Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024 is a missed opportunity in ensuring that relief becomes a right

The Union government introduced the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in the Lok Sabha on August 1, 2024. The Bill has been proposed as an amendment to the existing Disaster Management Act, 2005 which was enacted in December, 2005 in the backdrop of several catastrophic disasters such as Tsunami (2004), Gujarat Earthquake (2001) and Odisha Super Cyclone (1999). 

The Act has been instrumental in providing several important provisions pertaining to the management and the subsequent governance of disasters in India. 

It entails the establishment of the Disaster Management Authority and Disaster Management Plans at national, state and district level.

A notable contribution of the Act is the establishment of a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) — an agency that has distinguished itself over the years for its dedicated service in challenging conditions and terrains. 

The new Disaster Management Bill builds on this provision, seeking to institutionalise a similar response team at the state level to be called, State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) — a mechanism that is already in operation in several states like Odisha and Gujarat. 

The Bill further seeks to constitute a separate Urban Disaster Management Authority (UDMA) for the state capitals and for all cities having  municipal corporations barring Delhi and Chandigarh. This proposal merits consideration as the exponential growth of cities and urban centres in the country necessitates a much more coordinated approach than what is available under the District Disaster Management Authorities. 

Troika of missed opportunities

The above mentioned features add value to the amended legislation but overall it is a missed opportunity for leaving out several key aspects that are vital in the aftermath of a disaster. 

Three of them stand out:

i) Ensuring that disaster relief is a justiciable right. 

ii) Integrating climate change with disaster risk reduction. 

iii) Providing a mechanism that allows collaboration among various stakeholders. 

The Disaster Management Act while catering principally towards providing institutional mechanism, formulation and execution of disaster management plans and mitigation measures ignores the linking of its function in alleviating hardships that citizens suffer during disasters. 

The traditional role that the welfare state plays in India in providing disaster relief is that of obligatory nature that has not been extended as a legal right. 

Thus, while governments provide relief assistance from time to time including ex-gratia, essential relief items, compensation for damage to houses, crops, boats and belongings like fishing nets, the amount and nature of such an assistance varies across states. 

There are also similar variations within the states for the same hazard or a disaster occurring at different points of time. 

From moral obligation to legal entitlement

The DM Act 2005 stipulated that national guidelines be framed for setting minimum relief standards and similar guidelines be developed at the state level in conformity with the national guidelines. 

Despite this, little progress is observed over the last two decades in this regard although a national guideline for ‘Minimum Standards of Relief’ is available pertaining to standards to be maintained in relief camps. 

The new Bill could have looked beyond this moral obligatory framework to empower its citizens to claim certain minimum relief and made it legally obligatory for the state to disburse relief timely and effectively. 

Holistic approach to disaster management

Hydro-meteorological hazards account for the bulk of the overall disaster losses both at national and a global level.

The impacts of climate change are also not limited to altering hazard profiles such as floods, droughts and cyclones but also threaten health, affect productivity, lead to loss of land and endanger livelihoods.

It is pertinent to ask if disaster risk be assessed, planned or mitigated unless it gets conjoined with climate change in the state response?

This aspect probably was not too evident to lawmakers in 2005 when the Act was introduced but certainly at this point of time, when several international agreements such as Sendai Framework and Paris Agreement recognise such linkages and have been urging national governments to find pathways for convergence.

In the new Bill, there is a provision titled ‘emerging disaster risk’ but it does not provide scope to fully integrate climate change into disaster management.  

Another limitation of this Bill lies in its inability to innovate on institutional mechanisms to deal with disaster risk. 

In following an approach that emphasises coordination to be the solution for the complex nature of disaster risk management, it offers no further clarity on how to achieve such coordination in practice among a diverse set of institutions including non-government, private and general public. 

The recent disasters such as labourers being stuck in the underconstruction Silkyara tunnel or the landslides in Wayanad, have both brought to the fore the importance of governance in identifying and preparing for such disasters in a better way. 

Such challenges assume greater significance for climate change-induced disaster risk, making it imperative to refine governance mechanisms that overcome conventional agency-centric approaches and work with the principle of collaboration amongst all stakeholders including common citizens.

The Bill, at present, is shying away from pursuing these goals, missing yet another opportunity which could have been helpful for similarly complex environmental legislations. 

Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth