Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill 2024 Introduction 

• • The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill 2024 is a significant step toward improving India’s disaster management framework, which aims to enhance preparedness, response, and recovery efforts across the country. 

• Building on the Disaster Management Act of 2005, the Bill introduces several important updates that focus on operational efficiency, coordination, and responsiveness in the face of natural disasters. 

Key Changes Proposed in Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill 2024

• Mandatory Requirement for States to Raise SDRFs: Under the Disaster Management Act of 2005, it was not mandatory for states to establish State Disaster Response Forces (SDRFs). The Bill changes this by making it compulsory for every state to establish and maintain an SDRF. This ensures that every state is prepared to respond effectively to a disaster, strengthening national resilience in disaster management.

• Legal Status to National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC): The Bill grants legal status to the National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC), elevating its role as the nodal body for handling large-scale disasters with national ramifications. This change will enhance the NCMC’s authority and operational capabilities, allowing for a more coordinated and efficient disaster response at the national level.

• Expanded Role of NDMA: One of the most significant changes introduced by the Bill is the expanded role of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). The Bill empowers the NDMA to assess and manage the full spectrum of disaster risks in India, including emerging risks such as climate-induced disasters, pandemics, and technological hazards. This expansion ensures that the NDMA plays a more proactive role in disaster management across the country.

• Establishment of Urban Disaster Management Authorities: A major change introduced in the Bill is the creation of Urban Disaster Management Authorities for large metropolitan cities. These cities often consist of multiple districts, which can make coordinated disaster response difficult. The Municipal Commissioner will head these authorities, ensuring a more unified and coordinated approach in handling urban disasters, such as urban flooding and infrastructure collapse. This new provision promises to improve disaster management at the city level.

• Shift in Responsibilities for Disaster Plans: The responsibility for preparing disaster management plans has shifted from the National Executive Committee (NEC) and State Executive Committees (SECs) to the NDMA and State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMAs). This change aims to improve the consistency and alignment of disaster plans with national and state-level disaster management strategies, ensuring a more unified approach to disaster preparedness.

• Guidelines for Relief Compensation: To standardize relief efforts, the Bill mandates the NDMA to recommend guidelines for minimum relief standards. These guidelines will cover various aspects of disaster relief, including compensation for loss of life, property damage, and loss of livelihoods. This provision aims to ensure consistent and equitable compensation for disaster-affected communities.

• Clarification of Disaster Definition: The Bill clarifies the definition of a disaster under the Act. It explicitly excludes man-made disasters arising from law-and-order situations, such as riots. This distinction helps streamline disaster management efforts, focusing resources on natural disasters and incidents arising from environmental or technological factors.

• Creation of National and State Disaster Databases: The Bill mandates the creation of national and state-level disaster databases. The NDMA will be responsible for maintaining a national database, which will include vital information on disaster assessments, fund allocations, expenditures, and mitigation plans. Similarly, SDMAs will create their own databases at the state level. These databases will promote transparency, facilitate better decision-making, and enable more efficient disaster response.

Problems in Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill 2024

While the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill 2024 introduces several positive changes, it also raises some important concerns that could hinder the effectiveness of disaster management in India.

• Top-Down Terminology: The Bill uses top-down language like “monitor” and “guidelines”, which can centralize disaster management control, potentially stifling local involvement. Terms like “supervision” and “direction” would have better reflected a more collaborative and inclusive approach, ensuring active participation from local communities.

• Lack of Focus on Community Engagement: Global disaster management frameworks like the Yokohama Strategy and Sendai Framework emphasize the importance of local communities in disaster response, as they are often the first responders. The Bill, however, does not sufficiently prioritize community engagement, excluding local communities, panchayats, and NGOs, all of whom have historically played critical roles in disaster preparedness and response.

• Weak Acknowledgment of Local Roles: Historically, local communities have been key to managing disasters. For example, during the Kedarnath floods (2013) and Kerala floods (2018), local populations took charge of initial rescue operations. The Bill fails to adequately recognize and integrate the role of these local actors, which weakens the overall disaster management strategy.

• Overlooking Intersectional Vulnerabilities: The Bill does not fully address intersectional vulnerabilities faced by marginalized groups such as women, disabled individuals, lower castes, and LGBTQIA+ communities. These groups are often disproportionately affected by disasters and excluded from mainstream relief efforts. The Bill fails to include inclusive datasets that would capture these vulnerabilities and ensure their needs are addressed.

• Absence of Performance Evaluation Mechanisms: The Bill lacks provisions for evaluating the performance of district authorities in terms of disaster preparedness and response. Without such mechanisms, there is no guarantee that disaster management authorities will meet the required standards of preparedness and efficiency.

• Removal of Relief Standards: The Bill removes crucial provisions from the original Disaster Management Act (2005), such as Sections 12 and 13, which mandated minimum relief standards. These provisions ensured a baseline of support for vulnerable populations, including widows, orphans, and those requiring livelihood restoration. The absence of these provisions could result in inconsistent relief operations across states.

• Reduced Enforcement Provisions: Mandatory enforcement provisions aimed at promoting disaster preparedness, like those found in Sections 35(2b) and 35(2d) of the original Act, have been removed. These sections ensured that disaster preparedness became an enforceable legal obligation. The removal of these provisions diminishes the accountability of disaster management authorities at various levels.

• • Neglect of Animal Welfare: The Bill completely ignores animal welfare during disasters, despite the significant impact disasters have on animals. Thousands of animals are affected by natural calamities, but there is no mention of their protection or relief in the Bill, highlighting a major gap in disaster management. For instance, in the Kerala Floods (2018), the devastation affected over 50,000 animals. Many were killed, while others were left stranded without food or water.

• Lack of Regional Cooperation: The Bill does not adequately address the need for regional cooperation, especially in light of rising zoonotic diseases and climate change. Regional frameworks like the SAARC Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters have the potential to improve cross-border disaster management. The Bill overlooks these opportunities for collaboration, which could strengthen India’s disaster management network.

What is the Disaster Management Act, 2005?

• The Disaster Management Act, 2005 was enacted to create a robust framework for disaster management in India. 
• It is designed to address natural and man-made disasters by focusing on preparedness, response, and rehabilitation. 
• The Act’s comprehensive provisions span across 11 chapters and 79 sections, ensuring a structured approach to disaster management.

Objectives of the Disaster Management Act, 2005:

• Formulation of Disaster Management Policies: To develop disaster management policies that ensure a coordinated response to various types of disasters.
• Disaster Prevention and Mitigation: To enhance disaster preparedness and prevention by fostering resilience and reducing the impact of disasters.
• Disaster Relief: To provide financial support and resources to states and individuals affected by disasters, ensuring timely and efficient relief.

The Legal-Institutional Framework of the Disaster Management Act 2005:

• The Disaster Management Act 2005 (DMA) is one of India’s most important pieces of legislation aimed at improving disaster preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. 

• The Act not only establishes a comprehensive legal-institutional framework for managing natural and man-made disasters but also focuses on disaster risk reduction (DRR), community participation, and capacity building. 

Key Institutions under the Disaster Management Act 2005

• • The Disaster Management Act, 2005 establishes a hierarchical structure of institutions that are responsible for coordinating disaster management at various levels of government—national, state, district, and local.

• First-Tier Institutions:

• National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) (Section 3)

• Role: The NDMA is the central body responsible for the formulation of disaster management policies, plans, and guidelines. It acts as the primary authority for coordinating national disaster response.
• Composition: The Prime Minister serves as the Chairperson, with ministers from various relevant ministries (such as Home Affairs, Agriculture, Atomic Energy, and Science & Technology) as members. The Vice-Chairperson and other members are nominated by the Chairperson.

• National Executive Committee (NEC) (Section 8)

• Role: The NEC assists the NDMA in carrying out its functions and ensures compliance with NDMA’s directions and policies.
• Composition: The Chairperson is the Home Secretary, and its members include senior officials such as secretaries from various departments and the Chief of the Integrated Defense Staff.

• National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) (Section 42)

• Role: The NIDM is tasked with research, training, and capacity building in the field of disaster management.
• Composition: The Director is appointed by the Central Government, and the institute comprises experts and professionals specializing in disaster management and related fields.

• National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) (Section 44)

• Role: The NDRF is a specialized force set up to respond to disaster situations. It is tasked with rapid and coordinated relief operations during disasters.
• Composition: The Director-General is appointed by the Central Government, and the force is composed of several battalions from the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).

• Second-Tier Institutions:

• State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) (Section 14)

• Role: The SDMA is responsible for formulating state-level disaster management plans and policies.
• Composition: The Chairperson is the Chief Minister, and the members include ministers appointed by the Chief Minister, particularly those responsible for disaster management at the state level.

• State Executive Committee (SEC) (Section 20)

• Role: The SEC ensures the effective implementation and monitoring of the state’s disaster management plan.
• Composition: The Chairperson is the Chief Secretary of the state, and members include senior officials from various departments involved in disaster response.

• Third-Tier Institutions:

• District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) (Section 25)

• Role: The DDMA is responsible for organizing, planning, and executing disaster management activities at the district level.
• Composition: The Chairperson is the District Magistrate, and the Co-Chairperson is an elected representative of the local authority. The Chief Medical Officer, Superintendent of Police, and other district-level officials are members.

• Local Authorities (Section 41)

• Role: Local authorities, such as municipalities and Panchayati Raj institutions, execute disaster management activities at the grassroots level, in line with district and state-level plans.
• Composition: These include town planning authorities, municipalities, district and cantonment boards, Panchayati Raj institutions, and other urban development bodies.

Significance of the Disaster Management Act 2005 

• The Disaster Management Act 2005 has played a crucial role in improving disaster preparedness and response in India. The establishment of NDMA, SDMAs, NDRF, and NIDM has greatly enhanced India’s capacity to deal with natural and man-made disasters. Below are some key aspects of its significance:
• Creation of a Legal and Institutional Framework: The Act provides a clear legal framework that includes institutional structures at every level, from the NDMA at the national level to local authorities at the grassroots level. These institutions have helped in disaster mitigation and have been instrumental in saving lives and providing relief during disasters. For example, during the Uttarakhand Floods (2013), the NDRF deployed 3,000 personnel to conduct rescue and relief operations. Their efforts helped save hundreds of lives and facilitated the speedy restoration of critical infrastructure. 
• Emphasis on Disaster Mitigation: The Act has not only focused on disaster response but also on disaster mitigation. By setting up specialized bodies like the NIDM and NDRF, India has strengthened its capacity to respond to disasters in a structured and efficient manner, ensuring quicker relief and rehabilitation. During the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, the NIDM played a crucial role in disaster preparedness. The lessons learned from this catastrophe were integrated into future planning and response mechanisms, leading to the creation of the National Disaster Management Plan (2016), which focuses on reducing the impact of similar events in the future. 
• Focus on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR): A core component of the Disaster Management Act is its emphasis on disaster risk reduction (DRR). The Act promotes the integration of disaster management practices into national development policies. For instance, the National Disaster Management Policy (2009) and National Disaster Management Plan (2016) focus heavily on disaster risk reduction, aiming to reduce the impact of future disasters. For instance, in Cyclone Phailin (2013), early warning systems, improved cyclone shelters, and community participation saved over 20,000 lives in Odisha alone. 
• Resource Allocation for Disaster Response: The Act has established National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Funds (SDRFs) to ensure timely financial assistance during emergencies. These funds have played a key role in speeding up relief efforts and helping affected regions recover faster. During the 2018 Kerala Floods, the central government allocated ₹600 crore from the NDRF to assist in immediate relief and recovery. The Kerala government also released substantial funds from the SDRF to provide food, shelter, and medical supplies to the affected populations.  
• Promoting Community Participation: The Act underscores the importance of community participation in disaster management. By involving local authorities and community groups in both disaster response and recovery, the Act ensures that disaster management is inclusive and effective, addressing local needs promptly. During the Cyclone Yaas (2021) in Odisha, local communities played a crucial role in evacuation and preparedness. The government, in collaboration with local NGOs, used community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) strategies to prepare rural and coastal populations. Over 1.5 million people were evacuated to safer locations in a well-coordinated effort between local authorities and the community, which significantly reduced the number of casualties.

Challenges with the Disaster Management Act in India

• • While the Disaster Management Act, 2005 has undoubtedly enhanced disaster management, there are several challenges that hinder its full potential. These challenges range from institutional issues to funding gaps and functional inefficiencies:

• Institutional Challenges:

• • Vacancy of Vice-Chairperson in NDMA
    • The position of Vice-Chairperson in the NDMA has remained vacant for over a decade, depriving the body of leadership and political support necessary for inter-state coordination and dealing with other government agencies. Example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the absence of a Vice-Chairperson significantly impacted the NDMA’s ability to coordinate disaster response at the national level.
  • Lack of Administrative and Financial Powers
    • The NDMA lacks administrative and financial autonomy, meaning that most decisions need approval from the Home Ministry. This has led to delays and inefficiencies in disaster management operations, especially when rapid decisions are needed.
  • Staff Shortages at NDMA
    • The NDMA is significantly short-staffed, with only three members at present. This is in stark contrast to earlier staffing levels, which included six or seven members, each overseeing a specific disaster type. This shortage limits the NDMA’s capacity to manage multiple crises simultaneously.
  • Invisibility of NDMA During Major Crises
    • The NDMA has often been criticized for its lack of visibility during major crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting gaps in project planning and coordination during large-scale disasters. The National Executive Committee (NEC) had to step in, but the absence of leadership from NDMA led to confusion in the initial phases, with states left to manage resources and control outbreaks independently.

• Functional Challenges:

• • Ineffective Integration of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
    • Despite the focus on DRR, studies show that disaster risk reduction efforts are often not integrated effectively into developmental policies. This lack of integration reduces the impact of DRR initiatives.
  • Inadequate Provisions for Public Health Crises
    • The Act lacks functional provisions to address public health crises such as epidemics and bioterrorism, leading to a lack of preparedness for health-related emergencies.
  • Limited Addressing of Climate Change Risks
    • The Disaster Management Act has not fully tackled the climate change-related risks and man-made disasters that have become increasingly prevalent. More comprehensive frameworks are needed to address the cascading nature of these disasters. Cyclone Amphan (2020), which struck the eastern coast of India, demonstrated the gaps in addressing climate change-induced disasters. Though early warning systems and evacuation procedures were in place, the scale of damage, particularly in coastal areas like West Bengal, could have been mitigated further through stronger climate change adaptation strategies, such as better coastal zone management and flood control measures. 
  • Centralized, Top-Down Approach
    • The centralized nature of the Act has often led to the neglect of local solutions and community-driven interventions, which are crucial for long-term resilience and recovery. In Cyclone Fani (2019), while Odisha’s state government implemented successful community-based disaster management initiatives, the centralized decision-making under the Act meant that coordination at the national level was delayed. The state’s local-level preparedness, including grassroots evacuation plans, proved more effective than the central response, highlighting the need for a decentralized approach in disaster management. 

• Funding Challenges:

• Inadequate Funding for Disaster Response
  • NDRF and SDRF funds are often insufficient to meet the demands of large-scale disaster operations. This funding gap hampers timely disaster response and delays relief efforts. During the Kerala floods (2018), the NDRF allocated ₹600 crore, but it was quickly exhausted, and the funds did not cover the comprehensive needs of the flood-hit regions. The SDRF funds also faced delays in disbursement, which hindered the state government’s ability to respond effectively. 
• Bureaucratic Delays in Fund Disbursement
  • The bureaucratic hurdles in the fund disbursement process often delay the delivery of aid, hindering timely assistance to the affected populations. During the 2015 Chennai Floods, despite the presence of NDRF teams actively engaged in rescue and relief efforts, financial aid was delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles in the fund disbursement process.

The Way Forward

• Revision of Key Definitions: Section 2 of the Act should be revised to include clearer definitions for terms such as ‘hazards,’ ‘prevention,’ and ‘mitigation’. This would add clarity and consistency across the Act.

• Incorporation of Disaster Prevention Chapters: The Act should introduce specific chapters focused on disaster prevention. These chapters should provide clear guidelines and action plans aimed at preventing disasters and minimizing their impact.

• Enhanced Accountability: Judicial oversight and performance evaluations should be incorporated to ensure accountability at all levels. This would improve transparency and the overall effectiveness of disaster management.

• Modernization of Early Warning Systems: The Act should update the early warning systems by incorporating modern technologies like GIS and AI to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of disaster predictions.

• Stronger Community Engagement: Greater emphasis should be placed on community involvement in disaster preparedness and recovery. Regular training, awareness programs, and community-based disaster response plans should be prioritized.

• Dedicated Budget Allocations: The government should allocate a specific annual budget for disaster management to ensure adequate resources are available for timely and efficient disaster response.