Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD), or Gumboro Disease, is a viral disease affecting young chickens. The disease has a worldwide prevalence. The target organ of the virus is the Bursa of Fabricius, an important organ in the young chickens developing immune system.
The economic impact of an Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) infection is twofold:
- Direct mortality that can reach levels in excess of 40%, and
- Secondary infections, due to a suboptimal immune system, having a negative impact on production efficiency.
Microbiology:
The Virus- Small, non-enveloped double stranded RNA virus.
- Family: Birnaviridae.
- Very stable hardy virus.
- Able to withstand a wide pH range (pH 2-12).
- Heat stable (still viable after 30 minutes at 60°C).
- High level of resistance to most commonly used disinfectants.
- Survives in the poultry house environment for extended periods of time.
IBD Symptoms and Lesions:
Severity of symptoms and lesions is dependant on the virulence of the infective virus, type of bird (layer or meat-type) and the immune status of the infected bird. Acute and sub clinical IB are distinguished.Acute Clinical IBD:
- Sudden onset of disease.
- Infected birds are depressed, have ruffled feathers, droopy appearance and may be seen pecking at the vent.
- Morbidity and mortality begins 3 days post infection, peaks and recedes in a period of 5 -7 days.
- Mortality may be negligible or as high as 90% in case of very virulent IBDV. The more common scenario is mortality of 10 – 20%.
- In the field situation the mortality in layer type birds is generally higher than in meat type birds.
- Birds that die are usually dehydrated (causing kidney lesions).
- Frequently petechial hemorrhages are present in the thigh and pectoral muscles.
- Hemorrhages and erosions may be present at the juncture of the proventriculus and gizzard.
- Bursal lesions are variable depending on the progress of the disease. Expected changes that may occur are tabulated below.
Gumboro disease: Summary of expected changes in bursal size, weight and morphology | ||
Days post infection | Size | Morphology |
| 2 - 3 | Bursa increases in size and weight | Oedematous with gelatinous yellow transudate covering serosal surface. Color changes from normal white to a cream colour. Petechial to extensive hemorrhaging may be present. |
| 4 | Bursa double the normal weight and size | |
| 5 | Bursa returns to normal weight | Transudate and oedema disappear. Bursa turns a grey color. |
| 8 | Bursa 1/3 of original weight | |
Very virulent IBDV strains cause severe lesions in other lymphoid organs such as the thymus, caecal tonsils and spleen in addition to bursal lesions.
- Acute stage. Enlarged oedematous bursa
- 5 days post infection bursa returns to normal size.
May be hemorrhagic as in this specific bursa - 8 days post infection bursa atrophied and up to 1/8 of normal size
Subclinical IBD:
- Sub clinical IBD occurs when chickens are exposed to IBDV during the first two weeks post hatch and have sufficient maternal antibody at time of infection to prevent clinical disease but not viral replication in the bursa.
- Characterized by bursal atrophy, immunosuppression and resultant increased susceptibility to secondary infections (such as E. coli).
- No peak mortality as evidenced with clinical IBD.
- Secondary infections in broilers, mainly E. coli, result in a continuous above standard daily mortality and poorer feed conversions.
- Due to immunosuppression there can be a poor response to subsequent vaccinations
- Virus was present within 4-5 hours in the macrophages and lymphatic cells of the duodenum, jejunum and caecum.
- Duodenum, jejunum and caecum are the first sites of viral replication.
- By way of the portal venous system virus reaches the liver within 5 hours post infection.
- Kupffer cells in the liver trap and phagocytose a considerable amount of virus particles.
- IBDV reaching the main bloodstream is circulated to other organs including the bursa of Fabricius.
- Immature B-lymphocytes in the follicles of the bursa are the target cells for viral replication.
- By 13 hours post-infection most follicles in the bursa are virus positive.
- By 16 hours post infection a second massive viraemia occurs.
- There is infection and secondary viral replication in other lymphatic organs.
- Clinical disease and death occurs within 64-72 hrs post-infection.
Chickens showed no IBDV symptoms when the bursa of Fabricius was surgically removed prior to IBDV infection. Clinical IBDV symptoms manifest in a narrow age range of 2 to 8 weeks (exceptions of 10 days to 20 weeks of age), coinciding with the age at which the bursa of Fabricius is populated with the highest concentration of immature B-lymphocytes. Clinical symptoms do not manifest when chickens are infected earlier than about two weeks of age, however bursal pathology is still evident.
Severe bursal pathology during the first two weeks post hatch (refer Variant IBDV) results in severe immunosuppression. The kinetics of virus multiplication is similar for all IBDV pathotypes, with the exception that the more virulent the strain the higher the amplification of viral replication at each step, with resultant increased severity in clinical symptoms.
Clinical signs observed in 5 week old specific pathogen-free (SPF) chickens during the course of an IBDV infection with different strains of varying virulence (CJ801 = attenuated strain; Cu1-wt = classical strain; 849VB = very virulent strain). Stocquart et al (2001). | |||||||
0h | 24h | 48h | 64h | 72h | 88h | Morbidity and Mortality | |
| CJ801 | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK |
| Cu1-wt | OK | OK | OK | First symptoms | Acute phase and first mortalities | Acute phase and mortalities | 83% (10/12 chickens) |
| 849VB | OK | OK | OK | Acute phase and first mortalities | Acute phase and mortalities | Acute phase and mortalities | 100% (12/12 chickens) |
Prevalence:
- IBD was first described as a specific new disease by Cosgrove in 1962 in the town of Gumboro, Delaware, USA.
- Variant IBDV strains were first reported in the USA in 1986/87.
- Hyper or very virulent IBDV strains were first reported in Belgium and The Netherlands in 1987.
- Currently IBDV has a worldwide distribution, occurring in all major poultry producing areas.
- The classical and hyper virulent forms of IBD are predominant in all countries with the exception of North America and Australia.
- In the USA the variant strains of IBDV predominate.
Spread of Virus:
Infectious bursal disease is highly contagious. Due to the hardy nature of the virus it persists in the environment of the poultry house, infections are thus potentially carried over from one cycle to the next.IBDV is not vertically transmitted (no transmission from parent to day old chick through the egg). Horizontal transmission through infected faeces, contaminated equipment (especially footwear) or other organic material is the most likely route of spread. It has been demonstrated that the lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus) could act as a vector carrying IBDV from one cycle to the next.
A thorough clean out of a site following a IBDV infection is thus required.
- All infected litter and carcases of infected birds must be suitably disposed of away from the site or any other poultry operation.
- A thorough well planned disinfection regimen must be implemented.
- Downtime between successive flocks must be maximised. (A minimum of 10 days is recommended between successive b
Viral Protein Structure:
Five viral proteins designated VP1, VP2, VP3, VP4 and VP5 have been recognised:- VP1 plays a key role in the encapsidation of the virus particle.
- VP2 encodes the major antigenic determinants of the virus, including epitopes that are important in virus neutralisation.
- VP3 is a group specific antigen that is recognised by non-neutralising antibodies. VP3 acts as an intermediary, interacting with both VP1 and VP2, and the formation of VP1-VP3 complexes is likely to be an important step in the morphogenesis of IBDV particles.
- VP4 is a minor and non-structural polypeptide.
- VP5 likely has a regulatory function.
What causes infectious bursal disease?
Infectious bursal disease is caused by a birnavirus (IBDV) that is most readily isolated from the bursa of Fabricius, an organ of the immune system, but may be isolated from other organs. It is shed in the faeces and spreads between birds or by contact with a contaminated environment and is possibly also carried in the air on dust particles. The virus can be transferred from house to house on fomites (any inanimate object or substance that is capable of carrying infectious organisms from one individual to another) and rodents. The virus is very stable and difficult to eradicate from premises. There is no vertical transmission (from parents directly to offspring). Mealworms and litter mites may harbour the virus for 8 weeks, and affected birds shed large amounts of virus for about 2 weeks after infection.Clinical Signs:
Whitish, watery or mucoid diarrhea may be evident in the flock, with very sticky litter and soiling of vent feathers. Many birds may be reluctant to move with a tendency to sit. There is listlessness, dehydration and some deaths, with poor feed conversions. Secondary disease conditions, such as E. Coli infection, Marek’s disease, gangrenous dermatitis and inclusion body hepatitis may increase in incidence, and condemnation rates may be elevated. The mortality pattern may range from the normal acceptable levels to a total of 15%, but the usual rate is low. Four days after the onset of clinical signs, the mortality peaks and returns to normal within a week. The number of affected birds in a flock (morbidity) is variable and can approach 100%. Sick birds do not die if management is good and stresses kept to a minimum. Apparently sub clinical disease can occur and destroy the birds immune system without causing obvious illness in a flock until secondary diseases develop.Diagnosis:
Diagnosis is made on the flock history and postmortem examination, and confirmed by virus isolation and identification. Serology and fluorescent antibody techniques are now available and help identify the disease agent. Histopathology of the bursa can also lead to a diagnosis.Treatment and Control:
No known chemotherapeutic or antibiotic agent is effective in the treatment or control of infectious bursal disease. Drug therapy is often inadvisable in the presence of severe kidney damage. Electrolyte and/or multiple vitamin administration may be helpful in flocks where the disease is of relatively long standing and appetites poor. Good ventilation, warm temperatures and fresh water will help to reduce mortality. If secondary diseases become a problem, antibiotic therapy may be required, but this should be kept to a minimum.After marketing a diseased flock, the farm should be completely depopulated of all species of birds. All litter and unused feed must be discarded and the building and equipment thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. Fumigation with formaldehyde is recommended if possible. (This is a hazardous procedure and must not be administered by inexperienced personnel.) The building should be left vacant for 3 weeks. Vaccines are available in some countries, although they have not been introduced into Canada. Control of rodents, insects and wild birds is also important in the control of infectious disease.
Vaccination Date Prediction:Elisa assay of maternal immunity in young chicks is being increasingly used as an aid in predicting the date at which the chicks will become sufficiently susceptible to enable efficient vaccination. The concept was first investigated in White Leghorns by Solano and others (1986). A formula for predicting day to vaccinate was worked out and validated in large-scale broiler trials by scientists at the Doorn Institute in the Netherlands (Kouwenhoven, 1991).
The formula is derived from the regression of expected reduction in maternal antibody levels. In one of its simplest forms the formula for broilers can be given as :
Square Root(Measured Mean Titre)- Square Root(Target titre)
---------------------------------------------------------------- = VDP
============2.82
The divisor is a constant derived from antibody half-life. A modification of the formula would be required for use with broiler parents and layers to take into account differing growth rates and rates of depletion of maternal antibody. We suggest adding 10% for broiler parents and 20% for layers, though it must be emphasized that this technique has not been validated in these classes of chicken.
The VDP value given by the formula is the interval in days between the day of sampling and the day on which it can be expected that the mean titre will reach the designated target titre.
Differing target titres can be chosen depending on the degree to which the vaccine in use is affected by maternal antibody. The target titres which have been used in the UK are :
| Titre | Vaccine |
| 500 | LZ228E (Intervet), Bursa-plus (Solvay) |
| 125-250 | Bursine II (Solvay), D78 (Intervet), Bur 706 (Merieux) |
The prediction attempts to time vaccination to 50% susceptibility. If the titres are highly variable we may advise a modified schedule rather than following the prediction strictly. On the other hand, if early challenge is not expected then every consideration should be given to delaying vaccination beyond the day predicted in order to further improve the vaccine "take".
We have been carrying out assays for IBD antibody levels in newly-hatched broiler and layer chicks for over 2 years. Our impression is that control of the disease is enhanced when the predictions are taken into account. To date it has been customary to repeat sample the progeny of each parent flock at intervals through the period of production (usually 20 chicks per month). This was reasonable since it is known that the level of antibodies circulating in the hens blood decreases with age (p.33), and that the level of antibodies present in yolk is roughly proportional to that in the blood (p.15).
This system presents some problems:
1. Predictions fluctuate up and down with each successive test. Many of these fluctuations seem to be random (they may be related to the maturity of the chicks sampled, sample handling, assay kit batch etc.). For this reason we have advised that the "trend" be used rather than to rely on a particular report.
2. Because the information on a flock is generated and distributed over a long period there can be confusion and delays in getting the information to the people who have to act on it (the farm managers).
3. Blood sampling of a substantial number of chicks by hatchery staff by decapitation is required.
As a first step in deciding how to resolve these problems we have carried out an analysis of vaccination date predictions according to parent flock age. One broiler company (A) was chosen for its traditionally high levels of antibody and another (B) because its chicks tend to have moderate to good levels of maternal antibody.
Prevention and treatment:
There is no treatment for IBD but support therapies, such as vitamin and electrolyte supplements and antibiotics to treat any secondary bacterial infections, may reduce the impact of the disease.Depopulation and rigorous disinfection of contaminated farms have achieved some limited success in preventing disease spread. Prevention is through good biosecurity and vaccination, including passive protection via breeders and vaccination of progeny depending on virulence and age of challenge. In most countries, breeders are immunised with a live vaccine at 6-8 weeks of age and then re-vaccinated with an oil-based inactivated vaccine at 18 weeks. Birds that have recovered from a natural infection have a strong immunity. Immunity in chicks after receiving a live vaccine can be poor if maternal antibody was still high at the time of vaccination.
Conclution:
Infectious bursal disease (IBD) is an acute highly contagious immunosuppressive disease of chicken. The disease has also been reported to occur in turkey and ducks. Chickens of 3-6 weeks age are mostly affected, although the disease may occur in chicken of 2-15 weeks age and below 2 weeks age. The disease is also known as Gumboro as it was first recognized in the Gumboro district of Delware, USA. The disease has been occurring in Bangladesh since 1992 with a very high morbidity and mortality, especially in the exotic birds. The local birds are found somewhat resistant to the disease.
End Course Project Assignment
1) Background information
India spans an area of 3166 thousand square Kilo meters; population of 1027 million; Density of 324 per sq km. The Climate varies from tropical monsoon in south to temperate in north. India's diverse economy encompasses traditional village farming, modern agriculture, handicrafts, a wide range of modern industries, and a multitude of services. Services are the major source of economic growth, though two-thirds of the workforce is in agriculture. The economy has posted an excellent average growth rate of 6.8% since 1994, reducing poverty by about 10 percentage points but still the population below poverty line is around 25%. The economy is expected to achieve an overall growth rate of 6.5%, which signifies a continuing upturn of the economy and the commitment to maintain the growth rate at 7-8% annually on a sustainable basis has been reiterated by successive Governments. The Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-07) as approved by NDC targeted an average growth rate of 8% per annum for the economy as a whole. Despite strong growth, worries are there about the combined state and federal budget deficit, running at approximately 9% of GDP. The huge and growing population is the fundamental social, economic, and environmental problem. In addition India continues to lag behind in quality of life, with its Human Development Index (HDI) remaining static at a low 127. There are several causes which curtail or disrupt the development of India. The following paragraphs will highlight one of the most crucial impediments.
One of the perennial problems which confronts India time and again and which affects the social and economic fabric is the Natural Disasters. India has been traditionally vulnerable to natural disasters on account of its unique geo-climatic conditions. Floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and landslides have been recurrent phenomena. About 60% of the landmass is prone to earthquakes of various intensities; over 40 million hectares is prone to floods; about 8% of the total area is prone to cyclones and 68% of the area is susceptible to drought (Disaster Management, 2004).
“Of the 32 states and union territories, 22 are disaster-prone. Between 1980 and 1999 the total number of people killed in disasters was 110,131. During 1988-1997 disasters affected 24.79 million every year in India. In 1998, 9,846 people died and 34.11 million people were affected by disasters. Between 1985-95, disasters caused an annual economic loss of around US$ 1,883.93 million (Menon and Shirish ). For instance the Orissa super cyclone of 29th October 1999 lasted for about 72 hours claiming the death toll is 9,885 persons and damaged 1,650,086 habitants officially, like wise the Gujarat’s Bhuj Earth Quake in 2001 took the death toll at 19,727 and the number of injured at 166,000 and 600,000 people were left homeless, with 348,000 houses destroyed and an additional 844,000 damaged. These are some of the examples which highlight the magnitude of the damages which are inflicted by the Natural Disasters in India. Therefore Disaster management as such occupies an important place in this country’s policy framework as it is the poor and the under-privileged who are worst affected on account of calamities/disasters. Disasters retard socio-economic development, further impoverish the impoverished and lead to diversion of scarce resources from development to rehabilitation and reconstruction (Disaster Management 2004).
To have a clear idea of the Natural disaster, its impact and the need for an sound integrated Disaster Management System the following pages attempts to provide this important analysis by taking the recent Tsunami which ravaged Nagapattinam in Tamil Nadu.
2) Brief description of the selected disaster event,
The earthquakes set off giant tsunami tidal waves of 3 to 10 meters in height, which hit the southern and eastern coastal areas of India and penetrated inland up to 3 kms, causing extensive damage in the Union Territory of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, and the coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu and the UT of Pond cherry. Approximately 2,260 km of the coastal area besides the Andaman & Nicobar Islands were affected. In the mainland States it was reported that 162 km. of national highways, 462 km. of state/district highways, 14 bridges, 78 culverts and a huge number of private homes and government buildings have been damaged. Overall damages are estimated to be $574.5 million; losses are estimated to be $448.3 million. Whilst the largest proportion of the damages are concentrated in fisheries, housing and infrastructure, material private asset damages related to coastal fisheries, agriculture and micro enterprise livelihoods have been incorporated into the various sectors.
Death Toll in Nagapattinam were as follows: Males 1883-31%, Females 2406-40%, Male children 887-15%, female children 889-15% and total loss of lives 6065 (Source: District Tsunami Rehabilitation Section, Nagapattinam). The primary total loss to fisheries in Nagapattinam is estimated to be Rs. 221.85 crores. It includes 13 fishing villages in the district. There are 4000 catamarans, 900 valloms, and 1200 trawlers among other fishing crafts. The landings are on an average about 7 tonnes a day in the month of December. Small fishers make about Rs.50-100 per day and the estimated earnings of mechanized vessels in the month of December is around Rs.10, 000 per week. They make 3 fishing expeditions on an average a week (ICAR 2005).
.
“Due to the size of its economy, the macro impact will be minimal and the state’s GDP are unaffected because economic activity along the coastline contributes very little to the state’s income. A marginal impact in the short run on the balance of payments can be expected to the extent that exports of shrimp are adversely affected along with coastal tourism. The impact on the public finances of the states is limited to the expenditure side only. There is no impact on state revenues because the economic activity along the coastline is largely in the informal and unorganized sector” (www.adb.org 2005).
Indian finance minister says does not see major fiscal impact from disaster and the Expenditure secretary later says no plans for a tsunami-related tax or additional borrowing due to cost of relief work; like wise Financial advisor Saumitra Chaudhuri pointed out "there will be some spending in rebuilding infrastructure and providing relief to those affected, but I don't think it will be large enough to have an impact on the fiscal side," (Express India, 2005).
Although the above information does give the picture that the economy as such was not affected much except fisheries and related activities along with the loss to lives and assets, it is to be noted that the social upheaval in terms of relocation, displacement has affected the social fabric of the district. Moreover the reconstruction process involves lots of difficulties like maintenance of temporary shelter, choosing of appropriate lands for permanent housing, mass psycho-socio care etc.
3) Overview of the national disaster management system
In India although, the primary responsibility for disaster management is of the concerned State Governments, the Central Government plays a key role by providing financial and logistic support in case of major disasters and co-ordinate the effort of all Central Ministries/Departments/Organizations.
National Crisis Management committee- is the apex body which looks after the Disaster Management efforts. The Cabinet Secretary, who is the highest executive officer, heads the National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC) and the Secretaries of all the concerned Ministries/Departments as well as organizations are the members of the Committee. The NCMC gives direction to the Crisis Management Group as deemed necessary. The Central Relief Commissioner in the Ministry of Home Affairs is the Chairman of the Crisis Management Group (CMG) consisting of senior officers (called nodal officers) from various concerned Ministries.
At the state level there is Disaster Management Authorities under the Chief Minister with Ministers of relevant Departments. It gives direction to the State Crisis Management Group which is headed by the State Chief Secretary. The states are also advised to restructure their departments as well as organize four functional groups namely Hazard Mitigation, Preparedness and Capacity Building, Relief and Response and Administration and Finance
At the district level, the District Magistrate who is the chief coordinator will be the focal point for coordinating all activities relating to prevention, mitigation and preparedness apart from his existing responsibilities pertaining to response and relief. District Disaster Management Committees have already been constituted in 256 districts and are in the process of being constituted in the remaining districts. Similarly, sub-divisional and Block/Taluka level Disaster Management Committees are also being constituted. At the village level Disaster Management Committees and Disaster Management Teams are being constituted.
As it was pointed out earlier under the Indian Constitution, disaster management is the responsibility of state governments. For natural disasters, the ministry of agriculture is the nodal ministry and the other ministries play a supportive role. In the event of a disaster, a multi-disciplinary central government team, at the invitation of the affected state, carries out disaster assessment and makes the recommendation for assistance from the National Fund for Calamity Reduction and the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. In terms of institutional arrangements, responsibility has been shifted since May 2002 from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The above has largely focused on law and arrangements for preparedness. Mitigation, particularly enforcing requirements for natural hazard risk assessment and appropriate sitting and strengthening of structures and infrastructure involves a separate set of players and agencies. Some of these require changes in approaches to development plans and their implementation, while others require amendments to existing specialist legislation at the state and local level.
The ‘National Disaster Management Framework’ developed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the nodal Ministry for disaster management in India, seeks to promote a pro-active approach to disaster preparedness, mitigation and prevention. The national road map focuses on integrating disaster management in the development agenda, establishing enabling institutional arrangements, creating awareness for risk reduction as well as enhancing the capacities of government institutions, communities and civil society.
The Government of India - UNDP National Disaster Risk Management Programme, formulated under the above framework, aims at reducing vulnerabilities of communities at risk to sudden disasters in 169 of the most multi-hazard prone districts, spread over 17 most multi-hazard prone States of India (Gujarat, Orissa, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Assam, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura).
On the corporate side, the CII, Government and UNDP are working together to strengthen the capacity of community to mitigate the risk of disasters and support the existing administration in terms of resources for emergency response. The process will be initiated at all levels and more focus will be given to off site preparedness by the corporate sectors.
A National Policy on Disaster Management has been drafted, and is in the process of being finalized. The broad objectives of the policy are to minimize the loss of lives and social, private and community assets because of natural or man-made disasters and contribute to sustainable development and better standards of living for all, more specifically for the poor and vulnerable section by ensuring that the development gains are not lost through natural calamities/ disaster.
Regarding the financial aspects the Government of India contributes 75% of the corpus of the Calamity Relief Fund in each State. 25% is contributed by the State. Relief assistance to those affected by natural calamities is granted from the CRF. CRF will not be sufficient for provision of relief; the State seeks assistance from the National Calamity Contingency Fund (NCCF) – a fund created at the Central Government level.
It is to be noted that form the above paragraphs which throw light upon the existing NDMS gives the clear idea that of lately the Central Government has taken efforts to strengthen the existing loose decentralised structure which was based on bottoms-up approach into a cohesive centralised one. Before that it was more of sporadic attempt by respective states in strengthening their own disaster system in which some states have succeeded.
It is commonly believed that for a national disaster system to succeed governments must be active participants in its creation and implementation. Concern exists on focusing natural disaster policy on existing government systems that sometimes enhance narrow power structures and draws away from local concerns and initiatives. Those holding this concern favour reducing natural hazard risk to community-driven projects and programs developed by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Such an approach to risk management is not guaranteed to be comprehensive, but applies directly to identifiable needs and the empowerment of local populations. These two approaches to risk management need not be mutually exclusive. The task facing policymakers is to create effective, integrated national systems that engage senior government policymakers and accommodates and supports local decision-making and private market initiatives which is what is being attempted Development and Revision of Codes other major efforts from the Government side regarding the disaster management which is slow in progress.
Lastly majority of disaster management agencies in India although often well institutionalised, remained only partially effective, focusing largely on managing disaster preparedness and response, whilst often neglecting risk reduction aspects. At the same time, many are centralised and have difficulties in engaging local actors, particularly from civil society. In addition, a range of other aspects in the institutional environment of the supported agencies may have hampered their effectiveness, such as diverging national development priorities, a lack of human and financial resources and so forth. What is lacking is the time and resources to integrate the known information, thus limiting the ability of the government to plan for disasters, instead of only responding to them. Therefore focus has to be to integrate the existing knowledge into the NDMS and make it more participatory.
4) Strengths and weaknesses of the system
Some of the strengths of the existing NDMS are the Disaster Management Institute (DMI) in Gujarat, India has developed the Jeevika Project, a long-term livelihood project that considers that women are more often affected by disasters, but women are creative and active in trying to cope with disasters. Like wise one of the things which can be easily replicated if political will is generated is the successful experiment of the State Level Disaster Management Communication, Network and Information System in Maharashtra. India The primary objective of the DMIS is to plan for disasters but the database has been organized in such a way that it could be extensively utilized for resource planning. A number of departments, like the Water Supply, Water Conservation, PWD, Forests, etc. are using the database for their own applications. In addition to these are the efforts of the Government in terms of streamlining the existing structure and to reorganize the departments and functional groups.
But drawing from country experiences and recommendations from policymakers involved in national systems, some key guidelines for effective disaster management emerge. First, a national system should rely on an explicit disaster strategy. An appropriate national disaster strategy should be closely integrated with national policies for development and environmental protection. Second, successful national systems should also incorporate key players in the disaster management process. Such players include, among others, the finance ministry, local community leaders, NGOs, and private market actors. Third, successful national systems should have provisions to ensure sufficient resources for key players to carry out their responsibilities. All of these needs rethinking when we talk of India NDMS.
Maureen Fordham presented a gender perspective of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) (www.ssri.hawaii.edu/research/GDWwebsite). It is mentioned in that “an important advance that gender equality has been recognized in the MDG. Since gender is a cross-cutting issue, there are goals that could be improved by including gender considerations. The Millennium Development Goals should be considered in linking gender with disaster risk reduction and development policy”. This is lacking in the existing NDMS of India.
Goel & Kumar in their study (lawcommissionofindia)have pointed out that some of the problems that have been identified with the failure of disaster management are: · Lack of efficient organisational set up as reflected in the delay in taking timely decisions that could have avoided many losses; · Apathy on the part of the bureaucracy and political elite; · Lack of co-ordination among all agencies engaged in relief work; · Lack of sincere efforts and attention to post recovery of victims of disasters.
In some cases, these NGOs or persons who collect or receive such contributions for providing relief to the persons affected by the calamity, do not pass on the benefits to the actual victims either in wholly or in part, and instead, they do misappropriate part of the contributions collected or received by them. At present there is no Central legislation or Agency to regulate and monitor the collections and proper utilization of funds and other items in kind donated to the persons, organizations, agencies or institutions.
On a whole the critique of the National Disaster Management System in India reflects a lack of vulnerability reduction, putting in place prevention and mitigation measures and preparedness. But in terms of relief and professional response, recovery and rehabilitation has been effective since the participation of many which includes International Organization, civil society and corporate sponsorships have been encouraged.
5) Recommendations for improvement.
Coordinating with International Government and agencies to learn and adopt the existing state of art equipments, mechanisms and system pertaining to early warning system and Disaster management system in general.
National Natural Disaster Management Knowledge Network, Nanadisk-Net decision in 2000 should be implemented immediately. Similar is The National Policy on Disaster Management which has taken a long time for process of being finalized and it has to be speeded up and disseminated in order to benefit the states which are prone to disasters. Moreover the early constitution of the National Emergency Management Authority is pre-requisite at this juncture.
To regulate the collection of contributions and to monitor the funds or items collected in kind and to oversee that they really reach the beneficiaries, it is necessary to have a Regulatory Authority. Therefore, the proposed statute requires the Central Government to establish by notification, an authority known as the Contribution Regulatory Authority.
Re-structuring of the Relief Department in the States to facilitate mainstreaming Disaster Management into Development:
Each State is supposed to prepare a plan scheme for disaster mitigation in accordance with the approach outlined in the plan. But many of the states have not prepared it and therefore a need to have G.O. or Act passed in this regard to make it mandatory for all states.
Mass awareness and training like in construction of buildings and other structure for Disaster resistance but in practice this is not followed.
Exchange programme for professionals or intensive capacity building of the professionals involved in disaster management.
Dissemination at local level in their language is an effective way to sensitize the dynamics of disasters and how to counter it. Closely related to this is notion of correct focus and participation as it is already reiterated” is necessary to move away from the relief mode after a disaster to preparedness, prevention and mitigation, as this will be more cost-effective and sustainable. This will have to be implemented through a massive campaign by mobilising the participation of local communities, voluntary organisations, community-based organisations and the private sector (Menon and Shirish)”.
Like it was pointed out in the UN World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in the form of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 -imbibing a culture of prevention at all levels- is the need of the hour.References
No comments:
Post a Comment