Jammu & Kashmir Floods: Dr. Peter Patels draft report Summary and Key Recommendations 1.0 People of Jammu and Kashmir this September witnessed one of the most disastrous flood in their region. Figures for people and villages affected vary according to various reports. However, there is no doubt that around 2 million people have been affected by this disaster, 2600 villages are affected in Jammu (1000 villages) and Kashmir and 390 villages were completely submerged. A great part of Srinagar was transformed into a huge lake. Many parts of Srinagar had over 20 feet of water with between 1 to 2 floors of buildings under water for several days. Like any other natural calamity, majority of vital roads were submerged, communication, transport and health services were paralysed. 1.1 In this visit a limited assessment could be made from visit to Srinagar from 4th to 7th November. This is not meant to be a comprehensive report. Most of the evidence has been gathered by visual review of Srinagar, listening to local residents, media reports and information provided by Department of Health. A review of the City confirmed that most of the city areas were submerged under water. The river Jhelum spilled over submerging Sonwar, Rajbagh, Jawahar Nagar, Gogji Bagh and Wazir Bagh neighbourhoods of city. The first and the second storey of the houses and hotels in Rajbagh that were packed with tourists were submerged. Not surprisingly, all 4 major hospitals in Srinagar were badly affected by the floods and Kashmir Mirror reported that all these hospitals were mostly paralysed with large parts of their ground floors under water. There was huge loss and damage to expensive equipment and complete loss of functionality for weeks. Recommendation 1: Undertake a full independent review of Business Continuity Plans of the 4 Srinagar hospitals. Independent review panel should particularly consider whether there was a Business Continuity or Crisis Management plan. If there was such a plan in place then consideration should be given to: 1. Who was responsible for implementing this plan? 2. Was the plan deliverable and effective? What functions were affected by the September 2014 floods and what was contingency plan to ensure quick restoration of these functions? 3. What went right and what went wrong. 4. How many staff were trained and what resources were in place to implement the plan? 5. What lessons can be learnt from this disaster and what steps will be taken to mitigate damage in future from similar disasters. 2.0 Srinagar has a flood spill channel which was constructed in 1904 to relieve the strain on the Jhelum in the City of Srinagar. It is supposed to take 2/3rd of the total flow in the river and was designed to help river Jhelum to regulate its water levels while passing through the City of Srinagar. There is clear evidence that this flood channel is no longer fit for purpose, badly maintained and poorly dredged. Recommendation 2: Serious review should be taken on restoring functionality of the flood spill channel. Visual evidence suggests that this channel and parts of Jhelum river has become dumping ground for building material, and commercial and domestic waste. Significant part of the waste is non-biological and non-degradable enabling solidification at the bottom of the river and the channel. Along with this there are building/construction encroachments along the shores. Major efforts should be made to manage these effectively to ensure future risk mitigation from floods. There is a lot of learning for Disaster Management Leads from this flood. We are not sure if the following areas (see below) were taken into consideration and if yes, why were they not effective. Mitigation or Risk Mitigation - steps taken to control, reduce adverse effects or prevent a hazard from causing harm and to reduce risk to a tolerable or acceptable. There are four types of risk mitigation strategies that hold unique to Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery. It’s important to develop a strategy that closely relates to and matches your regional administration and economic profile. Risk Acceptance: Risk acceptance may not reduce any effects in many cases but in all cases will allow an assessment of the risks, potential harm and damage and enable planning to reduce level of harm, morbidity or mortality. Natural disasters are those where we have to accept unpredictable risks, however there should still be a strategy to mitigate from such disasters. Total risk acceptance as it is done in commercial world is not an option for any government or organisation dealing with disaster management. Risk Avoidance: Opposite of risk acceptance. Actions that avoids any exposure to the risk whatsoever. Risk Limitation: Usually should be used along with risk avoidance and in many cases it is impossible to have 100% risk avoidance. Risk Transference: Risk transference is the involvement of handing risk off to a third party. Usually, a local or state government will use this strategy by passing transferring the handling of risks to Central government or a special central unit such as National Disaster Management Centre. To read the complete draft report, please visit: justicekatju.blogspot.in/2014/11/jammu-kashmir-floods-dr-peter-patels.html
Posted on: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:18:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015