The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill is knotty
The Bill only strengthens the top-down approach, affecting vital cooperative federalism in disaster management.
(i) Introduction
On August 1, 2024, the central government introduced the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha, intending to address the growing challenges posed by climate-induced disasters. The Bill seeks to amend the Disaster Management Act of 2005 but has raised concerns regarding excessive centralization and its potential impact on cooperative federalism. In an era of climate change, the necessity of revisiting disaster management frameworks is vital to ensure effective responses and resource management. This article critically examines the Bill, highlighting its strengths and potential pitfalls, particularly in the context of financial devolution, power dynamics, and the classification of disasters.
(ii) Centralization of Authority in Disaster Management
One of the major critiques of the proposed amendment is its further centralization of an already heavily centralized system. The Disaster Management Act, 2005, mandates the establishment of various authorities at the national, state, and district levels. The amendment gives statutory status to pre-existing committees, such as the National Crisis Management Committee and the High-Level Committee. While this may streamline some decision-making processes, it complicates the chain of command and response during disasters, potentially leading to delayed reactions, as seen in past events.
The centralization of power often hinders immediate and effective disaster response at the local level, which is contrary to the intended purpose of the Disaster Management Act. A prime example is the delayed response to flood relief in Tamil Nadu, where funds were denied or delayed, affecting the state’s capacity to manage the disaster in real-time.
(iii) Decentralization Without Financial Devolution
The Bill attempts to introduce decentralization by strengthening the roles of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMAs), as well as by establishing Urban Disaster Management Authorities in state capitals and cities with municipal corporations. However, the lack of financial devolution to these bodies remains a significant issue.
Decentralizing disaster management responsibilities without providing sufficient financial resources hampers the ability of state and local governments to execute disaster management plans effectively. The absence of financial autonomy undermines the capacity of states to respond promptly and comprehensively to disasters. This problem highlights the need for greater financial preparedness at the local level to complement decentralization efforts.
(iv) Concerns Over the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF)
The proposed Bill raises concerns by diluting the purpose of the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF). The original Act clearly outlined the purposes for which NDRF funds could be used. The amendment removes this clarity, which could lead to confusion and misallocation of funds. The centralization of decision-making regarding the disbursement of disaster relief funds has been a long-standing issue, particularly in cases of severe disasters.
For instance, the delay in disbursing funds to Tamil Nadu during the floods and the subsequent disbursal to Karnataka illustrates the inefficiencies in the current system. Prompt and efficient allocation of resources is crucial during disasters, and any ambiguity in the use of disaster funds could exacerbate delays in relief efforts, further aggravating the situation for affected communities.
(v) Restricted Definition of ‘Disaster’
Another critical issue with the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the proposed amendment is the restricted definition of “disaster.” On July 25, 2024, the Minister of State for Science, Technology, and Earth Sciences informed the Lok Sabha that the government had no plans to classify heatwaves as a notified disaster under the Act. This stance aligns with the 15th Finance Commission’s recommendations, which also did not advocate for expanding the scope of notified disasters eligible for assistance under the NDRF or State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF).
The current list of notified disasters includes cyclones, droughts, earthquakes, floods, landslides, tsunamis, and others. However, climate-induced disasters like heatwaves, which are becoming increasingly common, are notably absent. Heatwaves, though deadly and destructive, are not considered natural disasters despite their severe impact on ecosystems and human health. For instance, India experienced 536 heatwave days over the past 14 years, resulting in the deaths of over 10,000 people between 2013 and 2022. These figures highlight the need for a more comprehensive and flexible definition of disasters in light of the growing threat of climate change.
(vi) Local Variability in Climate-Induced Disasters
The Bill and the existing Act fail to account for the regional variability of climate-induced disasters, particularly heatwaves. The intensity of heatwave conditions varies significantly across India’s diverse geographical regions. For example, a temperature of 40°C might be a regular summer day in northern India, but in the Himalayan region, it could constitute a heatwave with disastrous consequences.
This variability necessitates a more nuanced understanding of climate-induced disasters that takes into account local conditions and impacts. The current disaster management framework does not fully accommodate this regional diversity, making it difficult to classify and respond to climate-induced disasters in a timely and effective manner.
(vii) Cooperative Federalism and Disaster Management
The proposed amendment raises concerns about the balance of power between the central and state governments in disaster management. One of the cornerstones of effective disaster management is cooperative federalism, where the central, state, and local governments work together to manage disasters and respond quickly to emergencies. However, the centralization of decision-making power in the proposed Bill undermines this cooperative framework.
States often depend on the central government for the disbursal of funds from the NDRF, and this dependency can lead to delays in relief efforts. The centralization of authority also limits the ability of states to tailor disaster management strategies to their specific needs and conditions. For instance, the delayed response to natural disasters in Kerala’s Wayanad region points to the challenges posed by excessive centralization in disaster management.
(viii) Learning from Past Disasters
The proposed Bill does little to address the lessons learned from past disasters and the shortcomings of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. India’s disaster management framework has faced numerous challenges in the past, including delays in fund allocation, inadequate local preparedness, and inefficient coordination between different levels of government. A well-functioning disaster management system must be adaptable and responsive to emerging challenges, such as the increasing frequency and intensity of climate-induced disasters.
The Bill, while claiming to improve upon the existing Act, does not sufficiently address these issues. There is a need for a more comprehensive review of the disaster management framework that includes financial preparedness, local capacity building, and greater emphasis on cooperative federalism.
(ix) Conclusion
The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024, attempts to address some of the challenges posed by climate-induced disasters, but it falls short in several critical areas. The centralization of authority, lack of financial devolution, and restricted definition of disasters undermine the effectiveness of disaster management efforts. In the face of a looming climate crisis, it is essential to adopt a more flexible, decentralized, and cooperative approach to disaster management that empowers local governments and communities to respond quickly and effectively to disasters.
India’s disaster management framework must evolve to reflect the realities of climate change, ensuring that it can adequately address the complex and varied challenges posed by natural and climate-induced disasters. Only through a balanced approach that prioritizes cooperative federalism, financial preparedness, and an inclusive definition of disasters can India effectively mitigate the risks and impacts of future disasters.
