系统提出建议。该研究首先全面介绍了印度和尼日利亚的 DM 系统，包括这些国家的灾害概况和当前的 DM 政策和制度框架，然后从各个角度比较它们，以确定相似之处、差异、共同挑战和经验教训。本研究对相关文献进行了密集的文献调查，以获取数据和信息。研究发现，印度通过制定更好的法律和制度框架，在减少灾害风险 (DRR) 工作的整合和优先排序、社区参与和协调以及协作机制方面，创建了比尼日利亚更有效的 DM 系统。研究还发现，由于资金来源缺乏透明度，特别是在州和地方/地区层面，两国都在努力动员、管理和利用 DM 资金。调查结果还表明，两国的灾害管理体系主要侧重于自然灾害，很少强调有效的预防和监管措施来应对人为灾害的风险和后果。该文件的结论是，由于行政和财政问题，两国都没有在能力建设活动中取得完全成功。