The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024, recently passed in the Lok Sabha, has introduced several changes to India’s disaster management framework, including a pioneering move to establish urban disaster management authorities. These authorities aim to address the unique challenges posed by climate-induced disasters in India’s rapidly urbanizing cities, such as the recent floods in Bengaluru and Chennai’s paralysis during Cyclone Michaung.
While the bill is seen as progressive, it also raises questions about its effectiveness and implementation. Let’s explore its highlights, reception, and the gaps that remain.
Key Features and Positive Highlights
1. Urban-Focused Disaster Authorities: For the first time, India’s urban disaster management will operate through dedicated authorities in state capitals and large cities. This is expected to fill the gaps left by district-level structures, which are often inadequate for urban challenges. However, exceptions for Delhi and Chandigarh remain, raising questions about uniformity.
2. Enhanced Autonomy for NDMA: The bill provides more independence to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), enabling better integration of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation strategies.
3. Data-Driven Approach: Provisions for creating a national disaster database are seen as a step forward in promoting data-informed decision-making.
Experts’ Perspective on the New Framework
- Localized Focus: NDMA member Krishna S. Vatsa lauded the move as a “landmark step,” emphasizing the need for city-specific disaster management strategies in light of India’s increasing urbanization.
- Community and Technology Gaps: Experts like Kathyayini Chamaraj and Anil Kumar Gupta pointed out the lack of focus on participatory governance. They suggested ward-level committees and search-and-rescue teams as crucial components for community involvement. Gupta also questioned the efficacy of appointing municipal commissioners to head these authorities, considering the multi-agency coordination required.
- Missed Opportunities in Resource Allocation: Recommendations for a clear resource allocation framework, as proposed by the 15th Finance Commission, were overlooked. Experts argue that defining categories—mitigation, preparedness, rescue, and rehabilitation—would ensure optimal resource utilization.
Challenges and Critiques
1. Exclusion of Mayors: Critics highlighted the absence of elected officials like mayors in the proposed framework, which contrasts with the leadership roles assigned to Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers in national and state authorities.
2. Coordination and Governance Issues: Concerns were raised over how urban bodies would handle the multiplicity of agencies involved in disaster mitigation, such as those responsible for land use, housing regulations, and city planning.
3. Urban-Specific Loss Considerations: The bill does not adequately address the economic impact of disasters on urban supply chains and infrastructure. Experts suggest the need for an operational agency rather than an authority to streamline urban disaster response.
The Road Ahead
While the bill represents a significant step towards urban disaster preparedness, its gaps reflect a need for more inclusive, decentralized, and actionable policies. As the legislation awaits discussion in the Rajya Sabha and presidential assent, stakeholders will need to advocate for critical reforms to enhance its effectiveness.
In the words of Anil Kumar Gupta, “Disaster mitigation requires structural changes beyond immediate response mechanisms. Cities need integrated strategies that align with their unique challenges.”
Will these authorities revolutionize urban disaster management, or will they add another layer to India’s bureaucratic structure? Only time will tell.