Post Disaster Needs Assessment in India Current Practices and Future Recommendations

A report prepared for the India PDNA Study Project to describe the findings of an analysis of the current practices of conducting post-disaster needs assessments in India in comparison to prevailing practices elsewhere in the world.

Document Quality Information

General information Author(s) ADPC PDNA Project Team ( Team Leader : Roberto Jovel) Document name Post Disaster Needs Assessment in India: Current Practices and Future Recommendations Date 17 February 2015 Version Ver 3.0

Submission Status Project Implementation Unit (PIU) Sent to: National Cyclone Risk Management Project (NCRMP ) National Institute of Disaster Management, India

Date 17 February 2015 (Ver. 3) , 10 March 2015 (Ver. 4)

Review Process

Approved by the Technical Steering Committee on 30 th March, 2015

The PDNA Project Team Mr. Roberto Jovel Team Leader & PDNA Expert Mr. Aslam Perwaiz Project Manager & Governance/ Planning Expert Dr. Mohinder S. Mudahar Agriculture Expert Dr. Asha Kambon Social Development Expert & Gender Expert Dr. Peeranan Towashiraporn Engineering Expert Dr. Md. Habibur Rahman Economic Analyst/Livelihood Expert Ms. Thitiphon Sinsupan Environmental Expert Mr. Emmanuel C. Torrente Training, Capacity Building and Evaluation Expert Mr. Bill Ho System Analyst/MIS Expert/IT Expert

Disclaimer

This document is developed based on the inputs received during various consultative meetings, state visits, individual interviews, and the literature review by the PDNA India Consultants. Any discrepancies are unintended. Care has been taken in factual descriptions and data sources. The document remains open for any corrections in facts, figures and visuals.

CONTENTS

Document Quality Information 2 Acronyms 4 Introduction of the Report 5 1. Current International Methodologies for Assessing Disaster Impact 6 1.1: Historical Development of Assessment Methodology 6 1.2: Scope of Current International Methodology for Disaster Impact Assessment 13 1.3: Other International Methodologies for Disaster-Related Assessments 16 2. Analysis of existing practices for Post-Disaster Needs Assessment 19 2.1: Introduction 19 2.2: Existing Disaster Assessment Regulations 21 2.3: Current Disaster Assessment Procedures 23 2.4: SWOT Analysis of Existing Disaster Assessment Scope and Procedures 26 2.5: Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations 34 Annexes 37 Annex- 1: State Field Visit Report 37 Annex-2: Relevant Data Collected from States 37 Annex-3: Chart depicting damage assessment procedure in India 37

Acronyms

ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Center ASSOCHAM Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India CDRN Corporate Disaster Resource Network CII Chamber of India Industry (Confederation of Indian Industries) CRC Central Review Committee CSO Central Statistical Organization CWC Central Water Commission DaLA Damage and Loss Assessment DDMA District Disaster Management Authority DES Directorates of Economics and Statistics DM act Disaster Management Act DRR Disaster Risk Reduction FC Finance Commission FCI Finance Commission of India FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency (USA) FICCI Federation of India Chamber of Commerce and Industry GAR Global Assessment Report GSDMA Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery GIDM Gujarat Institute of Disaster Management GIS Geographical Information System GOI Government of India GSDP Gross State Domestic Product GSI Geological Survey of India HAZUS Hazard in the USA HVS Higher Vulnerability States IDA International Development Association (World Bank Group) IDD International Disaster Database IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis IMD Indian Meteorological Department IT Information Technology LVS Lower Vulnerability States MHA Ministry of Home Affairs MOA Ministry of Agriculture NCRMP National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project NDMA National Disaster Management Authority NDRF National Disaster Response Funds NHRA Natural Hazards Risk Atlas NIBS National Institute of Building Sciences NIDM National Institute Of Disaster Management NSSO National Sample Survey Organization OM Operations Manual PC Planning Commission PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment PIU Project Implementation Unit POC Project Oversight Committee PONJA Post-Nargis Joint Needs Assessment PSC Project Steering Committee RC Relief Commissioner RF Relief Memorandum SATI State Administrative Training Institute SDMA State Disaster Management Authority SDMC SAARC Disaster Management Centre SDRF State Disaster Response Funds SNA System of National Accounts SOP Standard Operating Procedure ToT Trainers of Trainers TSC Technical Steering Committee UH User’s Handbook UN-ECLAC United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction UT Union Territory

Introduction of the Report

As part of the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, conducted under the National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP), an analysis has been made of prevailing practices for post-disaster needs assessment – in terms of their scope and suitability to estimate post-disaster needs for recovery and reconstruction – in 10 selected, disaster- prone States of India, together with a comparison with similar practices prevailing elsewhere in the world at the present time.

An examination is made of current practices for the purpose in other developing countries of the world, on the basis of an analysis of many recent case studies of disaster impact and needs assessment in most of which the India PDNA Project Team members have been directly involved. Subsequently, a review is made of current assessment practices prevailing in India, for which visits were undertaken to the selected, disaster States included in the India PDNA project. A comparison between these current practices in India and the rest of the world is made through a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis, which will provide the basis for improving the existing system in India.

The Annexes provide details on the information gathered and exchanges held with State officials during the field visits undertaken by the ADPC Team experts.

1. Current International Methodologies for Assessing Disaster Impact

1.1: Historical Development of Assessment Methodology

Due to the relatively infrequent occurrence of disasters, their social and economic impacts were not often assessed by the middle of the twentieth Century. Whenever disasters occurred, governments would make an estimation of the cost of reconstruction based solely in the value of destroyed physical assets, mostly buildings, roads, bridges, etcetera. Little if any attention was paid at that time to the social and human development impacts caused by disasters and the recovery costs to achieve normalcy after such events.

In 1965, however, in view of the increased occurrence of major disasters in the world, a decision was adopted at the General Assembly to increase the UN's ability to help people stricken by disasters. In 1971, the General Assembly established the Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator (UNDRO), with headquarters in Geneva, in view of the magnitude and extent of the disasters that occurred in 1970 (See list below) which brought about international concern for the provision of assistance to the affected population.

Date Location Disaster Effects January 5, Yunnan, China 7.7 MS earthquake 15,600 deaths 1970 May 31, 1970 Ancash, Peru 7.7 MS earthquake 67,000 deaths, 50,000 injured, 186,000 buildings destroyed November 13, Bangladesh 120-mph cyclone About 500,000 deaths and 1970 widespread destruction

While UNDRO was not intended to assume all the responsibilities of meeting disasters from its own resources, its main function was that of catalyst and coordinator of donors of aid and services. UNDRO had the capacity to define the specific assistance needs arising from a disaster and to respond rapidly by identifying and mobilizing potential sources of relief. UNDRO's mandate also included assisting governments in preventing disasters or mitigating their effects by contingency planning, in association with similarly concerned voluntary organizations. It promoted the study, prevention, control, and prediction of natural disasters and gathered and disseminated information relevant to disaster relief.

Furthermore UNDRO defined the general conceptual framework for assessing disaster effects and impacts. In 1979 it published a volume of its series on current knowledge on disaster prevention and mitigation entitled Economic Aspects that outlined the definitions of disaster damage, indirect losses and macroeconomic or secondary impact. 1

After the Christmas earthquake that devastated the capital of Nicaragua in 1972, the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (UN-ECLAC) undertook the first-ever full assessment of disaster impact that comprised not only the value of destroyed assets but an estimation of changes in economic flows (indirect production losses) for the affected Central

1 Office of the UN Coordinator of Disaster Relief (UNDRO), Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Compendium of Current Knowledge; Volume 7, Economic Aspects , United Nations, Geneva and New York, 1979.

American economy, and assisted the Nicaraguan Government in preparing a plan for economic recovery and reconstruction. Subsequent similar assessment of other major disasters in the Latin America and Caribbean region enabled UN-ECLAC to develop a standard methodology to comprehensively estimate the socio-economic impact of disasters, which was first published in 1991 with support from the Government of Italy.2 This methodology, which was informally called DaLA methodology, enabled the assessment of direct and indirect disaster effects across all sectors of economic and social activity and provided a basis for estimating macro-economic impact (or secondary effects) of disasters of every kind, and provided inputs for formulating economic recovery and reconstruction plans.

During the 1990s UN-ECLAC, in cooperation with other United Nations agencies with which it had joint units or with which it had established close working relations – such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UN-HABITAT, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and others – further developed and expanded the methodology to include the analysis of disaster impact on the environment, and applied it in a relatively large number of disaster cases that occurred in the Latin America and Caribbean region, assisting many of its member States in defining post-disaster recovery and reconstruction programs. This resulted in an expanded and updated version of the methodology that was published in 2003 with the support of the Government of The Netherlands and the World Bank.3

In 2001, after the Gujarat earthquake in India, the World Bank and other international agencies assisted in the assessment of disaster impact, in which the UN-ECLAC methodology was partially applied for the purpose of defining recovery and reconstruction requirements and plans.4

Through the auspices of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) the ECLAC methodology was disseminated in the Asian region. A technical assistance project financed by the World Bank and executed by ADPC enabled the methodology to be adapted and transferred to the State of Gujarat, India, in 2004-2005, in which the Gujarat State Disaster Management Agency (GSDMA) was the official government counterpart. The methodology was also used to estimate the economic impact of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic that occurred in Singapore in 2003 5. The impact of the Indian Ocean earthquake and Tsunami that affected Indonesia,6 Thailand,7 India,8 Sri Lanka 9, and the

2 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Handbook for Estimating the Socio-Economic Effects of Natural Disasters , United Nations, Santiago, Chile, 1991. 3 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Handbook for Estimating the Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects of Disasters , United Nations, Santiago and Mexico, 2003. 4 See India, Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Program Assessment Report , World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB), 14 March 2001. 5 See Jovel, Roberto , Estimation of the Economic Impact of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in Singapore , Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), Bangkok, 2005. 6 See Indonesia, Preliminary Damage and Loss Assessment, the December 26, 2004 Natural Disaster , World Bank, Jakarta, 19 January 2005. 7 See Jovel, Roberto, The Economic Impact of the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Thailand , Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), Bangkok, August 2005. 8 See India, Post-Tsunami Recovery Program; Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment , Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations and World Bank, 8 March 2005.

Maldives Islands 10 was also estimated using the ECLAC methodology. A comparative analysis of the socio-economic impact of the Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami in the five affected countries was made by the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) to highlight commonalities and differences among the countries,11 and to foster recovery.

When the World Bank established the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) in 2006, a decision was taken – after an in-depth analysis of existing assessment methodologies had been conducted – to adopt the UN-ECLAC methodology for disaster impact and post-disaster needs assessment, and efforts were made to further refine it to include the analysis of impact at the personal or household levels and to standardize the quantitative estimation of recovery and reconstruction financial requirements across all sectors of social and economic activity, and additional procedures were designed to enable the estimation of personal and household income decline arising from sectorial production losses after disasters. Recovery needs were to be systematically estimated to ensure restoration of personal income, availability of minimum levels of basic services (including education, health and nutrition, transport, water and sanitation, electricity, etcetera), and the very important recovery of production levels (in agriculture, livestock, fishery, manufacturing, commerce, tourism, mining, etcetera). Reconstruction requirements would be estimated on the basis of the cost of rebuilding destroyed assets with inclusion of disaster-resilient standards to reduce disaster risk.

The GFDRR produced a set of Guidance Notes for the application of the expanded UN- ECLAC methodology that now enabled the estimation of not only the value of destroyed assets and of the changes in production flows of goods and services, but the overall macro- economic impact and the preliminary estimation of disaster impact on personal or household levels of income and costs of living. 12 In addition, more than 800 World Bank staff and more than 1,500 government officials from disaster-prone developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean were trained on the application of the expanded methodology.

Simultaneously, the GFDRR – in cooperation with the United Nations System and the European Union (EU) – was assisting many national governments located all over the world in estimating disaster impacts and the financial requirements for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. Utilizing the information obtained since 1972 in the assessment of disaster effects and impact through the application of the methodology, a damage-and-loss database was established at GFDRR that provides all existing information on those cases of disaster. The database provides information on the value of destroyed goods and production decline caused by disasters in each affected sector of economic and social activity, as defined in the world-wide system of national accounts.

9 See Sri Lanka Post-Tsunami Recovery Program; Preliminary Damage and Needs Estimation , Asian Development Bank (ADB), Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and World Bank, Colombo, January 2005. 10 See Republic of the Maldives, Tsunami: Impact and Recovery, Joint Needs Assessment , World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), and United Nations, February 2005. 11 See Jovel, Roberto, Regional Analysis of Socio-Economic Impacts of the December 2004 Earthquake and Indian Ocean Tsunami , Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), Bangkok, January 2006. 12 See Jovel, Roberto, Mudahar, Mohinder, et al, Guidance Notes for Damage, Loss and Needs Assessments , 3 Volumes, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2010 (Available in English, French and Spanish).

Table 1. Estimation of Damage and Losses Caused by Disasters in Asia (2000 to 201 3) (Inflation adjusted to 2010) Million US Dollars Year Disaster Location and Country Total Damage Losses Disasters of Geological Origin 2001 Earthquake Gujarat, India 3,522.9 2,694.7 828.2 2004 Earthquake & Tsunami Indonesia 5,115.3 3,357.4 1,758.0 2004 Tsunami India 1,406.4 660.7 745.7 2004 Tsunami Sri Lanka 1,670.6 1,314.5 356.2 2004 Tsunami Maldives Islands 692.8 517.1 175.8 2004 Tsunami Thailand 2,526.7 584.8 1,941.8 2005 Earthquake Kashmir, Pakistan 3,194.5 2,549.6 644.9 2006 Earthquake Yogyakarta, Indonesia 3,375.7 2,636.6 739.1 2009 Earthquake West Java, Indonesia 212.3 202.8 9.5 2009 Earthquake West Sumatra, Indonesia 2,293.0 2,060.0 233.0 2010 Volcanic Eruption Mt. Merapi, Indonesia 469.6 126.5 343.1 Disasters of Hydro -Meteorological Origin 2007 Cyclone Sidr Bangladesh 1,751.9 1,211.3 540.6 2007 Floods in Jakarta Indonesia 601.8 205.2 396.6 2008 Cyclone Nargis Myanmar 4,101.8 1,773.3 2,328.5 2009 Typhoon Ketsana Lao PDR 58.1 41.9 16.1 2009 Typhoon Ketsana Cambodia 133.4 58.7 74.7 2009 Typhoons Ketsana & Parma Philippines 4,429.3 1,467.1 2,962.2 2010 Floods Sri Lanka 50.6 23.4 27.2 2010 Floods Pakistan 10,056.1 6,496.2 3,560.0 2011 Floods Thailand 44,247.4 19,565.5 24,681.9

In the Asia region, many cases of disasters were analyzed taking advantage of the methodology since 2001 13 . Table 1 summarizes the estimated total values of damage and losses in the disasters that were assessed using the expanded UN-ECLAC methodology. 14 Data is available in each of those cases of disaster in a dis-aggregated fashion, for each and all of the standard sectors of economic and social activity as defined in the worldwide system of national accounts, which fact enables comparisons between disasters in different countries.

Table 2 provides information on the sectorial dis-aggregation for the estimation of disaster effects (damage and production losses) that is followed in the expanded UN-ECLAC methodology, for one of the cases of disaster analyzed in Asia. The same pattern is followed in all assessments that are included in Table 1, which allows for comparisons between disasters at any given location and time of occurrence.

13 It needs to be pointed out that the originally-envisaged list of assessed disasters to be analyzed, as shown in the ADPC- NIDM contract of services, is shorter than the number of cases actually analyzed for this study, and that the ADPC project experts participated directly in the assessment of all but two of the cases so that they have a thorough knowledge of their scope, limitations and accuracy of results. 14 Needless to say, not all disasters that have occurred in the Asia region have been assessed using the UN-ECLAC methodology. Those shown in the table are the few ones that occurred in the Asian developing countries that have requested such type of assessment to be implemented.

Table 2. Detailed estimation of disaster effects after 2009 Typhoons in the Philippines

Million US Dollars Total Damage Losses Social Housing 730.40 541.60 188.80 Health 123.80 105.50 18.30 Education & Culture 64.90 59.50 5.40 Infrastructure Electricity 33.90 15.20 18.70 Water & Sanitation 24.30 7.90 16.40 Flood-control works 15.30 15.30 Transport 159.90 138.70 21.20 Communications 4.10 4.10 Public Administration 7.20 6.30 0.90 Productive Agriculture 849.30 80.10 769.20 Manufacture 403.30 209.20 194.10 Trade 1,900.60 256.20 1,644.40 Tourism 66.30 12.30 54.00 Total 4,383.30 1,451.90 2,931.40

The data included in Table 1 can be best understood or visualized when some comparators are used: first, the significance of a disaster may be observed when the value of damage and production losses is compared to the size of the affected country´s economy; second, a comparison can also be made of the value of destroyed assets (or damage) with the value of fixed gross capital formation (GFKF) of the affected country, to provide a measure of the domestic capacity to rebuild after the disaster; third, the value of production losses may be compared to the value of the country´s gross domestic product (GDP) to provide a first indication of whether overall economic growth may be affected; and fourth, the value of per capita damage and losses yields a first idea of the possible impact at personal level. Table 3 shows the values of such comparators for the disasters included in Table 1.

Table 3. Selected comparators for disaster effects in Asia 2001 to 2013

Disaster Effects/GDP , Disaster Losses/GDP , % % 2004 Tsunami Maldives Islands 87.1 2004 Tsunami Maldives Islands 22.1 2012 Thailand Floods 13.6 2011 Thailand Floods 7.6 2008 Myanmar Cyclone 13.0 2008 Myanmar Cyclone 7.4 2004 Tsunami Sri Lanka 7.7 2010 Pakistan Floods 2.2 2010 Pakistan Floods 6.2 2009 Philippines Typhoons 1.8 2005 Kashmir Earthquake 2.9 2004 Tsunami Sri Lanka 1.6 2007 Bangladesh Cyclone 2.7 2007 Bangladesh Cyclone 0.8 2009 Philippines Typhoons 2.6 2004 Earthquake/Tsunami Aceh 0.7 2004 Earthquake/Tsunami Aceh 1.9 2009 Cambodia Typhoon 0.7 2004 Tsunami Thailand 1.5 2005 Kashmir Earthquake 0.6 Disaster Damage/ GFKF, Disaster Effects/Person, % US$ 2004 Tsunami Maldives Islands 239.4 2004 Tsunami Maldives Islands 2,309 2004 Tsunami Sri Lanka 28.0 2011 Thailand Floods 666 2010 Pakistan Floods 25.2 2004 Tsunami Sri Lanka 85 2011 Thailand Floods 24.8 2008 Myanmar Cyclone 83 2005 Kashmir Earthquake 14.0 2010 Pakistan Floods 59 2007 Bangladesh Cyclone 7.1 2009 Philippines Typhoons 48 2009 Philippines Typhoons 5.7 2004 Tsunami Thailand 39 2004 Earthquake/Tsunami Aceh 4.9 2004 Earthquake/Tsunami Aceh 24 2006 Yogyakarta Earthquake 3.4 2005 Pakistan Earthquake 20 2009 Cambodia Typhoon 3.3 2006 Yogyakarta Earthquake 15

From the above information it is possible to infer that the most significant disaster included in the assessments conducted in the Asia region was that of the 2004 tsunami in the Maldives Islands since the combined value of damage and losses represented 87 per cent of the value of the country´s gross domestic product, followed at a distance by the 2012 Thailand floods (13.6 per cent of GDP) and the 2008 Myanmar cyclone (13 per cent), while the magnitude of the 2004 earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia – while causing over 200,000 deaths – only represented less than 2 per cent of the country´s gross domestic product 15 . A very similar statement may be made in relation to disaster impact on production (comparing production losses versus GDP).

In addition to the above, it may be noted that when comparing the value of damage or destroyed assets vis a vis the national capacity of constructing fixed capital, the most significant disaster was, again, that of the 2004 tsunami in the Maldives Islands (239.4 per cent), which is a reflection of the degree that the country´s capacity for building fixed capital was to be engaged for post-disaster reconstruction. Putting it into different words, this ratio or comparator provides an insight into the kind of efforts ant time required for reconstruction. Next in the descending scale of this comparator were the disasters caused by the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka (28 per cent), the 2010 Pakistan floods and the 2011 Thailand floods (about 25% each). At the bottom of the scale are the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake and the 2009 Cambodia typhoon, where damage was equivalent to about 3.5 per cent of the respective countries´ annual rate of gross fixed capital formation (GFKF).

In average per capita terms, the most significant disaster was that of the 2004 tsunami in the Maldives Islands (US$ 2,300 per person), followed by the 2011 Thailand floods (US$ 666/person). The 2009 Philippines typhoons caused per capita damage and losses in the order of US$ 50 per person, and in the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake this figure was of US$ 15.

The above comparisons are of importance since it can be seen that the disaster that has caused the highest value of damage and losses – i.e. the 2011 Thailand floods with 44.5 billion US Dollars in disaster effects – compares similarly to the 2004 tsunami in the Maldives Islands whose value of disaster effects is only about 1.5 per cent. Worse yet, the value of per capita disaster effects in the Maldives is nearly four times that of the Thailand floods. Such results are of course due to the differences in relative size of the two affected economies, and provide a measure of the intensity of disaster effects.

In the case of India, many large scale and minor disasters have occurred in the relatively recent past. They include: earthquakes in Latur (1993), Chamoli (1999), Gujarat (2001), Jammu and Kashmir (2005), and Sikkim (2011); flooding caused by the Andhra and Orissa cyclones (1991 and 1997), Odisha cyclone (1999), Assam (2002), Bihar (2004 and 2008), Mumbai (2009), cyclone Aila in West Bengal (2009) and many others; droughts such as the one faced by Karnataka (2011) and in other States. In each case the respective State authorities, in some cases assisted by Central Government authorities, conducted relief needs assessments (whose results were presented in the respective relief memoranda); in

15 It is to be noted that the above percentage figures are used to indicate the magnitude of the damage and losses caused by disasters in comparison to the size of the disaster-affected economy. These numbers are not to be confused with the possible temporary slowdown of GDP growth that may arise, until recovery programs are put in place.

the case of selected very large scale disasters, such as the Gujarat earthquake in 2001, more comprehensive assessments of disaster impact and post-disaster needs were conducted with assistance from international organizations.

In more recent years, at least three damage and needs assessments have been conducted with assistance from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations after the Bihar floods in 2008 16 , the floods in Uttarakhand 17 and Cyclone Phailin in Odisha State 18 , both in 2013. While these assessments went beyond estimating relief stage requirements, the assessment methodologies that were used did not enable to obtain the value of production losses across the affected sectors, nor were all sectors of social and economic activity covered; furthermore, the data collected did not enable to estimate the macro-economic and personal-level impact of such disasters except in the case of the 2008 Kosi floods, or the detailed estimation of recovery of production and personal income levels. Table 4 shows the summarized results of these three assessments.

Table 4. Results of the damage and needs assessments conducted in India between 2008 and 2013. Million Rupees Bihar Floods Uttarakhand Cyclone Phailin 2008 Floods 2013 Odisha 2013 Housing 9,900.0 19 1,505.0 29,600.0 Education 1,251.0 Health 730.2 Public buildings 1,029.0 6,620.0 Urban infrastructure 1,268.0 4,700.0 Livelihoods 1,622.5 26,500.0 Agriculture, Fisheries, Tourism 1,668.0 Fisheries, SMEs 3,960.0 Tourism 1,166.0 Irrigation 1,393.0 Road and bridges 13,936.0 27,103.0 7,000.0 Electricity 2,662.0 10,480.0 Rural water supply 1,305.0 Water resources 26,828.0 Forests and biodiversity 542.0 160.0 Total 54,267.7 39,641.0 89,020.0

It is to be noted that – most unfortunately – the results shown above are not fully comparable between the disasters, due to the fact that the methodologies used for their estimation did not apply the same structure of sectorial composition and because different criteria and procedures were used.

The data obtained in those case studies of disaster impact assessment conducted in India, compared to the data developed in the cases of disaster conducted elsewhere in Asia,

16 See Bihar, Kosi Flood (2008); Needs Assessment Report , Government of Bihar, World Bank, Global facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), June 2010; also, see UNDP-IHD, Kosi Floods 2008: How we coped and what we need? Delhi, January 2009. 17 See India, Uttarakhand Disaster, June 2013, Joint Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment Report , Government of Uttarakhand, Asian Development Bank (ADB) and World Bank, 2013. 18 See India, Cyclone Phailin in Odisha, October 2013, Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment Report , State Government of Odisha, Asian Development Bank (ADB), and World Bank, 2013. 19 A discrepancy exists between the estimated values of housing damage: the ADB-WB assessment estimated a damage value of 9.9 billion Rupees, while the UNDP-IHD estimation yielded a value of 8.8 billion only.

already reveals the need to improve the methodology for disaster impact assessment currently used in India, not only standardizing the procedure so that comparisons between disasters are made possible, but also including all affected sectors of social and economic activity in order to obtain the full effects and impact of disasters, and to enable the formulation of comprehensive recovery and reconstruction plans.

Due credit must be given to the fact that in the case of the Bihar Floods in 2008, the United Nations and the Institute for Human development (IHD) conducted a supplemental assessment of disaster impact that focused on the effects and impacts at the personal and household level. 20 In this assessment, efforts were made to quantify the values of damage and losses for households in the affected areas and to analyze the coping strategies adopted by them. Unfortunately, the data collected did not enable to estimate the impact at the macro-economic and macro-social levels. Had a close cooperation been envisaged with the assessment conducted with assistance from the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, more holistic and comprehensive results would have been obtained.

1.2: Scope of Current International Methodology for Disaster Impact Assessment

The scope of assessments for disaster effects and impact and for estimation of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction financial requirements has been agreed as a result of the signing in 2008 of a tripartite agreement between the heads of the European Commission (EC), the World Bank and the United Nations’ Development Group (UNDG),21 within the Hyogo Framework for Action. While this is an agreement between major international organizations, many countries are following such lead and have accepted its contents in recent years.

There is agreement that disaster effects and impacts are to be estimated at different levels of analysis that include all sectors of social and economic activity, the personal or household level, and the macro-economic and macro-social levels. These analyses are intended to provide different views of disaster effects and impact, and as such the different values obtained are not be added together, to avoid double or multiple accounting.

The sectorial assessment of disaster effects should cover the entire panorama of disaster- affected sectors of economic and social activity to ensure comprehensiveness of the analysis and to ensure that the post-disaster needs for recovery and reconstruction are duly registered and eventually financed. Furthermore, the analysis should include all activities of the society and economy, owned by both public and private sectors. To ensure comparability of assessment results, from one disaster to another and from one country to another, use must be made of the standard list of sectors of economic and social activity as defined in the

20 See Kosi Floods 2008: How we coped and what we need?, Perception Survey on Impact and Recovery Strategies , United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Institute for Human Development (IHD), New Delhi, India, 2009. 21 See Joint Declaration on Post-Crisis Assessment and Recovery Planning , signed by the European Commission (EC), the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), and the World Bank, 25 September 2008.

world-wide system of national accounts that all countries use.22 For the case of India, the corresponding list is as follows:23 - Agriculture, forestry and fishing - Mining and quarrying - Manufacturing - Electricity, gas and water resources - Water supply, sewerage and waste management - Trade, hotels and restaurants - Transportation and communications - Financing, insurance, real estate and business services - Community, social and personal services

Recent experience has shown two important conclusions in regard to the scope of post- disaster assessments. First, that leaving out one or more sectors of social and economic activity in the assessment would bring about undesired limitations in the overall results of the recovery and reconstruction program, as persons that are employed or involved in the sectors left out from the assessment may only achieve normalcy at much later dates or not recover at all from the event. Second, that leaving out of the assessment those sectors of activity that are mostly in the ownership of the private sector, under the (erroneous) assumption that they generate their own income and have savings, insurance or other sources of financing, would likely result in similar limitations and delays in the overall recovery and reconstruction results.

Disaster effects are defined, at the sector level, as being of two main types: (i) the value of physical, durable assets destroyed by the disaster, which is defined as damage ; and (ii) changes in economic flows arising because of the disaster, often called losses , which normally include the value of production of goods and services that will not be obtained and the associated higher costs of production. Needless to say, damages occur at the time of the disaster, while losses would occur over time until recovery or normalcy is achieved. At the personal level, damage refers to the value of destroyed physical, durable goods or assets owned by individual persons or households; and the changes in flows or losses include personal and household income decline that arises from the disruption of livelihood activities and employment, together with the associated higher costs of living due to difficulties or higher costs of access to goods and services.

Disaster impact arises as the consequence of disaster effects. At the sector level, disaster impact may involve a reduction in the capacity of production of goods or a decline in the capacity and actual provision of services; at the personal or household level, disaster impact may involve a reduction in the access to goods and services by the population as well as decline in personal well-being and possible increase in poverty headcounts. At the macro-economic level, disaster impact may involve a decline in the value and growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the affected country; a deterioration of the balance of trade and payments for the country due to decline in the value of traditional exports and increase in imports; a negative change in the fiscal position caused by disaster-induced, lower government revenues and higher expenditures; and possible, generalized consumer

22 See United Nations, International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 , New York, 2008. (http://unstats.org/unsd/cr/registry/ ). 23 See Central Statistical Office (CSO), National Account Statistics, 2013 , page 15, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi, 2013.

price indexes increases or inflation, arising from the combination of disaster-induced production losses and higher costs of production. 24 Recent experience has shown that, in many cases, the macro-economic impact may be very limited in numbers while the sectorial and personal level impacts may be very high, for which high levels of recovery and reconstruction investments may be required. In other cases, the capacity of the affected country government may be crippled because of macro-economic impact of the disaster, and limit its ability to lead recovery and reconstruction, especially in the case of smaller developing economies.

At the macro-social level, disaster impact may result in delays for the country to meet Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or those goals defined in the existing national and State development plans, with regard to education, health and nutrition, and other social protection issues. 25

The estimation of post-disaster needs should include the financial requirements to achieve recovery of (i) personal income, (ii) availability and access to basic services for the population, and (iii) production levels, as well as to (iv) rebuild destroyed assets using disaster-resilient standards. Needless to say, the estimation of post-disaster financial requirements is to be based on the quantitative and as-precise-as-possible estimation of disaster effects sustained at the sector and personal levels, as the assignation of resources requires an evidence-based quantification of needs.

It is to be noted here that the value of post-disaster needs is not equal to the sum of disaster effects (damage and losses). Rather, recovery needs represent the value of working capital or current operating expenditures requirements that would enable achieving normal levels of production of goods and services after a disaster; and reconstruction needs are usually higher than the estimated value of damage in view of the introduction of disaster-risk reduction standards for physical assets.

In any event, post-disaster needs assessments should estimate the needs of both public- and privately-owned sectors in order to provide the total picture of the financial amounts required for the entire affected society and economy, and to ensure that no parts of the society and economy are left out of the recovery and reconstruction program. Should only the publicly-owned or managed activities and assets be included in post-disaster needs estimations, only 20 per cent of the affected activities would be covered in the case of India, as this is the proportion of the public sector participation in the overall national economy,26 and the remaining 80 per cent would in fact be left out of the analysis. In this regard, it is to be noted that under the public sector are considered all activities owned or administered by central, State and local governments, while under the private sector are included all activities owned and managed by individual persons and families as well as by enterprises or corporations. It is to be noted also that including both public and private sector needs in the estimation does not imply that the affected government is required to provide the entire

24 It has been found that the macro-economic impact may be temporary in nature, depending on the efficiency of the recovery and reconstruction program that is put in place in the affected areas. 25 In this case again, the macro-social impact may only be temporary, and its duration would depend on the extent and efficiency of the recovery program activities put in place after the disaster. 26 See Central Statistical Office (CSO), National Accounts Statistics, 2013; Statement 24: Percentage share of public sector in value added by type of institution , page 63, Op. Cit.

funding requirements for recovery and reconstruction for the whole country; instead, the government would be required to provide funding for the recovery and reconstruction of assets and activities that fall under its purview and ownership as well as to assist the poorer strata of the population, and should interact with the private banking and development banking systems to ensure the availability of supplemental funding – provided under soft- term conditions as required by the disaster situation – for the (personal and enterprise) privately-owned recovery and reconstruction activities and assets, respectively. Without this latter function by the government of encouraging and guiding the timely availability of credit resources from the private and development banking systems, full social and economic recovery and disaster-resilient reconstruction may not be achieved, and considerable setbacks in overall development would ensue.

1.3: Other International Methodologies for Disaster-Related Assessments

The NIDM-ADPC contract for the India PDNA Study envisaged that “ in order to analyze and document suitable PDNA tools in the Indian situation, the ADPC Team will take a comprehensive analysis of the available international models and methodologies for disaster assessment, which would include: 1. DaLA (Damage and Loss Assessment) Methodology: This methodology is popularly termed as DaLA or ECLAC methodology and would be the central focus for the assignment for adaptation purpose. 2. The CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis) Methodology: Cost-benefit analysis CBA is an economic technique used to organize, appraise and present the costs and benefits, and inherent trade-offs of public investment projects and policies taken by governments and public authorities in order to increase public welfare. 3. HAZUS (Hazards in the USA) Methodology: HAZUS I the second major effort to develop a methodology for vulnerability assessment developed for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) to provide a tool for developing earthquake loss estimates. 4. The ACM (Advanced Component Method): The ACM, developed by AIR Worldwide Corporation (AIR), takes a significant step objective and scientific methodology largely replaces the subjective measures and opinions of experts about how building damage relates to earthquake intensity. 5. CatSim (Catastrophe Simulation) Model: CatSim Model is built and designed to illustrate the tradeoffs and choices a country must make in financially managing the economic risks in the anticipation of major disasters. The Internationals Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA) developed this tool for natural disaster risk management for delineating the damage and loss probabilities .” 27

Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the above list, only the DaLA methodology is used for the actual assessment of post-disaster disaster effects and impacts as well as for estimation of the financial requirements to achieve post-disaster recovery and disaster- resilient reconstruction.

27 See Consultants´ Services: Lump Sum Contract for Post-Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India under the National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP), New Delhi, pages 44 and 45.

The remaining four models are used for estimating disaster risk and vulnerability, as discussed below, and are not suitable for estimating the actual effects and impacts of a disaster. Rather, they are used for defining needs and planning for disaster mitigation purposes. HAZUS is in fact a software package built on GIS technology, originally intended for application in the United States of America, which enables the estimation of disaster risk. It estimates the exposure of an area, factors in the intensity of the hazard, and enables an estimation of the potential losses. As it can be seen, the model – whose use has been introduced in other countries as well, including some Asian nations – is intended for analyzing disaster risk and estimating potential losses, not for estimating actual values of damage and losses after a disaster. Putting it in different words, Hazus is not a deterministic tool and produces results required for planning prevention and mitigation only.

The Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology is used for purposes of planning disaster risk reduction (DRR) and enables the estimation of disaster risk. 28 As in the case of Hazus, the CBA tool has been designed for use in risk prevention and mitigation, and is not a deterministic tool and cannot be used for the actual assessment of disaster effects and impacts.

The Advanced Component Method (ACM) was designed by the Boston-based Applied Insurance Research – with sponsorship by United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Canadian International Development Research Center (IDRC) – with a view to estimate the probability and extent of earthquake damage before a disaster actually occurs. As in the case of the two previous cases, the ACM is intended for estimating disaster risk and not for analyzing the actual effects and impacts of a disaster.

The Catastrophe Simulation Model (CATSIM) was developed by the renowned, Vienna- based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and is intended to assess the financial vulnerability of the public sector to extreme events and to guide governments in the tradeoffs and choices it must make to manage economic disaster risks 29 . In fact, the model enables policy makers to make ex-ante evaluations of financial instruments – such as insurance catastrophe bonds, contingent credit arrangements and other disaster hedge funds – and to compare their benefits vis a vis investments in loss reduction. Again, this model – while it has been extremely useful for providing financial protection against disasters in several regions and countries of the world, including the Caribbean, Mexico and Colombia – cannot be used for estimating the actual effects and impacts of a disaster. However, India may wish to avail itself of this model for future work in financial risk reduction.

It is therefore concluded that only the UN-ECLAC methodology, duly supplemented to cover macro-social and personal and household loss estimations, is able to produce the assessment of disaster effects and to estimate post-disaster recovery and reconstruction

28 See Mechler, R., et al, The Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology , Institute for Social and Environmental Transition and Proventium Consortium, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2008. 29 See Hochrainer-Stigler S, Mechler R., Assessing financial and economic vulnerability to natural hazards: Bridging the gap between scientific assessment and the implementation of disaster risk management with the CatSim model, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Vienna, 2008.

needs. Furthermore, due to the UN-ECLAC´s unique feature of relying on baseline information available in the world-wide system of national accounts, it is feasible to adapt it to the specific social, economic and environmental characteristics of India.

Before concluding this section of the report, mention should be made to an examination of existing practices of disaster impact assessment conducted in 2007, by the UNDP/BCPR, whose results are described in the document titled Review of Post-Disaster recovery Needs Assessment and Methodologies 30 . Such document analyzes and describes the methodologies that were in use at that time, and points out to gaps and needs to improve existing procedures, on the basis of a limited number of case studies conducted in Asia and Latin America. Many of the conclusions contained therein are outdated since the limitations described therein have been solved in the past eight years since the analysis was made. The analysis of current methodological practices described in the previous pages of this report, which is based on more than 120 cases of disaster impact assessments, supersedes and expands the conclusions of this 2007 report.

30 See Bollin, Christina, and Khanna, Shivani, Review of Post-Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment and Methodologies , United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, 2007.

2. Analysis of existing practices for Post-Disaster Needs Assessment

2.1: Introduction

As part of the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, conducted under the National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP), an analysis has been made of prevailing practices for post-disaster needs assessment in 10 selected States of India, together with a comparison with similar practices elsewhere in the world. This analysis is intended to provide a basis for developing a more scientific, evidence-based methodology for the estimation of recovery and reconstruction needs after disasters, which might be adopted by the Government of India.

To develop such analysis, experts from the Asian Disaster Prevention Center (ADPC) assigned to the PDNA Study, in close cooperation with officials from the National Institute of Disaster Management of India, conducted field visits 31 to the selected States with a view to:

- Collect and review all forms used to gather disaster-related information; - Analyze the procedures used by State officials to estimate and valuate disaster effects and impacts, as well as the financial requirements for ensuring recovery and disaster-resilient reconstruction; - Collect existing reports that describe recent post-disaster needs assessment conducted in the selected States; - Hold discussions with relevant State officials on possible ways to improve existing disaster assessment procedures; and - Collect available data on social, economic and environmental conditions prevailing in the States, which may be used as baseline information for future post-disaster needs assessments.

During these visits, consultations and exchanges were made with State Disaster Management and Department officials, and interviews and working meetings with Revenue Department officials that normally collect information for relief needs assessment, and down to District levels. Efforts were also made to meet with selected persons affected by recent disasters at Village and Taluka (Sub-District) levels, in order to obtain their views on the suitability of post-disaster assistance required and obtained. Such meetings enabled to collect: (i) existing reports of past assessments conducted in recent years; (ii) standing directives, guidelines and data collection forms presently in use for post-disaster needs assessment for recovery and reconstruction; and (iii) an exchange of ideas on possible ways to improve existing practices.

As a side benefit, the following baseline information was collected for eventual use in future post-disaster needs assessment, in either printed form or in electronic files gathered at the respective websites of relevant State Departments: - Annual State Statistical Abstracts, including information on Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) in real and nominal terms as well as fiscal sector position; - State Production Accounts, by sector of economic activity;

31 Individual State Visit reports is enclosed in Annex-1

- Value-added technical coefficients that relate gross domestic production to GSDP by sector of economic activity; - Population census and household survey information on income and expenditure; - Human development information; - Data on agriculture sector annual production and prices for different types of crops; - Annual electricity production by source, annual sales of electricity by consumer sectors, and consumer rates; - Annual water supply to consumers, annual billings by consumer type and water rates; and - Information on quantity and economic value of environmental assets and services, where available.

The State visits were made according to the following calendar agreed upon between the ADPC Team experts, NIDM officials and State authorities:

State Dates of Field Visit ADPC Experts NIDM Officials Uttarakhand 23 to 25 March Roberto Jovel; Aslam Perwaiz Priyanka Chowdhary 2014 Odisha 1 to 3 April 2014 Roberto Jovel Priyanka Chowdhary Assam 6 to 8 May 2014 Aslam Perwaiz Tamil Nadu 3 to 5 July 2014 Emmanuel Torrente, Tarique Priyank Jindal Sohail Maharashtra 9 to 11 July Tithipon Sinsupan, Sunil Prashar Priyanka Chowdhary, Rani Dhakad West 21 to 22 July 2014 Emmanuel Torrente, Priyanka Chowdhary, Rani Bengal Dhakad Bihar 20 to 24 July 2014 Aslam Perwaiz, Tarique Sohail Priyank Jindal Gujarat 14 to 16 July 2014 Tithipon Sinsupan, Sunil Prashar Priyanka Chowdhary

2.2: Existing Disaster Assessment Regulations

At the present time, the normal scope of assistance to be provided to disaster-affected population in India is defined by the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and by the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF).

On 28 November 2013, the Disaster Management Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs issued revised norms of assistance from the State Disaster Response Fund and the National Disaster Response Fund that would be observed in the period 2010-2015 32 . Such revised norms are summarized in the following table.

ITEM NORMS OF ASSISTANCE 1 Gratuitous relief a) Ex-gratia payment to families of Rs. 1.50 lakh (the equivalent of US$ 2,500) per deceased person deceased persons included those in involved in relief operations or associated in preparedness activities, subject to certification regarding cause of death from appropriate authority. b) Ex-gratia payment for loss of a limb Rs 43,500 (the equivalent of US$ 725) when the disability is between 40 or eyes and 80%. Rs. 62,000 (the equivalent of US$ 1,033) when the disability is more than 80%. c) Grievous injury requiring Rs. 9,300 (the equivalent of US$ 155) per person requiring hospitalization hospitalization for more than a week. Rs. 3,100 (the equivalent of US$ 51.67) per person requiring hospitalization for less than a week. d) Clothing and utensils/household Rs. 1,300 (the equivalent of US$ 21.67) per family for loss of clothing. goods for families whose houses Rs. 1,400 (the equivalent of US$ 23.33) for loss of utensils/household have been washed away/fully goods. damaged/severely inundated for more than a week due to a natural calamity e) Gratuitous relief for families in dire Rs. 40 per adult and Rs. 30 per child (equivalent to US$ 0.67 and 0.50) need of immediate sustenance not housed in relief camps. after a calamity. To be provided to Period of gratuitous relief to be defined in assessment of the State those who have no food reserves, Executive Committee and the Central Team. Default period of or whose food reserves have been assistance will be up to 30 days, which may be extended up to 60 days wiped out in a calamity, and who if required, and up to 90 days in case of drought/pest attack. have no other means of support. 2 Search and rescue operations a) Cost of search and rescue As per actual cost incurred. measures/evacuation of people affected/likely to be affected b) Hiring of boats for carrying As per actual cost incurred. immediate relief and saving lives 3 Relief measures a) Provision for temporary As per assessment of needs for a period of up to 30 days. accommodation, food, clothing, In case of continuation of a calamity like drought, or widespread medical care, etcetera, for people devastation caused by earthquake or flood, etc., this period may be affected/evacuated and sheltered extended to 60 days, and up to 90 days in case of severe drought. in relief camps b) Air dropping of essential supplies As per actual expenditures. c) Provision of emergency supply of As per actual cost up to 30 days and may be extended up to 90days in drinking water in rural areas and case of drought. urban areas 4 Clearance of affected areas a) Clearance of debris in public areas As per actual cost within 30 days of the start of the work b) Draining of floodwater in affected As per actual cost within 30 days of the start of the work areas c) Disposal of dead bodies/carcasses As per actual costs. 5 Agriculture (i) Assistance to small and marginal farmers A Assistance for land and other loss a) De-silting of agricultural land Rs. 8,100 (equivalent to US$ 135) per hectare of each item

32 See the communication sent on 28 November 2013 by the Deputy Secretary of the Government of India to the Chief Secretaries of all States and to Relief Commissioners/Secretaries, Department of Disaster Management of All States.

(where thickness of sand/silt deposit is more than 3 inches b) Removal of debris on agricultural Subject to the condition that no other assistance/subsidy has been areas in hilly areas availed of by/is eligible to the beneficiary under any other Government scheme c) De-silting/restoration/repair of fish Subject to the condition that no other assistance/subsidy has been farms availed of by/is eligible to the beneficiary under any other Government scheme d) Loss of substantial portion of land Rs. 25,000 (equivalent to US$ 416.67) per hectare to only those small caused by landslide, avalanche, and marginal farmers whose ownership is legitimate as per the revenue change of course of rivers records B Input subsidy where crop loss is 50% and above a) For agriculture crops, horticulture Rs. 4,500 (equivalent to US$ 75) per hectare in rain fed and restricted crops and annual plantation crops to sown areas. Rs. 9,000 (equivalent to US$ 150) per hectare in assured irrigated areas, subject to minimum assistance no less than Rs. 750 and restricted to sown areas b) Perennial crops Rs. 12,000 (equivalent to US$ 200) per hectare for all types of perennial crops subject to minimum assistance not less than Rs. 1,500 and restricted to sown areas c) Sericulture Rs. 3,200 (equivalent to US$ 53.33) per hectare of Eri, Mulberry, Tussar Rs. 4,000 (equivalent to US$ 66.67) per hectare for Muga (ii) Input subsidy to farmers other than Rs. 4,500 (US$ 75) per hectare in rain fed areas and restricted to sown small and marginal farmers areas Rs. 9,000 (US$ 150) per hectare for areas under assured irrigation and restricted to sown areas Rs. 12,000 (US$ 200) per hectare for all types of perennial crops and restricted to sown areas. Assistance may be provided where crop loss is 50% and above subject to a ceiling of 1 hectare per farmer and up to 2 hectare per farmer in case off successive calamities irrespective of size of holding being large 6 Animal husbandry i) Replacement of milch animals, Milch animals draught animals or animals used Rs. 16,400 (or US$ 273.33) for buffalo/cow/camel/yak, etc. for haulage Rs. 1,650 (or US$ 27.50) for sheep/goat Draught animals Rs. 15,000 (or US$ 250) for camel/horse/bullock, etc. Rs. 10,000 (or US$ 166.67) for calf/donkey/pony/mule. This assistance may be restricted for the actual loss of economically productive animals and will be subject to a ceiling of 1 large milch animal or 4 small milch animals or 1 large draught animal or 2 small draught animal per household irrespective of whether a household has lost a larger number of animals Poultry Poultry @ 37 (US$ 0.62) per bird subject to a ceiling of assistance of Rs. 400 per beneficiary household. The death of poultry birds should be as a result of natural calamity. ii) Provision of fodder/feed Large animals Rs. 50 (US$ 0.83) per day concentrate including water supply Small animals RS. 25 (US$ 0.42) per day and medicines in cattle camps Default period of assistance up to 30 days, which may be extended to 60 days, and to 90 days in case of severe drought. iii) Transport of fodder to cattle As per actual cost of transport outside cattle camps

ITEM NORMS OF ASSISTANCE 7 Fishery i) Assistance to fishermen for Rs. 3,000 (equivalent to US$ 50) for repair of partially damaged boats repair/replacement of boats, nets – only damaged or lost Rs. 1,500 (equivalent to US$ 25) for repair of partially damaged net Rs. 7,000 (equivalent to US$ 116.67) for replacement of fully damaged boats Rs. 1,850 (equivalent to US$ 30.83) for replacement of fully damaged net ii) Input subsidy for fish seed farm Rs. 6,000 (equivalent to US$ 100) per hectare 8 Handicrafts/handloom – Assistance to Artisans i) For replacement of damaged Rs. 3,000 (equivalent to US$ 50) per artisan for equipment tools/equipment ii) For loss of raw materials/goods in Rs. 3,000 (equivalent to US$ 50) per artisan for raw materials process/finished goods 9 Housing a) Fully damaged/destroyed houses

i) Pucca house Rs. 70,000 (equivalent to US$ 1,166.67) per house in plain areas Rs. 75,000 (equivalent to US$ 1,250) per house in hilly areas ii) Kutcha house Rs. 17,600 (equivalent to US$ 293.33) per house b) Severely damaged houses i) Pucca house Rs. 12,600 (equivalent to US$ 210) per house ii) Kutcha house Rs. 3,800 (equivalent to US$ 63.33) per house c) Partially damaged houses i) Pucca (other than huts) where Rs. 3,800 (equivalent to US$ 63.33) per house damage is at least 15% ii) Kutcha (other than huts) where Rs. 2,300 (equivalent to US$ 38.33) per house damage is at least 15% d) Damaged/destroyed huts Rs. 3,000 (equivalent to US$ 50) per hut. Hut means temporary, make shift unit, inferior to Kutcha house, made of thatch, mud, plastic sheets, etc. e) Cattle shed attached to house Rs. 1,500 (equivalent to US$ 25) per shed. 10 Infrastructure Repair/restoration (of immediate Based on the assessment of needs. nature) of damaged infrastructure: As regards the repairs of roads due consideration shall be given to Roads and bridges; drinking water Norms for Maintenance of Roads in India 2001, as amended from time supply works; irrigation; power (limited to time. These are: normal and urban areas up to 15% of the total of to immediate restoration of electricity ordinary repair and periodic repair; hills, up to 20%. supply in affected areas); schools, primary health centers; community assets owned by Panchayat. Sectors such as telecommunication and power (except immediate restoration of power supply), which generate their own revenues, and also undertake immediate repair/restoration works from their own funds/resources, are excluded.

2.3: Current Disaster Assessment Procedures

At the present time, two main types of post-disaster assessments are conducted in India: the usual Disaster-Response type of assessment, designed to estimate the amounts of relief assistance to be given to disaster-affected persons, as per the Disaster Response Fund dictates; and, in some cases, broader post-disaster assessments of major events carried out by the affected State authorities with support from international agencies such as the Asian development Bank, the World Bank, and the United Nations, which are aimed at estimating – beyond relief assistance – needs for reconstruction and recovery.

The following paragraphs describe the scope and contents of the two kinds of assessment.

2.3.1: Disaster-Response Fund Assessments

At the present time the Office of the Relief Commissioner in the Revenue Department of each State and Union Territory (UT) is mandated to collect information on disaster effects after any disaster and to provide the required disaster response thereafter.

On the basis of individual, “rapid assessment” reports developed by District, Block and Village Revenue Officers as well as of supplementary “detailed assessments” prepared by sectorial State Department Officials (including the Departments of Agriculture, Public Works, etcetera), a “Relief Memorandum” is prepared by the Relief Commissioner to be sent to the Central Government in order to obtain additional financial resources to meet post-disaster demands for assistance. While the contents and details of the relief memoranda vary from State to State and from one disaster to another, it normally provides full information on the estimated value of required disaster response assistance based on the estimation of the

23 extent and degree of damage and losses sustained by the affected population. Table 5 shows the type of information collected by different Departments in the State of Gujarat as part of the rapid and detailed assessments, and provides a good example of the scope of assessments undertaken at the present time in the country.

Table 5. Damage data collected by different Departments in the State of Gujarat Sector Sub -Sector Damage data collected 1 Administrative buildings, Damage to public buildings (different administrative roads and bridges offices), damage to key roads, bridges 2 Agriculture Directorate of Agriculture Damage to crops, farming equipment Directorate of Animal Damage to farm animals, fodder Husbandry Seeds Corporation Damage to seeds Department of Horticulture Damage to fruits, flowers, cultivation equipment Gujarat Agro-Industries Damage to food-processing equipment, transporters, Corporation raw materials or finished products 3 Education Primary Education Damage to Primary Schools at Jilla Panchayat and Municipal Area, Damage to primary Teachers´ Training Institution, Kitchen Sheds, Staff/Student casualties Secondary and Higher Government, non-Government schools, Fine Arts Education Institutions, Sanskrit Pathshalas, Physical Education, Sainik Schools, Staff/Student casualties Universities Government Colleges, Hostels, Vidyapeeth, Research and Cultural Institutes, Basic Training Colleges, non- Governmental Colleges (grant-in aid), Staff/Student casualties Technical Education Government Institutions (Engineering Colleges, Institutions polytechnics, etc.) and Grant-in-aid Institutions, Staff/Student casualties Tribunals Damage to buildings, and Staff/Student casualties 4 Fisheries Fish, fish processing industries and equipment of fisher folk, damages to fishing ponds 5 Health Damage to equipment and goods in sub-centers, primary health care centers, community care health centers, District hospitals, Medical Colleges and Hospitals, Ayurvedic College, Hospitals, Laboratories, Angan-Wadis and Prosthetic Workshops 6 Industries, Cottage Damage to small and large industries. Secondary industries damages. Damage to artisan equipment. Loss of skilled workers. 7 Irrigation Damage to dams, check dams, irrigation canals of major/minor irrigation schemes, percolation pits, Sardar Sanovar Narmada canals. Large reservoirs. 8 Power supply (energy) Damage to substations, supply lines, wind farms, loss of revenue during shutdown 9 Rural housing Damage to rural housing, Panchayat property 10 Urban housing and Damage to urban housing, damage to Municipal municipalities Corporation infrastructure 11 Water supply Damage to tube wells, wells, pumps, pumping equipment/Tankers, civil structures, water supply pipelines, water tanks.

The values included in the Relief Memorandum are – incorrectly – called damage and losses, when they actually represent the value of disaster response assistance, which is only a fraction of the value of damage and losses or of recovery and reconstruction needs, as will be shown later on in this report.

The Relief Memorandum is intended to quantify the amounts of additional resources required from the central Government (National Disaster Response Fund) to supplement the funds available at the State level (State Disaster Response Fund). In most cases, field verification missions are carried out by Central-level Departments to review the reliability and accuracy of the estimations for response fund assistance submitted by the States.

2.3.2: Damage and Needs Assessments with International Support

In recent years – notably since the 2001 Gujarat Earthquake – more detailed assessments of disaster impact have been undertaken in the case of selected, major events. International technical and financial support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank (WB) and the United Nations System has been obtained for these undertakings, which subsequently led to obtaining external support for recovery and reconstruction activities.

Summarized results of these assessments have been presented in Tables 1 and 4 of this report.

These assessments have had some limitations. In the case of the Gujarat earthquake, adequate estimations were made of the value of damage or destruction in all affected sectors of social and economic activity; production losses were only partially estimated for some sectors, leaving out many of the social and infrastructure sectors. The assessments conducted in the cases of the 2008 Bihar floods, the Uttarakhand floods and of Cyclone Phailin in Odisha in 2013 – which were called “damage and needs assessments”, the scope of work was limited to the estimation of the value of destroyed assets and of the corresponding needs for reconstruction. Allegedly due to lack of sufficient information, production losses and social sector changes in flows were not quantified, and not all affected sectors of activity were included in the assessment.

So, even in these cases of assessments conducted with external technical and financial support, their results did not provide sufficient information on disaster impact, especially as regards to production decline and social impact, which in fact preclude the subsequent analysis of overall macro-economic and macro-social disaster impact and the quantitative estimation of recovery requirements. There is indication that, because of such limitations, -- as will be shown later on in this report – full recovery was not achieved promptly by the affected population and that destroyed assets were rebuilt using design and construction standards that probably have a higher risk than before the disasters occurred.

It may be stated, then, that current assessment practices do not provide adequate information that (i) may be used by the higher authorities to adopt adequate public policies for recovery and reconstruction, and that (ii) as a result the affected population faces longer periods of suffering to achieve recovery.

Putting it differently, due to the limitations of the assessment methodologies presently used, there exist limitations to governance (since the Central and State governments do not obtain the full picture of disaster impact and recovery and reconstruction requirements); the overall potential growth of socio-economic development is not achieved or delayed, and the affected population face significant deterioration on their quality of life and human development.

This situation needs to be addressed, especially since the quantitative information required for a full post-disaster effect-impact-and-needs assessment is available in the country, and only the adoption of a scientific, holistic methodology for assessment is required.

2.4: SWOT Analysis of Existing Disaster Assessment Scope and Procedures After the visits to the disaster-prone States were conducted and information on the S scope and existing practices on disaster response estimations was collected by the India-PDNA ADPC Team, a strengths- T weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT) analysis was made to define its suitability to define post-disaster needs for recovery and disaster-resilient reconstruction. A SWOT analysis reveals the internal strengths and weaknesses of the existing system as well as opportunities and threats in the external environment of the system.

The existing system of post-disaster needs assessment in India has certain strengths that include simplicity and efficiency. The issue of simplicity involves: first, the amounts of assistance to be provided to the affected population are pre-defined (not determined on the basis of actual field measurements of damage and losses sustained by the affected population); second, assessments can be carried out by non-specialized technical and professional personnel at State levels and below. The system is efficient because, as recent experience shows, the proceeds of the estimated assistance can be delivered to the affected population within 45 days of the occurrence of the disaster; in addition, the capacity of the system is clearly very high as the recent massive evacuation of population before cyclones in Odisha attests. It may be stated that the existing system for estimating disaster response is a good example of optimum utilization of limited – human and financial – resources available for assessment and disbursement of relief assistance requirements.

However, the present system has weaknesses defined by limitations and shortcomings in scope and do not provide means to easily adjust assistance for inflation. Its scope is limited due to the following reasons: first, not all affected population is included to receive assistance; second, not all sectors of economic and social activity are included in the analysis and some sectors are only partially included; and, third, the assessment concentrates on relief assistance and only very partially covers recovery assistance and little or no reconstruction of destroyed assets using risk- reduction features. Finally, as indicated previously, the rates of assistance to be provided have remained at fixed levels for a number of years, with only minor and partial adjustments for inflation.

A significant limitation of the present system is that it does not provide for the identification of the total value of destroyed assets and of the total production decline that occurs after a disaster, as pointed out in the preceding section of this report. Rather, the result of the assessment is the estimated value of assistance to be provided to the affected population as set forth in the Disaster Response Funds guidelines, which in fact represent only a small

fraction of the total value of damage and losses sustained by the Indian society and economy 33 . Therefore, the assessment provides the State and Central governments an estimation of the amounts to be given out to the affected persons; but it does not provide an estimation of the total impact of the disaster on social and economic conditions nor of the total needs for recovery and reconstruction.

It is to be noted that official government reports and newspaper accounts erroneously refer to the estimated disaster response costs as the value of damage and losses produced by the disaster, misleading the readers and grossly under-estimating the effects of the disaster on social and economic conditions.

A second limitation of the present system is that it covers only a narrow fraction of the affected population, concentrating – which is correct but insufficient – on the poorer strata of the population: i.e. small farmers, fishermen and artisans. In addition to this, the present system does not include the analysis of all relevant, affected sectors of economic activity, leaving aside important sectors or sector components and employed population that are involved in activities such as industry, commerce, tourism and others. In the case of agriculture, losses of food crops are assessed, but commercial crops are not considered; moreover, assistance is provided only to those farmers that lose more than 50 per cent of their crops, and no assistance is given to those that lose less than that value.

An example of the above limitation may be seen in the fact that Disaster Response assistance was provided promptly and directly to small farmers, fishermen, and home owners after the very recent Cyclone Hudhud in Andra Pradesh and Odisha States this year. According to newspaper accounts 34 the list of affected sectors and subsectors included many more, such as agriculture crops, fishery, animal husbandry with special reference to the poultry industry, many types of industries (including IT, pharmaceutical and petro- chemical), steel plants, tourism facilities, roads, railways, airports, telecommunications, water supply and electricity systems, education and health facilities. Disaster Response assistance was provided to the tune of several hundred Crore, but the total damage and production losses was roughly estimated to be in the order of one lakh Crore 35 .

Table 6. Comparison of estimated value of damage and losses versus disaster response assistance provided in the case of the Cyclone Phailin disaster in Odisha, 2013 (Values in Rs. Million)* Damage and Needs Assessment Estimation Relief Damage Losses Total Memorandum Social sectors 31,371.8 4,050.8 35,422.6 9,171.7 Ex-gratia for loss of life 6.6 6.6 6.6 Relief costs 2,837.7 2,837.7 2,837.7 Housing and household goods 24,749.4 1,206.5 25,955.9 3,313.8 Education 3,108.7 N. A. 3,108.7 2,865.1 Health 337.2 N. A. 337.2 148.5 Other social costs 3,176.5 N. A. 3,176.5 Productive services 6,651.5 19,361.6 26,013.1 6,235.5

33 However, official reports and newspaper accounts erroneously equate this assistance to the value of damage and losses, thus misleading the reader, and providing a lower value of the total effects of the disaster. 34 In this connection, a detailed review was made of daily reports included in http://www.business-standard.com . 35 See Hudhud aftermath: Officials put Hudhud loss at over Rs 1 lakh crore , October 18, 2014, in The Business Standard, http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/officials-put-hudhud-loss-at-over-rs-1-lakh-crore- 114101500798_1.html

Agriculture, livestock, fishery, forestry 6,537.3 19,340.8 25,878.1 6,213.3 Industry 114.2 N. A. 135.0 22.2 Commerce N. A. N. A. N. A. Infrastructure 31,721.7 31,733.9 27,703.6 Road transport 7,973.1 N. A. 7,973.1 9,557.1 Water supply and sanitation 3,196.3 N. A. 3,196.3 380.5 Irrigation works 6,828.3 N. A. 6,828.3 4,308.6 Electricity 10,748.0 N. A. 10,748.0 10,481.4 Govt. administration buildings 515.7 515.7 515.7 Community assets 2,460.3 2,460.3 2,460.3 TOTAL 69,745.0 23,424.6 93,169.6 43,110.8 Note: Shaded areas represent sectors for which only partial or no estimations were made of either damage or losses caused by the disaster.

In addition, a comparison of the value of response assistance provided to the affected persons after the 2013 Cyclone Phailin disaster in the State of Odisha 36 vis a vis the estimated value of damage and losses obtained during the Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment conducted with support from the World Bank and the Asian development Bank 37 is quite revealing. While the latter report did not cover all affected sectors of social and economic activity and did not include a full estimation of the value of production and personal income losses 38 , the estimated value of disaster effects reached a level of 93,170 million Rupees (or its equivalent of 1,500 million US Dollars), and the value of disaster response assistance was valued as only 43,110 million Rupees (or 685 million US$), as shown in Table 6 above. This reveals that provisions in the Disaster Response Fund cover only less than half of the admittedly under-estimated value of total damage and losses.

A third limitation is that when it comes to the replacement of destroyed assets – buildings, machinery, equipment – the present system includes mainly those under the purview of government-owned activities, leaving aside those falling under private sector ownership (whether owned by individual persons or by enterprises). Industrialized countries have a similar characteristic in that they do not provide coverage for private sector damage and losses because they have insurance coverage; but in developing countries – and India is not an exception – insurance penetration and coverage is still in very early stages of development and cannot provide such assistance to individuals and enterprises. In the specific case of India, the public sector covers only 20 per cent of economic activities included in the system of national accounts, which means that in any assessment of disaster effects where the private sector impact is not included leaves out nearly four fifths of the impact.

A fourth limitation of the present system refers to the fact that the Disaster Response Fund concentrates its assistance in relief operations and only provides partial assistance to achieve recovery of normalcy levels in personal or household income, basic service access and production recovery, and nearly no assistance for reconstruction of destroyed assets under disaster-resilient standards. An exception to the latter is the reconstruction of

36 See Special Relief Commissioner, Memorandum of the very severe Cyclone Phailin and the subsequent flood , 12 to 15 October 2013, Government of Odisha, October 2013. 37 See India, Cyclone Phailin in Odisha, October 2013; Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment Report , Government of Odisha, Asian Development Bank and World Bank, 2013. 38 It is to be pointed out that the Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment did not include an analysis of disaster effects in the sectors of industry and commerce, nor did it include estimations of the revenue losses sustained by the services sectors of education, health, transport, water and sanitation, electricity and others, and therefore produced only partial results.

28 government-owned assets that may be funded from the 10% flexible funds available in the plan budge t funds, through the Centrally Sponsored Schemes.

In this regard, it is to be noted that those persons that do receive assistance from the Disaster Response Funds actually receive a fraction of the total they require to achieve recovery of personal incom e, basic services access, and production, and a very small fraction of the amount they require to rebuild their homes and other assets to standards that will be disaster-resilient. Furthermore, not all affected persons receive any assistance, as is illustr ated by the fact that farmers that lose less than 50 per cent of their crops do not get any assistance . Furthermore, farmers involved in permanent plantation crops do not get any assistance.

To illustrate this point , using data obtained in Uttarakhand a fter the 2013 floods disaster, it has been found that a farmer having a 1 -hectare farm where he grows grain crops who losses more than half of his crop would receive crop input assistance that does not enable him/her to have sufficient money to plant the s ame extension of 1 hectare, and therefore his annual income would decline after the disaster and may in fact fall below poverty -level (See Figure 1 in the next page ). And the farmers that lose less than half of their crops would face similar and probably worse situations.

Annual Income of 1 -hectare Uttarakhand Rice Farmer losing 51% of crop, and after receiving input subsidy

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000 2012 2013 2014 2015

Production sales Input subsidy Farmer´s annual cinome, Rupees annual Farmer´s

Figure 1. Analysis of 1 -hectare rice farmer´s annual income in Uttarakhand after receiving input subsidy

The drought that affected Karnataka in 2011, caused a decline in gross state domestic product of about 2.5 percent in that same year as well as a further decline of 1.4 per cent in 2012. Figure 2 shows the trend of GSDP after the drought and that which would have occurred with no drought.

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

ANNUAL GSDP ANNUAL GSDP GROWTH RATE, % 3 2 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

No drought After drought

Figure 2. Impact of the 2011 drought on the growth of gross state domestic product in Karna taka

Furthermore, farmer per capita income sustained a significant decline because of the drought in 2011, and did not recover to the level of 2009 until 2013, as shown in Figure 3. This was of course due to the insufficiency of the disaster response all ocations assigned to them.

20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 - -5.02008-09 2009 -10 2010-11

ANNUAL GROWTH GROWTH ANNUAL RATE, % -10.0 2011-12 2012 -13 2013-14

Figure 3. Annual growth of per capita farmer income in Karnataka, 2008 to 2013.

Worse yet, the same farmers that faced such income hardships also endured significant increases in the price of food that they were forced to acquire, as evidenced by the data shown in Figure 4, and their net household income sustained much higher impacts , thus reducing their already-limited human development. Had the assessment included the

estimation and assignation of recovery needs, the hardship of the affected farmers would have been much less.

1300 1200 1100 1000 900 Cereals 100) Pulses 800 Oil seeds 700 600

WHOLESALE WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX (1981-82 = Apr Nov Apr Nov Apr Nov

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Figure 4. Variation of unit prices of selected agriculture products in Karnataka, 2011 to 2013

In the case of the cyclone that affected Odisha in 1999, the growth of agriculture crop production took more than two years to return to pre-disaster levels, again because the farmers did not receive sufficient assistance for recovery, and their personal or household income declined accordingly (See Figure 5).

Figure 5. Growth of agriculture production in Odisha before and after 1999 Cyclone

Moreover, the guidelines for Disaster Response do not cover the entire agriculture sector; it concentrates only on farmers that produce food crops, and commercial, non-food farming activities are not included. Therefore, crops losses in sugarcane, tea, and other similar plantations are not estimated and commercial farmers that may sustain losses in production due to a disaster do not receive any recovery assistance.

In addition, the amount provided as assistance under the Disaster Response Fund for a home owner whose house has been fully destroyed represents only a limited fraction of the cost to rebuild the house.

The above statement is substantiated by the fact that in the case of the Cyclone Phailin in Odisha assessment it is stated that the unit construction cost of destroyed houses ranges between Rs 70,000 for Kutcha houses and Rs 280,000 for the case of Pucca houses 39 , while the disaster response assistance to destroyed home owners was Rs 15,000 and Rs 70,000 for Kutcha and Pucca houses respectively as per the norms of the Disaster Response Fund. These amounts represent, respectively, 21.4 and 25.0 per cent of the total cost of reconstruction of each house type, and the homeowners need to obtain the balance from other sources (i.e. personal or family savings and/or credit loans) in order to rebuild their homes to the same pre-disaster characteristics and standards. If the additional funding required for reconstruction is not obtained from other sources, home owners are forced to build their homes using lower quality materials and below-quality standards, which results in a higher housing sector risk than the one that prevailed before the disaster, despite claims of adoption of a “building-back-better” strategy.

In addition to the above example, data available for the Uttarakhand Floods of 2013 strengthen the argument. In that State the average construction cost of an urban house is Rs. 560,000 and Rs. 490,000 for a rural housing unit.40 If the same rates defined by the Disaster Fund are used to provide assistance to Pucca homeowners whose houses were destroyed, it is found that the value of relief provided (Rs. 70,000) represents only 12.5 per cent of urban reconstruction costs and 14.2 per cent of rural reconstruction costs.

In summary, it can be stated that in the examples of the farmers and the home owners, the affected persons do not obtain sufficient funding from the Disaster Relief Funds to restore their annual income (recovery) and to rebuild the destroyed home (reconstruction), and must search for additional financing from other sources. When such other sources are not found, or are insufficient to meet the total requirements, the affected families lose income and wellbeing, sometimes falling under poverty conditions, and may resort to rebuild their homes without adequate standards that do not guarantee disaster resilience, and risk is increased to levels above the one prevailing before the recent disaster. 41 The situation becomes one of significantly lower levels of human and socio-economic development, and – when the next disaster occurs – further destruction and much higher human suffering is assured. In addition to the above, overall production levels in all affected sectors of social and economic activity do not recover to pre-disaster levels, and the national economy does not reach its potential level of development and growth. Putting it differently, while India´s economy has

39 See India, Cyclone Phailin in Odisha, October 2013; Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment Report , Government of Odisha, Op. Cit, page 10. 40 See India, Uttarakhand Disaster, June 2013; Joint Damage and Needs Assessment Report , page 28, Government of Uttarakhand, Asian Development Bank and World Bank, 2013. 41 It is to be noted that in the case of isolated, selected cases of very major disasters, the assistance provided by the Government to disaster-affected population may exceed the above-described norms and provisions, and may include further assistance for recovery and reconstruction. Examples of those are the Gujarat earthquake in 2001 and the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2005, among others.

32 been growing at healthy annual rates in recent years, had disaster recovery been in effect, annual economic growth would have reached higher rates than the present ones.

The above considerations lead to believe that in India the human development and wellbeing of affected population does not recover to pre-disaster levels or that it is only reached after a very long time, with the corresponding long-term suffering of the affected population, and that overall socio-economic development is not reaching its potential. In view of the successive occurrence of disasters, especially in the most disaster-prone coastal States, this might lead to increasing poverty numbers and worsened conditions for the affected population, rendering insufficient the current national and State programs to fight or reduce poverty.

One last limitation or shortcoming of the existing system for disaster impact and needs assessment in India is that in some States use is made of other procedures for estimation of damage and losses that do not necessarily coincide with the norms of the Disaster Response Fund. Whenever that happens, the published results of disaster effects cannot be validly compared or added together to arrive at a series of total damage and losses for the country. The published data is therefore skewed and does not provide a reliable value for use in further analysis.

On the other hand, the very existence and execution of the India PDNA project provides an opportunity to put in place a comprehensive and scientific system of disaster effect and impact assessment for the purpose of ascertaining post-disaster recovery and reconstruction financial needs assessment. The willingness expressed by many State government officials to request and adopt a scientific and comprehensive procedure for disaster impact assessments, which go beyond the estimation and provision of relief assistance, is an opportunity that should be taken advantage of.

Should those opportunities not be grabbed opportunely, external threats arise that include: (i) full recovery of production, availability and access to goods and services is not achieved by all affected persons after disasters; (ii) overall well-being and quality of life of the affected population worsens after disasters; (iii) disaster risk is increased after reconstruction of assets using non-improved standards; (iv) slowdown of overall economic growth and worsening of the fiscal position of the State and central governments; (v) significant delays in achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); and (v) widespread dissatisfaction and complaints of the population with the amount and coverage of Government assistance provided after disasters.

Assessments to define the amounts of post-disaster assistance to be provided to affected population are undertaken by a combination of officials from the State Revenue Department and of sectorial Departments (agriculture, water and sanitation, public works, etcetera). While the norms described above are followed in all States, the procedures for the estimation of assistance are not fully standardized in all of them.

In fact, some States do not have standard formats for the collection of damage and loss information, and rely on the initiative of its officials for such purposes; when these officials move or are replaced, the manner of data collection is not necessarily maintained. Other States do have specific formats for such purpose, but they are not standardized across the country. Therefore, the results in the estimation of assistance requirements are not fully comparable across all States and over time. On the other hand, however, standard formats are used by all States to report the estimated requirements of relief assistance to the Central Level.

The above situation facilitates the claim by Central Government authorities that the States inflate their estimation of National Disaster Response Fund requirements, which in turn results in longer periods of time required for Central Government review of each State funding request.

Lastly, there are no standard lists or forms for collection of the baseline information and information sources required to conduct full-fledged assessments of disaster effects, impacts and need, such as the ones presently in use elsewhere in the world. This fact sometimes leads to the erroneous assumption that the required data is not available in different sources.

2.5: Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

The analysis undertaken shows a number of significant gaps in the scope of the current system of post-disaster assessments in India v is a vis the current international practices, that are summarized in the following points: - The existing system of post-disaster assessments in India is designed to estimate disaster relief response from the Central and State government exclusively, and only very partial needs of assistance for recovery; - The value of response assistance is erroneously designated as the total value of damage and losses caused by disasters, and thus results in a gross underestimation of disaster effects and impacts; - The assessment, in its current form, does not cover the estimation of post-disaster needs for the entire affected population; - In addition, it does not cover all affected sectors of socio-economic activity. As examples, the industry, trade or commerce, tourism and mining sectors are not included; and, under agriculture, only food crops are covered, leaving out possible losses in the production and export of tea and other commercial crops. In some cases, no estimation is made of the cost of providing psycho-social assistance to disaster-affected persons. - From current assessments, it is not possible to derive the total cost of disasters to the Indian society, economy and environment; - The estimation of disaster impact at the macro-economic level is not possible to make, as production losses in all productive sectors are not estimated on a systematic basis - Only partial estimations are made of disaster impact at the personal or household levels – which fact prevents an estimation of the decline in personal and family income and increases in costs of living – and no estimates are made of the macro-

social impact and of the resulting delays in achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). - The current system does not permit estimating the financial requirements to obtain recovery in production, personal income, and supply/access to basic services for the population, and there exists evidence that affected persons do not recover or take a very long time to recover after disasters; - The current estimation of assistance for house reconstruction and repairs provides only a fraction of the funds needed by home owners; in the absence of savings or other financial contributions, families are forced to rebuild their homes with sub- standard materials norms and the resulting disaster risks are above those that prevailed before the disaster; - Furthermore, there is evidence that at least in some cases reconstruction of roads does not follow a disaster risk reduction standard, thus resulting in higher disaster risk for the future; - The fact that the cost of reconstruction of public property and roads is financed from the regular State budget for operation results in a reduced availability of funds for maintenance, which in fact reduce the intended life span of existing infrastructure and would induce higher costs of operation of vehicles.

This situation needs urgent attention and solution if the Government is keen to address the negative impact of disasters.

It is recommended that the current methodology for post-disaster assessment used internationally be promptly adapted to the specific characteristics of India, so that the government may consider its eventual adoption. In this connection, it must be emphasized that during the State visits and during Central Government meetings held in New Delhi, the ADPC Team has found evidence that the baseline information required for such undertakings is available in India, as in any other development country, despite claims to the contrary expressed orally by some government officials and also in some assessment reports. 42 Furthermore, the sufficient availability of baseline information was evident when, in the period 2003 to 2005, ADPC conducted a technical assistance project to transfer the UN- ECLAC methodology to the Gujarat State Disaster Management Agency (GSDMA). Thus, the ADPC Team is fully convinced that if quantitative information on sectorial disaster effects is collected during field assessments, and combined with the existing baseline information of socio-economic development conditions, the improved UN-ECLAC methodology is fully applicable in India, and should enable a full analysis of disaster impact on social, economic and environmental conditions as well as the comprehensive estimation of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction needs.

42 In this regard, note is made of the statement included in the document titled Bihar Kosi Floods 2008, Needs Assessment Report , as prepared by the Government of Bihar, the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, 2010, where it is indicated that “The second limitation is data availability. As comprehensive data is not available on economic losses, it was not feasible to deploy the UN-ECLAC Damage and Loss Assessment Methodology”. The correct meaning of that statement is that no government report on production losses was available at the time of the assessment, and that the assessment team elected not to undertake such estimation on its own due to time constraints.

Annexes

Annex- 1: State Field Visit Report

Annex-2: Relevant Data Collected from States

Annex-3: Chart depicting damage assessment procedure in India

Post Disaster Need Assessment Study for India 2014-2015

Annex- 1: State Field Visit Report

Annex-2: Relevant Data Collected from States

Annex-3: Chart depicting damage assessment procedure in India

POST DISASTERPost Disaster NEED NeedsS AssessmentASSESSMENT Study for India, STUDY 2014-2015 FOR INDIA 2014-2015

State Visit Report A: Key Objectives

1. To obtain first-hand information on what is presently done in terms of post-disaster needs assessment1, including the scope, forms used, process and documentation of post-disaster memorandum and other reporting; 2. To determine what information (economic, environment and social) is available that may be used as baseline for any possible future assessment, and collect samples of such information that is not currently available in the respective websites of the official institutions that produce them; and 3. To obtain from counterpart officials their views on the possible scope of a holistic, new system of post-disaster needs assessment.

B: Field Visit purpose

To accomplish the objectives, ADPC team with PIU (NIDM officials) would visit selected States whereby collection would be made of, and discussions would be held with, State and District officials for the following:

• Reports of past disaster assessments conducted; • Standing directives, guidelines and standard formats that may be available and en force in each State Disaster Management Agency and other local agencies for disaster impact and needs assessment; and • Exchange of ideas on possible ways to improve data collection and analysis.

C: Data Collection

To facilitate data collection, the following baseline information to be gathered in each State is presented below.

1. Annual State Statistical Abstract, for past 5 years, which normally includes: - Gross State Domestic Product, in real and nominal terms, and by sector of economic activity, and Fiscal sector position; 2. State Production Accounts, by sector of economic activity, for past 5 years;

1 The term assessment is used not for only relief distribution purposes but for recovery and reconstruction purposes as well. Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

3. Value-Added coefficients relating gross production to GSDP, by sector of economic activity (usually obtained from either an input/output table or from supply-and-use tables, available from Statistical Offices; 4. Population Census by State, most recent version; 5. Household survey by States, most recent version, including data on income and expenditure by households; 6. Human Development Report, most recent version, with State-level data; 7. Agricultural Census, most recent, with state level data; annual agriculture production yearbooks (quantity of crop production, harvested area, and prices paid to farmers for each crop); annual agricultural production forecasts (based on planting intentions and seed varieties to be used by farmers), etcetera; 8. Annual electricity production by source, annual sales of electricity to consumers, consumer rates, etcetera; 9. Annual water supply to consumers, by consumer type; annual sales of water to consumers, and consumer rates, etcetera; 10. Official surveys on quantity and economic value of environmental assets and services that may be available.

C: Key Informants

• State level Government officials • District and below Level Officials • Non-Government agencies that supports Government DRM agenda

D: Key Informant Questions

Headline Questions

1. What is the current institutional arrangement for post-disaster needs assessment2 in the State? 2. Can you share some of the examples of post-disaster assessments carried out by the State? 3. Do you have examples where local government and communities have been consulted thoroughly for developing recovery and reconstruction process? If so, why and how did this occur? 4. Which are the main Departments and Agencies in your State that are involed in post- disaster needs assessment? 5. What are the gaps in the current system: human resource capacities and training needs? 6. Based on your experience, please recommend the best ways to put in place a system of post-disaster needs assessment for your State

2 A needs assessment referred hereafter is a systematic process for quantitatively determining damage and losses from natural disaster events, measuring the impact of the disaster at all levels, and identifying the financial requirements to achieve recovery and reconstruction Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Specific Questions

1. Please provide examples where Government has used non- Partnerships government agencies help in carrying out post-disaster needs assessment, particularly on environment, social and economic sectors? 2. Please provide examples where the private sector has a significant role in post-disaster needs assessment 3. How do community representatives (e.g. NGOs or local leaders) participate in post-disaster needs assessment and influence the allocation of funding for recovery and reconstruction? Please provide examples. 4. Are government officials able to obtain social, economic and Technical Capacity environmental baseline and trend data? Are officials able to assess the data collected after a disaster? 5. Do the key officials such as SDM, BDO and Revenue Inspectors have appropriate formats for conducting PDNA? What are the different forms and formats being used?

6. Besides Revenue Department, which are the other key Institutional Capacity departments that conduct post-disaster needs assessment 7. Does the Department of Agriculture in the States carry our annual reports on production (production quantity, surface area planted, unit prices paid to producers, for each crop), 8. Do they conduct annual production forecasts for each year on the basis of surface intended to be planted and seed variety to be used by farmers, and also whether they carry out annual food balance surveys and forecasts? If they do, please share latest information they have which may not be in their web portals (for use as baseline information for any post-disaster needs assessment in the future). 9. Do companies such as electricity and water and sanitation (both publicly owned and privately owned) do any post-disaster needs assessments? 10. Please share copies of such work if available, as well as the annual performance reports of those companies that could be used as baseline for any assessment in the future 11. How are the provisions in NDRF and SDRF being used for post disaster needs assessment? 12. Which are the key Department and agencies in the State that collect information on social impact due to disasters? Is there any system of assessing the social impact in the State? 13. Please provide examples where community-based organizations Community (CBOs) are mobilized to assess post disaster damage assessment. Engagement What is needed to mobilize CBOs? Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

E: Possible Departments for Field Visit3

1. Agriculture Department 2. Animal Husbandry & Fisheries 3. Disaster Department 4. Education 5. Energy Department 6. Environment & Forest Department 7. Finance Department 8. Health, Medical & Family Welfare 9. Housing 10. Industries and Commerce 11. Information & Public Relation Department 12. Infrastructure and Investment 13. Irrigation 14. Panchayat Raj and Rural Development 15. Planning & Development Department 16. Revenue & Land Reforms Department 17. Science & Technology Department 18. Social Welfare Department 19. Transport, Roads and Buildings Department 20. Urban Development Department 21. Water Resources Department 22. Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens

3 Since there are limitations in the budget for the project, it will be necessary to limit the number of institutions to be visited and it will be up to the State to suggest which Departments to meet. Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Uttarakhand State Visit Report

A visit was made to the State of Uttarakhand was held from 23 to 25 March, 2014, to obtain information on the procedures used for disaster impact and post-disaster needs assessment, as part of the PDNA Study for India. This is a brief report of information obtained and discussions held during said visit.

Meeting with DMMC After lengthy and detailed discussions were held with the Director, DMMC, it has been ascertained that post- disaster needs assessments undertaken by the combined action of the Revenue Department and DMMC are made with the sole purpose of ascertaining the financial requirements for relief assistance as defined under the guidelines set forth for the State Disaster Response Fund and the National Disaster Response Fund. Revenue Department officials either visit or contact by phone the affected areas to obtain information on destroyed assets and on whether crop production has exceeded 50 per cent of expected output, and deliver the obtained information to DMMC. It was also found that not all sectors of economic and social activity are included in the assessment of relief requirements. As an example, in regard to the industrial sector the relief requirements of small scale mills and other similar micro-enterprises are included without covering the entire spectrum of industries, and little if anything is covered for the commerce or trade sector. Similarly, no assessment of recovery and reconstruction needs is made for the case of the environment, even though it is recognized that environmental assets and services are widely affected by disasters. The guidelines for SDRF and NDRF are used to estimate relief fund requirements, and do not include any provisions for estimating recovery of personal/household income, recovery of services provision, or recovery of production financial requirements. Therefore, it may be concluded that the scope of post-disaster needs assessments in the State is limited and does not cover the entire needs arising after disasters. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department was invited to attend the meeting with the Director, DMMC, and provided information as to the scope of the estimation of relief needs routinely done by Revenue Department officials. He also indicated that such officials do not have adequate substantive training on each of the sectors that they are to assess, and that they only conduct a quantification of the numbers of affected families or households due to the disaster. Copies were obtained of the standard forms used to collect data on the number of affected households, on which estimations are subsequently made of the relief requirements using the standards set forth in the Manual of Administration of SDRF and NDRF. The ADPC Team concluded that the estimations of relief assistance is undertaken promptly by the combined action of DMMC and the Revenue Department, which results in the provision of relief assistance to the affected population, but that additional training on data collection and processing might benefit the Revenue Department staff.

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

The meeting concluded with an expression by the two Government officials that since only very limited amounts of funding are available for relief assistance under SDRF and NDRF, they consider that there is no need for conducting the estimation of recovery and reconstruction needs, which fact is aggravated by the lack of trained staff in their Departments that might carry out such wider scope estimations. They pointed out that some sectorial agencies or departments – such as the departments of agriculture, public works and others – do make estimations of longer term recovery and reconstruction requirements, since they have the required expertise on their staff and also have access to normal development funds for that purpose. Upon receiving such information, it was decided to visit at least the Department of Agriculture in order to find out the type of additional assessments carried out by these sectorial agencies.

Meeting with the Department of Agriculture During a visit to the Department of Agriculture it was possible to obtain a clear picture of the sectorial estimations conducted on crops losses and damages to agriculture infrastructure caused by disasters, and also to verify the type of baseline information on production that is regularly collected by the Department. It was indicated during the meeting that after a disaster occurs, staff from the Agriculture Department carry out an estimation of the value of production losses of crops and that they also estimate the needs to reconstruct destroyed assets. It was also indicated that they have access to financial resources to overcome the negative impact of the disaster on production and to rebuild destroyed assets, by drawing from the regular budget for development of the sector that the Department manages.

Through subsequent exchanges of information it was found that while they may estimate the value of production losses, such estimations are not used to ascertain the amounts of recovery assistance required by farmers to restore production to pre-disaster levels; furthermore, that reconstruction requirements that they estimate refer mostly to funding required to rebuild assets under the domain of the Department, but that they do not include rebuilding of destroyed assets of the affected farmers nor to reduce disaster risk.

The ADPC Team concluded that although the Department of Agriculture has the expertise required to estimate agriculture production decline and losses, they do not expand the analysis to estimate recovery and reconstruction requirements by the disaster-affected farmers. It follows then that again in the case of the agriculture sector, only relief assistance is provided to the farmers, after which they are left on their own to rebuild their destroyed assets and to try and recover production levels on their own using their own resources. It was further concluded that the Department of Agriculture is utilizing development funds to attend to post-disaster needs within their institutional purview, but at the cost of reducing the financing available for normal development purposes.

Documents were obtained that describe the annual quantities of crop production, surface area planted, average crop yield, and prices paid to farmers as well as market prices for each crop. The availability of this information ensures that there is sufficient baseline data to conduct full assessment of disaster effects and impact and post-disaster requirements for recovery and for disaster-resilient reconstruction, if it were so desired.

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Field observations of road reconstruction

During the trip to Uttarakhand it was possible to briefly observe on-going reconstruction works of the road and drainage structures (including bridges and culverts) that were destroyed by last year´s floods in parts of the State.

It became evident that considerable erosion occurred in the uplands, and that the silt was deposited in river beds and in the adjacent plains. River bed levels have risen considerably after the event. Yet, the road was not realigned to avoid the sections that are at lower levels, and several bridges and culverts are being rebuilt at the same level and with similar discharge capacities as they had prior to the disaster. Some private houses had been rebuilt in the same location they had prior to the flooding, adjacent to rivers.

Reconstruction using the same pre-disaster standards and without minimum relocation may have actually increased vulnerabilities, which might facilitate further destruction of the rebuilt works when new, high-intensity rains generate further floods in the near future.

People Visited

1. Mr Piyoosh Rautela, The Executive Director, DMMC 2. Mr Santosh Bhadoni, Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department 3. Mr Mahidhar Singh Tomar, Deputy Director (Technical), Directorate of Agriculture

Documents Reviewed during visit-

1. Uttarakhand Memorandum 2012 2. Disaster Relief Memorandum 2010 3. Rudraprayag Memorandum 2012 4. P-20 Form 5. Crop Production Details – Kharif 2011-12 and Rabi 2010-11 6. Crop MSP Details (as of 24-03-2014) 7. Information on Reconstruction / Re-establishing Destroyed Assets (Agri Dept) 8. Performance Budget 2013-14 (Agriculture Department) 9. Proposed Work Plan 2013-14 (Agriculture Department).

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Odisha State Visit Report Visit to the State of Odisha

The ADPC Team Leader for the PDNA Study for India, and Miss Priyanka Chowdhary from the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) of the National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP), National Institute of Disaster Management, visited the State of Odisha from 1 to 3 April 2014 to obtain information on the current practices for disaster impact assessment in that State, as well as to gather statistical information on State activities for use as baseline for possible future post-disaster needs assessments.

During the visit to Bhubaneswar the offices of the Odisha State Disaster Management Authority (OSDMA), Revenue Department, and of other disaster-related sectorial and support institutions were visited and discussions were held to learn about current practices for disaster impact assessment, recovery and reconstruction activities. A list of the officials with which interviews were held follows:

1. Dr. Taradatt, Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department. 2. Mr. Avaya Kumar Nayak, General Manager, Odisha State Disaster Management Authority (OSDMA). 3. Mr. B.N. Mishra, GIS and Environment Specialist (OSDMA). 4. Mr. Puroshottam Sahoo, Additional Secretary, Agriculture Department 5. Mr. Gangadhar Dass, Joint Secretary, Agriculture Department. 6. Mr. Shatrughan Dass, Chief Engineer, Water Resources. 7. Mr. Dushyasan Behra, Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics 8. Chief Engineer, Public Works. 9. Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Mohapatra, Deputy Relief Commissioner, Revenue Department.

During the discussions it became evident that State officials of the Revenue Department conduct assessments for disaster relief purposes, efficiently following the dictates of the State Disaster Response Fund and the National Disaster Response Fund, with a view to providing assistance to affected population within 45 days after a disaster. The amounts of assistance provided are defined in the guidelines of the previously mentioned funds.

In addition, officials from the State line departments conduct subsequent estimations of agriculture sector losses, urgent repairs required for basic lifelines or services – including roads, water and sanitation, electricity supply, etcetera – in order to carry out rehabilitation works in public infrastructure. Funds for that purpose are taken not from the Relief Funds but from the operation and maintenance budget of each line department, even at the cost of not being able to provide proper maintenance to other works.

In summary, in Odisha State relief assistance is estimated and provided in an efficient manner, although not all sectors of social and economic activity are covered, on the assumption that the affected population has savings, insurance or other means to achieve it on its own. Recovery needs are not estimated.

Reconstruction needs to replace destroyed assets are estimated for government-owned property only. Reconstruction requirements are obtained from the normal or regular State Government budget for operation and maintenance, despite the opportunity costs generated by using maintenance funds, which would imply that inadequate maintenance is provided to infrastructure after disasters. No evidence was provided that the rebuilt infrastructure conforms to disaster-resilient standards.

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Discussions were held to reach a consensus on the limitations of the existing system of assessment, and on the need to conduct holistic assessments to cover all sectors of social and economic activity, whether publicly or privately owned, and to provide – in addition to relief assistance – recovery and reconstruction under improved standards to achieve risk reduction.

During said discussions, note was taken of the State officials legitimate concern for the possible unavailability of sufficient State funds to cover such wide-ranging needs, in view of State budget limitations. As a reply, assurances were given to them that the State Government was not expected to finance all recovery and reconstruction needs, but to estimate total needs and to facilitate their financing making use of a combination of public and private funds.

We were informed that the Revenue Officials that conduct relief assessments do not have a standardized format for data collection and that, likewise, the Agriculture Department officials that carry out estimation of production losses do not have similar formats.

During a visit to the State Statistical Office information was collected on the schedule of release of statistical data for the State, as well as for surveys describing economic information. A copy of the most recent economic survey available was collected for use as baseline data for any post-disaster needs assessment that may be undertaken in the future. We were informed that the State is waiting for guidelines for the development of satellite accounts for the environment that should come from the Central Statistical Office.

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Tamil Nadu State Visit Report

Field visit to Tamil Nadu as part of 'Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India' Under National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP) - 3-5th July, 2014

The Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) Study is a major initiative for strengthening the post-disaster recovery mechanism in the country, wherein the standardized PDNA tools relevant to India will be developed. In order to facilitate this, visits to the ten identified states under this study were to be carried out during the study period. The Consultant's team along with a representative of NIDM has visited the state of Tamilnadu to understand the existing procedures of Post Disaster Needs Assessment in Tamil Nadu, i.e one of the 10 representative states for the study. The team consists of Mr. Emmanuel C. Torrente, Training, Capacity Building & evaluation expert, ADPC, Mr. Tarique Sohail, Office co-coordinator, ADPC, Mr. Priyank Jindal, Specialist, NIDM, who visited Tamilnadu from 3 to 5th July, 2014.

1. The team had meeting with Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration on 3.7.2014 and interacted with all the key departments at state level including official from state planning commission, where the officials shared their experiences on post disaster assistance followed by inputs for PDNA. 2. The team had meeting with the District Collector, Cuddalore on 4.7.2014 and interaction with the district, Block and village level officials, Non-government organization & farmers including officials from District statistics office. The officials also shared their experiences during Cyclone 'Thane' of 2012 and Tsunami of 2004. 3. The team had discussion at Thazhangudu village with fishing communities & others, members of self-help groups, NGO's and village level officials from health, education & administration department etc.

The visit helped the team to understand the existing processes being followed for assessments of post disasters needs and also other issues related to the communities. The experience of Tamil Nadu visit will be useful for the understanding the present system of PDNA other states too. During the visit, the team was also briefed on the procedures as to how the state operates during and after disasters including the reporting system. Sample post- disaster reports were also provided to the team. On the other hand, the team introduced the general concepts of the new internationally-accepted post-disaster assessment methodology. The following are the main findings from the visit:

1. Tamil Nadu has an extensive and updated data across all sectors. For example, the state has a complete record of government infrastructure and very relevant information on agriculture, including the areas of land, crops planted and number of farmers, among others. For the social sector, the demographic data is updated and segregated by sex and age.

2. The state provides various types of assistance after a disaster - from the basic food, clothing and shelter to longer term assistance to farmers, micro-entrepreneurs and psycho-social services, among others.

3. The state normally conducts a post-disaster assessment after a disaster regardless of magnitude and scope. However, it was noted that the post-disaster report is forwarded to the national government normally only if the State needs assistance from the national government.

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

4. The valuation methods used by the State in estimating damages and needs are not yet completely in accordance with the internationally-accepted PDNA. For instance, damages, losses and needs are not clearly defined.

5. The creation of a post-disaster recovery plan is not generally practiced after a major disaster. It appears that the post-disaster assessment report is not considered as a tool for longer-term recovery but more of a document that will identify the immediate needs of those affected.

6. The officials met in Tamil Nadu are willing to learn and open to adopt the internationally-accepted post- disaster methodology. The state is willing to collaborate with the project in the development and training of a post-disaster assessment methodology.

Based on what was learned from the visit, the team is of the general opinion that the introduction to Tamil Nadu of the internationally-accepted PDNA methodology that can be easily conducted. First, a post-disaster assessment system exists in terms of procedures and personnel. Second, the baseline information in the state is extensive which will make PDNA easier. Lastly, the state is willing and open to learn and adopt the new methodology completely, from the damage, loss and needs assessment to recovery planning. The experience of Tamil Nadu visit will be useful for the understanding the present system of PDNA in other states too.

Documents reviewed during visit-

1. A booklet that had answers to the questionnaire sent to the visiting state having the headline question and specific questions, and relevant formats.

2. Abstract of the Drought-Water Scarcity Revenue Department G.O.(Ms)No.89 dated 24.02.2014

3. District Disaster Management Plan & Hand Book, Cuddalore, Year 2013-2014

4. Indian Red Cross Society, Cuddalore, Disaster Risk Reduction Program Leaflet & Forms.

5. Report on Thane Rehabilitation Works by Fisheries Department, Thane Disbursement Category Wise, MSME Department, Cuddalore

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Maharashtra State Visit Report

Field visit to Maharashtra as part of 'Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India' Under National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP) – 9-11th July, 2014

The Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) Study is a major initiative for strengthening the post-disaster recovery mechanism in the country, wherein the standardized PDNA tools relevant to India will be developed. In order to facilitate this, visits to the ten identified states under this study were to be carried out during the study period. The Consultant's team along with a representative of NIDM has visited the state of Maharashtra to understand the existing procedures of Post Disaster Needs Assessment in Maharashtra, i.e. one of the 10 representative states for the study. The team consists of Ms. Priyanka Chowdhary, Specialist, NIDM, and Ms. Thitiphon Sinsupan, Program manager, ADPC, who visited Maharashtra from 9th to 11th July, 2014.

1. The team had a meeting with the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra as well as Director, Disaster Management Unit, Relief and Rehabilitation Division of Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra on 9.7.2014 and interacted with all key departments, such as, Environment, Agriculture, etc., where officials shared their experiences related to post disaster damage assessment and provided their input to PDNA, for example, Standard formats for assessment in different sectors, and in future, attach PDNA specialist with state disaster management authority for capacity building in PDNA.

2. The team has a meeting with Additional Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) on 9.7.2014 and officials, who shared their experiences about the damage assessment and suggestions for PDNA.

3. The team also had discussion with the Chairperson, Jamsetji Tata Center for Disaster Management, TISS, and Mumbai, who shared TISS experiences in the post disaster damage assessment (e.g. Psycho-Social Impact Assessment – Post disaster traumatic stress, Vidharbha study). The institute also agreed to share its work on the Rapid assessment report (qualitative assessment) – for Kutch & Rajkot, after Gujarat earthquake of 2001.

4. At district level, the team had a meeting with District Collector, Aurangabad on 10.7.2014 and interacted with all key departments including Agriculture, PWD, Environment, Fire, Statistics, Forest, Animal Husbandry, etc. where officials shared their previous experiences in damage assessment and shared circulars, reports, and formats for assessment.

5. At district level, the team also met with District Commissioner, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and interacted with officials from urban local bodies on 11.7.2014, who shared their overview of damage assessment after disasters, challenges they felt with Maharashtra Resettlement Policy, Acquisition of land act, 1984, and social aspects which is often left out during the rehabilitation and recovery processes.

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Maharshtra : Meeting Details

Name of the Department visited Key discussions/outcomes

Meeting 1: Ms. I. A. Kundan, 1. The question format for IPDNA data collection is sent to all departments to separately answer all Position: Secretary to Government of Maharashtra questions. 2. Each department is asked to provide the answers Position: Director, Disaster Management Unit, Relief to PDNA study within 1 week to NIDM and Rehabilitation Division of Revenue and Forest 3. Latur Earthquake & Assessment Department 4. Drought: Paisewari in Maharashtra: assessing actual yield as compared to the standard yield Department invited: 5. Chain of command for damage assessment is same for each state and led by revenue department Disaster management, Environment and Forest 6. No Private sector assessment by government Department, Agriculture Department, etc. bodies Recommendations

1. Standard formats for assessment in different sectors 2. To attach PDNA specialist with state disaster management authority for capacity building in PDNA

Meeting with Sh. Sanjay Deshmukh, Additional 1. Not much work in the area of Post Disaster Municipal Commissioner of MCGM Damage Need Assessment 2. Primary responsibility of Collector office, revenue Meeting with Mahesh Narvekar, Chief Officer department (Disaster Management (DMP) & Central Complaint 3. SOP and control room functions were presented 4. Detailed risk assessment of Mumbai (including all Registration System (CCRS) wards) for quick response Visit to: Central Complaint Registration System (CCRS)

Ms. Jacquleen Joseph, Chairman, Jamsetji Tata Center 1. Psycho-Social Impact Assessment – Post disaster for Disaster Management, TISS, Mumbai traumatic stress, Vidharbha study, and 2 papers 2. Psycho-social Care (work) by Shekhar, NIMHANS 3. TISS work after Latur earthquake (Fomat available in Latur Report) on rapid assessment Ms. Janki Andheria, Professor, TISS 4. TISS work with Gujarat Government: Rapid assessment report (qualitative assessment) – for Kutch & Rajkot 5. Abhiyan NGOs work with TISS

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Aurangabad Visit

District Collector, District collector office, Aurangabad 1. Paisewari (documents including format and circular shared with NIDM) for Drought Assessment in Maharashtra 2. PWD formats for assessment (normal assessment Departments’ presented: Agriculture, PWD, for roads, buildings, buildings which are rented, Environment, Fire, Disaster Management, revenue, and bridges shared with NIDM) statistics,Animal Husbandry 3. PWD/AMC: Data base for District Schedule of Rates is available online and revised every year 4. Role of NGO is limited in relief and reconstruction, but not for damage assessment in Aurangabad 5. Statistical information related to PDNA: http://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/language.do? hl=en

Animal Husbandry 1. Postmortem, disease control, and medical treatment of animals 2. Data base for number of animals available in normal time. Number of animal died and affected after disaster is available 3. Data base: National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) https://www.nabard.org/English/InvalidPage.htm 4. Data base for market price of animals is available with life stock development officer 5. Curricular on fodder required for animals; 6. Village Level (Demand and supply study on available fodder in case of any drought, less rainfall, flood situation) Forest Department 1. Data base available for forest that are grown for commercial purpose Aurangabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) 1. Overview of Damage assessment after disaster 2. Damage assessment is not the mandate of the AMC, however, they are capable to undertake and provide support to the district upon request 3. Maharashtra Resettlement Policy in place and but should be revised (location and land price for resettlement) since it often have impacts on people’s livelihood as well as social security due resettlement, particularly to the poor 4. Acquisition of land act, 1984 will be revised and under this the government will pay double price to the land owner. 5. Social aspects need to consider such as impacts on the women (e.g. widows) in the relief assistance, reconstruction and rehabilitation

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Gujarat State Visit Report

Field visit to Gujarat as part of 'Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India' Under National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP) – 14-16th July, 2014

The Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) Study is a major initiative for strengthening the post-disaster recovery mechanism in the country, wherein the standardized PDNA tools relevant to India will be developed. In order to facilitate this, visits to the ten identified states under this study were to be carried out during the study period. The Consultant's team along with a representative of NIDM has visited the state of Gujarat to understand the existing procedures of Post Disaster Needs Assessment in Gujarat, i.e. one of the 10 representative states for the study. The team consists of Ms. Priyanka Chowdhary, Specialist, NIDM, and Ms. Thitiphon Sinsupan, Program manager, ADPC, who visited Gujarat from 14th to 16th July, 2014.

1. The team had a meeting with the Additional CEO, Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA) on 14.7.2014 and interacted with all key officials from disaster management, where they shared their experiences related to damage assessment especially, Gujarat’s Post Disaster Need Assessment (PDNA) study conducted in 2006. The key officials also shared the assessment formats for all sectors/departments, however, it was informed that these formats were never used because the state never experienced any major disaster after Gujarat earthquake of 2005.

2. The team has a meeting with Commissioner of Relief, Revenue Department, and Government of Gujarat on 14.7.2014, who shared his experiences on damage assessments and provided input to the PDNA study.

3. The team also had discussion with the Secretary, Road and Buildings (R&B) Department, Govt. of Gujarat on 14.7.2014 and interacted with other officials including Superintendent Engineer, where officials shared experiences of damage assessment especially building assessment formats which were developed by the R&B department. With regards to assessment of buildings, although an effort to clarify the categorization in case of buildings was done after Gujarat earthquake, by developing a G1-G5 categorization, the categorization in case of roads and bridges continues to be vague. Although, the effectiveness of the 5 fold categorization in buildings is also contested, when it actually comes to assessment on the ground - there is difficulty in categorization, people tend to make changes to come in the higher category and claimants increase due to this.

4. The team had a meeting with Unnati, NGO local in Ahmedabad on 14.7.2014 and interacted with key persons, where they shared their experiences with regards to damage assessments and suggested some key points; namely, DM Planning processes should be in place for proper assessment, Baseline data is important and available at district and Taluka level, Safety (Social Safety Mechanism) should be incorporated in the assessment for PDNA, and People friendly approach is important for PDNA thus social and technical aspects should match.

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

5. At district level, the team had a meeting with Additional District Collector, Kutch on 15.7.2014 and interacted with all key departments including Irrigation, Mamlatdar, Animal husbandry, Agriculture, Gram Panchayat, etc., where officials shared their previous experiences in damage assessment after Gujarat earthquake of 2001 and shared circulars, reports, and assessment formats they used in the post-earthquake scenarios.

6. At district level, the team also met with officers from Fisheries department on 15.7.2014, where they shared past damage assessment after major cyclones in Gujarat and input to the PDNA.

7. At district level, the team met Industrial Inspector, District Industrial Center (DIC) and other officials from same center on 15.7.2014, where they shared their damage assessment experiences especially from local flood of 2013 in Kutch, when a study was done by this center in Bhuj area to assess the flood damages occurred especially to the service providers such as shopkeepers and expanded to the households living in the affected areas. For salt field, damage assessment was done in the past against flood. The DIC has no predefined formats to make damage assessment after any disaster. It is conducted if directed by the state govt. It shared the damage assessment formats as well as other documents for PDNA study.

8. At district level, the team also met District Development Officer, Kutch on 15.7.2014, who shared his experiences of damage assessment and provided input for PDNA study.

9. At district level, the team had a meeting with key officials from Abhiyan (NGO) – Network of organization and interacted on 16.7.2014 and they shared their damage assessment experiences and suggested that re- assessment is required for the accuracy, for instance, as per the Gujarat earthquake experience, the assessment in health/ medical sector and housing were done 3 times, as things became clearer and situations changed – the first assessment started roughly within 10 days of the earthquake. The other 2 were distributed in the 1 year period that followed. Finally, for the input to the PDNA study, the organization shared some of the key documents on damage assessment.

10. At district level, the team had a meeting with Town Planning Officer, Bhuj Area Development Authority (BHADA) and other officials on 16.7.2014, where they shared their experiences of damage assessment and rehabilitation phase through sharing Master Plan for Bhuj.

11. At district level, the team also had a meeting with key officials from SEWA (NGO) for “women empowerment” and interact on 16.7.2014, where they shared experiences related to damage assessment and input to the PDNA study.

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Name of the Department visited Key discussions/outcomes

Meeting 1: Sh. A.M. Mankad (IAS), Additional CEO, 1. The question format for PDNA was answered by Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority GSDMA (GSDMA) 2. Assessment Formats for PDNA were shared for all sectors/departments

Meeting Attended by: 3. Formats developed for PDNA were never utilized by state departments as the state was never affected by 1. Birju Patel, Deputy Director, GSDMA major disasters. Thus, no feedback, suggestions, and challenges on the current formats. 2. Komal Kantaria, Sector Manager, GSDMA 4. It was informed that through training, the capacity

to undertake PDNA assessment after any disaster is often provided at Gujarat Institute of Disaster Management (GIDM)

Meeting 2: Commissioner of Relief, Revenue 1. Guidelines, such as, NDRF and SDRF should be Department, Gujarat revised (less assistance during major disaster)

2. There should be more transparency in the post disaster scenarios

Meeting 3: Sh. Pradeep N. Jain, Secretary, Road and Standard formats are available for assessment but as Buildings Department, Govt. of Gujarat per the Secretary, they are not the ones which were developed by GSDMA after PDNA exercise. Also, it was informed that although an effort to clarify the categorization in case of buildings was done after Bhuj Meeting 4: Mr. S.K Patel, Superintendent Engineer earthquake, by developing a G1-G5 categorization, the categorization in case of roads and bridges continues to be vague. Although, the effectiveness of the 5 fold categorization in buidings is also contested, when it actually comes to assessment on the ground - there is difficulty in categorization, people tend to make changes to come in the higher category and claimants increase due to this.

Meeting 5: Unnati, NGO, Ahmedabad 1. Impact is not properly assessed

2. DM Planning processes should be in place for proper assessment

3. Outsiders cannot do assessment thus local people should be part of the system

4. Baseline data is important and available at district and Taluka level

5. For medium term PDNA assessment, multi- stakeholders approach should be followed

6. Safety (Social Safety Mechanism) should be incorporated in the assessment for PDNA

7. People friendly approach is important for PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015 Name of the Department visited Key discussions/outcomes

thus social and technical aspects should match

District Visit: Bhuj, Kutch

Meeting 1: Sh. D.B. Shah, Add. District 1. Process of collecting damage assessment was Magistrate/Collector, Collector Office, Revenue Office shared in the meeting by the Sh. D.B Shah

2. The Add. District Collector requested all departments to share their assessment formats with Department office Presented: Irrigation, Mamlatdar, PDNA team Animal husbandry, Agriculture, Gram Panchayat, etc.

Meeting 2: Officer, Fisheries Department 1. The damages to the fishermen, boats, equipment, etc., are physically examined by the team and a detailed report as per the owner’s account is taken

Meeting 3: Sh. L.M. Parmar, Junior Industrial 1. In 2013, study was done by this department to Inspector, District Industrial Center (DIC) assess the flood damages occurred especially to the service providers such as shopkeepers and expanded to the households living in the affected areas. The formats to assess the damages were prepared by the DIC at the time of flood

2. Micro Medium Small scale Enterprises (MMSEs) are registered with DIC. However, registration is not compulsory. Suggestion: The registration should be compulsory for each unit

3. For salt field, damage assessment was done in the past against flood

4. No predefined formats to make damage assessment after any disaster. It is conducted if directed by the state govt.

Meeting 4: R.G. Balara, District Development Officer, 1. Damage assessment in various sectors, immediately Kutch after any disaster, done as per priorities

2. Immediate rapid damage assessment often carried out with priorities

Meeting 5: Abhiyan (NGO) – Network of organization 1. During 2001, For Damage assessment, several re- assessment are required. As per the Bhuj experience, Team Presented: 12 members team from Abhiyan was the assessment in health/ medical sector and housing presented for this. were done 3 times, as things became clearer and situations changed – the first assessment started roughly within 10 days of the earthquake. The other 2 were distributed in the 1 year period that followed.

2. Damage assessment is done for various phases after any disaster (i.e. relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015 Name of the Department visited Key discussions/outcomes

3. After Gujarat earthquake of 2001, SETU Centers were established by the network of NGO in coordination with Gujarat government (GSDMA) and conducted damage assessment for 492 villages and remained focal point during relief and rehabilitation phase

4. Damage assessment done by the NGOs network also involved government officials from various sectors to ensure that the outcomes of the assessment can further help in relief and rehabilitation phases

4. The damage assessment for structure was very well carried after Gujarat earthquake. The social aspects was not very well assessed. On the other hand, damage assessment on social aspects is much better carried in Tamil Nadu (e.g. damage assessment to livelihood)

5. Human resource assessment is important to be carried out after any major disaster

6. Heritage structure damage assessment should be part of assessment

Meeting 6: Sh. Yadav, Town Planning Officer, Bhuj 1. Rehabilitation of Kutch, Bhuj, is done through Area Development Authority (BHADA) Master Plan and Town Planning Schemes.

2. Proper damage and need assessment was carried out before developing the Master

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

List of documents reviewed during visit-

No. Name of document Source Remark

Maharashtra

1 MEERP at a Glance Maharashtra EQ in 1993; the damage; recue & relief; rehabilitation; salient features of EQ rehabilitation program (housing, infrastructure, water supply, irrigation, economic rehabilitation, social rehabilitation, community rehabilitation, technical assistance, training and equipment); achievements at a glance; community participation; technology

2 Establishment of DM policy & Aurangabad In Marati plan

3 Aurangabad district disaster Aurangabad management plan 2014-2015

4 Paicewari circular Agriculture Dept., In Marati Aurangabad

5 Paicewari Formats Agriculture Dept., In Marati Aurangabad

6 Description of Pacewari Agriculture Dept. In Marati

7 Manarashtra circular regarding Animal husbandry, In Marati livestock in drought situation Aurangabad

8 Animal husbandry statistical Animal husbandry, booklet 2010-2011 Aurangabad

9 Availability of fodders in case Animal husbandry, In Marati of drought Aurangabad

10 Database – fodder storage Animal husbandry, schemes (DVD) Aurangabad

11 Comprehensive inspection PWD, Aurangabad In Marati form for bridge

12 Road management system PWD, Aurangabad

13 Rent valuation history sheet PWD, Aurangabad In Marati Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015 No. Name of document Source Remark

14 Forestry dept. data Forestry dept., Forest covered area – in Marati Aurangabad

15 SOPs (brochure) – disaster Aurangabad In Marati preparedness

16 SOPs – religious and social Aurangabad In Marati gathering and Yatra

17 SOPs – Free monsoon Aurangabad In Marati preparation

18 SOP for responding to terrorist Collector & District attacks – Aurangabad airport Magistrate, Aurangabad

19 Posters – Dos and Dont’s NDMA

Gujarat

1 Answers for headline GSDMA questions by GSDMA

2 PDNA format – 2006 GSDMA – Final report: Methodology for damage and loss assessment, Gujarat

3 Kutch district at a glance District Industries Area; population; roads; industrial Center, Opp. Civil sectors; banks; power station & sub- Hospital, Bhuj-Kutch station; collages & schools; industrial co-op society; ports; railway; minerals; existing industries and employments; types of industries;

4 Presentation on development Bhuj Area In soft and hard copies of Bhuj after 2001 EQ Development Authority (BHADA)

5 Disaster Management Plan – District Industrial In Gujarati Industrial sector Center, Email: gm- dic- [email protected]

6 Industrial development in District Industries Ind. Units before and after EQ Kutch Center, Opp. G K (registered, investment, General Hospital, employment); details of special Bhuj-Kutch economic zone in district

7 Schemes & benefits for In Gujarati industries Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015 No. Name of document Source Remark

8 Schemes & benefits after Bhuj In Gujarati EQ

9 Schemes – District Industrial District Industrial In Gujarati Center Center (DIC)

10 Cash dole application format Revenue dept. Mostly flood immediate relief – in Gujarati

11 Tabular information - PWD Publicworks Department wise details of EQ Department (PWD), affected Resi. Govt. Buildings; Details Kutch of Progress of Works (R&B Deptt. Public Building EQ); Gujarat Emergency EQ Reconstruction Project; Damage of surface roads; Damages to bridge, cause way, slab drain, pipe drain & protective work

12 Forestry Dept Format Gujarat In Gujarati

13 DVD Coming Together – All Abhiyan A document on the past earthquake Edition rehabilitation by various organizations working in Kutch

14 Pre/Post monsoon inspection Kutch Irrigation The inspection checklist to be format Circular completed every time a maintenance inspection is performed. General inspection to be performed every year in Mar and Oct.

15 Flood Disaster Management In Gujarati Plan (Early Warning)

16 Department Information - Bhuj Area In Gujarati Bhuj Area Development Development Authority (BHADA) Authority (BHADA), www.bhujada.com

17 Format Animal Husbandry In Gujarati

18 Format Animal Husbandry In Gujarati

19 Format in case of death in In Gujarati disaster

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015

Bihar State Visit Report

Field visit to Bihar as part of 'Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India' Under National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP) – 20th- 24th July, 2014

Meeting with Agriculture Directorate, Patna

• The three member team consisting of Mr. Aslam Perwaiz & Tarique Sohail from ADPC and Mr. Priyank Jindal from NIDM had a discussion on the PDNA scenario in the state. • Eye estimation – farmer wise in the village with help from revenue inspector and at times district officials are present • Basic problem is land erosion, silt deposit and mass rehabilitation • CRF mandates river Sone area affected only if it is more than 50% whereas for drought it is not considered • Use of modern technology is advocated by the department officials like remote sensing, geo tagged GPS • Training on post disaster assessment to panchayat sewaks, kisan salahkar and agriculture coordinator who are the actual person to visit the affected area initially

Disaster Management Department, Patna Secretariat

• Pertaining to relief disbursement only, actual assessment is not done • More stress needed on scientific assessment , satellite monitoring • Crops estimation via satellite for actual damage • SOPs of flood and drought different • Enrolling of all small and roadside establishment for quick response in times of disaster

BSDMA, Pant Bhawan, Patna

• Prof. Arya emphasized todays preparedness scenario as grim compared to the 1934 earthquake, • Recovery of life, livelihood and rehabilitation, reconstruction is required for the PDNA • The present methods estimates the loss as per state directives whereas need is there for all type of damage estimation for actual PDNA • Stressed estimation based on panchayat and village business affected • Need of training required

Post Disaster Needs Assessment Study for India, 2014-2015 Vikas Bhawan, Collectorate, Saharsa

• Most of the line departments were present but were unable to part with formats used for assessment after a disaster. • IMD reporting to be channelized with more sophisticated equipments • Assessment done to grant relief, no provision for recovery • No socio psychological assessment done

Field visit to ascertain the functioning of the flood relief shelter/center in the village of Amarpur, Block Kahara. It was assisted by Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta & Muneshwar Prasad , J.E. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited.

These flood relief shelter/center are huge in nature and are strategically located for the convenience of the affected people and are easily accessible. Provisions of cattle shed are there and was seen as separate from the main structure.

Basic facility of washing and cooking within the premises is available and is useful in flood like situation. This centre is used only during flood situation and there are at least three of them within the block level. However on interaction with the local community it was felt that such a huge facility can be utilized for community development purpose otherwise its upkeep is very uncertain and this may lead to damage of the facility.

Annexure 1

Officials Met during the visit

1. Sri. Dharmendra Singh, Director Agriculture 2. Sri. Rajeshwar Dayal, Engineer-in-Chief, WRD, Patna 3. Sri. Dhananjay Pati Tripathi, Director, PPM 4. Sri. Prof. A. S. Arya, Member, BSDMA 5. Sri. Naresh Paswan, Secretary, BSDMA 6. Sri. Vishal Vasvani, BSDMA 7. Sri. Anil Kumar Sinha, Vice Chairman, BSDMA 8. District Officials in Saharsa 9. Members from Inter Agency Group, Bihar

Documents reviewed during visit-

1. High Land area list for use during flood, Saharsa 2. Flood Shelter list, Saharsa 3. Pre-Flood preparedness 2014 by District Disaster Cell, Saharsa 4. Rainfall report from District Statistical Office, Saharsa 5. Guide books on Office disaster Management plan, Earthquake resistance building standard 2012, 2013, from BSDMA and the BSDMA Newsletter

Post Disaster Need Assessment Study for India

Annex-2: Relevant Data Collected from States //T-/1 /-U.L.*."j- - { )+'rct*+- -Uil^ale- r4ffi SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATIONI - TAMIL NADU w I FAD s pdlql-eft eilmfiiiorirtafir fion,$p or4lonpnryb dcub 15

C RC arrrfl urnan dlornuucrgrueb oair (District) (Cluster) (Panchayat) (Household) CRC -orouuti qgol oair, op@ ouurrt

Cf nro /oenrmn Sf nog$ol Oururt rybanurirEr gorfl ub /olrrrlillor 6luu.ri Cumqgprjrgi6 crglrio6 a-eiror Erab c.6. clgn.lpfibg;rb o irumo$ti66 2itdr gfintb 4.'.6.

Gpnanafun-rorflor oururi ro$96 Lpi6n cprrenanr$qpEB

1. €rGlrbu dunb (oenmriq - lqt umfrrircqrb) -;t;ff 1.1 1.2 1.4 1g t:€ \7 1.8

5U. .9 eiein. Ouu.rfi 6 E f E d € f $Ba HI $e €€s FcE

10.

*nnbuti Elpn our:qcocri ocnailu oaftdceqri€r Aoor:r&ir ocntlisnuri(lircr ounq{grono of6otun umilgl Sorluorrb. I SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATION - TAMIL NADU p. er&cngq cdxr&oroncr onrd6 (ANTHROPOilETRYJ (g.g dr eiurq;$gmnoenp oeur.0r-qrb)

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 undonb 6U. g'tPEotilffirouuli '9EEeog$ ouUE! e-u.ry6 d6DL aabr. (ongl*recffc$ (6trene6r:u? (4Gff4rmb) 46nt or.tai,r FTTdI onpb ot@rLtb

1 2

1 2 I 2

1 2

8. cgDo eurGrrrlDilg Foo (eunOiiolDrrfldjifop dcudLqlb) 3.1 qg.D t GiEl z ryiugrori s. gD6ioeb +. r&f qil-r@htlru':tJon S. t-{$it€tt$ttldti 3.2 6dD6a,tidqll t dqbut- 2 3. rdcd$b +.pn[I|4in:O-lm oCufonl Oir.@blh-cmd 3.3 o(}iueflnd* l rJirDt 2SEdmtf 3.5brfiocn(N) 4.8rh- AEo-oah. opcdrr{B Aino 3.4 dtEenofi{ t cro&fi: 2. €tG 3. CSlrDann: Cl1E 4. ao[ !ff6 (gtfuOuiu.ndD 3.5 d[:Oe-auao L oarrb6d@ 2. dm-dD6 +. Wttil0trdci 3.6 oO)br$tmi l qdnr 2. or.nh S.0@i6tin6 n. dcrgggCrc *rliuor- dc$odr (eunctiprolrerflDolD cr:utrl-qd)

4.1 cipnrr1trfi t(}Jlgtilrdtrgl 2.Crrrglotrdrtiin dor.iorbems 4.2 o{fii#rrrb t d'rgilci&0clou zdi:gbscnnftSdr l eybodl$: h;aegt eo*$gt ddnfiddei,iitr / eUitgtoanl ccqb@dqhg/ /40l/CoL aleuixlddxbril 4.3 sefierryfo t stntrybrO z g6efi:qryi6b€,eogtoilr s. 96&rfirgibbet$cronc o-irdr[r!rb 4.4 fi*rilgot 16gii'@ e Eino 4.5 ucuru6rfft.ngi tS6e(}i.l emh5nrir6t6n'il 3. srformq +. ancnfliofiu.l s.rfldrgGq s0rj

6. cr$lio$ IDOUO ronpqmb (euno$pronaotrirop sr:udl-errb) t pr.riant pt-oo r 5.1 6t-rb d('qilb ori'nir 6(}iu qrtioo qb. e&;oairtr uqiigoroocig 6uefuU o..dldtttfudn tLm|6o|D zqidgtffrigtb6opon6 Oroorc 5.2 Oucqirr* 0'.4trr etessr cprjqo $ptip e@ oq/-A$6.irnnrc0on' egi,Cg gxlq l qbrb eAdroo 5.3 e-rilrldr €Oiru fLrtceryi6 Eo 6nti$:(} ott$ (Health Insurance) oafudrP0dmotrf r qb'b z8droeo 5.4 ccnflUifllpioaegri6 otitgi t.4niruccrlinu 2.poflumi 3. erft@ri 4.9u8, S.enjpcerrEu 6trd$dfr.dn tkDouri'EiD6 rD@p5lo[Do6r oor$Sr$ uqiigtoruoan arq$t{rbAirm Abdr6oEI tt ICDS F:ui#*0cooron uru*n(ljOfftcenrrf t qb'h 2. EdfDo 3.SireooaofobarUonb undomg$rboo 5.6 q$n9ro"S r dcryfocirGer0ut z. drr*eireirtBcrGur 3. ourgd 4. 6hr[t- 6lo6flulkb a-drarg/Qomdr lcirsng au0urnq$futt q$ur5lub e-r-Curne66tbA$os girsro SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATION - TAMIL NADU

6. e-frq ungonriq (6.1dt eun6;ji;prowffio,p otr-rduqrb)

6.1 arir6@2616 o15ub g{96u56 g6pnocriag 3 Gaaoeir e-eorq Ceolidpgni 1q6 I e. Sidos 6.2 $tc$eoao6lurerfl dr (gO oOLl@) o$poer pm:ooir gmrE Gorosn p-6eral e-nt6@riig Souioefldeoo. prr[66h 6.3 mjp orgitaonO c-eorq 4ounu$r pC$uun@ c-eirong? 6.4 g!bun0r6dt? 'DtrDS

7. deo p-arLflrrDrDdr (eun@gbpronoolileDll G[er-rfl-qrb)

7.1 ctgimoodom:4inuu+ r. qub 2. Etilos 7.5 oo{BnC/6tgnosGud 1.46 2.8rnos 7.2 gsirirrpnfiLau14 r eub 2.$rbdDs 7.6 diC/derrafunri rs6 2.$\$coo 7.3 r@rnbngGDr*&iD t qbrb 2. $r$doo 7.7 gD6iIU F i{ry /plr6irg cti60 oncanb 1qb6 2.8$dDs 7.4 $@cdouonesrb r qbtb 2 E$eos

8. onSorprg s€ELrDtwft / eall$e&dbdt (oeocfrq - tqbt umilrioqlb)

l-or.@rDt 0-CIl.sD2 cr{il-flDg . O-fDt-rol4 2.dil'-euD5

8.1 oadig e-ot-fDtD6dr

9. dccmulb rofgnb rftfrrlu epild& err;fif4o- durrriodl 9.Ldor.b udldliw dqrnioCr

ol.516[ dugrile6ir r{ar6tai606 Grd,orfti,) F6itncurfbd @'i6ridt egrnr&cncb 6nb @rri{nftir) t. ocrfieEotb

2. OdOaoopso6 3. ujlpoar

9.9. uullrf,uiu6rb uuf,rt oeooarfr urrlrfroooodr uniuerq (gdiorie)

1.OFti 2.wfi,pgnafrworo666ir g. @iar-oo 4.6fluodl6rfr

5. l$otdE66rdl 6. D'rpoor Gdn$q6) e.8. a-riddr 6Grbu6de qbW puriairdr riefogop criryipriurr- egrryf&oefd, fGuc@irefii'odl?

r6ue6drseprdd,Cunb Iiurr(Edrpuftarir

t. r&in9rqdiprir

2. t&ir60trro6r

3. oui Ga4! CIcefiirunsni 4. Eui,Gangfll6flDrr6ri

5. oOorr@ eltnijfiurndni

o. eJuorSlEr@dr

7. l.Dt pdDot ffi SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATION - TAMIL NADU

1o. 6r-rb ouulfrglir (eunct$pronaotrfrop ocudl-ql$)

10.1 on1lonrgryg$Dcna S-rb ouuridftaeirn l qbtb z. Eino

to.2 eUb oofu$, gub ouuriyipig untr? I qaitr...... ftn:att 2. 6lrreir...... prudr

10.3 orip oocunot gub ouuirgltb? t. orgr4i$*, Co Dnplitctil Dt:@b 2fub4stDna

1o.4 Co ronpluorir ru!0Ctoeft6 olbioot Dnpduottn

11. d@tDr6r OUorrniodt rct e-niedr oiGrhridd cp&Au scrora ouFlrul8oe effi (aocriq - umt&oqrb)

11"1 OpidreDro (9[tin6i 6letl1$6 n22-rj,l,irrUxt o|, or-ulri 8@or@ Is s@-@ ls safur o{DtDfrdmD or@lD|rfrlD or@tDfianD ouurs|.o FSD (t FSb @ EttrS{*r 6nrr*I

lg. oLft eiiecuiqrb g0unGodr (eun@iibpurfldlireop ocr-rduqrb)

12.1 friulir 4[t6ir 6rub 5]rugdldffi66tfi, t Ob'h et oca ehpddpuft 2 8600 6nril0 6rnill0

12.2 AUb oaft$ gi@iryi$$ E#noo Funaeir emrdl@ eurluuuc(Fhamn? -.-.-.'.-...Futioril

12.3 6$ gfn0t@frdrooraocT 6nult0 ofiugtdrdfrEcrm? @ l qbrb 2.$d,eleo on1iffrpng z-alr-eorD / fita,tfu l q5rb 2. EddDo drOo-"or-otD6dT t e6rh 2. E$dDs

12.4 omlrh+riranen Oill0rub qpnem

@gtllulrit) e@rDrr#ipro 6lrofiem+06.. 96 orgr'"tr$Dg --_.-.

18. roeilp ocrr&airdr (eunq;bprorcf,flJitop ocudrqrb) q6oafldro$pootputicdn 13.1 slgr4$s $rorD {}uiuu picirernio 619rail@ Sgotoriro6ir /fUonrdxlr gig6 uufltitd t qr6 2.86eo0 or-rjfgcirqfiEdn? ...... 4air6cit ...... 61u4ir6tf I $pgnruulf$oj$Oatrt t on$nrnpnurb 3.Ouflui 4. qbp6Dol 13.2 Otoo0ibdultD 0rooneiroo

lr. onerilu / dlwrrurr ADulDd e-rt 6rir g@iu puiadt (qehromfrD r qb6 2.8rb00 14.'l ffirmd{i€n&ir onoffub / durmrrlrb oeruirC zrilsrrrcfflt1, 4rb oolkb ooromcurnen ond.lb / e0u.trungtb o$uiud e-6irdfi6{in 14.2 GrgDadu ondurb /eflurutu4lird e-unpgritcn o@pnatnb @pnorg 2 4dnro6€Ei{iio etrfLeb) @ SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATION - TAMIL NADU

15. egognunb ami6O gflryoailifiir e-Afrlfe*o*ateddi;oc g1!*oem agnhtorno e-Crclrtoenr? dUpa'Arane oufr ewh auegdHs,@

rfaroriaimrb

et:@igq 6r;t6tb

to'teso' @fln&-ot'd

16. ord {r6DrD (6@fu aerd&) q9ro6(Opmf6)

a)ernd6crhatprru cl.-&dl or) oiDrbuilfsneidticnacr-ic* - r". e-dr@ilt gflq[ildnfudnd eudrodnd uni8afq (eurCl$plorndsolD otudrqrb)

u&ceiacuould A[ enDtou$&3li gb.9@'Ol+lD6frIlr5 E. enuordldt 17.1 eudc.il&rlritqdry €triroronea6 dqSOorCJeEb grdDr.Dt:rtsldr ei €riraona rrr6r6t6@nuqp EdleDs Soouigrb e-circnetni' tD':Ob nctipdt SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATION - TAMIL NADU oooiq - lort oiGttu drlrrEcCr

€,,t$ 1.8 1.5 1.6 t.7 1.9 t.10

1. €5airr gOrixlppiooorri oobd ofrcnporri aeireflour;b $6roorrb e56 ognuidprui SSsnqioili 2. oueiur uoorefl €UmbuSerirefl adleftourSg45$ ;fiOtomnb gdrdDa, eflrlon €rororri 3. .6Oprttuaoe 65U'IOII p@cooae*gl Oun6$png 66dtro|dDdl Agitpqu'?/ rD@tr60oru Arpricorn 4. gtrbon o uliEoa*edrefl g[o@oui/ Srfeoodurncir eocdu.rucuorft 5. €lrjrun CtD6fbo.irrcircn e0oncsjbgl €btrori 6 lDardl ucdlnguq tDtt{il6 uononcnppndr g666ALDd) 7 Lo66ir oOn*$odxf a lDElDnrr66n 6 6urg!b66$ u#cnCgnfl

dDeoarrriq - lobt cn$ongug o-or-orocCr / eefidgrir*

6fr 8.1 6fr 8.1 6fr 4.1 d &l

L gg|lbt\it6tDs 5 6ar oloo 9 u&/6t@|aDrD lD[rO 13 Sttf.irr-'n

2 FRP 6rreI.D[6 6 6&Nrn{i'(g,6Cdnb 10 e-19ol rDr(E 14 uomeo60n

3 or-'@ogrb 7 o irl.16niy t1 Ccn$onnilq 15 2-po{ tDn{ESrf 6ouo..l

4 Aru$Snrus, a €U0J6ir 12 Oorsrurporb t6 t'onr$otdnrp

ooorirl - 3ot fl@rrDrilqeo|Ilrfu*

6fi u.t & fl.s @ ll.l& fl.S 6fr fl.l& l1.S @ rl.l & u.s

1. cr-cirm6on5la 5 6* cOprro 9 Spsad 0omo 13 Oonoouleroo 6]'irq0o drit rdDdtr

2 a-uurao$eerfldr 6 eVc./pffiunit 10 un9llC oubgl 14 eUnfSuOcUry-nn 6ein5t$ 6lpq0d, ftFdri#d, Coroo .S-,i'.0Goreoo

3 o irgqnil 7 6Arqgen'Ggr*t 11 CgQg,qfid/orndub 15 aun@ftsr$

4 aGofig6norrrnu6 a &infe6ten$H6 12 ot'tg66ngn arflGorco SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATION - TAMIL NADU ilsfur 2 dlrynLn$$ii eugreunfl qarrunrfl eooriu$gt 6n(gug g4r-fiodl omrdg

df d;oeurrrr.roouflrt uuflrflr*riuu n gt GunoLb. L6n 6lT tRl6U6grl60l 55'ft6Dt0 L0mmltn Slrirrnr*nLir '3 'H.l .a t'e .'.;'E, iq- .rdGx;b 'EE urtiflri,r oflflirtniro6iT.gilGornqg 6tp Ea{5r'd. .reer.1'5 e{6rT6o6u 6r6-dn g6u6ugl gip6n F5E .E = pr.F F 9.*.$ =._l f 11) cucnLb, (gq) GleLlur .e e€E .=.ieEF uuemfp uuflri l s. ueung flzurir,-(Sl; olorenu6 gqebsunp ) .b d. -b;l .f )prl onrflumoqrydqg uurir u@ppn 3E*I A€ EE F (m) uLLflrflL-$p&o prflo .la .d El *I 6dr 6lr,n, -^bga l g.r E;E€= qefu pcofogib C;6 qfl6b46 ts r A,0- (r) $lrozuu,rnor .6'r. - l a' E'= mpgdr GLoui&ae! -l -.J f -u E a#'i'e € $lgrl flzuruogLh, AE a.t .l ='E':' ^.8 urluLllzu I f ai E'-l q'+ dE (oll) oflcogri'a'riuuL .6lsu .FFX' E l'6 f + ^3 *.8,'; Y/ 3.= q1'1 F ti ori&ouui ng r-nqcrcoou uullri oqgLir : _ l.6r-l ^- ]EEEd*EF.RPb: GpnriqoqgLb. (n) grflaaeh bI.J En'l € .FS : f € E n3;-E 6G1 ,ELUqp '81 b;-b GH =" 6- (fl 6tpr prflo flzuraroeh. = | -u F+'EV O : EG 3G :l 5'l (14 /1q\ (16)_ _ {!t_ ) SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATION - TAMIL NADU dlrynLot!; oeomti;qg - grn r"rrnllufloir TOIT6ULLM mrir-rb

@ou zurfl$ 6luL- $6leirug gnpoil Grnorir. uzuoin o'orflein oflurrri.

., 6d)titIUmml drflllrfl6OL.ll t GluurqlLir ncdur@td) I ;r JE6 -Eta 6 .= glglGurra' aAi E .9l6ldugl P^'a;e^ '6 .acu" .i G ou ffi' tr)rrrJ (t6dl .u Clururi. G6 et.j f .i f -: -9 '91 .J : -U e .E E'i -'f srS E^ .t|l .tn G F,i .rol; _- j'rFl tb Fe" $,1, - .Ea 4 = € 6rG q 0'J : 1€IE l ^': = EI l :l ;

(1) 0 (B) {s) (10) (1 1) (12)

R.F. III-A-10-20,00,000 Cps.-GBP.-MDU.-7,-2OL4. SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATION - TAMIL NADU 6r6mr 2 qa:orrrrfl dlryrLn$$0il nr1ryr.rurrfl rurrlriLrli;.ry rrngug -g4r--rirofi CIrurrril1q dL!6onirrrrrlco.lou9)ril uLrflrflL riuL-ng1 nr'n GunaLir $)trrmL .9 'G s iht-n r[lzud-dlirirr ortrrnio r-orhrnrib .F .E]'E:.5 : Q r rrTIrril5m olrfilfJmtrh6n I s/.t CJ.bl:9 .g)6ubt6ulr(rb Dp a'f .-jE;!.E .o]l6ll6nol 616dn .9j5\J6Udrr .o)tdrfdl E 'o .-'F-' A = - {r.|c Ll (q nrl tt'lI 6U. .E J '6 .rc - ) ,l- - ,E q) orenri':. (,96) Lruj',irrbm lrullri GlsrLrL FN € E L b l ") €.F '-:'i /F e .E]. F. r,qr a i6E*.dD : urzuri 16 (61) nllolrorrLrrh E I 2(A id [)ourb. 31r'irzung d[.. f 'h '5 € Fd'9 =^ o,nrflrunio,qrytiq5 F .f ei" -* X:q c.i Ft -r 6)p,l Lrurin uOppu \g= yL= v p ; .:o a. F E Lr@Lb (r+; rrulifLtiotio prflen f E:{ ;5ieuri, -- .i pJ :-^ dE'.: (q-) rflo-osuLurrs'ar prono,qgLb \1' . 614-- q .d^ .S - q) 116r-r ll a" F Erq. = E e€:.E €t" I _.8: Lnfrglrir (2)gr Gmur&aoi.r $orri.roqigLit, = Aa - Q -a q;G p)'=^.p ;€L E :l'G : G X; (r) (Eq) ni.irrrpti,orirrr- Slou LrnrlLflri-r ! .- Gr.- = .3.e F H'i a'g 5 Gori6trLiurrrs, Lnrtorornor'r uuflritnrorrb !_Fl q g'q'S 6r'E Fr.b : Gpnriqu,gSrh, (er) purirLl$ prfltaorh .b (;€ € 6 oLJ.; G bq=' 'tgr .E$ F = '. sli = l :t -' tv oo : (13) 04) (1s) (16) SURVEY TSUNAMI REHABILITATION - TAMIL NADU dlrJnLn& ocrurBlg - grh ueaSluflrit MIT6ULLTO euir-rb

$|zu curfl$ $Lr$$lomug grpet Gunorir. qzueiroorfl oir nflurrri.

roariufrgt pnrI(g6oLur ;6J 6r GluurnLir crarmeuorLb 0E I IFE =.er€- Edd .3 gldir5ugt gqglGuno A 3.E F .;i $.^ 'G .ts FF a' pn6lgeoru Gluu-rri. -'- v -6f f A sl T4--r f E .b e e 5h' ^v = 6^ b6 c\o I E '= Ct'- F 'tf',lA = .6I Rl! - i.6t! .Fp 6t(. € E.b ;J v^.oEn'i d'l be 9Jlr J 'Et aE q E CL : G-' f :l

(1) n (B) (e) (10) (1 1) (121

R.F. III-A- 10*20,00,000 Cps.-GBP.-M DU.-7,-2OL4. ENUMERATION CUM APPLICATION FORM DAMAGED HOUSE - TAMIL NADU

FormiiL 1

Panchayat Union Panchavat Narnu Enumeration cum Application Form

(Patta or clear title of huts and damagccl/'filecl houses/ Mangallore tilcd/ Acr Shcct and othcr houscs)

I. Details of

Name of the Beneficiary

S/o (or) W/o

lf Beneficiary is Malc, Namc of his wifc

Ilabitation Namc

Namc of the Panchayat

Beneficiary Phot<> in lir<>nt of'thi: Ilxtistir-rg [[ousc(Merxi Sizc)

6 Cartegory(SC/ ST/MBC/ BC/ OC)

Door number and Addrcss ENUMERATION CUM APPLICATION FORM DAMAGED HOUSE - TAMIL NADU

iramily cardlVoter Id/MGNtitr(]S .Job card 8 No. If Beneficiary is belorv Ptlverty Linc ? Ycs/ I No t_ II. Details Classification of Land f I 2 Patta No

I a J Survcy No

+A Extent of the Land (Sq. ft)

Title's of the Land Own land I Un divided Landllf not zr Oln'n land Specify the Relationship o1'thart Land

III. Status of the Existing House t--l il I lluts/ Tilcd house / Mangalorc Tik:rl Iloursc/ ll Dilapidi,rtcd r.l I t ] nc Shect in damaged and tl condition/ Specify the other type of'houses. ttlllr I I il l_, ii

I br I I dcclared that thc Particulars mcntioncd as ab, )vc arc crlrrc<:l :rnd truc. Othcr than the housc photo arl-fixcd in lhi: form:rt thettLt mr family mt'mbt'rs arrd mvsclf have not any permanent house . I also l

I Recomcndation of thc VAO I l Signz.it.un: o1' thc VAo

I COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

APPENDIX ''C'' (coMPREHENSIVE INSPECTION FORM)

CHECK LIST FOR INSPECTION REPORT:

1. GENERAL:

1.1 Name of bridge / No' of the bridge. Name or the river.

1.2 Name No. of Highway, Bridge Location.

2, TYPE OF BRIDGE:

Hige level / Submersible High level / Submersible.

3 (A) Date of last such insPection :

by :'

(B) Date of last routine inspection

4. APPROACHES:

4.1 Condition of PaYement sudace : ( RePort unevenness. settlement' cracking. Pot holes, etc.)

4.2 Side slopes (report pitched or unpitched condition of pitching / turf ing any signs of sloPe failure, etc.)

4.9 Rasion of embankment by rain cuts or any other damage to embankment- :

4.4 Approach slab (report settlement, crecks movement. etc .) :

4.5 Approach geometrics (report whether it satisfied the standard as in force.).

4.6 Accumulation of silt and debris on submersilble approaches in cutting & embankment. COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

(2)

5. PROTECT]VE WORKS : q1 Type (mention whether guidebund of

protection around abutments or spures.) :

5.2 Report damage of the layout, cross section, profile ( checks whether the layout and the general cross section are in order.)

5.3. Report condition of slope pitching, apron and toe walls indicating the nature of damage if any (check for proper slope, thickness, pitching in the slopes, width ano thickness of apron, erosion of toe walls etc)

5.4 Report condition of floor protection worKs , indicate nature of damage if any, (condi_ tion of impervious floor, flexible apron, curtain walls, etc).

5.5. Report any abnormal scou r noticed .:

5.6 Reserve stone material (check against specicfied quantity.) :

5. WATERWAY:

6.1 Report presence of obstruction, undergrowth, etc) :

6.2 Report any abnormal change in flow patte rn.

6.3 Report maximum flood level observeo during the year and mark the same on tne pier/abutment both on the U/s & D/S.

6"4 Report abnormal afflux il anv :

6.5 Report.adequancy of waterway. :

7. FOUNDATIONS:

'7 1 Report settlement shifting (of wells) if any)

7.2 Report cracking, disintegration decay, erosion, cavitation, etc.

t.5 Report damage due to impact of floating bodies, boulders etc: COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

(3)

7.4 For Sub-ways Report see-page, if any, damage to the foundations etc.

8. SUBSTRUCTURES:

(piers, abutments, return walls, and wing walls) :

6. I Report efficiency of drainage of the backfill behind abutments. (Check functioning of weep holes evidence of moisture on abutment faces, etc. )

4.2. Report cracking, disintegration decay etc.

8.3 For sub-ways Report condition of side retaining walls, like cracking, disintegration, etc and see-page, if any. curtain walls, etc).

8.4. Report large excavations done in the road below in case of flyover or road over bridge or viaduct.

8.5 Report dmamages to protective measures to piers and abutments (for viaducts

flyovers and R. O. BS) :

8.6 Report damages to protective coating or paint.

9. BEARINGS:

9.1 Metallic bearings ( state types sliding plate / Rockers / Roller )

9.1.1 Report General condition (check resting, cleanliness, ceasing of plates, sliting accummulation of direct case of sub merssible bridqes.)

9.1 .2 * Functioning (Report exessive movement,

titling, jumping off-guides. )

9.1.3 Greasing / oil bath (Report date of last greasing / oil bath and whether to be redone or not)

9.1 .4 Report effectiveness of anchor bolts (check whether they are in position and tight)

9.2 Elastomeric bearings (State No.) COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

(4) L2.1 Report condition of pads (oxidentiorr, creep flattening, bulging, sptitting.)

9.2.2 Report general cieanliness.

9.3. Concerte bearings.

9.3.'l Report any signs of distress (cracking, spalling, disintegration staining etcj

Y.3.2 Report any excessive titling.

9.3.3 Report loss of shape.

QEA Report general clealrness

9.4 Report cracks if an (abutment ""ol I !,;":t;t'"8"T:T,t":;

10. SUPERSTRUCTURE :

10.1 Reinforced concrete and prestressed concerte memebers.

10.1 1 R"p:ft spatiing, disintegration or honey l,oTO.,nn,. etc (special attention to O" glven to points of bearings.)

1o'1 .2 Report cracking, (pattern, tocatjon exptain preferabls by plotting A map on sketch. of the ciacking should be produced. The size and iistrioution cracks of and their penertation should noted.) be

10. '1 .3 Report available cover thickness reinforcement to the ( Exposed reinforcenrent ro be noted.)

14.1 .4 Report wear of deck surface

10. 1.5 scaling (this is graduat continuousl^.lgt, and loss of surfacJ n-rortor Ind aggregate over irregular areas.)

10.1.6 Report surface stains and rust locations. stains with COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

(5)

1O.1 .7 Report Leaching (effects are most usefually evident on the soffits of decks.)

10.1 .8 Report corrosion of reinforcements if any.

1 0.1 .9. Report leakage (leakage of water can take place throughy concrete decks, constructlon joints or thin component sections of the deck e.g. at kerbs etc.)

10.'1 .10 Report damages if any due to moving vehicles.

10.1.1 1 Report condition of articuliation (cracks if any)

1O.1 .12 Report perceptible vibration if any.

10.1.13 Report excessive deffections (sag) or loss of carnber if any (measure at same point each time.)

10 1.14 Report cracks if any in end anchorage zona far nrpstessed COncrete membef.

10 1.15 Reporl excessive deffection (sag) at central hinge, tip of cantilever for cantilever bridges.

10.1.15 Prestressed concrete bridges should be given special attention and the possibility

a) Longitudinal cracks in the flanges

b) Spalling or cracking on concrete near curved cabie ducts.

c) Slrearr cracks in webs nearer to supports.

10 1.17 In box girders, the interior faces of f langes and webs need to be examined for sir-rgs of cracking and also io ensure that no excessive accumulation of water or debris is taking place for Submerssible bridges. Interior diaphragms will also require examination, particularly for any signs of cracking at their junction to the webs. COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

(6)

.1 0..1 .18 Report accumulation of slit and debris on surJace of deck ( for submerssible bridge).

1O.1 .19 Report peeling off of protective coat or patnt.

10.2 Steel Members.

1O.2.1 Report condition of protective sysrem

1O.2.2 Report corrosion if any.

1O.2.3 Report excessive viberations, if any

10.2.4 Report of Alignment & Members

10.2.5 Report condition of connection (adequacy, lossenr:ss of rivets, bolts or worn out welds, Report specially on connection of stringers to cross girders, to main girders, gussets or splices, condition of hinges splices etc.)

1O.2.6 Report excessive loss of camber and excessive deffections and deformations if any.

1O.2.7 Report buckling, kinking, warping and wavtness.

1O.2.8 Report on the cleaniess of member and joints ( check chocking of drain_ age holes provided in the bottom booms)

1O.2.9 Report f racture apparent if any.

10.2..1 O Report excessive wear (such as in pins injoints of truss ) and their locations requiring close monitoring.

1O.2.11 Report.conditions in side the cioseo member.

1O^3 Masonry arches.

r\ii$?r:fry COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

1C.3.1 Report condition of joints-mortor pointing, masonrY, etc.

'I 0.3.2 Prof ile report (f lattening by observing rise of the arch at centre and quarter points.

10.3.3 Report cracks if any (indicate location, pattern, extent, dePth exPlain bY sketches)

10.3.4 Check drainage of spandrel f illings (report bulging of sPandrel walls if anY)

10.3.5 Check growth of vegetation.

10.3.6 Cast iron and wrought iron

10.3.7 These materials occur i:r cllder bridges and the defects which they exibit are in general very similar to those descri bed above for steel, it shouid be rec6gnised that the homogeneity and purity of the material will not be up to the standards of presents day steels so that the inspection process has to take into account a range oi material variability. Below holes and cracking are probably the main deiects that occLlr, the casting of the metal and cooling.

11. EXPANSION JOINTS :

11.1 Fuctioning (report cracks in deck in the existing gap and aPProximate temperatures)

11.2 Report condition of sealing material (for neoprene sealing material, check for splitting oxidation, creep, flattening, bulking and for bitumen filler, check {or hardening, cracking, etc.)

11.3 Report secureness of the joints.

114 Top sliding plate (Report corrosion damage to welds, etc.)

'1 1.5 Locking oi joints (report locking of joints especially tor f inger tyPe expansion joints.) COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

(B) 1 1.6 Check for debris in open loinis.

11.7 Report rattling, if any.

1 1.8 Report drainage improvements for expansion joints needed, if any.

12. WEARING COAT

12.1 Report surface condition ( cracks, spalling, disintegration, pot holes, erc,1

12.2 Report evidence of wear ( tell taie rings check for thickness as against actually thickness, report date of last inspection )

12.3 Compare actual thickness with cJesign thickness.

13. DRAINAGE SPOUTS ANDVENT HOLES.

1 3.'1 Check clogging, deterioration and damage, if any.

13.2 Check the projection of the spour on the underside (see whether structural members are being effected.)

13.3 Report adquacy, thereof.

13.4 For sup-ways report about adequcy of Drainage and pumping arrangements etc.

13.5 For submersiable bridge, report on functioning.

14 HANDRAILS PARAPET ETC.

14.'l Report general condition (check expansion gaps, missing parts, if any, etc.)

14.2 Report damage due to collision. COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

(e)

14.9 Check alignment ( Report any abrupt ness in Profiles.)

15. FOOT- PATHS

15.1 Report general condition (damage due to mounting of vehicles')

15.2 Report missing footpath slabs'

( 16. UTILITIES

16.1 Report Leakage ofwaterand sewage pipqs.

16.2 Report any dmage by telephone and electric cables.

16.3 Report condition ol lighting facilities'

16.4 Report damages due to any otlrer utilites.

( tz. BRIDGE NI"JMBER:

17.1 Report condition oi pairlting.

18. AESTAHETICS:

18.1 Report any visual intrustion (bill boards, paints on structural members, etc.

.1 9. Report whether all actions for main tenance and rePairs recommended during last inspections have been done or not (give details). COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

(10)

20. Maintenance and improvement recommendations.

Sr ltem needing attention Action Time when No. to be Remarks Recommended- comptetecj

21 . Certificate to be accorded by the Inspection Officier

Certified that I have personally Inspecged this bridoe

Date: Signature Name & Designation of the Inspecting Officer

Duration of Inspection :

From

to AMiPM

Method of Inspection

Note : ltems marked need not be filled up for Minor bridoe. COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

APPENDIX F'

INSPECTION OF ROADS BRIDGES AND CULVERTS

A) Name of the f-lighway (B) Culvert/ Bridge Location

KM No.

C) Name of the Bridge / No. SUB KM No...... of culvert.

D) Name of River /Nalla /Creek

E) Type of Bridge Pipes / R. C.C. SIab i

R. C. C. beam & deck slab / R. C. C.

Boxes / PSC Beams and slab /PSC Box / Arch Concrete Structural Steel M.t""ty

Trus/Plate g irder/R. S.J.S.

F) Openings i) Number ii) Span/diameter

iii) Maximum height of road level above bed M.

iv) Verticai Clearance above H.F.L.

upto soffit M.

Height of H.F.L. above road level

(for Submersible bridge M. v) Design Road discharge Cu. Mtrs

Design H. F. L. M

vi) Tupe of foundation open/rafVwells/pipes

Vii) Totallength M

Viii) Clear road width between kerbs

or wheel guards.

ix) Exposure Servere/Moderate x) High Level/Submersible xi) Design Live Load S) Year of Consturction h) Original Cost COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTING - MAHARASHTRA

Date of ano Defect Completion Designation of lnspection Signature ProPose of Proposeo Inspecting and of lnsPecting measures RePairs Otf icer remedial Officer. r.- .;., L -.r -i ff. r L€ticL t hn*,*.. /("q..,zlza^J^-t -*s I :\"t3 :.- lt : ANIMAL HUSBANDRY - GUJARAT

t14 keo1"iiukt \( gt{l.r{e , , tr)*' srrtr0rl. Iu iYj: !,tt .ir!!e ' t'''r.-1PJ''

I l'/' | $'" til

. :\1.t :_ 3t: *h@ *. q{q uutrl (qg'{.u't qr.f'o tterc i r{a gsur't -0 dadc E*n ,{l uf&' e.tqi vt*. . /.-l': ' r'\ rit' -,|r'r' ..\,t" """".""..--...... r.\s{l il. ..-----^-- :rrllJl urt)Jt ,) \_i.,* ' \,"', i - \ l.\\ /,.- ,,i_.! 1,"' . \r'.\''rr1" I ,"k' .*;\'v'"

:\"t3 :3 : j stteqtqggxd8l l' "j .\llt, I.' ctl.-...... r0 ct- \:;.,rr 4

..) ) r \ /f,,/'"/ \ l,'- \y', , ,';!' .l,i ^t' \.li i.,tt 4 \/ '' v\ 7'. ,t \il) ( '

)

-f

'-r'|

( .'.:l 1'.1'-11,o-1 i ANIMAL HUSBANDRY - GUJARAT 4'.8\ ,"n$tft.{luvufl'uft1trzrr snq) u{e ugurk ANIMALilsrr.il HUSBANDRYANIMAL ui.ofl HUSBANDRYqr} t*.q.,rgtai r4r.oll f)at-ant fu'tt't r.Li- '4etq riu.{tl&t-t.} )tit' :

,t t'. '-\'l ctl. : ...... ,...... -..-.. [ol.

,tt{l*s:..

Std" i., ,ug${E*{aa{fu3#td| ll'

rttE*t t:Utrt ar..r.;,,....a,.,.-..----., *,+giu. ---...... -. {iv...... -......

ku-t:.tlo.1$z"u 5tt-$ ttcr ugtlh rtti +tttt+ rtutlt.,4totd... q.zi, {tuq qqq sa A+l urJl orig, rtiriL nn{)

gn{*$ut [\or4 +rhq,i orqur.u{ }, qG ...... 4r r,tu.r-....-..---...... r.ut q{e r*h1F,-u gRq'i

ru{i.u{l$Lu orgrxi+r rtqr u'+rrll u{l auolf.ta 0\r {a{h qal q{e &. au iu& r+ arh1fu.t untr uLe ug

,14 ,,ii i{{ilt 'ir{qr1t.fl urofl::i',ir{lA or1{ al+

qio*.1r.{i atfuaii3ai Ftrn t :

&Lc0c daq.it iori rur'r :

florsqu- .,..'tr 1: r{1trt&t {D a$rt4}tiutl '{?qt ? : a{er orga&+r &.+tt iaqr.&Ptrryr i ltdFr. etecij, r*loytn{ air--.n.*r.j ui.,rg'.**t.t .unr

uradl.{loruffir*ktrk{r rLlq'i qq.e qgoLk qD uur4.ii ulo/l4i {1.4i.

cr{I.'r: iE4:

r ursr"ai{ +rt: s{L Fr.ur.qFr{ +ir

.:. u[.t1Fa.n u{ei R+a (tia ,tg.{t e't'drt oqtn$:- y'n ary uguf+4 hld ,, u.itun

Y. ldqtj4t qqto{t i3{sl. ),ti. laitr Cu

q.r?r 6\i.rd rrgdi*r rttqr 4di ltt{l4rotlRJrA u!qo/ l,tut r E{{l iti5tr8fl d?d{l t4qt i{t,t gt-?dl ?4t ,{..{i?,i)r4acr4 rigr. 3r..tt&.idl&.utrttlqtrttd rrgd4r'udldEtqtqt qi f.tqtr,ii.ttovl{l a,*

r'ttezn.{lak Page 3 of8

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY - GUJARAT

r,t$lfl.-{ls/4n{h1fv-{r rt).\i tLqL eriq.qg?'r'i.tr Ft}u iaqr4'F{rqL i acL,{.0 +qraar qLqd.j a+,li4rt. 1r u{i{ {l ..i.a....r...,,..r,.. *o'f' 'r/ .3ei ...... F/ccir upnirr iir{stis ry\t8 g i, ufr..1[v-+t iLtqi r*r artdl *r:.dlqi etftqr ,'..,'f " Ltg.p rtqt et{e }tt q?qt qtt 36rot4t rnitgcr . d. ',iit{orrqr d uqtt.tedlrjili aL{i.'t ...,."...... , {t 1lor *q &. :+iofb* \r4ct q?Qr. El€tlpj.,il

t{lot:- ,j |J' ru{'r- r,t,ul".p4 a&i,-laj FLtu-r r,i; i

Rr{Lt d{r{4lql fl.rr'r : iEQ:

rtilArq {dl . ..irrr4c/1dhzr-Lrs{l u?qrr 9ttt .r./ Iulr qr$4d. ,{,,..V,n,. $...... 3. ....-......

srq.q q{'tui{ h+rt

]Jri0/€r?r[1...... rti}.it w3ri...... h(<{ -...... {ie*loflqi rrti+t 3urot+t id.trgct lti $r ',r-\J gr r{e eo. u rnqr qi4qnqr:urr+.r'.ndlr{R .rt{l"t ...-...... tt ior sie'}. uroflru *qrA+ ,tqr f \r'- \ t.' ,J i: tiilqi r,tio/tq't o4LAet rnqr uLet ugd

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY - GUJARAT

,..w 1 \r'f_ ^it t")''" iw'" ^

tE,4:-...... ".

dr{b'r: ......

r*rdl:,rqi -{lt ildl n ur ]rqliri ai{t$r r'ta1 aur$ rqu.$r'i rJt'} i uft1tvr{l r{et lg'-+L[i.{ '+..r rii{ t{tq.f{t """*,9*i ... Grcqi"...... ".".4r ?&t &. a*prai iq4 b{irfhi ErAq rrgail+ qier.il&a.u .* 4[ tr$dt$r "... rqu,{ld i 111.{ls'i rrdqrCl ri.ttql i,tr{

'r*E,+{+t 1.riu.ir ruftt...... + ijtr...... fla hact rilrqi u l.qq " *"{lcqr atiofl.ftR'rci4qt ,i* a}rrdb{i l,ridi"f{ &q.r]'4 aet ui.tt.{iqrdl u..{lai dla,i sqr Qrort

.+ qtk.ft o/Nt .'t{i q+qt r,rufl trr/,r & &. ai a* qfi{r{l t'iill 6?t't a} otndi,{ $ora{l tuir4 rcrrr to/,r u*il urqrq rrt Ji{ *dt qq}+,'tqr &. , .,Itl j,J 'l-|t"' !:'t'/' '1.,t' r^f\y'\,- ,ir

{{}ti:

.te#lrq {dl ili{r{ rtpt 1i"*ttclic1dhe€Rsil ilt {q[{ct. u Page 5 of8 ANIMAL HUSBANDRY - GUJARAT .\\ -: )ttlt ltEt4d-LL tf'tctl :-

ltq tr.[4cr si{L -......

dtgs'i: .....'.....

rtt{tru ......

uGtl$zr{l u4e i{U$hd '{'4rri i.urct'{r rrD+ i*iEal ..," ,- \, sr({i rt[q4t r[]r4t q{e qst ."...-"*.... ltqt{ r&r &. ufit 1tv zr]4r4 r&ri;t Q.{l - rgat - d.{l gtu.t+1l ,,, ."' ',J / "j qir{l ] / ei''{ }tlt 4*+a.u ryti r?.rtqi 4{€r i.+t "ttdl lrcti r+iovara[l .-...... ",. "u.{Ii.t equt< rgafitt ..,.. 41 lrr.q'i. qier sru4ftqd ltri{l&. ,J' J, U'i" F i-|', qg"ittqrt{r l{e.I.{t ,f .. }E td qrl.it+tLtr ,}t tl3tft lct ql}it {lqt q Ittq qrst-6n2[-qrjr t ni?t a It.isl.

.J {rtut€ C aet

T t3/- 0t3?i

1 qrrj?$ 1o 1"1-4 liti

,,tiortti .qrit fi'.lfrrd itqt EAet ugai.u 1.ti.u.ri f.rELet rr\11a{ Srru{ 5i qrqiluir,:r&.-urru d\nS c/di4m {qqt rrgl,it.{lr'u43?

*cil.ltsq {{l ii?1i4 qtq titLLrtU.rdtqZlf S{l a&hrri u&'fariL Page6ofs ANIMAL HUSBANDRY - GUJARAT t -.{gr,rLk "d\ -:-y$rdt.{1ry{rfl1uft.l8z4L ELlgr qle i,iiL qrjqiql.{l,,xrdl r,iir ,' N'2' i\

utr{i itqN{l+ ll.*}ri }il{ Br i, r*iorrti :0

ruq .-...... -,...... arg$ .... Fre

qtl.t[l'.{3tct tlt 1+ ug.iti{t"u t.t ug.[tt't+it r1c lg.i[{t"rt

1 l[tt qrs[-o4.ZL-qrst

nt+t ?. I Ltlst ('tutt tf,zl

'{ vz ,e qs{

q '-tts?Jt 1o t*-4 \U

O,riis.t qgrtiEt c*ei otg €citltt4ti irtuft* ,tg 1t?c{t?i.l}.ttftt...... * iior

zqt it'+rti qr{(r d}.

ql}rriql ...... ;...... !...... 4t gl$ar rrte &. . irrr\11l,[{'{i+a{i,{3x4e1&. I r,[ qgra1d ltiZ nii!*t Sl'1{e {s{1, ,ir+.tLqt r{i. ;LLrriiqL,rd.u rrqcrr.fl hrr.[ CUtd] qgtqrdl',tLdl e,ii ,,tt lttcit l,4t{.ttti :,UE(f '}.

trlut :- cL{lq- uil hfrrat,+hs(L \tj &.[5r+tq4 'tgr): ...... "...... F/ Fage 7 of 8

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY - GUJARAT

hrtu

w? r{ion4r s{l ."...... qrrr...... ngi .-..---."-*--:...... h

uiarsil+r $.t ui iru$r &er{+6tqrq'13 ......

t11. ,rg.tttttr 1* ir$.itt{"tr ,4, i{!}.{L Lctita td't{g-{,|{blat

q Itt4 I u.st-onzt-1tt3t 0it I :ril

,*ZL J &trrtf ( r g/,A (a qs{ { .tttq3[ rto 1,t.4 qt,

qr.e qiiqr t Oqrlsd 1.t ugai il$tirihi arr4q 36tr'r. gei !'LutcLl.qt" ?tdtrt iL. D i[u'{ t......

rEUt:- aL{L'"u- ,tgst F..,ra uR*ril . .ttlrrt riutc -....--i... ,tti: ...... f0/...... AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

Appendix-Il Extent of damage due to nafural calamities State:Sujarat Nature and period of natural caramity : Monrolo-iorg

ctoppeqareair@ Qfrolulc'op@ (ii) Estimated IoS (iii)'Area - ercentage of area held by SVrFI (i) In the staie, as;ffile (ii) In the affect"a affi

( AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

.F4 tqra\

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT .g g 5 *U Etsp ti $3 trl slol (rl3l ( bl oltrl (!t EI dl UI 8-a -6 F {?^-S ,r (€gfi t;

q o

E (t (! I I 8 I 6,

( il ,lJ 6

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT |r tt:i (n nt' 6| G tl (Do o j:3c> , o tHn G Ic at 6 3.'E I 6 X er.g ! HE 8 nl q, A EE A tst oo z.o 0, U nt o

U (, ! ! t-, o o. 3 6}\ Eo; xr!stP ;9p(t 'E .b dt ,o 5.9eoo ,- rJ \

.i f:i.i5; >:

I'e . .|!l

& AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

Appendix-XI-A Extent of damage due to natural calamities*

ryp e or naturar caramity, ril:fi :J'rXll

'otal Land area affected (in lakh-ha. area affected area affected lakh ha) nsqmated lgss to ctops Bi. inG6 Area where crop damage was more than 50%

Percentage of cropped area held by SMF In state, as a whole

Remark:- Information is to be given separatel y foreach major natural disaster during the year

(

( V/

.I!:', ' ..:...:

''.. (! h

0) l! (t)

(f) o N. *i1 oI o .i q.} lAAGRICULTURE* DEPARTMENTGRICULTURE DEPARTMENTL, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT vt .a o) .F o ..X q) -d (!r{ d G, I G U tauH zfcF! GI XO ;9 &"ar5 6- 0, -{.;bo t{ ,q .r5 o tr (E.qr '/ lrl t v-

'.I. IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

PRE / POST MONSOON INSPECTION

The inspection checklist included in this section should be copied and completed every time a maintainance inspection is porformed. In general inspections should be performed every year in March and October.

Date of Examination InsPected BY S.E. - SuPerintending Engineer E.E - Kachchh lrrigation Circle D.E.E. - Bhuj-Kachchh' so.-

Operational Status at Time of Examination Reservoir Water Surface - Elevation Reservoir Gross Storage FRL Max reservoir water level reached

Releases : Spilway HR Water Supply

COMMUNIVATION Type : Phone No. - at dam site

Auxillarv Power Description I, ' Test during examination Condition Adquacy

Remote Control Description Test during examination Condition Adquacy

Site Acess Description (Main and alternative routes) Adquacy under Adverse Conditions Condition of payment Condition of dip (if any)

D:\0 OId Data\O.Bhuj I.S.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POST MONSOON CHECKLIST\Post RUDRAMATA1 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

Ditches

Bridqe : General Condition Vegetation around abtuments/pirs Bridge support Foundations Sub structure Bridge bearings Moving parts Accumulation of birds nest Visual inspection of scour Protective coating (Damage) Bridge Deck Guard rails Live load capacity Expansion joints Drainage Signage

Site Sgguritv Description Condition Restricted areas Adquacy

Warninq Svstem Description (e.9" Siren, radius.... km) 1 Test during examination Condition Adquacy

Operating Personnel Adquacy Capability

Examination Participants

Name Affiliation

D:\0. old Data\0.Bhuj I"s.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POST MONSOOA/ CHECKLISTPoSt RUDRAMATAI IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

CHECKLIST OF EM ERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

EPP lssue and revision date ls copy available current ? Are instruction adquate ? Any changes needed ?

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

COMMUNICATION

Type Adquacy

OPERATING PROCEDURES

Adquacy Capability of personnel

Auxillarv Power Test during examination Condition Adquacy

Remote Control Test during examination Condition ( Adquacy

ACCCESS ROADS Adquacy under aderse condition

SAFETY FEATURES General Condition Restricted areas (for public movement)

D:\0" QId Data\O.Bhuj LS.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POST MONSOON CHECKLIST\Post RUDRAMATAZ IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT CHECKLIST OF EARTHEN EMBANKNEMT TOP OF BUND Surface cracking (whether Transverse / Longitudinal) Durability (See top material / Vegetation/burrows/Level of maintenance) Settlemtent (Location, chainage) Lateral movement(alignment) (Misalignment) Camber (Possibility of channelization /Surface drainage) Chainage / Guard Stone

UPSTREAM FACE

Slope Prtection (Adequate / Degradation /Diusplacement) Erosion-breaching (Observe Erosion of filter / Removal ( of rock by ave / scaraps / slides) ' Vegetative growth(Should be none) Settlement (of filter erosion / Depression(minor)/Sink holes) Debris (Accmulation-remove) Burrows or borrowing animals (See presence - Eradicate) &. rl"xUsual conditions .t- DOWNSTREAM FAGE Sign of movement (Observe Depression/Sink holeToe bulging/slides) Seepage or wet areas (SMPL / Boils at groins or outlet) Vegetative growth(watch for Sparse/greener line as seepage line/Not excessive and deep rooted) Channelisation (Check for its presence & low spofs af shouldergroins /Positian of d/s drains) ( ' Condition of slope protection (Adequacy/sparse/lndicate bald areas)

Burrows or borrowing animals (See presence - Eradicate)

Usual conditions (See for passage of live stock)

ABTUMENTS Seepage (watch for greeneries / SandboilsNVetness lncluding seepage at intefface) Cracks, joints and bedding planes (see franseverse Cracks) Channelisation (Observe low spofs drainage arrangements )

Slides (whether Deep / Shallow)

Vegetative (whether Excessive / Deep Rooted) Sign of movement

D:\0. Old Data\0.Bhuj l.S.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POSI MONSOON CHECKLISTPISI RUDRAMATA2 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

SEEPAGE AND DRAINAGE SUMMATION Location (s) (Grotns /Junctions /HR) Estimated flow (s) Color (staining) (for silUWashing out of earth pafticles causing piping) Erosion of outfall Toe drain and manholes (look for Cleanliness/Silt col I e ct i o n/ Rev i ew of t h e i r I oc at i o n s/o utf al I s ) Out drain ( Clean or not effectiveness / free flow/ submerger)

MEASUREMENT Method Amount t Change in flow ' (Rate, for same water level compate with past data/ lnclease is alarming decrease means shrinking/also watch for transverse cracks)

Clearness of flow Color Fines ( Allow water to stand Compare daily heights) Condition of measurement device Records ( Plot flow rates)

INSTRUMENTS Piezometers Well Ventilation Pipes ( Security Tilt gauge Surface settlement points i gauges Cross arms (Deviation / offeset) Liq uid pressure transmeter Uplift pressure transmeter

SPECIAL ITEMS Earthen enevelop and junctions Stockpiles (at vunerable locatios) of Empty cement bages Wire crates Rockfill Gravel Sand

D :\0. O ld D ata\O. Bh uj I. S. Dn\P Branch\P RE-P O ST MOIVSOOA/ C H E CKL I SnPost RU D RA M AT A2 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

SPILLWAY / MASONRY / CONCRETE DAM GLACIS WASTE WEIR / SPILLWAY (Oqee Tvpe Waste Weir) Approach Channel Debris

Slopes (Vegetation / Stability ) Slope protection (Location, chainage) Crest Surface condition (Cracks/Honey comb/stratification/ Form slippage/Stains / Bar prolection) General condition of concrete (Disintergration/spalling Drummy Concrete/Pop out I Pitting /Scaling) Cracks or areas of distress (Location , Extent) Sign Movement (Misalignment / Differntial movement) ( vesetation srowth i"ints/tifts, tndicate seepage)!Y::?l:, Seepate (at D/s face/staining at joints/pipes,watch, Measure, Turbidity, rate of flow, Record/ Blocked drains)

Traning Walls Surface condition (Observe Cracks/Honey comb/ stratification/ Form slippage/Stains / Bar projection) General condition of concrete/masonry (observe Disintergration/spalling Drummy Concrete/Pop out / Pitting / Scaling) Sign Movement (orfisets/Misalignment / Differntial movement) Joints (if washed ouUcracUdifferntial movemenU vegetation growth) Cracks or areas of distress (Measure location , extent) ( Condition of blackfill (watch for seepage/erosion/ settlement) Functioning of weep holes (whether clean/chocked) Seepage (Record sfains at joints/turbidity) Debris (lf present at joinU lift joints) Settlement / erosion of foudation

Floor/apron/cistern/BuckeUstill ing Basin Surface condition (Cracks/Honey comb/ stratification/ Form slippage/Stains / Bar projection) General condition of concrete (Disintergration/spalling Drummy Concrete/Pop out / Pitting / Scaling) Sign Movement (offsets/Misalignment / Differntial movement) Cracks or areas of distress (Measure location , extent) Erosion Upstream release drains / valves

D:\0. OId Data\O.Bhuj l.S.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POST MOIVSOON CHECKLISTPoSt RUDRAMATA2 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

Joints (if washed ouUcracMdifferntial movement/ vegetation growth) Seepage (Record sfarns at joints/turbidity) Amount of flow Location of seeping drains Endsill alignment (Watch for Damage / distortion) Backfill beyon endsill (Watch for erosion / Reinforcement Visiobility)

CHUTE Debris Walls Surface conditions Cracks/Ara if distress , Sign of movement/offset I Settlement/Erosion Joints Condition of blackfill Floor Surface conditions Side slope (Protection / stability) Vegetation/other onstruction Scour I Retrogression of bed

TAIL CHANNEL Slope protection Stability of side slopes Vegetation or other onstruction Scour / Retroqression of bed

, GATES I ' Description (Type / size) General (watch for corrosion/fatiguehupture/cavitations of metal & position of welds) Protective coating Leakage (lnclosed condition at seal/through concrete) Condition of rubber seals Alignment of gate stem Exercising frequency Operation during inspection (Raise & lower fully is /oss of water is not a problem) Drainage of rainwater

CONTROLS FOR GATES Mechanical Hoists (watch for wear of brakeshoe lining / key-bolts are tightened/handcranks in locked position) Wire ropes/Chains (watch for rusting/breakage/reduction in Diameter / condition of socket-clamps)

D.\0. Old Data\0"Bhuj l.S.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POST MONSOON CHECKLISIrPoSI RUDRAMATA2 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

Ptorective coatings (watch if peeling/missing) Condition of hoist platform (watch of rusting/loss of weld/ b e n d i n g/m i sa I i g n m e nUm ov e m e nt ) Guard rails (watch for damage/ loss of s/eeves /foupling check anchores\ Change of oils (Fear box) Condition of Gear teeth (check for damage/wear/cracks)

Lubrication (Of ropes/bearing points/Pinion/Hinges/ Spin gear/chains)

Electrical Remot Control Digital Indicator Power Supply ( Standby Power Conduit System Operation instructions

Diesel Drive General Condition Fuel Supply Lubncation

Operation during examination Vibrations (Excesive) Operation time

Gontrol Room Windows 1 Walls ' Floor Doors Lighting

Sltocking I nstructiobs Security Wiring lntercom Fire Extinguisher, First Aid Box

STOPLOGS & CRANE General condition Protective coating (Watch if peeling/ mtssrng ) Seals Crane Condition Capacity

D :\0. Old Data\0. Bh uj l. S. D n\P Bra nch\P RE-P O ST MONSOO/V C H EC K L I ST\Post R U D RA M ATA2 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

BRIDGE Condition of piers (Leaks/Staining/Projection) Surface of roadway slab Water Spouls (whether chocked) Condition of parapet/Guard rails (watch for misalignmenU differenti al settlement) Structural condition of slab and beams (watch for Deflection/ Cracks) Bridge bearings Lighting (Adequacy) Overall condition Catwals General Condition (Loss of weld/Rusting/Genching/ misalignment/ Moveem nt) Painting (PeelinglMissing)

OTHER Points

D:\0. Old Data\O"Bhui l.S.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POSf MOIVSOON CHECKLISTPaSI RUDRAMATA2 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

NON.OVERFLOW DAM

Upstream Face Settlement Deflection

Deterioration concrete I Mortar

Downstream Face Settlement Deflection Deterioration concrete / Mortar Seepage on downstream face

Crest (. ' Roadway Walks Parapat wall Lighting Drainage Drainage Gallary General Condition Spalling of surface Opening of joints lrletalwork Access to vital parts/electrification Ventilation Cracks ( ' Seepage (Amount of flowllocation/pressure) Drains Frequency of cleaning Source of pumping

D:\0 Old Data\O"Bhuj l"S.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POST MONSOON CHECKLISnPoSt RUDRAMATA2 10 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

oUTLET WORKS ( H.R.) Trashracks Trashracks concrete structure

Intake structure General conditions(Deterioration/Miesalignment/Damage) Entrance Transition(Damage/Cracks/Leaks/Missing seal) Debris (Removal) Approach Channel Condition (iltation/Debris/Slope Stability)

SERVICE CONTROL FACILITY Emegency GATES General conditions(Watch for corrosion/fatiguehupture/ cavitations of metal & position of welds) ( Protective Coating Leakage (ln closed condition at weal/through concrete) Metal work (Corrosion/Fatigue/Rupture/Cavition) Condition of rubber seals Alignment of gate stem Exercising frequency Operation during inspection (Ralse & lower fully is /oss of water is not rsroblem\

SERVICE GATES General conditions(Watch for corrosion/fatigue/rupture/ cavitations of metal & position of welds) Protective Coating Leakage (ln closed condition at weal/through concrete) ( Vtetal work (Corrosion/Fatigue/Rupture/Cavition) Condition of rubber seals Alignment of gate stem Exercising frequency Operation during inspection (Raise & lowerfully is /oss of water is not problem)

CONTROL FOR GATES Mechanical Lubrication

GATE CIVIL WORKS (lncluding Access Bridge) Well Ventilation Lighting Access Metal Work Painting

D \0. Old Data\o.Bhuj LS.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POST MONSOON CHECKLIST\PosI RUDRAMATA2 11 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

D/S Conduit General Condition ( Deterioration/Leakage/steelement/ Steel exposure/ scaling/popping out/vegetation/erosion) Concrete / masonry Cracks Leaks Settlement

Access Bridge General Condition Painting Guard Rails Anchor Stillinq Basin Debris / Silt Walls Surface Condition Minslignment Masonry / General Condition Settlement Weep holes Seepage Cracks / Area of distress Condition of backfill (Seepage / erosion/ settlement)

D:\0. OId Data\0.Bhuj l.S.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POST MONSOON CHECKLIST\Post RUDRAMATA2 12 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT POWER DAM Power Dam Intake structure Trash rack

Bulk head General Condition Protective coating Seals lntake Gate lntake Gate hoist

Gantry Crane Mechanical Electrical Paint Operating instructions Operation during examination

PENSTOCK Powerplant voult Ceiling Deck Walls Sub structure Post tensioned block

TAILRACE Draft tube closure structure Draft tube bulk head Gantry Had

/ STANDBYE UNIT ' Condition Exercising frequency Autometic features Operation during examination

SCOURING GATE Type/Size/No. Location Erosion I Cavitation Condition

.Q D:\0 AId Data\O Bhui LS.Dn\PBranch\PRE-POST MONSOON CHECKLIST\Past RUDRAMATA2 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - GUJARAT

SERVICE GATES Generai conditions(Watch for corrosion/fatigue/rupture/ cavitations of metal & position of welds)

Protective Coating

Leakage (ln closed condition at weal/through concrete)

( Metal work (Corrosion/FatiguelRupture/Cavition)

Condition of rubber seals

Alignment of gate stem

Exercising frequency Operation during inspection (Raise & lowerfully is /oss of wateris nof problem)

Post Disaster Need Assessment Study for India

Annex-3: Chart depicting damage assessment procedure in India Existing Practice of Collecting, Collating and Reporting of Disaster Damage Data

Disaster Damage Information Memorandum for Collection seeking Central for sector/sub sector as specified in SDRF/NDRF Assistance Collection and Collation by STATE EXECUTIVE Officials as per format prescribed in Agriculture SDRF/NDRF or their Ministries COMMITTEE (SEC) Animal Husbandry

Fishing Central Agencies with State SDMA/Revenue/DM Offices (IMD /RSAC etc) Housing Dept. of State Govt. State level Infrastructure Public Properties ( owned by State/Center) Departments/Directorates Community Assets ( owned by Panchayats)

Sections of District Roads & Bridges DDMA/ District Collectorate/ Collectorate Department offices of District Drinking Water Supply Works

Irrigation

Circle/Block/Panchayat/Villa Power ge level Revenue related officials Education Source : 1. Manual on Administration of SDRF/NDRF, Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI, (revised -2013) Health 2. PDNA India Team’s own impression during visit to selected State