Disaster Management Act and Policies in India, Organizational structure for disaster management at national, state and district levels

Disaster Management Act, 2005

National Authority

The Act calls for the establishment of National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), with thePrime Minister of India as chairperson. The NDMA may have no more than nine members including a Vice-Chairperson. The tenure of the members of the NDMA shall be five years. The NDMA which was initially established on 30 May 2005 by an executive order, was constituted under Section-3(1) of the Disaster Management Act, on 27 September 2006. The NDMA is responsible for "laying down the policies, plans and guidelines for disaster management" and to ensure "timely and effective response to disaster". Under section 6 of the Act it is responsible for laying "down guidelines to be followed by the State Authorities in drawing up the State Plans".

National Executive Committee

The Act under Section 8 enjoins the Central Government to Constitute a National Executive Committee (NEC) to assist the National Authority. The NEC is composed of Secretary level officers of the Government of India in the Ministries of home, agriculture, atomic energy, defence, drinking water supply, environment and forests, finance (expenditure), health, power, rural development, science and technology, space, telecommunication, urban development, and water resources, with the Home secretary serving as the Chairperson, ex officio. The Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, is an ex officio member of the NEC. The NEC under section of the Act is responsible for the preparation of the National Disaster Management Plan for the whole country and to ensure that it is "reviewed and updated annually".

State Disaster Management Authority

All State Governments are mandated under Section 14 of the act to establish a State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA). The SDMA consists of the Chief Minister of the State, who is the Chairperson, and no more than eight members appointed by the Chief Minister. State Executive Committee is responsible (Section 22) for drawing up the state disaster management plan, and implementing the National Plan. The SDMA is mandated under section 28 to ensure that all the departments of the State prepare disaster management plans as prescribed by the National and State Authorities.

District Disaster Management Authority

The Chairperson of District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) will be the Collector or District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner of the district. The elected representative of the area is member of the DDMA as an ex officio co-Chairperson, (Section 25).

National Disaster Response Force (NDRF)

The Section 44–45 of the Act provides for constituting a National Disaster Response Force" for the purpose of specialist response to a threatening disaster situation or disaster" under a Director General to be appointed by the Central Government. Recently in September 2014 Kashmir-floods NDRF played a vital role in rescuing the armed forces and tourists, for which NDRF was awarded by the government of India.

Other Provisions

Section 42 of the Act calls for establishing a National Institute of Disaster Management. Section 46-50, mandates funds for Disaster Mitigation at various levels. The Act provides for civil and criminal liabilities for those who violate the provision of the Act.

Implementation

The implementation of the National Disaster Act, 2005 has been slow, and slack. On 22 July 2013 Indian Supreme Court Justices A K Patnaik and M Y Eqbal in response to a Public Interest Litigationissued notices to the Governments of  Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan Maharashtra and the Central government for alleged failure to implement the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The petitioner alleged that the non-implementation of the Disaster Management Act by the Government of Uttarakh and endangered the lives of citizens. He sought "reasonable ex-gratia assistance on account of loss of life, damage to houses and for restoration of means of livelihood to victims of flash floods in Uttarakhand under the Disaster Management Act".

Criticism of the Act

The act has been criticized for marginalizing Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), elected local representatives, local communities and civic group; and for fostering a hierarchical, bureaucratic, command and control, 'top down', approach that gives the central, state, and district authorities sweeping powers. It is also alleged that the "Act became a law almost at the will of the bureaucrats who framed it."

As Uttarakhand suffers one of the worst disasters in recent decades, questions are being raised about the role of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). The apex body to deal with all types of disasters, natural or man-made, was constituted in 2006. The objective of the authority has been to lay down policies and guidelines for effective management, risk mitigation and prevention of disasters in the country. However, in Uttarakhand, people were caught unawares by the series of flash floods and landslides in the absence of any mitigation measure or early warning despite the state having a history of such disasters. The post disaster relief response has been equally poor—more than 70,000 people are reported missing. 

NDMA was constituted under the Disaster Management Act of 2005 to draft policies and guidelines on disaster management, approve and coordinate the implementation of plans for disaster preparedness and management at the Central, state and ministerial levels. The authority is headed by the prime minister. However, in the past seven years, the authority has been ineffective in carrying out most of its functions.

NDMA had initiated projects for flood mitigation and landslide mitigation at the national level in 2008. However, those projects have either been abandoned midway or are being redesigned because of poor planning. The projects to prepare national vulnerability atlases of landslides, floods and earthquake are also incomplete. Experts feel if such projects would have been implemented properly the damage in Uttarakhand could have been much less. 

CAG indictment

As per the performance audit report of the disaster management mechanism in the country by the the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, submitted to the Parliament in April this year, NDMA has neither had information and control over the progress of disaster management work in the states, nor could it successfully implement various projects it had initiated for disaster preparedness and mitigation. What’s more, the authority has been functioning without its core advisory committee of experts that advises it on different aspects of disaster management for the past three years. 

According to law, NDMA should have an advisory committee of experts in the field of disaster management at the national, state or district level. The first advisory committee of NDMA was constituted in 2007 for two years. Later, the term was extended for one more year. However, since June 2010, NDMA is functioning without the advisory committee. First, the reason for delay that was cited was that several ministries had not sent the proposals of the names of experts to be included in the committee. Now, it is being said that the names are being reviewed by the Prime Minister’s Office. 

No major project completed

The CAG report also highlighted several other loopholes in the functioning of NDMA. It said none of the major projects taken up by NDMA was complete even after seven years of its functioning. The projects were either abandoned midway or were being redesigned because of initial poor planning. The major projects include producing vulnerability atlases for floods, earthquakes and landslides, national landslide risk mitigation project, national flood risk mitigation project and national disaster management information system. 

As per the CAG report, NDMA has also not been performing several functions as prescribed in the Disaster Management Act. These include recommending provision of funds for the purpose of mitigation and recommending relief in repayment of loans or for grant of fresh loans. Besides, several critical posts in NDMA are vacant and consultants were used for day to day working

National Level Organisation As has already been stated, ‘disaster management’ (which has meant activities largely related to post-disaster relief and rehabilitation rather than pre-disaster mitigation and preparedness) has been seen as the direct responsibility of State Governments. However, the following decisionmaking and standing bodies have been responsible for disaster management at the Central level: ƒ Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister. ƒ Empowered Group of Ministers ƒ There has been a National Crisis Management Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary. ƒ Crisis Management Group under the chairmanship of the Central Relief Commissioner comprising senior officers from various Ministries and concerned Departments, which has been responsible for reviewing contingency plans and measures required for dealing with a natural disaster, and coordinates the activities of the Central Ministries and the State Governments in relation to disaster preparedness and relief. ƒ For all natural disasters except droughts, the Ministry of Home Affairs is the nodal Ministry and the other Ministries play a supportive role. For droughts the nodal ministry is the Ministry of Agriculture, wherein the responsibility lies with its Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. ƒ

Technical Organisations, such as, the Indian Meteorological Department (Cyclone / Earthquake), Central Water Commission (Floods), Building and Material Promotion Council (Construction Laws), Bureau of Indian Standards (Norms), Defence Research & Development Organisation (Nuclear/ Biological Disasters), and Directorate General Civil Defence provide specific technical support to coordination of disaster response activities. ƒ The Ministry of Home Affairs has set up National Disaster Management Division (NDMD) as the apex body within the Government for this purpose.

                Among other organizational initiatives, in the past, it had been proposed to: o Establish a specialised response team for dealing with nuclear/ biological/ chemical disasters, o Establish search and rescue teams in each State, and o Strengthen communication systems in the North Eastern Region.

The dimensions of the response to natural disasters at the Central level have been determined (since 1990-91) in accordance with the existing policy of financing relief expenditure of States through a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, the Calamity Relief Fund [CRF] scheme (which operates in combination with the National Calamity Contingency Fund [NCCF] scheme), and keeping in view the factors like: o Gravity of a natural disaster; o Scale of the relief operation necessary; and o Requirements of Central assistance for augmenting financial resources and logistic support at the disposal of the State Government. The country has had a Contingency Action Plan, which identifies initiatives that should be taken by various Central Ministries and Public Departments in the wake of disasters. It sets out the procedures and determines the focal points in the administrative machinery to facilitate launching of rescue and relief operations in response to a disaster. Various Ministries are assigned the responsibility of providing emergency support in case of disasters that fall in their purview as indicated in the table below:

Ministries Responsible for Various Categories of Disasters

Disasters	Nodal Ministry
Natural Disasters (other than Drought)	Ministry of Home Affairs
Drought Relief	Ministry of Agriculture
Air Accidents	Ministry of Civil Aviation
Railway Accidents	Ministry of Railways
Chemical Disasters	Ministry of Environment & Forests
Biological Disasters	Ministry of Health
Nuclear Disasters	Department of Atomic Energy

State Level Organisation ƒ In a State, disaster response has usually been the responsibility of the Relief and Rehabilitation Department or the Department of Revenue (of the State Government). ƒ The Chief Secretary of the State heads the State level committee related to disaster management. ƒ This committee is in overall charge of the relief operations in the State and the Relief Commissioners who are in charge of the relief and rehabilitation measures function under the overall direction and control of the State level committee. ƒ In many States, the Secretary, Department of Revenue, is also in-charge of relief operations. State Governments usually have relief manuals and the districts have their contingency plans, which are supposed to be updated from time to time.

District Level Organisation ƒ

 There has been District Level Coordination and Review Committee headed by the Collector as Chairman, with participation of all other related agencies and departments. ƒ The district administration is the focal point of all Governmental plans and activities. The actual day-to-day function of administering relief has been the responsibility of the Collector/District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner who exercises coordinating and supervising powers over all departments at the district level. Thus, India has had a contingency action plan for natural disasters at the national level. Disaster  relief manuals and disaster plans have been available at the State level and also at the district level, but these plans are not always updated and they have mainly focused on relief.

Mitigation and Preparedness Measures

The India Meteorological Department (IMD) is responsible for cyclone tracking and warning to the concerned user agencies. There is a special Disaster Warning System (DWS) for the dissemination of cyclone warning in local languages through INSAT to designated addresses in isolated places in coastal areas. A comparison of the death tolls caused by the Andhra Pradesh cyclones of 1977 and 1990 illustrates the life-saving potential of timely warning and evacuation. The number of deaths in 1977 cyclone was over 10,000, whereas the loss of human lives in the cyclone of 1990 was less than 1,000 even though the intensity of the latter was not less. Timely warnings issued by the IMD enabled the district administration in the coastal areas of Andhra Pradesh to evacuate over half a million people to safer places, in the cyclone of 1990. However, such levels of disaster preparedness, which have been witnessed in Andhra Pradesh with regard to cyclones, have not been found in other States, most notably Orissa. ƒ To monitor the possibility of floods, the Central Water Commission (CWC) has a flood forecasting system covering 62 major rivers in 13 States. ƒ Based on inputs from the IMD and CWC on the rainfall behaviour and water levels in the reservoirs and the crop situation, the National Crop Weather Watch Group monitors drought conditions. Remote sensing techniques are also used to monitor drought conditions based on vegetative and moisture index status. ƒ In the event of severe drought, State Governments are expected to introduce appropriate policy packages to support vulnerable populations through food for work programmes and other employment-generation and income-generation activities. Most of the food for work programmes are supposed to be undertaken to desilt the existing water tanks, deepen the tanks, and carry out the construction of water harvesting structures. Sometimes, the State Governments may also include the restoration of public utilities and creation of social infrastructure in such food for work programmes in drought-affected districts. [However, it may be worthwhile to note here that the creation of social infrastructure, restoration of public assets or construction of durable water harvesting structures through drought relief works depends to a large extent on the scope for incurring capital expenditure16 in the relief works, which is usually very less. This is because expenditure incurred by the States on ‘relief on account of natural calamities’ has always been treated as revenue expenditure17 and the financial assistance provided by the Central Government to States for ‘relief on account of natural calamities’ are also expected to be spent as revenue expenditure. Thus, for incurring any significant capital expenditure within their relief works the States have been asked to depend on their Plan funds or their own Budgets. This restriction on the nature of expenditure that can be incurred by States with the money received specifically for calamity relief has actually constrained the ability of the States to create durable social infrastructure through the relief works.18] ƒ The Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) has been implemented since 1973 in 149 districts in 14 States, and the Desert Development Programme (DDP) has been implemented in 36 districts across 7 States.

A programme titled National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA) has been under implementation in drought-prone areas. The objectives of this programme are to achieve conservation of rainwater, control of soil erosion, regeneration of green cover and promotion of dry land farming systems including horticulture, agro-forestry, pasture development and livestock management etc. ƒ There are large areas of degraded land of over 100 million hectares in the country which could be reclaimed. Most of the land needs only basic water and soil conservation measures and some amount of plantation and protection work. By protecting, regenerating and restoring the degraded land, the pressure on remaining land, forests and pastures can be reduced. A National Wasteland Development Board has been constituted to promote integrated wasteland development.

Natural disasters, in particular droughts, result in huge unemployment problems in the rural areas. In view of the problem of unemployment in the drought-prone areas, rural development efforts have been envisaged for the purpose of providing wage employment to the rural poor. The Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) has been the largest such programme in the country. Employment Assurance Schemes (EAS) have also been pursued to provide employment opportunities mostly in drought-prone areas. ƒ As regards cyclones, the mitigation and preparedness measures envisaged by some of the States also include construction of cyclone shelters and afforestation in coastal areas. Postdisaster reconstruction projects, taken up in areas affected by major calamities, have tried to incorporate structural mitigation measures. Such reconstruction activities have consisted of construction of housing and public infrastructure, drainage and rural water supply, expansion of road and communication networks, and shelterbelt plantations, etc.

Reconstruction of buildings and houses in the earthquake-hit areas has tried to incorporate quake-resistant measures and the relevant technical specifications. Over the last decade, from 1990 to 2000, which was observed as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), several activities were initiated in the country, which focused on awareness generation and information dissemination as regards disaster management. A High Powered Committee (HPC) on Disaster Management, under the chairmanship of Mr. J. C. Pant was constituted in August 1999 which submitted its report in 2001. The HPC’s mandate was to prepare Disaster Management Plans at national, State and district levels and suggest measures for strengthening of existing arrangements. It took an overview of all recent disasters in the country and identified common preparedness and response mechanisms on the basis of a series of consultations with a number of Government, non-government, national and international agencies and media organisations. One of the most important recommendations of the HPC was that at least 10 percent of Plan funds at the national, State and district levels be earmarked and allocated for schemes which specifically address areas such as disaster mitigation and preparedness.

Disaster Risk Management Programme [2002-07] The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (of the Central Government) had identified 199 multi-hazard prone districts in the country, based on the Vulnerability Atlas (for the country) prepared by the Building Materials Promotion and Technology Council (BMPTC). UNDP and Ministry of Home Affairs selected 125 of the 199 districts (across 12 States), believed to be most vulnerable to multiple natural hazards, for implementing the Disaster Risk Management Programme (2002-07) [Please refer to Table 1.3 for a list of these 125 districts]. At the national level this Programme is meant to provide support to the Ministry of Home Affairs to set up institutional framework for disaster preparedness, prevention and mitigation. It is also expected to help boost local capacities to address disasters through an integrated approach for reducing socio-economic and environmental (including natural hazards) vulnerabilities. Source: UNDP and National Disaster Management Division, Min. of Home Affairs, Govt. of India (2002), Disaster Risk Management Programme [2002-07]

The Ministry of Home Affairs in the Central Government was made the new nodal ministry for disaster management, replacing the Ministry of Agriculture (while droughts still remained under the purview of Ministry of Agriculture). Also, following the devastating experience of Orissa in the super cyclone of 1999 and Gujarat in the earthquake of 2001, Orissa State Disaster Management Authority (OSDMA) and Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA) were constituted as autonomous agencies for setting up appropriate disaster management mechanisms in the respective States. Thus, there can be no doubt about the fact that activities related to disaster management at the planning/ policy-making level, in the country, have expanded significantly over the last decade. However, very few would argue that the vulnerability of the country (or most of its regions) to losses from natural disasters have reduced over this period of time. The national level disaster management plans/ policies formulated (or recommended) by the numerous expert committees do not seem to have translated to better management of natural disasters in practice. While the question of priorities for disaster management, as reflected in the resource allocations by the Government, is dealt with in Section 4 of this paper, in the following sub-section we discuss a few of the pertinent issues related to management of natural disasters which seem to have been ignored in the disaster management apparatus and policies in the country at the national level.

Appraisal of the Present System The intention of the Central Government as regards measures for disaster mitigation in the country, witnessed in the recent years, is a welcome change. The interest and action shown by the government authorities at the policy-making level is praiseworthy. The measures envisaged by the various expert committees do represent a paradigm shift in the approach of the Government towards dealing with disasters. However, numerous problems crop up when we come to the ground realities in the country. Till now, in terms of the infrastructure and awareness for disaster mitigation and preparedness, there is a huge gap between what the HPC and other such bodies have been suggesting and what exists in reality. Had there been synergy, we would not have had such major losses of lives and property in the disasters that have struck different regions of the country in the last few years.