Debate Over Proposed Changes to India’s Disaster Management Framework

Context:

The central government has recently introduced the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024, in the Lok Sabha. This bill seeks to revise the existing Disaster Management Act of 2005. The amendments proposed by the bill have ignited a debate concerning the growing centralization of disaster management processes in India. Critics argue that these changes may influence the effectiveness of disaster response, questioning whether centralized control could impede or improve the nation’s capacity to manage and mitigate disasters effectively.

Relevance:

GS III: Disaster Management

Dimensions of the Article:

1. Key Elements of the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024:
2. Concerns Regarding the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024
3. Shortcomings of the Disaster Management Act, 2005
4. Disaster Management Act, 2005

Key Elements of the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024:

Organizational Structure Changes:

• Direct Plan Development: The amendment allows the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMAs) to formulate their national and state disaster management plans independently, sidestepping the National and State Executive Committees.
• Disaster Database Creation: Mandates the establishment of an extensive disaster database to integrate data on assessments, funding, expenditures, and preparedness at both national and state levels.

Enhanced Disaster Risk Assessment:

• Periodic Assessments: NDMA’s scope will be broadened to include regular evaluations of disaster risks to bolster preparedness and response strategies.

Administrative Autonomy:

• Staffing Autonomy: NDMA can now determine its staffing requirements and hire specialists without needing to secure central government approval.

Urban Focus:

• Urban Disaster Management Authorities (UDMA): Introduces UDMAs for state capitals and major cities, tasked with dedicated disaster management efforts, excluding Delhi and Chandigarh.

Response and Relief:

• State Disaster Response Forces (SDRFs): Empowers states to establish their response forces with specific functions and operational terms to strengthen local disaster response capabilities.

Statutory Committees:

• Committee Formalization: Provides statutory status to the National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC) and the High-Level Committee (HLC), tasked with overseeing significant disasters and related financial aid.
• Leadership: The NCMC will be headed by the Cabinet Secretary, while the HLC will be led by the Minister in charge of disaster management.

Legal Provisions:

• New Section 60A: Introduces powers for the Central and State governments to command actions or inactions from individuals to mitigate disaster impacts, with penalties for non-compliance capped at Rs 10,000.

Concerns Regarding the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024

Increased Centralization:

• Further Centralization: The bill enhances the already centralized structure of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 by creating additional layers of authority, complicating decision-making processes and potentially slowing down responses.
• Dilution of NDRF: Changes in the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) remove specific usage guidelines, raising concerns about the increasing centralization of disaster response mechanisms.

Resource Allocation Issues:

• Funding for Urban Disaster Management Authorities (UDMAs): There’s a notable absence of provisions for adequate resources and funding at local levels for establishing and maintaining UDMAs, which may affect their operational effectiveness.

Legal and Administrative Gaps:

• Lack of Legal Framework for Disaster Relief: The bill fails to establish disaster relief as a justiciable right, which would allow violations of relief measures to be challenged in court.
• Inconsistent Relief Measures: There is significant variability in relief measures across different states and regions, which may lead to inequities in disaster response.

Climate Change Integration:

• Inadequate Addressing of Climate Change: The bill does not sufficiently incorporate climate change impacts into disaster risk management, despite existing international frameworks like the Sendai Framework and Paris Agreement.

Structural and Operational Challenges:

• Transition of Responsibilities: Shifting responsibilities from the National Executive Committee and State Executive Committees to the NDMA and SDMAs could lead to integration challenges and misalignment with existing frameworks.
• Lack of Collaboration Mechanisms: There is no defined mechanism for effective collaboration among various stakeholders, including NGOs, private sectors, and the public, which is crucial for effective disaster management.

Environmental Considerations:

• Classification of Heatwaves: The government has no current plans to recognize heatwaves as a notified disaster, despite their increasing frequency and impact, highlighting a gap in addressing climate-induced natural disasters.

Governance and Autonomy:

• Central vs. State Tensions: The bill may increase tensions between central and state governments by centralizing decision-making and financial management, potentially reducing the autonomy of state governments in disaster management.

Shortcomings of the Disaster Management Act, 2005

Organizational Leadership:

• Vacant NDMA Vice-Chairperson Position: The prolonged vacancy in the NDMA’s vice-chairperson position has led to a lack of leadership and reduced political influence within the organization.

Administrative Efficiency:

• Bureaucratic Inefficiencies: The NDMA lacks independent administrative and financial powers, necessitating routing all decisions through the Ministry of Home Affairs, leading to delays and inefficiencies.

Policy and Definition Issues:

• Vague Definitions and Bureaucracy: The Act suffers from overly bureaucratic processes and vague definitions of disasters, which complicate the response and recovery efforts during disaster events.

Resource Sufficiency:

• Insufficient Funds: Allocated funds are often inadequate for addressing the needs during large-scale disasters, contributing to delayed responses and recovery efforts, as evidenced in past events like the Kerala and Kedarnath floods.

Disaster Management Act, 2005

• The Disaster Management Act, 2005, (23 December 2005) received the assent of The President of India on 9 January 2006.
• The Act extends to the whole of India.
• The Act provides for “the effective management of disasters and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto.”
• The Act calls for the establishment of National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).
• The Act enjoins the Central Government to Constitute a National Executive Committee (NEC).
• All State Governments are mandated under the act to establish a State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA).
• The Chairperson of District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) will be the Collector or District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner of the district.
• The Act provides for constituting a National Disaster Response Force “for the purpose of specialist response to a threatening disaster situation or disaster” under a Director General to be appointed by the Central Government.
• Definition of a “disaster” in the DM Act states that a disaster means a “catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man-made causes.
• The objective of the Act is to manage disasters, including preparation of mitigation strategies, capacity-building and more.
• The Act contains the provisions for financial mechanisms such as the creation of funds for emergency response, National Disaster Response Fund and similar funds at the state and district levels.
• The Act also devotes several sections various civil and criminal liabilities resulting from violation of provisions of the act.

-Source: The Hindu