National Disaster Management Act, 2010 of Pakistan: A Review

Limitation of NDM Act, 2010 of Pakistan

        As discussed above, till 2006, all disaster situations in Pakistan were dealt with a reactive approach, i.e., calamity act 1958 till the promulgation of the national disaster management Act 2010 in the aftermath of the Kashmir earthquake 2005 in Pakistan. In contrast, Hyogo Framework for Action was adopted in Jan 2005. Next to above, it appears that this Act was ratified to overcome the deficiencies in the previous legislation related to disasters and provide an integrated system of disaster management at the national level. Yet, the aim stated on the Act’s cover page is “to provide an effective disaster management system in the country.”

        After carrying out the document’s detailed study, several shortfalls have been observed in the Act. First of all, the Act’s objectives are not specified, which means that actions required to achieve the aim are not defined. Furthermore, while going through the definitions (Section 2) in the definition of disaster (Section 2b), the use of terms human-made and accidental side by side is mere repetition. An occurrence in any spectrum is attributable to either natural or human-made causes; hence the use of the word “accidental” can only be termed as the reiteration of an already stated reason. Likewise, to declare a happening as a disaster, it is important to quantify how exceeding limits would classify the occurrence as a disaster. Therefore, using the word “substantial” needs to be substituted with appropriate expressions that could provoke the initiation of actions by concerned agencies to undertake a certain course of action. 

        The Act appears to be reactive in nature while going through the definition of disaster management (Section 2c), which states that “Managing the complete disaster spectrum, including preparedness; response; recovery and rehabilitation; and reconstruction” suggesting that the Act responds both in proactive and reactive mode to the disasters.  

        The definition of disaster management (Section 2c) is also void of prevention and mitigation measures (Disaster Risk Reduction measures) which are essential elements of the disaster management cycle. As per United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, mitigation measures are defined as “The lessening or limitation of the adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters,” but in Section 6e, the stated power of NDMC is “arrange for, and oversee, the provision of funds for mitigation measures, preparedness, and response” which is an indirect reference of disaster Risk Reduction measures. However, in Act, the term mitigation mentions the actions taken to avoid a secondary disaster.

        UNISDR defines prevention as ‘the outright avoidance of adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters’. Whereas in the National Plan (Section10 a, b, c), slight mention of the term is given as “integration of mitigation measures in the development plans”; “preparedness and capacity building to effectively respond to any threatening disaster situation or disaster,” mentioning the proactive and corrective approaches in the national plan.(7)

        The provincial authorities are empowered (Section 16 c). Moreover, concrete disaster risk reduction measures are mentioned in local authority functions (Section 25 1c). Next to the above two clauses of the Act provides a complete spectrum of disaster risk management dealing with proactive and reactive approaches.  

        While reviewing disaster risk management and focusing on term management in isolation, it can be defined as “coordinated efforts of people to accomplish set goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively.” Hence, effectiveness is achieved by the formulation of laws, policies, and implementation. Whereas efficiency is related to the use of resources in terms of finances, material, efforts, and time during the implementation phase.

        The fact was identified in the global review (8) deliberately; thus, it can be argued that dedicated availability and efficient usage of resources play effects the plan. Although the disaster management funds at both the national level (Section 29) and provincial levels (Section 30) have been recommended, there is no fund dedicated at the district level. Moreover, there is no allocation of the dedicated amount in the annual budget disaster management activities.

        Accountability plays a significant role in achieving effectiveness and efficiency, whereas Section 43 bars the judiciary to question the Act’s actions. Officials have been indemnified from accountability for their actions taken in good faith (Section 44), resulting in interpersonal or organizational workplace deviances (9).

        The inefficient and disorganized management of the 2010 floods exposed the disaster managers’ serious negative deviant behavior at the helm of affairs. Such behaviors and organizational failures were also witnessed during the disaster management of the 2005 earthquake when there was no legislation regarding disaster risk management.

        Comparing the management of various disasters by the disaster managers before the 2005 earthquake and after the 2007 Cyclone Yemyin,the2010 Hunza Lake disaster, the 2010 floods, the Karachi garment factory fire 2012, the Lahore LDA building fire 2013, and most recently, the Awaran earthquake 2013, and the promulgation of NDM Act of Pakistan 2010, it can be argued that actually nothing has improved in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of disaster risk management measures. Moreover, following flaws were observed by the judicial commission set up by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aftermath of the 2010 floods (10).

• NDMA had not fulfilled its obligations for the pre-disaster phase.
•  NDMA did not follow the PDMAs and DDMAs to accomplish their assigned tasks and roles.
• NDMA did not report its failure of accomplishing its assigned tasks and roles to the National Commission or the Parliament.
• The absence of early modern warning and forecasting systems was identified as a grey area in the disaster risk reduction policies and practices marked.
• Lack of a well-defined strategic plan at the national level, which had to establish a framework for the Provincial level plans, exposed the ad hoc approach prevailing in the disaster management authorities (5).

Discussion

Public and private organizations miserably fail to ensure coordinated effort while responding to disasters in the country. Furthermore, overlapping roles and responsibilities of various government institutions have induced a downward pull on the overall, increasing the affected people’s sufferings To evade responsibility, all the governments have done in the past have referred to disasters as “Act of God” and “punishment for wrongful deeds of people” (11). The belief is evident that Pakistan’s government is often focused on post-disaster activities, i.e., search, rescue, food distribution, provision of shelters, and monetary compensation. In Pakistan, most of the educated class, government functionaries, and policy makers were not versed with the term disaster management, especially terms and practices related to the pre-disaster phase, i.e., prevention, mitigation, and preparedness.

        The effectiveness of the first legislation, i.e., the national disaster management ordinance in 2006, was tested in 2010 floods, which exposed government organizations’ inefficient and disorderly response (12). These governments were not only marred with minor interpersonal and organizational deviant workplace behaviors, e.g., showing favoritism, resource waste, and sluggish working but also infested with serious deviant workplace behaviors, e.g., stealing, corruption, accepting kickbacks, and criminal negligence.

        Although the laws about disaster risk reduction in Pakistan are developed by integrating best practices of international standards, plans, and deliberate consultation with different stakeholders, i.e., international agencies related to DRR, UN agencies, NGOs, and various public and private organizations. However, the inability and reluctance are visible by the government machinery dealing with disaster risk management. Promulgation of laws, development of strategies, policies, and plans are among the first steps, yet to maintain the balance, effective and efficient implementation of these laws, policies, and plans is mandatory. 

        Various techniques can be adopted for effective and integrated DRR, and DRM approaches in Pakistan, as follows:

• Creating awareness community, government functionaries, and policymakers
• Capacity building of communities and institutions 
• Amendments in the present laws, policies, and plans
• Supplementing the role of civil society

Recommendations

        Laws are prepared for a specific environment and a given time frame to regulate people’s actions, but both the elements’ environment and time are not constant. Thus, laws must be reviewed and amended from time to time to maintain their effectiveness. Following recommendations can provide a stage for the future course of action.

• Formulation and addition of well-defined objectives to ‘Section 1’ should be done.
• In ‘Section 2’

-              The term “disaster” should be redefined to remove duplication of similar terms, i.e., ‘man-made’ and ‘accidental’.

-              The stated definition of “disaster management” should focus on the reactive approach, and it must be revised to add the element of prevention and mitigation from the DRR point of view.

-              The definitions of hazards, prevention, and mitigation should be added.

• Chapters focusing on disaster prevention and prevention plans must be added.
• Tehsil and town level are the lowest tiers of administrative authorities having direct interaction with communities. Deliberate plans, roles, and responsibilities should be formulated for these tiers.
• All the action under this Act must be made accountable in some court of law to attain efficiency and effectiveness in real sense.
• Clauses regarding early warning and forecasting should be reviewed for modern systems.
• Special recourse allocation of all tiers should be done in annual budgets.
• To achieve integrated and coordinated efforts, overlapping responsibilities about various institutions be addressed, and effective communication plans be formulated.
• Special emphasis should be given to increase community awareness, especially the policy makers and those who play a vital role in the implementation phase of DRR and DRM.

Conclusion

As Pakistan is a high-risk state concerning disasters, promulgated laws and articulated strategies, policies, and plans must be performed to adopt the best DRR practices from international standards and policies. However, due to economic constraints, corruption, and lack of political will, these policies and plans’ effectiveness becomes ambiguous. Finally, it can be induced that despite preemptive DRR policies, the implementation phase is focused on a reactive approach in Pakistan, resultantly creating a critical imbalance and increasing the suffering of the disaster-affected people.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Funding source

No funding source was allocated to this study.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Authors' contribution

All authors contributed to this project and article equally. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.