Institutional arrangement for disaster risk management: Evidence from Pakistan

Abstract

In the last few decades, the cost of disaster has increased significantly in the world including Pakistan. Therefore, in order to reduce vulnerabilities and risks of hazards, more strategic and systematic efforts are needed at global and national levels. In 2005, the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) 2005-2015 played a fundamental role in initiating a strategic and systematic approach to build the resilience of nations and communities. The HFA Mid-Term Review (2013-15) report indicates the country’s weakness and inability to effectively implement the HFA Priorities for Actions. In this paper, we examine Pakistan’s progress in achieving the HFA goals, particularly goal-2, to make disaster risk management a national and local priority with strong institutional basis. This includes an analysis of the existing institutional arrangements and the efforts made to address the HFA Mid-Term gray areas. The study is undertaken through literature review and 20 in-depth interviews conducted with disaster management authorities at national, provincial, and district levels. The findings indicate that disaster management authorities suffer from jurisdictional overlap, duplication of responsibilities, lack of budgetary and non-budgetary resources, and coordination at all levels. The disaster related legal and policy instruments remain limited in enforceability. The dependency syndrome exists in all three tiers of institutional mechanism and mainstreaming of DRR into development is undervalued in many development projects.

Introduction

Managing disaster risk is considered the prime responsibility of the government. Thus, government needs the legal and policy-related instruments for setting up institutional arrangements in the country that can build the capacity of all social sectors to manage risks [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]]. National governments are expected to strengthen Disaster Risk Management (hereafter DRM) within the jurisdiction supported by effective institutional arrangements [6]. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) defines DRM as, “the systematic process of using administrative directives, organizations, operational skills and capacities to implement strategies, polices, and improved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impacts of hazards, and the possibility of disaster” [7]. Due to the large-scale disasters in the last few decades, the process of DRM has significantly diversified and evolved in terms of legal and institutional arrangements [8,9]. Many countries are continuously strengthening the national DRM systems based on the lessons learned from disasters within and outside their boundaries [[10], [11], [12]]. In this connection, the globally adopted framework for DRR; the Hyogo Framework for Action (hereafter HFA) 2005–2015 and the post-2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 played fundamental role in initiating a strategic and systematic approach to build the resilience of nations and communities. Particularly, the HFA strategic goal-2 notably underlines “the development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities at all levels, in particular at the community level that can systematically contribute to build resilience to hazards” and emphasizes on action for ensuring DRM as a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation [4]. Pakistan was among the members countries who endorsed and adopted the global framework for DRR on the second and third World Conference in Kobe and Sendai Japan [4,13]. It is among one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world which are exposed to both natural hazards including cyclones, droughts, earthquakes, floods, landslides, and human-induced hazards such as, transport and industrial accidents, civil conflicts, and urban and forest fires [14]. In addition, the Global Climate Risk Index ranks the country at 7 among 180 nations [15].

The empirical evidences from literature show that institutional arrangements at country level reduce human and economic losses from disasters [16,17]. Therefore, countries need to place DRM as a core element within the government structure with an adequate institutional basis [18]. Particularly, developing countries require to make DRM as the principle component of governance structure because many of them are incapacitated and lack administrative, organizational, financial, and political capacity to effectively deal with disasters. For instance, since 1980, the low-income countries have suffered only nine percent of the disasters but faced 48% of the fatalities [19]. Therefore, in developing countries, efficient and well-established institutions are needed for DRM which are more responsive, accountable, and transparent [20,21].

Institutional and legal arrangements for DRM is an iterative process across all sectors and levels to grapple the underlying derivers of risk [9]. Although, there is less consensus on the definition of the term institution, however, it commonly refers to things such as state, civil and traditional entities, and the underlying laws, values, rules, norms of behaviors and attitudes of a particular society [22,23]. In addition, the term is also synonymous to governance which refers to multitude of actors and processes that lead to collectively binding decisions or the structure and process by which communities or societies share power [24,25]. The HFA refers to institution as an instrument for action, and can include formal structures, roles, mandates, coordination, and accountability mechanism for risk reduction [4]. Research shows that some countries have successfully adopted and implemented DRM polices, while others are lagging. The major challenges and gaps in DRM framework are increasingly being regarded as the result of weak governance and lack of political will [26,27]. In addition, through legislation, new institutions are created or existing agencies are empowered by clarifying the mandate, roles, and allocation of more financial, technical and human resources [8]. Moreover, UN underlines that people and organizations need required capacities to withstand the effect of hazards [28]. The HFA Mid-Term Review (2011–2015) report highlighted the insufficient progress of several countries including Pakistan that lacked required technical, financial, and human resources [29].

Pakistan's HFA Mid-Term Review 2013-15 report acknowledged the Government commitments and efforts to achieve the strategic goals of HFA. Particularly, in attaining the strategic goal-2, the country enacted various legal instruments, formulated and implemented policies, and established dedicated institutions to build resilience to hazards at all levels. Particularly, the HFA Mid-Term Review 2013-15 report highlighted gaps specifically in attaining the HFA strategic goal-2 which include: (1) lack of capacity and resources at institutional levels; (2) the dependency syndrome of local institutions and communities on provincial and federal levels; and (3) lack of awareness among the institutions and communities to make risk reduction an integral part of sustainable development [30]. We acknowledge that research articles and reports have been published on Pakistan's DRM laws [31], polices and institutional arrangements [[32], [33], [34], [35]] and implementation progress [[36], [37], [38]]. However, these reports and research studies lacked to identify the constraints into achieving the goals of international commitment such as HFA. The objective of this research is to examine the Pakistan's current progress on addressing the afromentioned challenges identified in the HFA Mid-Term Review report 2013–15. The specific questions discoursed in this article include; what are the existing human, technical, and financial capacities at the three tiers of disaster governance; what measures taken for strengthening of institutions at national, provincial and regional levels; how the existing DRM institutional structure minimizes the dependency of local institutions; how the institutional arrangements contribute to raise awareness at local institutions and communities' level in building resilience to hazards; and the institutional steps taken to mainstream risk reduction into development.

The legislative and institutional arrangements process of disaster have evolved over the years, and these legal instruments and institutional arrangements have been shaped and influenced by shifts in disaster paradigm characterized by a constellation of values, assumptions, methods, and exemplars shared by vulnerable communities [39]. Due to the rise of enlightenment secularism, and development of science as a new source of knowledge, the perception regarding disaster is being transformed from Act of God to Act of Nature [40]. Many countries in the world have long focused on disaster management but have neglected the risk reduction dimension of disaster. However, in recent years, both developed and developing economies have invested enormous resources in making DRM a national and local priority [9,[41], [42], [43]]. For this purpose, the national governments in different parts of the world enacted laws, formulated policies, and created agencies at national and subnational levels for strengthening the DRM framework [44]. These legislations and policies initiatives provide the basic legal mandate and foundation to pursue the DRM mechanism. Therefore, legal instrument is considered as the most overarching statement upon which the formation of all other DRM policies, plans, and decisions are based.

In the last few decades, countries around the globe have made efforts for placing institutional mechanism for DRM. Particularly in Asia and Pacific regions, after 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, most of the affected countries strengthened the legal and institutional mechanism for DRM within the jurisdiction. Majority of the enacted legal instruments paved the way for the creation of a national or central agency for comprehensive planning and institutional arrangements at central and sub-national level [45]. For instance, China's first formalized Disaster Reduction Plan of the People's Republic of China (1998–2010) was a key policy document to develop the disaster framework in the country. The Act aimed to highlight the principles of strengthening international exchange and cooperation in China's disaster reduction work. Under the plan, National Disaster Reduction center was established for information sharing, technical services, and emergency relief decision consultancy [42,46,47]. In Japan the Disaster Countermeasure Basic Act 1961, enacted after a mega disaster in Nagoya in 1959, is considered as the turning point in the history of modern disaster management system in the country [48]. After 9/11, the establishment of Department of Homeland Security in 2002 and catastrophic hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 developed the disaster management policies and practices in the United States [45]. In India, the High Powered Committee on disaster management in 1999 and the Disaster Management Act 2005 constitute the core of legal and institutional framework from shifting the disaster management from activity-based reactive approach to proactive institutionalized structure [49]. The Disaster Management Act, of 2005 provides the legal basis for overall disaster management in Sri Lanka. Under the Act, the Ministry of Disaster Management and Disaster Management center for implementation of directives of the disaster plan were established (MoDM, 2005). The Thailand Civil Defense Act in 2005, the Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act 2007, and National Mitigation Plan in 2010–2014 enacted the preventive, proactive, participatory, and sustainable approaches for disaster management [50]. In 2007, the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Concerning Disaster Management served as a road map for creating DRM institutions, mechanism, and capacities in the country. In Kyrgyzstan, the Decree of Protection of Population and Territory from Natural and Manmade Emergency (2000), by the President of Kyrgyz Republic, extended and strengthened the disaster framework in the country. The Decree issued by the President of Kazakhstan in 2004 aimed to prevent disasters in the territory of the republic. In Vietnam, The Ordinance on Flood and Storm Control in 1993 and National DRM Strategy 2007 are the key policy documents that made considerable progress to integrate DRM in national and local planning framework [51]. The Philippine Disaster Risk Management and Reduction Act 2010 superseded the pervious legal and institutional arrangements for DRM in the country and marked a shift in disaster management policy, and enacted the law which translates the country's commitment to the HFA [52,53]. The National Calamity Act 1982, and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act 2007 in Nepal promulgated the capacity building and formation of functional institutions at national and local levels [26]. The Cyclone Nargis disaster 2008 catalyzed the disaster management policy in Myanmar to reassert their commitment to the HFA and strengthen the existing institutional arrangements at national level [45,54].

In Pakistan, prior to the passing of National Disaster Management Ordinance 2006, emergency response remained the predominant approach to deal with disaster [14,55]. The overall disaster management revolved around flood disaster with the prime focus on rescue and relief operations. Disasters were dealt under the Calamity Act of 1958 [14], while the Civil Defence, Pakistan meteorological department and Federal Flood Commission were the central agencies for responding to disaster. In the aftermath of 1970 cyclone in the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), Emergency Relief Cell (ERC) was created as the focal point for emergencies at the federal level with relief commissioners at provincial level. In July 1999, National Crises Management Cell (NCMC) was created under the Anti-Terrorist Act 1997, as the main coordinating and information gathering body for relief plans and services in emergency situations. Until 2006, DRM remained one of the least priority areas for the government. Therefore, the country lacked inclusive and coherent legal and institutional arrangements to address the issues of vulnerability and risks reduction on a long-term basis [56,57]. The disastrous earthquake of 2005—which hit the capital, northern parts, and Azad and Jammu Kashmir (AJK)—marked a policy shift in the disaster and emergency management system in the country [55]. The enactment of National Disaster Management Ordinance (NDMO) in 2006 which was later superseded by National Disaster Management Act 2010, was the foundation for introduction of modern institutional framework for disaster management in the country [32]. The National Disaster Risk Management Framework (NDRFM) was the only document which for the first time introduced a national framework for DRM by involving different ministries at federal level to provide strategic guidance for the entire system of DRM in the country [14].

The NDRFM identified nine priority areas for five years plan that include: the establishment of institutional and legal arrangements; national hazard and vulnerability assessment; training, education and awareness; promotion of disaster risk management planning; community and local level risk reduction programming; multi-hazard early warning system; mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development; emergency response system; and capacity development for post disaster recovery. Under the NDMA Act 2010, a three-tier hierarchical disaster management institutional structure was proposed in the country. At the first tier, under the chairmanship of Prime Minister, the National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC) was constituted as the apex policy decision making body while other members include leaders of opposition of both houses, chief ministers of all provinces, Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) for Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), finance, defence, foreign affairs, interior, health and communication ministries at federal level, Prime Minister Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK), Chief Executive Gilgit-Baltistan and representatives from civil society appointed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. NDMC has the mandate to formulate policies, lay down guidelines for federal and provincial disaster authorities, approve plans prepared by ministries/divisions, arrange and oversee the provision for risk mitigation, preparedness and response, and to take all other necessary measures for prevention of disaster or risk mitigation or preparedness and capacity building. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) headed by Director General was constituted to serve as a focal agency for coordination, implementation, and monitoring of disaster management strategies in the country. NDMA also serves as the secretariat of NDMC, and as the main body for providing technical assistance to provincial authorities. The Provincial Disaster Management Commission (PDMC) chaired by Chief Minister was constituted in each province at the second tier of institutional structure. PDMC has the mandate to lay down the provincial/regional policy for disaster management, approval and review of disaster plans, and oversee the provision of fund. A Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) headed by Director General was formed in each province as the executive arm of PDMC. The PDMA is responsible to formulate provincial disaster management policy, give directions to provincial government on financial matters on disaster, coordinate and ensure the implementation of plan at province level, to evaluate the preparedness plans of all government levels and other stakeholders for effective response and better preparedness, monitoring of hazards, assessment of risks and vulnerability in the province and, provide strategic guidelines to lower authorities on disaster management. At the third tier, the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) was proposed to be established by provincial government headed by the district chief (district nazim). The DDMA has the responsibility to formulate district disaster plans, its implementation, coordination with the key stakeholders, and give directions to other departments and authorities to take necessary measures for prevention and mitigation. At the lower tier of institutional structure, the town nazim, Tehsil nazim and union council serve as the front-line organizations to respond to disasters. They were responsible to lead the disaster management initiatives in consultation with DDMA [14]. In 2012, due to the specific needs of the KP province, the provincial government made an amendment in the NDM Act 2010 known as NDM (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Amendment Act 2012. Under the act, the provincial government made changes in the name and structure of DDMA. The DDMA is named District Disaster Management Unit (DDMU) and the office barriers include Executive Engineer from Communication and Works department and Executive District Education officer from district Education Department. Under the NDMA Act 2010 the National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) was proposed to be established for strengthening the institutional capacities through trainings of government officials and other stakeholders. In 2010 the establishment of National Disaster Response Plan (NDRP) was a major initiative to address the gray areas in disaster management mechanism at all levels; particularly strengthening of the response mechanism, and identifying the roles and responsibilities of response institutions and actors [58,59].

The disaster management system was made more effective and efficient in 2012 under the National Disaster Management Plan (hereafter NDMP) with the assistance of Japan International Cooperation Agency. The NDMP was formulated in line with HFA priorities areas and envisaged to adopt forty-one strategies, and one hundred and eighteen priorities actions/programs. The main objective of the NDMP was to manage the entire spectrum of disaster for the next ten years (2012–2022). The NDMP aims to place mechanism for response and recovery phases of disaster by developing risk reduction polices, strategies, and actions for relevant stakeholders at all levels. The NDMP emphasizes on enhancing of institutional capacities at all levels, and focuses on effective mitigation, prevention and preparedness mechanism in the country [60,61]. In the aftermath of 18th constitutional amendment, the disaster management became a provincial subject and all the provinces were responsible to manage disaster in their own capacity [32]. In addition, a network of response institutions in different capacities are operating in the country at federal and provincial levels with opaque mandate. In addition, the disaster management policies are implemented on ad hoc basis and the situation is further exacerbated by lack of political commitment, regulative and legislative gaps, institutional weaknesses including lack of capacity and clarity in mandates, overambitious plans and limited coordination among the agencies/departments at center and provincial levels [31,32,34,36,62,63].