Voluntary commitment

Risk complexity and disaster management: A review of Uttarakhand disaster in Himalaya Mountain (June 16, 2013). The root cause i.e. the risk source of the disaster has not been addressed properly, if not ignored or neglected. A strategy scenario based on

Description

The systemic analysis in the context of Uttarakhand watershed is complex. Most stakeholders have described the catastrophic event on media and social networks i.e. blogs, youtube, slideshare, internet...correctly, with a number of components: weather, water, culture, urbanism, population, economy, geo-engineering.... One expert in predictive modeling and frequential analysis with whom my organization worked wanted to review Uttarakhand disaster case as a rare event, but which occurrence had an important impact. The led author wanted to find the period of return of a new tsunami in Himalaya. My organization viewpoint, there is a mix bag of solutions, which is linked to complexity. BIRD is promoting a simple, but innovative solution to explain and understand the source of the disater risk i.e tsunami or flash flood in mountain. It is based on the study of the lake reservoir wall ruptures. In the Uttarakhand cases there are several matches i.e. sustainable development, Uttarkhand tsunami...What are the differences between a tsunami i.e. a flood plain, flash flood, landslide in Himalaya mountain and Fukushima 2011 and (Tokohu disaster) or South East Asia 26 Dec. 2004 tsunami? A better event understanding with one source, which is the sediments and the pollutions in mountains, which brought new interest in 2014, to explain and understand the magnitude and the intensity to the event on top of Global warming and climate change. One has to consider some new review of the source of water, which is the snow melt.

Targets

Hyogo Framework For action and Priority 2 (HFA2)- Post 2015 Millenium Development Goals and 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Indicators

For scale, level and intensity in: flood risk reduction, poverty reduction, death toll reduction, improvement of the water quality and river planning.
Indicators should look at warning the stakeholders. They will be located at best and appropriate levels of community juxtapositions and contexts of interests i.e. early warning, preparedness, resilience, physical stamina, fight against corruption, recovery, reconstruction, survival infrastructures, not living in the flood risk zones, urbanism and new architectures, changes in the emergency logistic practices....and eventually good practice in geo-engineering, which are critical to address climate change, global warming and the amplification mechanism.
In all case, the building of indicators use the same technic- One indicator has 2 components-
One component, which is telling about shortage (or excess) of the item unde monitoring, and another component, which is warning soon there will be a shortage (or n excess) and be prepared to act according to the local planning and the means or the adequate infrastructures, which is providing by the planning.

Means of verification

Monitoring stations
Satellite detection for garbages
Use of drones
Education (empowerment)
Behavior changes
Municiplaity stakeholders
Risk organisation (or risk sharing society organization)
Recycling waste
Investment

Timeframe

A verification within a time frame and dates is not easy. There has been recent elections in India and a change in the Federal command. In the past, the federal powers and the local powers could antagonize more than creating a synergy. Also, it is uncle

Contact Person

Mr Georges RADJOU
Chief Executive Officer /CEO, Business Innovation Research Development

×

Close Window