How seriously does Kerala take disaster mitigation amidst the frequent recurrence of natural disasters and the escalating impacts of the climate crisis? Where have the systems failed? Reflecting on the recent landslides in Mundakai and Chural Mala in Wayanad and Vilangat in Kozhikode, these questions become crucial. Professor Dr. S Muhammad Irshad from the Disaster Risk Department of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, shares his insights.
The magnitude and impact of the landslides in Mundakai and Chural Mala in Wayanad are unprecedented in Kerala’s history. While one human life was lost in the tragedy in Vilangad, Kozhikode, many lives were lost in Wayanad and two villages were completely washed away. Could you share your observations about the frequent natural calamities in Kerala?
After the great flood of 1924, a similar disaster occurred in 2018. During the colonial administration, mortality following a disaster was not a significant concern, so disaster management was not prioritized. The tsunami of 2004 was a wake-up call, followed by the Okhi disaster in 2017. Major floods struck in 2018, with subsequent disasters in Kavalapara and Puthumala in 2019, Pettimudi in 2020, and extreme rains in 2022. This pattern indicates that the intervals between disasters are decreasing.
Studies show that it takes 5 to 7 years for a society to recover from a disaster in the Indian context. Rehabilitation from the 2018 disaster is still incomplete, highlighting the insufficient time to deal with or prepare for successive disasters. Such frequent calamities risk economic growth, production rates, tax structures, and capital investment. Therefore, an emotional approach to disaster management is inadequate. Kerala needs to make changes in land use pattern, economic policies, and planning to develop a resilient model for disaster mitigation.
Despite Kerala’s high development indices, its celebrated development model’s recurring losses from disasters reveal flaws. It is also critical to consider who is most affected by these disasters. For instance, the financial assets of those who perished in the Pettimudi landslide in 2020 were estimated to be less than 7 lakhs, showing that often the victims are from marginalized groups. The situation in Wayanad today reflects the cumulative effects of political, social, economic, and environmental policies over many years.
Kerala society needs to reflect on these factors beyond the immediate rescue operations. Future actions of the state should be guided by these considerations to create a more sustainable and equitable approach to development and disaster management.
Although we cannot completely avoid natural disasters, disaster mitigation is within human capability. Could you talk about the possibilities of disaster mitigation?
Mitigation is an administrative term in the Indian context also known academically as Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), and it is largely a bureaucratic program. Despite having a special fund for disaster mitigation, it is not treated as a distinct project separate from existing development initiatives. Moreover, capital accumulation and disaster mitigation often do not align. While disaster mitigation involves reducing carbon emissions, protecting livelihoods, and ensuring proper land use, these concepts have not been clearly defined in India. The reality is that disaster mitigation is often approached through the lens of development, although it should not be a capital-intensive scheme aimed at economic growth or profit. Instead, its purpose is to support human life by ensuring ecological balance and reducing the impact of disasters.
Disaster mitigation should be a plan formulated by the state with the active participation of society. It should not be a continuation of existing development projects. For instance, building a sea wall using rocks is neither a scientific approach nor effective disaster mitigation. The fact remains that Kerala does not have a robust disaster mitigation model. This shortfall is largely due to the significant influence of financial capital. Also disaster mitigation funds often lapse because there is a lack of clarity on where and how to utilize them effectively.
The key to effective disaster mitigation lies in comprehensive planning and community involvement. By adopting these strategies, Kerala can develop a more effective disaster mitigation model that prioritizes human life and ecological balance over economic growth and profit.
After the 2018 floods, Kerala has conducted numerous studies and formulated various plans, such as the Post Disaster Need Assessment (PDNA) and KILA’s Local Action Plan on Climate Change. Projects like “Room for River” have been implemented, with significant funds allocated to these initiatives. However, Kerala’s current trajectory is towards an infrastructure development program called “Rebuild Kerala,” supported by international agencies like KPMG. Are you suggesting that disaster mitigation is not achievable if this approach continues?
Indeed, this seems to be the case. Kerala’s “Resilient Kerala Initiative,” supported by the World Bank, is underway, but its effectiveness can only be assessed over time. Disaster rehabilitation in Kerala often appears as a continuation of development projects, as seen with the LIFE Mission. For example, the tsunami colonies in Kerala have shown little economic growth or improvement in living standards even after 20 years. A study by the Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation (GIFT) indicates widespread dissatisfaction among residents.
Kerala has the potential to develop a model for disaster management involving local self-government bodies. While the “Room for River” concept is promising, there is no dedicated system or department for its implementation. Simultaneously, riverbed encroachments and construction activities continue unchecked. Additionally, Kerala lacks Risk Informed Planning to anticipate disasters. Despite the knowledge produced through initiatives like those by KILA (Kerala Institute of Local Administration) , it hasn’t translated into effective action. An administrative agency alone is insufficient; what is needed is a creative agency. Institutionalizing disaster management without innovation results in significant human losses, as seen in Wayanad.
The public needs to question the government about the “Resilient Kerala Initiative” and why disaster mitigation funds often lapse. Post-disaster rescue operations typically involve public participation, but subsequent stages are entirely controlled by the government, leading to the neglect of unique, locally adapted methods.
After the 2018 flood, many houses in flood-affected areas in Kerala were destroyed. It is now recalled that we moved forward with the Rebuild Kerala Initiative by excluding experts like Architect G Shankar, who heads the Habitat Technology Group and has experience in building eco-friendly housing in many parts of the world, including Kerala.
There is the question of what families with tsunami houses and Life Mission houses, which have minimal living space, can do to accommodate the next generation. It can be seen that such projects are being implemented without regard for our local knowledge and resources. What we envisage is an urban-centric development. This is why the Rebuild Kerala Initiative does not prioritize agricultural land, wetland conservation, and coastal area protection and pioneers like G Shankar.
In 2005, the Disaster Management Act came into effect in India, leading to the formation of disaster management authorities at various levels. The primary task of these authorities is to foresee disasters and take emergency interventions. What are the notable shortcomings in these interventions in the Wayanad region?
To assess such shortcomings an existing model is necessary. Unfortunately, it is missing in Kerala and the significance of the Disaster Management Act, of 2005 as a reference point emerges. During the liberalization period of the 1990s, the state began to withdraw from welfare schemes, yet disaster management demands strong state intervention. The significance of the law is that it mandates this intervention. As a result, disaster management plans, funds, and the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) deployment are implemented from the central government down to the panchayat level. Disaster relief activities, therefore, should not be seen as an additional financial burden for any Indian state, as the Finance Commission allocates money for this purpose regularly. Additionally, the people suffering from poverty are often the biggest victims of natural disasters, making this law their constitutional right.
By addressing these shortcomings in the present disaster management system, Wayanad can develop a more effective and resilient disaster management system that leverages local knowledge, ensures timely and efficient interventions, and provides robust support for vulnerable communities.
As part of the Modi government’s approach to weakening the federal system, states like Kerala have raised concerns about not receiving their rightful financial allocations. Are you suggesting that this problem does not affect disaster management?
Indeed there are attempts to undermine the federal system,but let’s not forget the fact that there are two types of disaster relief funds. Special financial assistance from the Union Government and the declaration of a national disaster are areas where the issue you mentioned is relevant. However, for other funds, the Finance Commission has established criteria (such as a Risk Index) to determine financial assistance for distressed areas, ensuring that states receive their allocations accordingly.
The Disaster Management Act opens up many possibilities for states to act as welfare entities. The effectiveness of these possibilities depends on the political will of the respective governments, their imaginative approaches, and societal intervention. States like Assam and Odisha have made notable progress in disaster management by leveraging these opportunities effectively.
In the recent past many lives were lost due to cyclones in Odisha. However, the situation has improved significantly today. Is this change largely due the effective disaster mitigation measures?
In Assam, flooding remains a challenge, and Odisha still faces cyclones, but the death toll in these regions has decreased substantially. This improvement is attributed to their adaptation of disaster management systems to local realities and the empowerment of people to handle disasters effectively.
Kerala, however, lacks a similar model. The potential of the Disaster Management Act has not been fully realized by the government and the general society. Kerala needs to adopt and implement disaster management practices that are tailored to its unique circumstances and actively involve the community in disaster preparedness and response.
The Indian Meteorological Department, Central Water Commission, Kerala Disaster Management Authority, Army, Health Department, Police, and various other departments are all involved in disaster management. Effective coordination among these agencies is crucial. In the case of Wayanad, it was reported that on the night before the disaster, the ward member had warned the residents about the potential for bad weather to lead to a disaster. However, along with such warnings shouldn’t there be government actions to relocate people to safer places?
During the 2017 Okhi disaster, Kerala’s disaster management systems faced severe criticism. Fishermen organized protest marches, highlighting the system’s failure to properly analyze the information from the Meteorological Department and understand the potential threats. Consequently, necessary measures were not taken. Even today, Kerala’s early warning systems remain weak. Early warnings should translate into early actions. Alert systems have a responsibility to protect citizens, not just transfer information.
Currently, warnings for fishermen are received, but similar warnings do not effectively reach other communities, as evidenced by the disasters in Pettimudi and Wayanad. Although Kerala possesses the financial resources and knowledge to improve disaster management, coordinating these efforts remains a significant challenge. Additionally, there is a lack of civic sense for taking proactive measures independently. Effective disaster management requires both strong coordination among agencies and an engaged and responsive public.
Because of recurring natural calamities, do you think presuming the likely affected areas and ensuring the advance presence of disaster relief forces can significantly reduce the impact of such events?
For instance, during the 2018 flood in Kerala, fishermen played a crucial role in the rescue operations. Following this, the disaster management authority provided basic disaster management training to volunteers, highlighting the importance of community training. However, it appears that this initiative was later politicized.
Local police could also be appointed for disaster management roles. Despite studies identifying disaster-prone areas in Kerala, these insights have not been fully utilized. Preparations at least 48 hours in advance, based on weather warnings, are crucial to ensure that disaster relief forces and the army are deployed on time.
It is not too late for Kerala to focus on these aspects. What the state needs are not just large development projects but effective disaster management systems that include timely preparations, community involvement, and proper utilization of existing knowledge and resources.
Do you think the effectiveness of the Kerala State Emergency Operation Center in taking quick measures for disaster mitigation is indeed hindered when the Landslide Zonation Map and Disaster Management Plan are not properly updated?
Currently, only outdated plans are visible on the Disaster Management Authority’s website, with no information about recent past disasters. This lack of updated information impedes the ability to respond effectively. Creating a disaster risk map is not an overly complex task and does not necessarily require advanced technology. Involvement from local communities in each area can facilitate this process, making it more practical and relevant.
However, the government’s focus on large, centralized projects like Rebuild Kerala and Nava Kerala often overshadows the need for decentralized, grassroots intervention. Effective disaster management requires localized, community-driven approaches rather than solely relying on broad, top-down initiatives.
A section argues that local communities like those in Kerala have little responsibility for the natural disasters occurring due to the climate crisis. People in places like Wayanad often face the consequences of the overuse of natural resources and carbon emissions primarily caused by developed nations. However, can local communities and states avoid disaster mitigation efforts by claiming that the climate crisis is a global issue?
This perspective was reflected in the Kerala Chief Minister’s recent response. The climate crisis has indeed been exacerbated by the consumption patterns of developed nations since colonial times. Nonetheless, climate action must also occur at the local level. Developed countries provide some funding for loss and damage to third-world countries, and local communities in places like Kerala should leverage these resources for creative, localized solutions.
In Wayanad, human activities that negatively impact the environment have intensified the severity of the climate crisis. Post-liberalization, financial capitalism often focuses on limiting climate action to loss and damage funds and carbon trading, rather than addressing the broader issue of sustainable development. The climate crisis has been used to further vested interests, as seen in projects like the bullet train, which, while reducing carbon emissions, is not a comprehensive solution to climate issues.
If the climate crisis is framed solely as a global phenomenon, it places an undue burden on ordinary people who suffer the most from its impacts. Local communities and state governments must engage in disaster mitigation and climate action, despite the global origins of the crisis, to protect themselves and build resilience against future disasters.