of Disaster Management a case study - iCEDiced.cag.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/C-31/Environmental...

Environmental Auditingof Disaster Management – a

case study

BySunil Dadhe

Director GeneraliCED

THE ORGANISATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT SECTOR IN INDIA

Government of India

Planning

commission

Ministry of

Science and

Technology

Ministry of

Environment

and Forests

State

governments

Department of

environment

Environment

and Forestry

unitNational

Environmental

Engineering

Research

InstituteCentral

Pollution

Control

Board

State Pollution

control board

National Review

Conservation

Directorate

National Aforestation and

Eco- Development Board

Environmental

Wing

Zonal

Offices

Forest and

Wildlife Wing

Regional

Offices

Why environmental Audit is unique and special?

• It requires specialized knowledge of the subject• Environment is Globally important • It materially impacts society, economy and other

areas.• The subject is regulated Globally and has Global and

regional implications• There are multiple players and actors with defined yet

often overlapping responsibilities including authorities at following levels–– Local bodies– Regional Governments– National Governments– International organisations– NGOs / citizens watch groups– Courts, etc.

Audit specific to environment

• Authoritative sources forming benchmarks / sources of audit criteria could include :

– National laws- Acts of the legislature and any regulations, rules, orders, etc., made under an Act and having the force of law

– Supranational laws – such as legislation enacted by organs of the SAARC / BIMST conventions, etc.

– International agreements like United Nations Conventions

– Binding standards ( including techniques, procedures and qualitative criteria)

– Contracts

– Policy directives

Audit areas

• The areas to be audited include-– Audits of Government monitoring of compliance with

environmental laws

– Audit of performance of Government environmental programmes

– Audit of environmental impact of other government programmes

– Audit of Environmental Management System

– Environmental assessment of proposed environmental policies and programmes

– Audit of spends after natural calamities

International experience in environmental audit – post disaster• Flooding

– SAI of the United Kingdom

– SAI of France

– SAI of Japan (2000)

– SAI of Poland

– SAI of the Czech Republic (1997 and 1998)

Issues in Disaster Management -1

• Preparedness for disaster management

• Audit objective

– Whether there is an effective institutional mechanism and organizational structure for disaster management.


• Relief/rehabilitation measures

– Audit Objective:- Whether the relief measures were executed in an efficient and effective manner


– Audit Objective :- Whether rehabilitation measures were taken up in timely manner in accordance with the norms set

Performance audit of Floods in Maharashtra -preparedness and response

(the background)

Maharashtra witnessed the worst ever torrential rainfall between 24July and 5 August 2005, followed by successive spells of flood in allthe four regions, viz., Konkan, Marathwada, Vidarbha and WesternMaharashtra. It was a statewide disaster, leaving a trail ofdestruction and devastation in 33 out of 34 districts, of which fourdistricts were the most affected. The capital city of Mumbaiwitnessed 94.4 cm of rainfall within 18 hours on 26 July 2005. This,coupled with high tide crippled the city.

Performance audit of Floods in Maharashtra -preparedness and response

(the background)

More than 1100 persons and 27000 cattle died in thedisaster. More than 17,000 houses were fullydamaged, while 3.50 lakh houses were partiallydamaged. Crops grown over 10 lakh hectares of landwere damaged. The overall loss assessed by theGovernment of Maharashtra (GOM) was estimated atRs 6000 crore (August/September 2005) and raisedto Rs 10000 crore (February 2006).

Floods in Maharashtra -preparedness and response

Performance Audit criteria

• Criteria adopted to achieve the audit objectives were: – Model Action Plan-1981 framed by GOI for

management for floods.

– Norms laid down in ‘Standing Orders-1983’ and subsequent resolutions issued thereunder for extending relief and rehabilitation measures.

– State Government instructions/orders relating to works, relief etc. issued from time to time.

– Funds allotted to each area by the GOM.


Performance Audit observations -1

•Disaster management plan formulatedin 1997 was not followed systematicallyin eight out of 10 test checked districts.Long term plans such as desiltation ofriver, improvement of drainage systemwere not done except in MumbaiDistrict.



•Desiltation works in Mithi riverrecommended by a Committee in 1993commenced only after the 2005 floods.The desilting works claimed to havebeen executed before the Monsoon of2006 could not be verified, as there wasno documentary evidence oftransportation of silt.



• Failure to co-ordinate with the Government of Karnataka

for timely release of water from Almatti dam led to

inundation of adjoining Sangli District. As a result, Rs

58.78 crore was spent towards relief assistance in the

District.

• Standing Orders 1983 as amended from time to time

stipulate payment of relief assistance for reconstruction of

fully damaged houses at the same/existing places at the

rate of Rs 15000 per house in two equal installments (first

at the start and second on completion of work upto roof)

provided the old house was not in encroachment zone and

in blue zone.


Performance Audit observations -4(Rupees in lakh)

District Amount of

loss not

assessed by JE

Panchanama

signed only by

Talathi

Payment more

than the

assessed loss

Without

Certificate of

blue Zone and

encroachment

Bhandara 28.19 14.09

Gondia 50.13

Kolhapur 15.84 0.14 169.73

Nanded 22.85

Parbhani 18.32

Pune 24.45 24.45 0.43

Raigad 0.19 69.64

Sangli 31.31 111.70

Total 99.79 129.84 0.76 351.17

Rounded to

Rupees in

crore

1.00 1.30 0.01 3.51

Percentage of

financial

implication

12 16 <1 44



• Government stated (September 2006) that condition of blue zone itself was removed from January 2006. This amounts to subjecting the population in the blue zone to face recurrent floods and the Government had created avoidable recurring liability.

• Since long, neither unauthorised residents living in blue zones / encroachment zone have been removed / resettled nor any responsibilities for permitting such dwellings been fixed. Moreover, the condition making residence in blue zone ineligible for relief assistance has also been removed from January 2006. This amounts to legalise their settlements in such areas.


Performance Audit observations - 6

•Financial Management during theprocess of relief and rehabilitationwas saddled with cases ofoverdrawal of Rs 1.78 crore,diversion of funds of Rs 1.43 croreand non-execution of urgent repairsto restore civic amenities of Rs 10.49crore.

Thank you

of Disaster Management a case study - iCEDiced.cag.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/C-31/Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of of Disaster Management a case study - iCEDiced.cag.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/C-31/Environmental...