International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 1520

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Review Article

Disaster risks and disaster management policies and practices

in Pakistan: A critical analysis of Disaster Management Act
2010 of Pakistan
Zubair Ahmed a,b,*
a
b

School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK
Green Chamber, Hyderabad, Sindh, FF-2, Plot 13C, Street 2, Badar Commercial Area, Phase V Extension, D.H.A. Karachi, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Article history:
Received 20 November 2012
Received in revised form
5 March 2013
Accepted 6 March 2013
Available online 14 March 2013

Human suffering has multiplied in recent years due to increased frequency and intensity
of natural hazards, which are expected to rise in the coming years due to climate change.
Admittedly, risks to humans from natural hazards cannot be eliminated completely, but
they can be reduced through systematic approaches such as disaster risks reduction (DRR)
approaches that can be scientifically applied for minimising vulnerability and building
resilience in society through multi-sectoral and multi-dimensional measures. Considering
the importance of DRR approaches in reducing impacts of disasters, the aim of this paper
is to analyse the disaster risk and disaster management policies and practices in Pakistan.
The objective is to evaluate the Disaster Management Act 2010 in Pakistan (PNDMA 2010).
Through critical review of PNDMA 2010, this study has found that the Act emphasises
mainly on institution building and action plan development for mitigating disasters in the
country. The Act does not directly mention disaster risk reduction and there are no
directions with regard to the budgetary mechanisms and extent of funds from disaster
risk management (DRM) in the country. The DRM in Pakistan is reactive and there is a
need for revision of PDMA 2010 to make it proactive.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Natural disasters
Disaster risk reduction (DRR)
Natural hazards

Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Disaster risk profile of Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Disaster risk management policies and plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
National disaster management act of 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1.
Amendments to NDMA 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2.
Review and update of national disaster risk management framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.
Study limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*
Corresponding author. Permanent address: FF-2, Plot 13C, Street 2, Badar Commercial Area, Phase V Extension, D.H.A. Karachi, Pakistan.
Tel.: 92 332 6806261.
E-mail address: zubair1878@gmail.com

2212-4209/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.03.003

16
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
19
19
19
19

16

Z. Ahmed / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 1520

7.

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1. Introduction
The first decade of this century has witnessed a number
of catastrophic natural hazards [1], which have shown that
the developing and developed countries are equally vulnerable to natural hazards. For example, the 2004 Indian
Ocean intercontinental tsunami, the 2005 Hurricane
Katrina in the USA, the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, the
2008 Nargis cyclone in Myanmar, the 2010 wildfires in
Russia, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the 2010 floods in
Pakistan, and the 2011 tsunami in Japan. Natural hazards
have caused more damage to life and property than many
major wars. In the last two decades, over 2 billion people
were affected by climate-related disasters in developing
countries [2]. In South Asia, 980,000 people have been
killed, 2.4 billion lives affected and assets worth US$105
billion were damaged in as many as 1333 disasters in the
region during the past 40 years [3].
However, the major threat to the region is global
warming, that is leading to rapid melting of glaciers in
the Himalayas [4], which is likely to cause major floods in
the South Asian countries, especially Nepal, India and
Pakistan, in the near future, and a severe water scarcity
in later years have been predicted in the region [5].
Subsequently, a rising sea level due to melting snow would
increase cyclone risks in the long coastal belt of the region
[5]. For example, the 14 cyclones in Sindh, the southern
province of Pakistan, during the period 19712001 compared to an average of four cyclones in a century in the
past [5].
An observed increase in the frequency and intensity of
natural disasters is mainly due to climate change [6], due
to which heat waves and heavy precipitation events are
likely to become more frequent. The increased frequency
and intensity of extreme weather events have increased
the need for states to take disaster risk reduction (DRR)
and climate change adaptation (CCA) measures [7].
Although Pakistan is not a major emitter of greenhouse
gases (GHGs), it is however at the top of the list of
countries most vulnerable due to rise in GHGs levels and
climate change. A cursory look at natural disasters in
Pakistan between 2005 and 2011 shows a dismal picture.
2. Disaster risk prole of Pakistan
According to the Global Climate Risk Index (GCRI), Pakistan was the most affected country in 2010, from number
eight during 19912000 [8]. The country is at high risk of
natural hazards including floods, rains, landslides, cyclones,
earthquakes, and droughts, devastating vulnerable communities every few years. In its 65-year history, the country has
gone through major floods such as in 1950, 1973, 1976, 1988,
1992, 1997 and 2010, and 14 cyclones have hit the coastal
areas of Pakistan between 1971 and 2001 [9]. The most
notable disasters in the country include the devastating
earthquake in 2005 in northern Pakistan, the 2007 cyclone

Yemyin in the coastal region of the Baluchistan province,

heavy rains and related floods across the country in 2008,
the 2009 floods in the southern province of Sindh, followed
by the 2010 unprecedented floods, and in 2011 and 2012,
catastrophic rains brought immense calamities in the
country [9]. In addition, the alarming frequency and intensity
of extreme weather events have increased the suffering of
the people of Pakistan. For example, the droughts of 2000
2002 led to displacement of tens of thousands of people who
took shelter in different parts of the country [10]. However,
the 2010 floods were the most devastating natural disaster in
the history of the country [10]. The damages due to the 2010
flood were estimated to cost between US$ 8.74 billion and
10.85 billion for the overall recovery and reconstruction in
the country [11].

3. Disaster risk management policies and plans

Historically, disaster management in Pakistan was
focused on the Emergency Response Paradigm (ERP)
[11]. Disasters were dealt under the Calamity Act of 1958
[12] and a network of emergency response institutions
with overlapping roles and responsibilities was present,
and the disaster response strategy was mainly based on a
reactive approach [13]. However, the 2005 earthquake in
the north of Pakistan led to promulgation of the National
Disaster Management Ordinance 2006 (NDMO) [14],
which was the first step towards integrated disaster
management in the country [11].
In 2007, a national framework for disaster risk management, known as the National Disaster Risk Management
Framework (NDRMF), was formulated by involving different ministries in the federal government of Pakistan, UN
agencies and some NGOs in the formulation process. The
NDRMF provides strategic guidance for disaster management in the country [11]. The framework identified nine
priority areas for a five-year action plan including institutions and legal arrangements, hazard and vulnerability
assessment, training, education and awareness, promoting
disaster risk management planning, community and local
level risk-reduction programming, multi-hazard early warning systems, mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into
development, an emergency response system, and capacity
development for post-disaster recovery. In addition, there is
a network of agencies responsible for disaster management
in the country. For example, the Federal Flood Commission,
Provincial Irrigation departments, the Water and Power
Development Authority, the Dams Safety Council, Civil
Defence, the Pakistan Red Crescent Society, the Emergency
Relief Cell, fire services, the National Crises Management Cell
(NCMC), the Pakistan Meteorology Department, the Space
and Upper Atmospheric Research Commission, the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority, the
armed forces, the police and the National Volunteer Movement. However, disaster management in Pakistan has been

Z. Ahmed / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 1520

often disorganised due to the overlapping roles and responsibilities of the organisations.
In December, 2010, the NDMO was converted into an
Act of the Parliament as the National Disaster Management
Act (NDMA) 2010 (henceforth mentioned as the Act) [15].
Nevertheless, there has been no systematic evaluation as
to whether the NDMA 2010 is an effective law covering the
complete spectrum of DRM in the country. This study fills
this gap by critically analysing the NDMA 2010 of Pakistan
(PNDMA 2010). The objectives include critical review of
PNDMA 2010, to identify weaknesses/limitations in the Act
and to suggest recommendations for appropriate amendments in the Act.
4. Methodology
Methodology includes a critical review of different
sections of PNDMA 2010.
5. National disaster management act of 2010
In this section, different sections of PNDMA 2010 are
critically analysed; however, an overview of the Act is
provided in the first instance.
5.1. Overview
In December, 2010, the Parliament of Pakistan approved
PNDMA 2010 [15] with retrospective effect from August
2007 (Section 3), and the Act was given an overriding
authority over other relevant laws (Section 46). The Act
consists of 11 chapters and 48 sections. Section 1 provides
the title, extent, and commencement of the Act and
Section 2 defines various terms, e.g. disaster, disaster
management and affected area mentioned in the Act.
Sections 336 deal with issues that can be broadly divided
into three categories, i.e., establishment of institutions and
development of plans (Sections 328), finances and
accounts including audit (Sections 2932), offences and
penalties (Sections 3336).
The establishment of institutions and development of
plans (Section 328) provide a three-tier hierarchical
framework. At the top of the hierarchy, a unified national
commission, known as the National Disaster Management
Commission (NDMC), headed by the Prime Minister and its
members include all provincial chief ministers, the key
federal cabinet ministers such as finance, defence, foreign
affairs, communications, health and interior, a member of
civil society and some other members (Section 3). The
NDMC is suggested to act as national disaster management
policymaking in the country (Section 6). For implementation of the policies and plans at the national level,
a National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) headed
by a Director General is constituted to act as the executive
arm (Section 8), which is to serve as a focal point for the
coordination and implementation of disaster management
policies in the country (Section 9). The Act requires drawing
a national plan for disaster management, suggesting measures for the prevention of disasters, integration of the
measures in development plans, and defining roles and

17

responsibilities of relevant federal government ministries

and departments (Section 10).
At the second tier, Provincial Disaster Management
Commissions (PDMC) (Section 13) and at the third tier,
Provincial Disaster Management Authorities (PDMA) (Section 15) and District Disaster Management Authorities
(DDMA) (Section 18) are suggested. The PDMAs draw
provincial plans (Section 17) and DDMAs draw district plans
(Section 21) for disaster management at provincial and
district levels, respectively. In addition, the Act provides
establishment of a National Institute of Disaster Management (NDMI) for training, research and development (Section 26), and a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF)
(Section 27). In addition, the Act suggests establishment of a
National Disaster Management Fund (NDMF) for meeting
any threatening disaster situation or disaster (Section 29).
Similarly, provinces are asked to establish Disaster Management Funds (PNDF) for dealing with disaster issues
(Section 30).
Moreover, miscellaneous items, e.g. payment of compensation, disaster communication and media, indemnity,
delegation of powers, overriding of other laws and making
new rules are covered in Sections 3748 of the Act.
5.2. Analysis
Although the title of the Act is disaster management
(Section 1), without looking into the provisions of the Act,
no conclusion can be drawn on the scope and purpose of the
Act [16]. Prima facie, the purpose of the Act is to overcome
the deficiency of not having an integrated national disaster
management system in the country. However, the stated
purpose of the Act is to provide an effective disaster
management system in the country. The Act covers matters
connected with and incidental to disaster management.
However, the scope of the Act is narrowed down by the
definitions of two terms, i.e., disaster (Section 2b) and
disaster management (Section 2c). For example, the term
disaster management is defined as managing the complete
disaster spectrum, including- preparedness; response; recovery and rehabilitation; and reconstruction (Section 2c). The
above definition suggests that the Act comes into action
when either a disaster has struck or the occurrence of a
disaster is imminent. Thus, the Act shows a reactive approach towards dealing with a disaster. However, one of the
powers envisaged in Section 6 of the NDMC constituted
under Section 5 of the Act, states arrange for, and oversee,
the provision of funds for the purpose of mitigation measures, preparedness and response (Section 6e). According to
the UN/ISDR, the term mitigation measures means the
lessening or limitation of the adverse impacts of hazards
and related disasters [17], which suggests that the above
section in the Act refers to DRR practices, albeit indirectly.
However, in the context of the Act, mitigation refers to
actions taken for avoiding a second disaster after the initial
disaster has struck, for instance, the spread of diseases in the
relief camps [18]. In addition, the National Plan (Section 10),
refers to a number of measures for the prevention of
disasters; integration of mitigation measures in the development plans; preparedness and capacity building to effectively respond to any threatening disaster situation or

18

Z. Ahmed / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 1520

disaster. Inclusion of these terms in the Act thus indicates

anticipatory and corrective approaches in the national plan.
However, according to the UN-ISDR, prevention means the
outright avoidance of adverse impacts of hazards and related
disasters [17]. Moreover, the provisions of the Section 16 of
the Act empower provincial authorities to examine the
vulnerability and specify prevention or mitigation measures
to different disasters.
The provisions of Section 25, particularly sub clause (1
c), are a strong statement on adopting an anticipatory
approach for reducing disaster risks as follows. all
construction projects under it (local authority) or within
its jurisdiction conform to the standards and specifications
laid down for prevention of disaster and mitigation by
the [Disaster Management] National Authority, Provincial
Authority and the District Authority (Sections 25, 1,c)
[15].
In view of the above provisions of the Act, it could be
argued that PNDMA 2010 provides an effective DRM law
for the country. It provides a complete DRM spectrum
focusing on reactive and proactive approaches as well as
incorporating anticipatory and corrective measures. However, as the ISDR global review 2007 pointed out, the
national plans may mention longer term mitigation and
preparedness, but lack detailed and dedicated resources
[19]. Therefore, the effectiveness of the Act depends upon
not only formulation and implementation of the national
plans but also on the availability of the funds. The Act
suggests establishment of disaster management funds at
both the national level (Section 29) and provincial levels
(Section 30); however, there is no mention of such funds at
the district level and there are no directions with regard to
amount of funds that would be reserved in the annual
budget for the disaster management activities at the
national, provincial and district levels.
Moreover, the Act bars the jurisdiction of any court or
tribunal to call into question any action taken under the
provisions of the Act (Section 43) and protects officials
from any legal action for their acts made in good faith
(Section 44). Thus, officials are protected from any
accountability. These provisions might lead to inefficiencies and malpractices in DRR and DRM in the country.
However, despite the DRM framework under the Act,
the 2010 floods exposed the DRM regime of the country as
being in disarray [5]. The failure of DRM practices was
observed similar to those witnessed as at the time of the
2005 earthquake, when there were no DRM related legal
and institutional frameworks in the country. Thus, nothing
had changed on the ground with regard to the DRM
because of PNDMA 2010, apart from the establishment of
more bureaucratic strata. The effectiveness and legal status
of the Act and framework can be judged from the observation of a judicial commission constituted by the Supreme
Court of Pakistan in the wake of the floods [20]. The
commission on functioning of the disaster management
organs observed as follows. For 52 months after its
establishment, the NDMA had not done its homework for
the pre-disaster phase, nor pursued the PDMAs and
DDMAs to do theirs, or reported its inability to do so to
the National Commission or the Parliament. The ad hoc
approach manifested itself in the absence of clearer

contours of a National Strategic Plan that had to lay

foundations for the Provincial level plans. This state of
affairs did not inspire much confidence. The scale of
the disaster that preceded the creation of the NDMA or the
one that visited the country four years later dictated an
organizational approach, which was not visible [20]. In
addition, while highlighting the gaps in the DRR policies
and practices of the disaster management regime in the
country, the commission observed as follows. Organizational capacity to plan and devise a framework for prediction, ability to forecast with a reasonable degree of
certitude, use of modern tools of early warning possibilities by a well-developed scientific discipline that could
reduce wide-band of south-westerly monsoon predictions
or potential hazards of rising global warming and consequential glacier melting with dependable precision, to
minimize losses of life and property and prevent damage
to fledgling infrastructure or even sensitize all concerned,
in time.
6. Discussion
Apparently, the inability and/or unwillingness of the
government of Pakistan to DRR has increased human suffering due to natural disasters in the country. The national
organisations responding to the disasters have overlapping
roles and responsibilities, and suffer from a lack of coordination and linkages between each other. The government, after
every disaster, perhaps in an attempt to mitigate its responsibility, cites the will of the God and punishment for
wrongful deeds of the people [21]. This belief is evident
from the fact that the government's disaster response
policies have mostly focused on the Emergency Response
Paradigm (ERP) [11]. Policy makers appear to have been
unaware of the precautionary principle until the 2005 earthquake, which led to promulgation of the NDMO in 2006,
which is considered as the first step in a proactive approach
towards disaster management in the country. Nevertheless,
the true test of the effectiveness of a law or policy can be
judged from its implementation/ execution. In Pakistan, the
2010 floods exposed the institutions responsible for managing floods as being in disorder [5], despite availability of
legal and institutional frameworks. There are not only
inefficiency and political interference in departments concerned with the DRM, but also rampant corruption, lack of
coordination and linkage among the network of disaster
management institutions, as well as criminal negligence [20].
Therefore, DRR in Pakistan requires not only right policies at
the right place [18] but also application of the solutions for
DRR that are well known [21].
Apparently, Pakistan has DRR laws and policies developed with a consultation process involving UN organisations, international development agencies, civil society
and other key stakeholders incorporating international
guidelines and standards on DRM. However, every subsequent natural hazard from the establishment of the NDM
regime to date, particularly the 2010 floods, have exposed
the application and effectiveness of the DRM regime of the
country.
Although the enactment of laws and formulation of framework(s) is the first step towards an integrated DRM regime in

Z. Ahmed / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 1520

a country, transforming it in the right direction is the first

requirement for effective DRM. Otherwise, mere drafting of
frameworks and policies with high legal acumen is nothing
more than the gimmickry of good governance. Enacting laws,
formulating policies or establishing towers of bureaucratic
levels do not achieve good governance but it is, rather,
respect for human rights, political openness, participation,
tolerance, administrative and bureaucratic capacity and efficiency. The rule of law, transparency, equity, consensusorientated accountability and strategic vision [22]. It however
appears that the ineffectiveness of the DRM system in the
country demonstrates the inability or unwillingness, or a
combination of both, of the state apparatus. Admittedly, no
one is able to cope with disasters single-handedly; therefore, a
number of international development agencies, NGOs and UN
bodies provide technical and financial assistance to strengthen
the capacity to cope with disaster risks.
Nevertheless, unwillingness to act proactively is an affliction arising from a number of sources, such as corruption or
political influence. The case of the DRM regime in Pakistan
involves unwillingness to take proactive action for DRR. For
example, the judicial commission pointed out Although
Pakistan is a member of the Word Meteorology Organization
(WMO); it is not accessing information from it. Nor is it
taking full advantage of information available with it [20].
Similarly, insistence of the Irrigation Department, in the
province of Sindh, the province most affected in the 2010
floods, that staff is well trained and capable of dealing with
any flood situation represents unwillingness to strengthen
the capacity to reduce disaster risks.
The International Law Commission has taken the topic of
Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, as a new
field of international law, to address through peaceful means
situations where states, due to inability or unwillingness, fail
to protect their citizens from disasters. However, the invocation of doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) in natural
disasters, particularly in cases of states unwillingness to act
has entered into the corpus of international law [23].
Framing overambitious strategies, partly to justify the
existence of agencies and partly to impress international
donors, results in negative impacts on the overall organisational capacity. However, it must be admitted that international funding are generously made available after the
disaster happens, but difficult to obtain before [21]. Policies
and planning should be made taking social, political and
economic capacities and constraints into account.
There are a number of measures, which can be considered for an effective and integrated DRR approach in
Pakistan. For example, amendments in the law, institutional strengthening and capacity building, public-private
partnerships (PPPs), and enhancing the role of civil society.
In this regard, some recommendations are suggested in
the PNDMA 2010 as follow.

19

1) Addition of new sub-sections in Section 2 defining

Natural Hazard and Mitigation should be inserted,
as suggested below.
a. In Section 2(b), after property in the last line, the
words or damage to, or degradation of, the environment should be inserted.
b. In Section 2(c), the heading should be changed from
disaster management to disaster risk management and before Preparedness, the words Prevention and Reduction of risk should be inserted.
2) In Section 42, after No court or tribunal, the words
except the Supreme Court or a High Court should be
inserted.
6.1.2. Review and update of national disaster risk
management framework
The existing DRM framework, which has served its fiveyear period, should be comprehensively analysed to identify achievements, shortcomings and gaps before formulating a new framework. In this regard, a few suggestions
are as follows. The DRM framework should be peoplerather than donor-oriented; its strategies should be realistic and feasible; it should not be overambitious and
ambiguous, and avoid using imprecise words such as
etcetera, as were used in the first framework; it should
promote disaster risk reduction and an approach to
climate change adaptation; it should promote public
private partnerships (PPP) for DRR and its strategies
should be implementable with available resources, particularly financial resources. In addition, a six-monthly work
plan of what is achievable in different stages should be
developed; and a review committee consisting of members of legislative, executive and judicial bodies, civil
society and media should be constituted. Above all, DRR
and DRM policies and plans in Pakistan need a strong
political support at the highest level such as the Prime
Minister at the national level and the Chief Minister at the
province level as well as financial commitment through
annual budgets at both the federal/national level and the
provincial level.
All these recommendations require strong political
commitment. These recommendations are made taking
into consideration the socio-political situation of Pakistan,
where legislature, the judiciary, and the executive are
declared to be pillars of government, but the establishment
(Army), civil society (including international organisations)
and media are undeclared pillars of the government.
6.2. Study limitations
This study has only reviewed the content of various
sections of PNDMA 2010; however, implementation of the
Act remains to be studied in future research.
7. Conclusion

6.1. Recommendations
6.1.1. Amendments to NDMA 2010
The influence of managing disaster is evident in the
provisions of the Act; however, it needs changes in some
provisions, as follows.

Like many other countries, Pakistan has enacted laws

and formulated policies on DRM, conforming to international standards and practices. Strategies have been developed to integrate DRR in development policies and
practices. However, due to bad governance, lack of political

20

Z. Ahmed / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 1520

commitment, rampant corruption, economic constraints

and overambitious plans, these policies and plans have not
been implemented effectively. It has also transpired that
DRM policies have been implemented in an ad hoc and
uncoordinated manner. It is therefore concluded that
despite proactive DRM laws and policies, implementation
is still reactively focused in Pakistan. Current DRR policies
and plans in Pakistan have noticeably failed to reduce
human suffering. The 2010 floods were not unprecedented
in the history of the country, as observed by the Supreme
Court Commission, and became catastrophic because of
the ineffective implementation of DRM policies and plans
in the country. Human suffering could have been reduced
by effective implementation of DRR policies and plans.
PNDMA 2010 falls short of covering complete spectrum
of DRM and there are two main lacunae in the Act. First,
the definition does not cover damage to the environment,
although environmental degradation is evidently a major
cause of the frequency and intensity of natural hazards.
Second, the threat of disaster does not fall under the Act,
which currently deals with the actual occurrence of
significant loss.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on the author's postgraduate dissertation accepted for the partial fulfilment of the degree
of LLM at the School of Law, Queen Mary University of
London. The author thanks Dr Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah,
Research Fellow at Brunel University London for his support and guidance without which this paper would not be
completed.
References
[1] OECD. emerging risks in the 21st century: an agenda for action.
OECD Publications Service, Paris; 2003.
[2] EM-DAT: The International Disasters Database. Available from:
http://www.emdat.be/natural-disasters-trends [accessed 04.03.13].
[3] South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Message
at the Inter-Governmental Meeting to Finalise the Draft SAARC
Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters, Maldives, 25
26 May 2011. http://www.saarc-sec.org/ [accessed 27.07.13].
[4] Tandong Y, Thompson L, Yang W, Yu W, Gao Y, Guo X, et al.
Different glacier status with atmospheric circulation in Tibetan
plateau and surroundings. Nature Climate Change 2012;2:6637.

[5] Memon N. In: Climate change and natural disasters in Pakistan.

second ed.Islamabad: Strengthening Participatory Organization
(SPO); 2012.
[6] Albuja S, Adarve IC. Protecting people displaced by disasters in the
context of climate change: challenges from a mixed conflict/disaster
context. Tulane Environmental Law Journal 2011;24:23952.
[7] IPCC. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance
climate change adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I
and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Field
CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD,
Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM, editors.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 2012.
[8] Harmeling S. Global Climate Risk Index 2012: Who suffers most
from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2010
and 1991 to 2010, Germanwatch e.V., Bonn, Germany; 2011.
[9] Memon N. Disasters in South Asia: a regional perspective. Pakistan
Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER), Karachi, Pakistan; 2012.
[10] World Bank. Disaster risk management programs for priority countries: global facility for disaster reduction and recovery. Global
Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery GFDRR Secretariat,
Washington; 2009.
[11] Asian Development Bank. Pakistan Floods 2010: preliminary damage
and need assessment. Islamabad, Pakistan; 2010.
[12] National Disaster Management Authority. National Disaster Risk
Management Framework, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan; 2007.
[13] National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). NDMA Annual
Report 2010; 2011. Available from: www.ndma.gov.pk [accessed
01.08.12].
[14] Government of Pakistan. National Disaster Management Ordinance
2006. Islamabad, Pakistan; 2006.
[15] Government of Pakistan. National Disaster Management Act 2010.
The Gazette of Pakistan, Islamabad, December 11, 2010. Available
from: http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1302135719_202.
pdf.
[16] Beal E. Cardinal rules of legal interpretation. [Stevens 1896] 188.
[17] Wahlstrom M. Disaster risk and its reduction: who is responsible?
Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 2009;33:1568.
[18] UNISDR. Disaster Risk Reduction, Governance and Development
2004;2(4) UN/ISDR Africa Educational Series.
[19] United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Disaster
risk reduction: 2007 global review. Geneva, 2007. Available from:
http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/.
[20] Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Flood 2010: Flood Inquiry Commission Report. Islamabad; 2010.
[21] Fisher D. Legal implementation of human rights obligations to
prevent displacement due to natural disasters. In: Kalin W, Williams
RC, Koser K, Solomon A, editors. Incorporating the guiding principles
on internal displacement into domestic law: issues and challenges.
Studies in Transnational Legal Policy 2010;41:55190.
[22] UNISDR. 2011 Global assessment report on disaster risk reductionrevealing risk, redefining development.Oxford, UK: Information
Press; 2011.
[23] Caballero-Anthony M, Chng B. Cyclones and humanitarian crises:
pushing the limits of R2P in Southeast Asia. Global Responsibility to
Protect 2009;1:13555.