Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024 falls short in making Relief as a *Guaranteed Right*

The Union government introduced the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in the Lok Sabha on August 1, 2024. This Bill aims to amend the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which was enacted in December 2005 in response to several major disasters, including the 2004 Tsunami, the 2001 Gujarat Earthquake, and the 1999 Odisha Super Cyclone.

The original act played a key role in establishing crucial frameworks for disaster management and governance in India. It led to the creation of the Disaster Management Authority and disaster management plans at the national, state, and district levels. One of its significant contributions was the formation of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), an agency that has earned recognition for its work in difficult conditions and terrains.

Building on this, the new Bill proposes to establish a similar response force at the state level, called the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF), which is already functional in some states like Odisha and Gujarat. Additionally, the Bill calls for the creation of a separate Urban Disaster Management Authority (UDMA) for state capitals and cities with municipal corporations, excluding Delhi and Chandigarh. This is a crucial step, given the rapid growth of urban areas, which requires a more coordinated disaster management approach than what is currently provided by the District Disaster Management Authorities.

A Trio of Overlooked Opportunities

The features mentioned add value to the amended legislation, but overall, it overlooks several critical aspects crucial in post-disaster scenarios. Three key omissions are:

·Making disaster relief a justiciable right.

·Integrating climate change into disaster risk reduction strategies.

·Establishing a system for collaboration among various stakeholders.

While the Disaster Management Act focuses on institutional frameworks, creating disaster management plans, and implementing mitigation measures, it falls short in addressing the hardships citizens face during disasters. The state’s role in providing disaster relief remains obligatory but hasn't been formalized as a legal right.

Although governments provide relief, including ex-gratia payments, essential items, and compensation for damage to property, crops, and livelihoods like fishing nets, the type and amount of aid vary across states. There are also inconsistencies within states for similar hazards or disasters occurring at different times.

Shifting from Moral Duty to Legal Right

The Disaster Management Act of 2005 mandated the creation of national guidelines to establish minimum relief standards, with corresponding guidelines to be developed at the state level in alignment with national standards. However, despite nearly two decades, progress in this area has been limited, although there is a national guideline on ‘Minimum Standards of Relief,’ which focuses primarily on the conditions in relief camps.

The new Bill could have moved beyond this moral obligation framework by empowering citizens to demand specific minimum relief as a legal right. This would make it legally binding for the state to provide timely and effective relief, ensuring more accountability in disaster response.

Holistic Approach to Disaster Management

Hydro-meteorological hazards make up the majority of disaster-related losses both nationally and globally. Climate change not only alters hazard patterns such as floods, droughts, and cyclones, but also poses broader risks by affecting health, reducing productivity, causing land loss, and jeopardizing livelihoods. This raises the critical question: Can disaster risks be effectively assessed, planned, or mitigated without integrating climate change into state responses?

While this issue may not have been as apparent to lawmakers when the Disaster Management Act was introduced in 2005, it is now central to global discussions, as highlighted by international agreements like the Sendai Framework and the Paris Agreement. These agreements emphasize the need for national governments to converge disaster risk management with climate change adaptation efforts.

Although the new Disaster Management Bill includes a provision for ‘emerging disaster risk,’ it falls short of fully integrating climate change into disaster management strategies. Another shortcoming is the Bill’s lack of innovation in institutional mechanisms for managing disaster risks. By focusing on coordination as the solution to the complex nature of disaster management, the Bill fails to provide clear guidance on how to effectively achieve such coordination among various institutions, including non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and the general public.

Recent disasters, such as the entrapment of workers in the Silkyara tunnel and the landslides in Wayanad, underscore the need for improved governance in disaster preparedness. These challenges are even more critical in addressing climate change-induced risks, which require governance models that move beyond traditional, agency-centric approaches to foster collaboration among all stakeholders, including ordinary citizens.

At present, the Bill hesitates to pursue these goals, missing another opportunity to advance more effective and inclusive environmental legislation.