Context: Recently, the Lok Sabha has passed the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024 to strengthen the working of National and State disaster management authorities. However, the bill is being criticised for removing the scope for participatory governance, accountability, and efficiency from the Act.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill: Scope and Challenges
- The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill 2024 aims to amend the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
- Read the key provisions of the Bill: Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024 tabled in Lok Sabha
Lapses in the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill:
1. Top-down Approach and Exclusion of Local stakeholders:
- The Bill uses top-down terminology such as ‘monitor’ and ‘guidelines’, instead of inclusive terms such as ‘supervision’ and ‘direction’.
- It ignores the role of local communities as the first responders to disasters, as recognised in the Yokohama Strategy, the Hyogo Framework for Action, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.
- Evidence from Cyclone Aila in Sundarbans (2009), the Kedarnath glacial lake outburst flood (2013), or Kerala floods (2018) shows local people began rescuing people before the National Disaster Response Force or Coast Guards could reach the victims.
2. Neglects Intersectional Vulnerability:
- Disasters increase the vulnerabilities of women, the disabled, lower castes, and LGBTQIA communities. The Bill is silent on addressing intersectional discrimination which undermines the inclusivity in disaster management.
3. No Accountability Mechanism for Authorities:
- The bill fails to mandate performance evaluation of district disaster authorities. In the absence of such provision, there is no check for failure in disaster preparedness by such authorities.
4. Inconsistency in the Bill:
- The Bill explicitly states that ‘man made causes of disasters’ do not include any ‘law and order’ related matters. (i.e., riots, communal violence etc. are not considered under the DM Act). However, the bill mandates the inclusion of State Director Generals of Police into the State Executive Committees (which are responsible for DM planning and implementation). This raises the questions of inconsistency on the amendment bill.
5. Omission of Relief Provisions:
- Sections 12 and 13 of the DMA, which covered the minimum standards of relief for disaster victims and the possibility of loan repayment relief, have been omitted from the bill.
- Section 19, which demanded that State governments follow guidelines on minimum standards of relief, has also been dropped.
- These Sections also carried special provisions for widows, orphans, the homeless, and provided ex-gratia assistance on loss of life, damage to houses and for restoration of means of livelihood. There is no replacement for this in the Bill.
6. Gaps in Animal Welfare:
- The bill overlooks the plight of animals during disasters, despite the introduction of Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.
7. Urban disaster management concerns:
- The Bill suggests the constitution of an Urban Disaster Management Authority (UDMA) for state capitals and cities with a municipal corporation. The Authority will comprise the Municipal Commissioner as the chairperson.
- Given the fact that Municipal Corporation have overlooked encroachments over aquifers, water bodies, city forests, river beds and markets, the bill raises the questions about the necessity/role of an additional authority.
8. Lack of Regional Collaboration:
- The bill does not address regional disaster response through groupings such as SAARC, BIMSTEC, and BRICS. It ignores agreements like the 2011 SAARC Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters. This weakens the scope for regional collaboration in the event of disaster.
The approach to Disaster management must be holistic, inclusive and participatory and aligning with the global standards.