Rpt TaskForce 300913

8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913

1/160


2/160

REPORT OF THE

TASK FORCEA Review of the

Disaster Management Act, 2005

Ministry of Home Affairs

Government of India

MARCH 2013


3/160

Contents

Preface ix

Abbreviations xiii

Executive Summary xv

1.0 Task Force Review: Context, Approach and Methodolog y 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Context and Rationale 1

1.3 Composition and erms of Reference of the ask Force 2

1.3.1 Te ask Force comprises the following Members: 2

1.3.2 erms of Reference of the ask Force 3

1.4 Approach and Methodology 3

1.5 Structure of the Report 6

2.0 Evolution of the Legal Framework for Disaster Management in India 8

2.1 Introduction 8

2.2 Recent Global rends in Disaster Management Legislation 8

2.3 Evolution of Disaster Management Legislation in India 11

2.4 Constitutional Provisions 12

2.5 Legal Framework 13

3.0 Best Practices in Disaster Management Legislation: A Global Review 17

3.1 Introduction 17

3.2 Review of Legislations of Select Countries from the Developed and

Developing World 17

3.2.3 Queensland, Australia: Exemplary Response to Need for

Disaster Management Legislation 18


4/160

i

REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005

3.2.4 South Africa: Te Disaster Management Act, 2002 19

3.2.5 Sri Lanka: Te Disaster Management Act, 2006 21

3.2.6 St. Lucia: Te Disaster Management Act, 2006 21

3.2.7 Tailand: Te Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act, 2007 22

3.2.8 Law of the Republic of Indonesia No 24 of 2007 Concerning

Disaster Management 23

3.2.9 Te Philippines: Te Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2010 24

3.2.10 Japan: the Japan Disaster Counter Measures Basic Act 1997 26

3.2.11 Robert . Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as

Amended, and Related Authorities, FEMA 592, June 2007 and

Te Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 27

3.2.12 New Zealand: Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act, 2002 30

3.2.13 Antigua and Barbuda Disaster Management Act, 2002 31

3.3 Highlights from Different Countries 32

3.3.6 General Principles for the Institutional and Legal System for

Disaster Risk Management 35

3.4 A Summary of Findings 35

4.0 A Review of the Functioning of National Level Institutions Envisaged by the

Disaster Management Act, 2005 39

4.1. Introduction 39

4.2 Institutional Arrangements Prior to the DM Act, 2005 39

4.3 Institutional Structures Envisaged by the DM Act, 2005 41

4.3.1 Te National Disaster Management Authority 41

4.3.2 National Executive Committee 42

4.3.3 National Institute of Disaster Management 44

4.3.4 National Disaster Response Force 44 4.3.5 Roles, Responsibilities and Functions of Ministries of the Government of India 45

4.4 Views and Suggestions of Stakeholders during the

Regional and National Consultations 46


5/160

4.4.2 National Disaster Management Authority 46

4.4.3 National Executive Committee 48

4.4.4 National Institute of Disaster Management 49

4.4.5 National Disaster Response Force 49

4.5 An Overview of the Working of National Level Institutions 50

4.6 Identifying Alternatives to Improve upon the Act’s Existing

Provisions and Formulating Recommendations 55

5.0 A Review of the Functioning of Disaster Management Institutions at

State, District and Local Level 70

5.1 Introduction 70

5.2 Institutional Arrangements Prior to the DM Act, 2005 70

5.3 Institutional Structure Envisaged by the DM Act, 2005 71

5.3.1 State Disaster Management Authority 71

5.3.2 State Executive Committee 72

5.3.3 District Disaster Management Authority 73

5.4 Views and Suggestions of Stakeholders during the Regional and

National Consultations 74

5.4.1 State Disaster Management Authority and State Executive Committee 74


5.4.3 Local Authorities 77

5.5 An Analysis of the Working of State and District Level Institutions and

Recommendations 78

5.5.1 State Disaster Management Authority and State Executive Committee 78


5.5.3 Local Authorities 84

6.0 Role of the Government and Financing Arrangements 87

6.1 Introduction 87

6.2 Role of the Central Government 87


6/160

i


6.3 Role of State Governments 89

6.4 Preparation of Disaster Management Plans 90

6.5 Recommendations on the Preparation of Disaster Management Plans 92

6.6 Financing Arrangements 93

6.6.1 Financing Arrangement Prior to the Disaster Management Act, 2005 93

6.6.2 Financing of Disaster Management as Envisaged by the Act 97

6.6.3 Views of Stakeholders during Consultations 98

6.6.4 A Review of the Provisions of the Act and Formulating the Recommendations 99

6.6.5 Some Limitations of the provisions 105

6.7 Recommendations on Financing Provisions of the Act 106

7.0 Other Provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 108

7.1 Introduction 108

7.2 Views of Stakeholders during Consultations 108

7.3 Recommendations of the ask Force 113

8.0 A Summary of the Recommendations of the Task Force 117

8.1 Role and Functions of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)

[Para 4.6.2.6.1 to 4.6.2.6.4] 117

8.2 Structure of the NDMA [Para 4.6.2.6.5 to 4.6.2.6.8] 117

8.3 Te High Level Committee (HLC) [Para 4.6.2.6.9] 118

8.4 Te National Executive Committee (NEC) [Para 4.6.3 to 4.6.3.3.3] 118

8.5 Te National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) [Para 4.6.4 to 4.6.4.4] 119

8.6 Te National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) [[Para 4.6.5 to 4.6.5.3.6] 120

8.7 State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) [Para 5.5.1.1 to 5.5.1.5] 120

8.8 State Executive Committee (SEC) [Para 5.5.1.6 to 5.5.1.8] 121

8.9 District Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) [Para 5.5.2 to 5.5.2.5.5] 122

8.10 Local Authorities [Para 5.5.3 to 5.5.3.3.3] 123

8.11 Preparation of Disaster Management Plans [Para 6.4 to 6.5.8] 123


7/160

ii

8.12 Financing Provisions of the Act [Para 6.6.3 to 6.7.4] 124

8.13 Other Provisions of the Act [Para 7.2.1 to 7.3.18] 125

8.14 Additional Provisions Proposed 127

8.15 Risk ransfer and Insurance 127

8.16 Human Resource Aspect 127

Annexure-I Office Memorandum: Constitution of ask Force for a review of the


Annexure-II Questionnaire for the Review of Disaster Management Act, 2005 131

LIST OF BOXES

1.1 erms of Reference of the ask Force 3

1.2 Methodology followed by the ask Force 6

2.1 Recent Global rends 9

2.2 Role of Laws and Regulations 11

2.3 Acts and Rules Addressing Disaster Risk Reduction Issues in India 14

2.4 A imeline of the Evolution of Disaster Management Laws in India 16

3.1 Queensland, Australia 19

3.2 South Africa: Disaster Management Act, 2002 20

3.3 Sri Lanka: Disaster Management Act, 2006 21

3.4 St. Lucia: Disaster Management Act, 2006 21

3.5 Tailand: Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act, 2007 22

3.6 Law of the Republic of Indonesia No 24 of 2007 Concerning Disaster Management 23

3.7 Te Philippines: Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2010 24

3.8 Japan: Disaster Counter Measures Basic Act 1997 27

3.9 Robert . Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended,and related authorities, Fema 592, June 2007, and the Post-Katrina

Emergency management reform act of 2006 28

3.10 Bolivian Law, 2000 34


8/160

iii


3.11 Highlights of the UNDP Study of Best Practices 36

4.1 National Level Institutions Prior to the Disaster Management Act, 2005 40

4.2 National Level Institutional Structure Envisaged by the


4.3 Views of Stakeholders During Consultations 51

4.4 A Framework of National Level Disaster Management Structures in Other Countries 56

4.5 Perspective of the ask Force on the NDMA 58

4.6 Restructuring of the NDMA 63

5.1 Institutional Arrangement for Disaster Management at State and

District Level Prior to the Disaster Management Act, 2005. 71

5.2 State and District Level Institutional Structure Envisaged by the

Disaster Management Act, 2005. 74

53 Views of Stakeholders during Consultations 75

5.4 Views of Stakeholders on the DDMA and Local Authorities 77

5.5 Restructuring the SDMA 80

5.6 Restructuring of the DDMA 85

5.7 Role of the local authorities 86

6.1 Role of the Government in Disaster Management 88

6.2 Preparation of Disaster Management Plans 92

6.3 Financing Arrangements Prior to the Act 96

6.4 Financing Mechanism Envisaged by the Act 97

6.5 Views of Stakeholders on Financial Arrangements 98

6.6 Financial Provisions for Disaster Management in the Recent

DM Legislation in the Philippines 100

6.7 Financing Provisions for Disaster Management in South Africa and Colombia 106

7.1 Suggestions of Stakeholders for New Provisions in the Act 116


9/160

ix

his report is a comprehensive review of theDisaster Management Act, 2005, which forthe first time introduced a legal framework for

disaster management in India. It is an analysis

of the provisions of the Act, not an evaluation of

the disaster management system in the country.

Te discussions pertaining to the structure and

functioning of disaster management organisations

are primarily aimed at analysing implementationissues relating to the Act’s relevant provisions.

As envisaged by the Disaster Management Act,

2005, several new organisations/entities have

been created at the national, state, and district

levels. Some of them have done well. For example,

the National Disaster Management Authority

has issued comprehensive guidelines for disaster

mitigation and preparedness. Te National Disaster

Response Force has created an impact in regard to

search and rescue operations in disaster situations. Te State Disaster Management Authorities in

some States have significant achievements to their

credit. But the fact remains that the functioning

of these entities at all levels is constrained by

a lack of clarity on their roles as well as by

structural anomalies, dearth of human resources

and inadequate infrastructure. Also, some of the

Act’s provisions themselves have given rise to

implementation problems. Not surprisingly much

of what the Act mandates is yet to be realised. Inmost cases, the new entities have not made any

appreciable impact; some are even non-functional.

Further, institutional arrangements existing prior

to the Act continue to remain in force. Needless

to say, all this has created a confusing scenario. Te

Preface

ask Force has made an attempt, though limited

to the Act’s provisions, to address these significant

issues.

From time to time, there have been laws, regulations

and codes. Laws provide a formal basis for addressing

crucial issues in sectors such as environment, health

and finance, and the larger terrain of economic

development, among others. Regulations andcodes lay down specific norms and procedures.

Tere are several laws, regulations and codes which,

though they relate to sectoral activities, impinge

on disaster management. However, the past few

decades witnessed a growing realisation about the

need for a basic legislation on disaster management

that would be comprehensive, cutting across sectors

in a holistic manner. It is in this respect that the

Disaster Management Act, 2005, has proved to

be a momentous milestone, for it provides a legal

basis for disaster management activities relatedto mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery

and reconstruction across sectors. Te Act also

outlines organisational structures and financing

arrangements at the national, state, district and

local levels.

In the course of the Act’s implementation, several

States drew the attention of the Union Ministry

of Home Affairs towards certain constraints and

bottlenecks. Hence the Government of India

constituted a ask Force on December 23, 2010,

to review the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

According to the erms of Reference, the ask Force

was required to suggest necessary amendments, if

any, in the Act, based on the suggestions emerging


10/160

x


from discussions with States/Union erritories/

other stakeholders. Part of the brief was to study

disaster management legislations in select countries

with a view to culling out best practices that could

be adapted in the Indian context.

Te ask Force had several rounds of elaborate and

wide ranging consultations. It conducted a number

of workshops and discussions with government

organisations, NGOs, and other stakeholders at

the national and regional levels. Te approach

and methodology adopted by the ask Force are

outlined in Chapter 1 of this report.

Each chapter of the report addresses a broad

theme or aspect. For example, Chapter 4 critically

examines the role, responsibilities and functioningof organisational structures at the national level

as envisaged by the Act in order to address the

implementation issues of its relevant provisions.

Chapter 5 relates to state, district and local level

organisational structures. Chapter 6 deals with the

roles and responsibilities of governments, and the

financing arrangements laid down by the Act.

We have tried to give a cogent structure to each

chapter, beginning with an outline of the relevant

provisions of the Act vis-à-vis institutional

arrangements existing prior to the Act. Te outline

is followed by a brief account of the feedback,

views, and suggestions that emerged during the

many consultations. After the feedback, comes

an analytical review of the functioning of the

institutional structures and the implementation

of the Act’s relevant provisions. Te analysis leads

to an attempt to identify alternatives for better

functioning and the required amendments in the

provisions. Finally, the chapter is rounded off withthe recommendations enumerated by the ask

Force.

In some of the chapters, the recommendations are

listed in different sections, but they are repeated en

bloc at the end of the chapter. Te last chapter of

the report brings together all the recommendations

of the ask Force in a consolidated manner. Tough

this approach has led to some amount of repetition,

the aim is to enable the users of this report to access

any recommendation with ease, depending on theirspecific purpose.

Te ask Force wishes to express its gratitude to

the former and present Union Home Ministers,

Shri P. Chidambaram and Shri Sushil Kumar

Shinde, respectively, for introducing and steering

the process of review of the Disaster Management

Act, 2005, by the ask Force.

In the course of exploring its brief, the ask Force

had a detailed interaction with Shri ShashidharReddy, Vice-Chairman, National Disaster

Management Authority, and Members, NDMA,

including Shri B.Bhattacharjee, Shri J.K.Sinha,

Shri K.M.Singh, Maj.Gen J.K.Bansal, Shri

.Nanda Kumar, Dr.Muzaffar Ahmed, Prof. Harsh

K.Gupta, and Shri V.K.Duggal. Te NDMA

took pains to analyse various provisions of the

Act and communicate the same in writing. Dr.

Mohan Kanda, former Member, NDMA, had

many insights to share. Although the Planning

Commission of India could not manage to have

a discussion with the ask Force, it conveyed

useful views on the financing aspects of disaster

management through written communication.

Shri R. K. Singh, Union Home Secretary, who

had an important role to play in the formulation

of the Act, along with members of the National

Executive Committee, devoted considerable

time to engaging with the ask Force, and had

extremely valuable points to make. Shri A.K.Mangotra, Secretary (Border Management) has

been a tremendous support to the ask Force. Shri

P.G. Dhar Chakrabarti and Shri Sutanu Behuria,

former Secretaries, National Disaster Management

Authority; Shri P.K. Basu, the then Secretary,


11/160

xi

Preface

Department of Agriculture and Cooperation; and

Shri Sumit Bose, the then Secretary, Department of

Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, too, shared their

valuable experiences. Sri Anil Sinha and Prof. V.

K Sharma, former members of the High Powered

Committee (1999-2001) chaired by Shri J.C. Pant, which was possibly the first to reflect on the need

for a comprehensive disaster management system

for India, provided us with a wealth of insights.

Te ask Force was overwhelmed by the response of

the States/Union erritories/other stakeholders to

the national workshop and five regional workshops

organised by it. A large number of senior officers

participated in these workshops the logistics of

which were graciously provided by the host States.

Te ask Force also had purposeful discussions with District Collectors from areas that are

chronically vulnerable to disasters. Without their

hard work and sincere efforts to provide feedback

with clarity, this report would not have gained its

depth of meaning.

Te UNDP contributed significantly by uploading

the questionnaire prepared by the ask Force

on various aspects of the Act on the Solution

Exchange network of the UN system, compiling

all the comments posted therein and organising an

excellent workshop of international organisations,

NGOs and other civil society members. Tanks are

due to Shri G. Padmanabhan, Senior Emergency

Analyst and Officer in Charge, Disaster

Management Unit, and Ms. Abha Mishra and Ms.

Ranjini Mukherjee, Project Officers, UNDP, who

spared their time to assist the ask Force.

In particular we would like to express our gratitude

to Dr. Krishna S. Vatsa, Regional Disaster RiskReduction Adviser (United Nations Development

Programme/Bureau for Crisis Prevention and

Recovery), and Dr. V. Tiruppugazh, Additional

CEO, Gujarat State Disaster Management

Authority, for devoting much time and energy to

assisting the ask Force. Dr. Vatsa made painstaking

efforts to prepare an elaborate questionnaire which

formed the basis of the consultations. He studied

available literature on the subject of disaster

management and made much valued interjections

from time to time. Dr. Tiruppugazh, who hasrecently done his doctorial work in disaster

management, not only studied international best

practices to contribute to the effort of the ask

Force, but also participated in the deliberations and

had constructive views to contribute.

Most of the meetings of the ask Force were held

at the National Institute of Disaster Management,

which readily made available its conference room

for the purpose, provided logistical support and,

above all, a quiet and conducive environment fordeliberation. Apart from this, the ask Force had

a formal meeting with the National Institute of

Disaster Management to formally elicit their views

on the Act. Te ask Force thanks Dr. Satendra,

Executive Director, Prof. Santosh Kumar and other

members of the faculty and staff of the National

Institute of Disaster Management.

One must mention here the extremely positive

interactions with Shri R. K. Srivastava and Shri

J.P. Misra, former Joint Secretary and Director(Disaster Management), respectively. We would

also like to thank several other officers of the

Disaster Management Division of the Ministry of

Home Affairs for putting in a great deal of hard

work to support the ask Force for over a year:

Shri Ashok Shukla, Deputy Secretary (DM II),

Shri Ashish Kumar Panda, Under Secretary, (DM

II), Shri Chander Bhan and Shri Sarat Panda, both

Consultants. Acknowledgements are due to Shri

R.G. Pillai, personal assistant to Chairman GERC, who typed the first drafts of several chapters of this

report; also, Ms Padmanabhan who did an excellent

job of copy editing.

Te ask Force has been assisted in its endeavour


12/160

xii


by many people whom it is impossible to name

here individually – from senior officers of various

Departments and Ministries of the Government of

India to District Collectors, among others. o all of

them as well as many more who have contributed

immensely to this review, we offer our heartfeltgratitude.

Te Chairman of the ask Force places on record

his appreciation of the valuable contribution made

by the Members of the ask Force: Dr. Shyam S.

Agarwal, Secretary, National Disaster Management

Authority; Shri G.V.V. Sarma, Joint Secretary,

Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Home

Affairs; and from the Ministry of Law and Justice,

Shri Satish Chandra, Joint Secretary and Legal

Adviser, Shri Chander Veer, Deputy Legislative

Counsel, and Shri Udaya Kumara, DeputyLegislative Counsel

New Delhi (Dr. P. K. Mishra)

March 8, 2013 Chairman


13/160

xiii

ARC Administrative Reforms Commission AI Administrative raining Institute

BRO Border Roads Organization

BSF Border Security Force

CAG Comptroller & Auditor General of India

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CISF Central Industrial Security Force

CMC Crisis Management Committee

CMG Crisis Management Group

CRF Calamity Relief Fund

CRPF Central Reserve Police ForceDC District Collector/ Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner

DDMA District Disaster Management Authority

DM Disaster Management

DM Act Disaster Management Act

DG NDRF Director General, National Disaster Response Force

DPAP Drought Prone Areas Programme

DRDA District Rural Development Agency

DRDO Defence Research & Development Organisation

EOC Emergency Operations Centre

FC Finance CommissionFEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

HPC High Powered Committee

HFA Hyogo Framework for Action

HLC High Level Committee

ICDM Inter-Governmental Committee on Disaster Management

IDNDR International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction

IEC Information, Education & Communication

IIPA Indian Institute of Public Administration

IMD India Meteorological Department

IMG Inter-Ministerial GroupISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

IBP Indo-ibetan Border Police

LBSNAA Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration

LDRRMF Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund

Abbreviations


14/160

xi


MHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

NDM Natural Disaster Management

NCCF National Calamity Contingency Fund

NCCM National Centre for Calamity Management

NCDM National Centre for Disaster Management

NCMC National Crisis Management Committee

NDMO National Disaster Management Office

NCRWC National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution

NDMAF National Disaster Management Advisory Forum

NDMF National Disaster Mitigation Fund

NDPMC National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Committee

NDRF National Disaster Response Force/National Disaster Response Fund

NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

NDMA National Disaster Management Authority

NEC National Executive Committee

NEMA National Emergency Management Authority

NFCR National Fund for Calamity Relief

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NHRC National Human Rights Commission

NIDM National Institute of Disaster Management

OM Office Memorandum

PMO Prime Minister’s Office

RKVY Rahstriya Krishi Vikas Yojana

SCMC State Crisis Management Committee

SDMA State Disaster Management Authority

SDMF State Disaster Mitigation Fund

SDMO Office of SDMA

SDRF State Disaster Response Fund

SEC State Executive Committee

SFDR State Fund for Disaster Response

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction

USA United States of America

Us Union erritories


15/160

x

Context, Approach and

Methodology

Te Disaster Management Act, 2005, (also referred

to as the ‘DM Act, 2005’ and ‘the Act’ in this report)

is an important milestone in the evolution of a

legal framework for disaster management in India.

For the first time a comprehensive law on disaster

management at the national level was enacted with

the passage of the Disaster Management Act in

December 2005, although a few States had enacted

their own disaster management laws earlier, and

several legislations already existed in regard to

environmental damage, building structure safety

and fire hazards.

As envisaged by the Act, several new organisations/

entities have been created at the national, state,

and district level. Some of them have done well.

For example, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has issued comprehensive

guidelines for disaster mitigation and preparedness.

Te National Disaster Response Force (NDRF)

has made an impact in respect of search and

rescue operations in disaster situations. Some State

Disaster Management Authorities (SDMAs) have

significant achievements to their credit.

In recent times, however, several States have drawn

the attention of the Union Home Ministry to

a number of constraints and bottlenecks in thecourse of the implementation of the Act.

Consequently, the MHA, GoI, constituted a ask

Force on December 23, 2011, to review the DM

Act, 2005, and suggest appropriate amendments, if

Executive Summary

required. Te erms of Reference for the ask Force

included consultations with States/Us/other

stakeholders through workshops at the regional

and national level with a view to creating a body of

constructive views regarding the implementation of

the Act. Te ask Force was also asked to examine

best practices in disaster management legislation in

a select number of countries.

Te methodology of the ask Force comprised

desk reviews of key documents, eliciting views and

feedback through a comprehensive questionnaire,

consultation through one national and five regional

workshops, several consultation meetings with

central Ministries and other organisations, and

consultation through the Solution Exchange

network of the UN system. Tus the ask

Force had wide-ranging consultations with the

governments of States and Us, GoI Ministries

and agencies, international organisations, civil

society and academics.

Evolution of the Legal Framework

for Disaster Management in India

o a large extent the origins of the DM Act, 2005,

can be traced to the thinking, ideas and events of

the decade preceding it – globally and nationally.

Globally, a paradigm shift in the approachtowards disaster management, from relief and

rehabilitation to prevention and mitigation

through a holistic and comprehensive approach,

was triggered by the UN’s move to observe the

1990s as the International Decade for Natural


16/160

xi


Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). Te Yokohama

Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World,

1994 , and the Hyogo Framework for Action

2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations

and Communities to Disasters (HFA), 2005,

adopted by the UN provided further impetus tothis new holistic approach. Te focus turned to

legislation, policy and institutional arrangements

as important ingredients of a holistic approach to

disaster management. In fact, the HFA identifies

legislation as a critical aspect in determining

a comprehensive approach to disaster risk

reduction. A 2011 study of the ISDR – the Global

Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2011

– indicated that 48 countries reported substantial

achievements in national policy and legislation

on disaster management in this regard. At thenational level such legislation is often triggered

by factors such as major disasters, political shifts,

or the engagement of particularly dynamic

individuals and participative communities. In

India, the 1999 Odisha super cyclone, the 2001

Gujarat earthquake and the 2004 Indian Ocean

tsunami proved to be watershed events which

catalysed the enactment of a national law on

disaster management.

Legislation provides a formal basis for disaster

management activities relating to preparedness,

response, recovery and reconstruction. It supports

organisational arrangements and plans, allocates

major legal responsibilities all of which are

crucial for proper implementation. By describing

specific norms and procedures, laws, regulations

and codes also create structures of incentives

and disincentives. In the past few decades, laws

have been enacted in India to respond to sectoral

issues, be it environmental protection or economicdevelopment. By and by there was a realisation

that while such laws addressing sectoral issues

had a bearing on disaster management, it was not

adequate. Tere was a need for one comprehensive

law that cut across all sectors with its holistic

conception of disaster management. As legal

frameworks and institutional arrangements are

interlinked, a review of laws relating to disaster

management would invariably involve an analysis

of organisational structures at different levels, andtheir roles and functions.

In India, Famine Codes developed in the 19th

century provided a formal basis for disaster relief

activities, as did the Relief Manuals introduced

by States both before and after Independence.

Te Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and a

number of rules under the Act were significant

developments which followed the Bhopal gas

disaster. Several other Acts, rules and codes relating

to the subjects of water, air, fire, chemicals, microorganisms, among others, were enacted at the

national and state level.

Te High Powered Committee (HPC) constituted

by the Government of India, which submitted

its report in October 2001, prepared a draft

National Calamity Management Act as well as a

Model State Disaster Management Act. While

considering the recommendations of the HPC,

the GoI took a view that instead of a central

legislation, the States should be advised to enact

their own respective legislations. One reason

for this could have been that the Constitution

of India does not explicitly mention disaster

management as a subject in any of the three lists

of the Seventh Schedule. In the meantime, States

such as Gujarat, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and the then

Uttaranchal enacted their own legislations on

disaster management. However, in the aftermath

of the 2004 Asian tsunami, the GoI decided

that a central law on disaster management wasessential. Tus the DM Act, 2005, which brought

under its purview the entire country, was the

culmination of a process that had started almost

a decade earlier.


17/160


18/160

xiii


bears responsibility for disaster management.

However, the arrangements that existed prior to the

Act continue to remain in force. For instance, the

National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC)

headed by the Cabinet Secretary coordinates andguides the work of GoI’s Departments at a time

of crisis. A Crisis Management Group (CMG)

headed by a senior officer of the nodal Ministry

meets from time to time in the event of disasters

to coordinate at the central level and liaise with

state governments and other agencies for response

and relief activities. Tere is also a Central Crisis

Group (CCG) under the chairpersonship of the

Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests,

for the management of chemical accidents. Te

High Level Committee (HLC) headed by theUnion Agriculture Minister/Home Minister takes

decisions regarding financial assistance to States in

the context of natural disasters.

Te institutional structure for disaster management

at the national level appears to be in a state of

transition with the earlier arrangement as well as

the new structure existing side by side. For example,

it is the HLC that takes a final call on assistance to

States based on the recommendations of the Inter-

Ministerial Group (IMG). Te NDMA has no

role in this as in many other matters. At the time

of crisis, the NCMC takes over; the NEC hardly

has any role to perform.

• Based on its extensive consultations with

stakeholders and its own analysis, the ask Force

has examined in detail the working of national

level structures envisaged by the Act. While

the consultations threw up a spectrum of views

on this aspect, they also revealed a surprisingconvergence on many issues: Tough the NDMA

has certain achievements to its credit, e.g., issue

of useful guidelines, its present structure is not

conducive for carrying out the tasks it has been

mandated to perform under the Act.

• Tere is a need to redesign the NDMA’s structure,

ensuring greater objectivity and transparency in

selecting Members.

• Te NEC, which has been assigned crucial, and

multifarious, activities under the Act, has failed

to deliver.

• Tere is a lack of functional integration between

the NDMA and the NEC on the one hand, and

the NDMA and the MHA on the other.

• Even the Ministries/Departments of the GoI,

including the MHA, have not been able to fulfill

the mandate given to them by the DM Act,

2005.

• Te NIDM has not been able to fulfill the

expectations of States and Us.

• Te NDRF appears to be a success story.

In view of the above, there is a need to revisit

the role, function and structure of the NDMA

and NEC. Te ask Force considered various

alternatives regarding the function and structure

of the NDMA. As regards the role and function,

the NDMA should not remain merely a think

tank without any link with ground realities. Its

role and functions should cover policies, plans,guidelines and regulations relating to prevention,

mitigation and preparedness. It should coordinate

with the agencies concerned so that the activities

envisaged by the Act are effectively performed. Te

NDMA needs to be empowered so as to enable it

to discharge its responsibilities more effectively. At

the same time it should be held accountable for the

satisfactory performance of the tasks assigned to

it. In order to achieve this objective, the NDMA

needs to be restructured appropriately. In orderto raise the profile of the NDMA, it needs to be

integrated with the relevant Ministries, as in many

other countries. Te restructuring of the NDMA

and the NEC/NCMC should be broadly as follows

(the detailed recommendations of the ask Force


19/160

xix

Executive Summary

are enumerated in Chapter 4):

• Te NDMA should have not more than

four full-time Members, including the Vice-

Chairperson; it could have other members in

an ex officio capacity, such as the Ministers ofHome, Defence, Finance, Agriculture, and

Urban Development.

• One of the full-time Members may be designated

as the Member Secretary.

• Te criteria of selection, tenure and other terms

and conditions of service of full-time Members

may be clearly specified.

• Te HLC may be included in the DM Act,

2005.• Te NDMA should have the powers to recruit

and appoint officers and staff in respect of the

posts sanctioned by the GoI.

• Te functions of NEC envisaged in Section 10

(2) –- other than clauses (e), (f), (g), (i) and (k) –

may be assigned to the NDMA.

• Te NEC may be discontinued. Te NCMC

may be included in the DM Act, 2005, and

perform the tasks specifically related to responseand coordination as envisaged by Section 10 of

the Act.

• Te DM Division of the MHA needs to be

strengthened so that it can give secretariat

support to the NCMC and perform other

functions mandated by the Act.

• Te provisions of the Act would be effectively

implemented only when there is an optimal

professional set-up to perform the tasks. Indeed,

there is a need to analyse the administrativestructure and professional competence of

the DM division of the MHA, the NDMA,

SDMAs and DDMAs. A cadre of disaster

management professionals may be set up, and

training and education facilities in this area need

to be expanded. An independent exercise should

be undertaken for this purpose.

As regards the NIDM, issues regarding its

autonomy vis-a-vis the desirability of integration with the MHA or becoming the capacity building

arm of the NDMA were examined. Te ask Force

is of the following view:

• As NIDM’s Governing Body already has

a representation from the NDMA and the

MHA, and as the Act already provides that it

has to function within the broad policies and

guidelines laid down by the NDMA, it should

function autonomously with respect to its

activities and human resource practices and notas a subordinate organisation of the NDMA/

MHA for the functions entrusted to it by the

Act.

• Te NIDM should have powers to recruit and

appoint officers and staff in respect of the posts

sanctioned by the GoI.

As regards the NDRF, the ask Force is of the view

that it has performed quite well. Tere is no need

to amend the existing provisions relating to theNDRF in the DM Act, 2005. However, the ask

Force has suggested two administrative measures

with regard to the NDRF:

• At present, NDRF personnel come from

different Forces and return to their parent

organisation after a specified period. Tis means

that the skill, experience and expertise they

develop while working with the NDRF might

not be available for disaster response after they

leave the Force. Either some of them may beallowed to continue, or the NDRF may recruit

some of its personnel so that there is continuity

and institutional memory in respect of some

types of expertise.


20/160

xx


• Te present arrangement of the Director General

(DG) NDRF, also performing the duties of

Civil Defence, Home Guards and Fire Services

can help the integrate disaster management

activities of these organisations. However, the

DG, NDRF and Civil Defence, should not begiven any other additional duties of any central

armed police force. Te DG should also have an

administrative reporting line to the NDMA and

ideally should be under the administrative control

of the NDMA as an officer on deputation.

Functioning of Disaster

Management Institutions at the

State, District and Local levels

As stated earlier, the primary responsibilityfor organising rescue, relief and rehabilitation

measures in disaster affected areas is that of

the state government concerned. Te GoI

supplements the efforts of the state government

through policy, financial and logistical support.

raditionally, the Revenue Department has been in

charge of disaster management, which was limited

to response and rehabilitation. In recent years a

few States have created a separate Department of

Relief and Rehabilitation, the latter including the

rehabilitation of persons displaced by irrigation

and other developmental projects as well. Some

States, at the instance of the GoI, renamed their

Department of Relief and Rehabilitation as the

Department of Disaster Management, while

others added a division of disaster management

within the Revenue Department. Tere continues

to be a post of Relief Commissioner who is a head

of the department under the Revenue Department

supervising response and relief activities in thedistricts at the time of cyclone, drought, flood and

other hazard events.

Te apex level coordination mechanism at the

state level is the State Crisis Management

Committee (SCMC) headed by the Chief

Secretary. Te Committee coordinates all the

activities of response and relief in the event of a

crisis. Tere is also a State Crisis Group (SCG)

headed by the Chief Secretary for management of

chemical accidents.

At the district level, the District Collector is the

focal point for managing disasters. Te district

level is most crucial for managing disasters. Te

District Collector interacts with district and state

level organisations as well as Central Government

Departments/Agencies.

Te DM Act, 2005, provides for the constitution

of SDMAs at the state level and DDMAs at the

district level. It also provides for the establishment

of the State Executive Committee (SEC) headed

by the Chief Secretary to the state government.

As in the case of the NDMA, there are several

issues and constraints regarding the structure, role,

and functions of the SDMA and the SEC. Te

SDMA has a crucial role in disaster management,

particularly in regard to prevention, mitigation

and preparedness. All States and Us have created

SDMAs, but with the exception of a few most of

the SDMAs appear to exist as a mere formalityin the form of a committee. In many cases not

much effort has gone into making them functional.

In most cases, there are constraints of human

and financial resources. Tere are also problems

of ambiguity regarding their roles. Te case of

DDMAs is no different. Further, the role of local

authorities needs to be revisited.

In regard to the restructuring of the SDMA and

SEC, the ask Force has made the following

recommendations:

• Te Members of SDMA may be ex-officio as

in several States at present. However, the state

government may have the discretion to appoint

not more than two full-time Members.


21/160

xxi

Executive Summary

• Ministers of relevant departments, the Chief

Secretary, the Director General of Police, and

one or two eminent experts may be included as

Members.

• Full-time Members of the SDMA, if any, may

be selected through an open and transparentprocess.

• Te SDMA should have a secretariat with

professional staff and a CEO of the rank of

Principal Secretary to the state government.

Te Relief Commissioner could function as

Additional CEO. As an alternative, especially in

smaller States, the Relief Commissioner could

function as the CEO, SDMA.

• Te SDMA should have powers to recruit and

appoint officers and staff with respect to the

posts sanctioned by the state government.

• Te functions of the SEC mentioned in Section

22, other than clauses (a), (d), (e), (f ), (g), (h), (l),

(o), (p) and (q), may be assigned to the SDMA.

• Te SEC may be discontinued.

• Te SCMC may be included in the DM Act,

2005, and perform the tasks particularly relating

to response and coordination as envisaged by

Section 22 of the Act.

Te DDMA may be restructured as follows:

• In addition to those specified in Section 25 of

the Act, the DDMA should have two eminent

persons with experience and knowledge of

disaster management as Members. If necessary,

the number of Members may be increased from

7 to 9.

• Te DDMA should have a separate office or

secretariat with professional staff.

• Te DDMA should be vested with some powers

with respect to sanctioned posts, to recruit and

appoint personnel and engage consultants.

• Te powers and functions of the DDMA

envisaged in Section 34 of the Act may be vested

in the District Collector.

As regards Local Authorities, the following

suggestions are made:

• Section 41 of the Act may incorporate the

following: Local authorities should have the

responsibility of ensuring compliance with

laws, codes and rules relating to building safety

and fire safety, and they should be specifically

mentioned as having a responsibility to prepare

disaster management plans.

• Chapter 6 of the Act may create a provision

which enables the state government to constitute

a Disaster Management Authority for largecities, e.g., those with municipal corporations.

• Te Mayor of the Municipal Corporation

may be the Chairperson, with the Municipal

Commissioner, Police Commissioner, District

Collector and two experts/specialists as

Members.

Role of Governments and

Financing Arrangements

Te DM Act, 2005, very clearly envisages that every

Ministry/Department of the GoI has statutory

responsibilities regarding prevention, mitigation

and preparedness, and response to disasters. Te

Act makes it mandatory for every Ministry/

Department to prepare its disaster management

plan. Te Act enumerates certain aspects which are

to be included in the plan. It also stipulates annual

reviews and updates of the plan, and the approval

of the original or updated plan by the NDMA. It

enjoins upon the Ministries and Departments tomake provisions for financing the activities specified

in the plan and to furnish a status report on the

implementation of the plan to the NDMA. Te

Act mandates that the Central Government or the

MHA – the expression Central Government here


22/160

xxii


refers to the Ministry/Department of GoI which

has administrative control of disaster management,

in this case the MHA – must coordinate the above

activities of the Ministries and Departments of the

GoI. It is the responsibility of the MHA to ensure

that the various Ministries/Departments of theGoI perform the tasks assigned to them by the Act

and, for this purpose, make the required financial

provisions so that they are able to carry out the

activities included in the plan. Tere are similar

provisions relating to the state governments.

It seems, however, that effective measures are yet to

be taken by governments, even though the Act has

been in operation for over seven years.

Te Act provides for disaster managementplans at the national, state and district levels.

It also provides for the preparation of such

plans by Central Ministries/Departments, state

government departments, district level offices of

the GoI and state governments. When there are so

many types of plans to be prepared, it is essential

to ensure that they are consistent with each other,

adequate and relevant. It is also necessary to have

a mechanism to ensure that these plans are not

merely a formality, but are operational and updated

on a regular basis.

Te present system of financing disaster

management in India is based on the

recommendations of successive Finance

Commissions (FCs). Te recommendations of

the FCs are based on the principle that financial

assistance to States shall be limited to providing

immediate relief to the victims of natural calamities

and to restoring public utilities so that the affected

communities are able to get back on their feetagain. Te reconstruction of damaged assets is

funded from resources meant for development

schemes. Te relief-centric approach to the

financing arrangement does not address issues of

prevention, mitigation and preparedness.

Based on the recommendation of the Ninth FC, a

Calamity Relief Fund (CRF) was constituted in the

early 1990s for each State for immediate relief in the

event of a disaster. Te quantum is determined by

the FC with the Central Government and the state

government concerned contributing 75 percent and25 percent of the CRF, respectively. In addition to

the CRF, the National Fund for Calamity Relief

(NFCR) was created at the national level to assist

States in the event of a calamity of rare severity.

Subsequently, the NFCR was replaced by the

National Calamity Contingency Fund (NCCF).

In addition to financing response and relief,

the DM Act, 2005, aims to address the issue of

financing prevention, mitigation and preparedness

measures. At the national level, the Act providesfor two Funds, namely, the National Disaster

Response Fund (NDRF) and the National

Disaster Mitigation Fund (NDMF). Te former is

to be used for addressing any threatening disaster

situation, or disaster. Te second Fund is meant

exclusively for the purpose of mitigation projects.

Te Act provides for similar funds at the state

and district level. Te Act further mandates every

Ministry /Department of the central and state

governments to make requisite provisions in its

annual budget for the purpose of carrying out the

activities set out in its disaster management plan.

Based on the recommendations of the Tirteenth

FC (2010-15), the NCCF has been converted to

the NDRF and the CRF to the State Disaster

Response Fund (SDRF). Te NDMF is yet to be

created. Tere have been a series of discussions

and interactions among the Ministries concerned

and the Planning Commission. One view is that

mitigation activities can be funded through the

normal budget and that there is no need to create

a separate fund. Only five States, namely, Bihar,

Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Uttarakhand

have created a Mitigation Fund until now. Funds

at the district level are yet to be created.


23/160

xxiii

Executive Summary

Having considered all aspects as well as the views

of stakeholders, the ask Force recommends the

following:

• Te NDRF and the NDMF are a must at the

national level. Te provisions of Sections 46and 47 of the Act should be retained. However,

the source of each Fund and its linkage with the

respective State Fund may be specified in the

Act or rules.

• At the state level it is desirable to have both the

SDRF and the SDMF. Te source of each and

its linkage with the respective National Fund

may be specified in the Act or rules.

• It is essential to work out – through rules oradministrative measures – a mechanism or

procedure for determining the size and source of

the NDRF and SDRF. For example, the Finance

Commissions may be mandated to determine

these aspects every five years.

• For National and State Mitigation Funds, the

guidelines with respect to the utilisation of

funds and the identification of projects may be

prepared by the NDMA in consultation with

the Planning Commission.

• As regards district level Funds, the state

government may decide whether to have

response and mitigation funds, or to put in

place a separate mechanism for timely access

to financial resources by the district authorities.

Section 48 may be amended as discussed in the

paragraphs 6.6.4.7.

• In Section 46, the nomenclature ‘NationalDisaster Response Fund’ may be changed to

‘National Fund for Disaster Response’ (NFDR).

Similarly, in Section 48, the nomenclature ‘State

Disaster Response Fund’ may be changed to

‘State Fund for Disaster Response’ (SFDR).

Other Provisions of the Act

In addition to aspects such as institutional structures,

functioning of various entities, and financial

arrangements, the ask Force has examined other

provisions of the Act, too. In addition, there was

a suggestion from the stakeholders to includeadditional provisions in the Act. Chapter 7 of

the report contains a detailed analysis of these

suggestions as well as the recommendations of the

ask Force. Some important recommendations are

briefly mentioned below:

• Tere should be a specific mention of protection

of the interests of women, children, the disabled,

and the weaker sections.

• Te Act should incorporate the duties,responsibilities and role of the community.

• Community based disaster preparedness may

be included in the provisions related to local

authorities.

• Roles and responsibilities of Civil Defence,

Home Guards and Fire Services may be

included.

• Te Act should also lay down the role,

responsibility and liability of the private sector.

• Tere should be a provision for a grievance

redress mechanism in the context of relief,

rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

• In many countries volunteers play a significant

role in response activities, among others. Te

Act should have such a provision to encourage

the participation of volunteers in disaster

management.

• Te Act should also provide for the punishment

of persons/organisations/bodies found to have

a hand in creating dangerous conditions by

violating safety laws such as the State Building

Code or State Fire Code.


24/160

1

1.1 Introduction

Te MHA, GoI, constituted a ask Force on

December 23, 2011, to review the DM Act, 2005,

and suggest amendments, if any. Te erms of

Reference included a detailed consultation with

all States/Union erritories/other stakeholders,

as well as a study of best practices in the disaster

management legislations of select countries.

Section I of this chapter:

• outlines the context and rationale for the

constitution of the ask Force

• lays out the composition of the ask Force and

its erms of Reference

Section II:

• describes the approach and methodology

adopted by the ask Force to arrive at its findingsand formulate its recommendations

Section i

1.2 Context and Rationale

1.2.1 Te DM Act, 2005, is an important

milestone in the evolution of a legal framework for

disaster management in India. It was the first time

that a comprehensive law on disaster management

was enacted at the national level. In the aftermath

of the Bhopal gas disaster, Parliament of India

passed the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,

with a view to addressing the issue of environmental

damage and pollution in relation to industrial

Task Force Review:Context, Approach and Methodology1

activities. Te Hazardous Wastes (Management

and Handling) Rules, 1989, as well as the

Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous

Chemicals Rules, 1989, were framed under this

Act. Persons handling hazardous substances have

to comply with the procedures and safeguards laid

down in these rules.

Following the 2001 Kutch earthquake, the

Government of Gujarat put in place a legalframework in the form of the Gujarat State

Disaster Management Act, 2003. At the national

level, however, a legal framework for disaster

management was introduced only in 2005 with the

passing of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

1.2.2 Te DM Act, 2005, emphasises prevention

and mitigation of the effects of disasters through

a holistic, coordinated and prompt response. It

is mandated to provide for requisite institutionalmechanisms to draw up disaster management

plans and monitor their implementation. Te Act

provides for:

• the creation of a National Disaster Management

Authority under the chairmanship of the

Prime Minister, State Disaster Management

Authorities under the chairmanship of Chief

Ministers, and District Disaster Management

Authorities headed by District Magistrates,

respectively • the constitution of a National Disaster Response

Force

• the establishment of the National Institute of

Disaster Management


25/160

2


• the institution of the National Fund for Disaster

Response and the National Fund for Disaster

Mitigation, and similar funds at the state and

district levels

• a specific role for local bodies in disaster

management, including the Panchayati RajInstitutions and Urban Local Bodies like

municipalities

1.2.3 Te NDMA was set up in 2005 following

which most States have established state and district

level disaster management authorities. Most States

have adopted the framework of the Central Act –

that is, the DM Act, 2005. Even prior to this Act,

some States had enacted their own State disaster

management laws. Tere continues to be a wide

variation in the structure of SDMAs and other

aspects across States and Us, even among those

who have adopted the DM Act, 2005.

1.2.4 In recent times, several States have drawn

the attention of the MHA to a number of constraints

and bottlenecks experienced in the course of

implementation of the DM Act, 2005. Some of

them – Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal,

Karnataka, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands

(U), among others – have suggested amendmentsto the Act. A few have been mentioned below for

the purpose of illustration:

• Section 6 of the Act should be amended so that

the NDMA has the powers and resources to

financially support SDMAs and SDRFs.

• Section 14 (4) of the Act, which states that the

Chairperson of the SEC shall be the Chief

Executive Officer of the State Authority, should

be amended so that the state government has

the liberty to nominate any person it deems

suitable as Chairperson of the SEC and CEO of

the SDMA.

• SDMA’s role should be clearly defined vis-à-vis

the State Cabinet in Section 18.

• Section 20 should provide for a more broad-

based SEC through a provision for special

invitee members.

• Te Relief Commissioner of the State should be

accorded an active role in the SDMA and SEC.

• Section 25 should provide for a more broad-

based DDMA through a provision for special

invitees, including elected representatives.

• As regards Section 48 relating to the

establishment of Funds by the state government,

there is no need for separate district level funds.

• Te state level Crisis Management Committee

should be made a part of SDMA.

• Te DM Act should incorporate and make

mandatory multi-hazard building bye-lawsfor each Urban Local Body/ Panchayati Raj

Institution/Flood Zone.

1.2.5 Te above suggestions were discussed

during the review of the National Action Plan V

(2011-12) by the Union Home Minister. It was

decided that a ask Force should be constituted

to examine the relevant issues. Accordingly, it

was proposed that the ask Force should function

under the chairpersonship of an eminent person,

preferably a serving or retired Secretary to the GoI– who has worked and contributed significantly in

the field of disaster management – to examine and

review the DM Act, 2005, and suggest amendments,

if any. Tus the MHA, GoI, constituted a ask

Force vide Office Memorandum No. 30-2/2011/

NDM-II dated December 23, 2011. One more

Member was added vide Office Memorandum No.

30-2/2011/NDM-II dated February 3, 2012.

1.3 Composition and Terms of

Reference of the Task Force1.3.1 The Task Force comprises the

following Members:

• Chairman: Dr. P.K. Mishra, former Secretary,

Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,


26/160

3

Task Force Review: Context, Approach and Methodology

Ministry of Agriculture, GoI, and presently

Chairman, Gujarat Electricity Regulatory

Commission.

• Member: Dr. Shyam S. Agarwal (from February

15, 2013), (Shri P. G. Dhar Chakrabarti (from

October 8, 2012 to February 14, 2013), and Dr.Sutanu Behuria (from December 23, 2011 to

October 7, 2012) in their tenure as Secretary,

NDMA.

• Member Secretary: Shri G. V. V. Sarma (from

November 12, 2012), and Shri R.K. Srivastava

(from December 23, 2011 to November 11,

2012), current and previous Joint Secretary (DM

Division), MHA, GoI, New Delhi.

• Member: Shri Satish Chandra, Joint Secretary

and Legal Advisor, Department of Legal Affairs,

Ministry of Law and Justice, GoI, New Delhi.

• Member: Shri Chander Veer, Deputy Legislative

Counsel, Legislative Department, Ministry of

Law and Justice, GoI, New Delhi.

• Member: Shri Udaya Kumara, Deputy

Legislative Counsel, Legislative Department,

Ministry of Law and Justice, GoI, New Delhi.

1.3.2 Terms of Reference of the TaskForce

Te following erms of Reference were defined to

enable the ask Force to conduct its review:

• o gather information from States/Us/ other

stakeholders regarding the concerns of the States/

Us in the implementation/administration of

the DM Act, 2005.

• o study existing best practices in disaster

management legislation in a select numberof countries with a view to considering their

adoption in India.

• o hold workshops at regional/national levels

for consultations with States/ Us/ other

stakeholders regarding the need, if any, for

amendments to the DM Act, 2005.

• o recommend amendments, if any, to the

DM Act, 2005, based on the suggestions of the

States/Us/other stakeholders

Section ii

1.4 Approach and Methodology

1.4.1 Te ask Force held a series of meetings

and consultations. At its first meeting on January

9, 2012, at the NIDM, the ask Force deliberated

on its approach and methodology of work, and

decided to prepare a questionnaire on different

provisions of the DM Act, 2005, that would form

the basis of interaction with all stakeholders. Te

objective was to frame the questions in a way that

would crystallise issues of implementation of the Act. A decision was also taken to enlist the help

of two experts to prepare the questionnaire: Dr.

Krishna Vatsa of UNDP, formerly of the IAS,

with a wide-ranging experience of and expertise in

Box 1.1: TeRMs of RefeRence of

The TAsk foRce

• T atr irmati rm stat/UT/tr

tadr rardi r/imitati i

t impmtati t DM At, 2005:

• T tud u At/ t prati t ujt

diatr maamt i a t umr

utri.

• T d rp at ria ad atia r utati it stat/UT/tr

tadr rardi t d, i a, r

amdmt t t DM At, 2005.

• T rmmd amdmt, i a, t t

DM At, 2005, ad t uti

tadr.


27/160

4


disaster management, and Prof. V.K. Sharma of the

Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA)

who, too, has worked on the subject of disaster

management for a long time now.

1.4.2 It was also decided at the first meeting thatthe MHA would prepare the list of stakeholders

with whom the questionnaire would be shared. o

facilitate the preparation of this list of stakeholders,

the ask Force indicated towards the following

organisations/ agencies:

• All the line ministries of the GoI.

• Te departments and agencies of the GoI

associated with disaster management for detailed

interaction.

• Te NDMA, the NIDM and the NDRF.Chief

Secretaries of all States/ Us.

• Relief Commissioners of all States/ Us.

• Administrative raining Institutes of States

(Disaster Management Centres).

• National level academic and training institutions

such as the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie; Sardar

Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy,

Hyderabad; Gujarat Institute of Disaster

Management Disaster Management Institute,

Bhopal; and the National Law Universities at

Bangalore and Bhopal, respectively.

• NGOs and international organisations.

1.4.3 Te second meeting of the ask Force at

the NIDM was devoted to a detailed discussionon the draft questionnaire. Members made several

suggestions for modification. Te questions

were arranged chapter-wise keeping in view the

structure of the Act. It was decided that the

questionnaire would be circulated among all the

stakeholders mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Tey would be requested to submit their comments

by May 15, 2012. Tis would be followed by

regional consultations for detailed discussions

with States and Us with regard to their views

and suggestions. In addition, there would beinteractions with the GoI Ministries and other

agencies. Te questionnaire would also be uploaded

on the website of the MHA, GoI.

1.4.4 One of the erms of Reference refers to

the study of current best practices in legislation on

disaster management as evinced in a select number

of countries and to consider their adoption in the

Indian scenario. Te ask Force decided that Dr.

Krishna S. Vatsa and Dr. Tiruppugazh would cull

out best practices from countries around the worldand submit their findings to the ask Force.

1.4.5 From April to June 2012, the ask

Force held five regional consultations in order to

ascertain the views of various States and Us. Te

consultations were held at Shillong, Hyderabad,

Ahmedabad, Chandigarh and Bhubaneswar for

the Sates and Us of the North-East, South,

West, North and East zones, respectively. Almost

all the States and Us actively participated in the

consultation workshops.

1.4.6 Te ask Force was engaged in

consultations with the following stakeholders:

• On June 29, 2012 and July 24, 2012, respectively,

the ask Force held two rounds of consultations

with the NDMA. Te Vice-Chairman NDMA,

Members and senior officers actively participated

in the discussion. Te NDMA submitted

detailed comments on the issues raised in

the questionnaire and contributed valuablesuggestions relating to the improvement of the

disaster management system in the country.

• On June 29, 2012, the ask Force held a

consultation meeting with the NIDM.


28/160

5


• On May 23, 2012, the ask Force held a

consultation meeting with the Ministry of

Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and

Cooperation).

•

On July 24, 2012, the ask Force held aconsultation meeting with the Ministry of

Finance (Department of Expenditure).

• On July 19, 2012, the ask Force had a detailed

discussion with the Home Secretary and the

NEC. Te Home Secretary as well as the

Ministries represented in the NEC offered

comprehensive comments on various provisions

of the DM Act, 2005.

• Trough a letter dated June 19, 2012,Chairman, ask Force, requested Secretary,

Planning Commission, for a consultation

meeting. Subsequently, a letter dated July 19,

2012, was received from the Advisor, Planning

Commission, communicating the views of the

Planning Commission concerning the NDMF

and the allocation of funds by Ministries /

Departments for disaster management.

Member Secretary, ask Force, vide his letter

dated August 2, 2012, once again requested

Secretary, Planning Commission, for a meeting.

However, there has been no response to the

request until the time of the submission of this

report.

1.4.7 On July 23, 2012, the ask Force held

an interaction with international organisations

and national as well as international NGOs at

the UNDP conference room in New Delhi. Te

questionnaire prepared by the ask Force had

been circulated in advance through the SolutionExchange, a knowledge network of UN agencies in

India, to solicit the views of various organisations,

individuals and stakeholders. Most of the knowledge

network participants are professionals and many

among them have a vast experience in disaster

management activities. Te views gathered through

the network and consolidated by the UNDP, along

with the original questionnaire, formed the basis

for discussion at the meeting of July 23, 2012, even

as several other issues were taken up. Te meeting

was well attended. Valuable suggestions were madeby international organisations, NGOs and civil

society members.

1.4.8 At the fourth meeting of the ask Force

held on June 29, 2012, Dr. Tiruppugazh made

a comprehensive presentation based on his study

of disaster management legislation from a select

number of countries and review of global best

practices. Te countries studied included South

Africa, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, St.

Lucia, Tailand, Japan, Ecuador, Honduras, Siberia,

Zambia, Bolivia, and Slovenia. Te presentation

captured the unique features of the various disaster

management Acts, identified their respective

strengths and gaps, and suggested the best practices

relevant to the Indian context.

1.4.9 During the fifth meeting of the ask Force

held on August 13, 2012, it was, inter-alia, decided

to have an interaction meeting with the then

Chairman, Member Secretary, and one or two otherMembers of the HPC which had been constituted

by the GoI in 1999. Te HPC had submitted its

report in October 2001. It was possibly the first

comprehensive exercise reflecting on the disaster

management system in India. Te ask Force

held its interaction meeting on August 30, 2012.

Shri J.C. Pant, Chairman of the HPC, could not

attend the meeting due to a sudden indisposition.

However, the participation of Shri Anil Sinha,

Member Secretary, and Prof. V. K. Sharmabrought forth important insights on the issues,

problems and challenges of disaster management

in the 1990s, as well as an enumeration of the key

recommendations of the HPC. Tey offered their

comments and suggestions on the DM Act, 2005.


29/160

6


1.4.10 Tus the ask Force accomplished wide-

ranging consultations with State Governments,

Us, GoI Ministries and agencies, international

organisations, civil society members and academics.

Based on the elaborate consultations relating to a

review of the Act’s provisions and an analysis ofthe institutional structure proposed by it, the ask

Force prepared a detailed power point presentation

during its sixth meeting held on September

5, 2012, at which important suggestions and

recommendations were crystallised. Subsequently,

a comprehensive background paper was prepared

and its findings were presented to stakeholders

at a national consultation held in New Delhi on

October 12, 2012. Te ask Force held its seventh

meeting on October 25, 2012, to analyse the

suggestions put forward by participants at thenational consultation and to review the progress

of the draft report’s preparation. Over five more

meetings – held on November 16, 2012; December

14, 2012; January 15, 2013; February 4, 2013; and

February 27, 2013 – the ask Force discussed

various aspects of the report at length with a view

to finalising it. Te report was submitted to the

Union Home Minister on March 8, 2013.

1.4.11 Te approach and methodology discussed

above can be summarised as follows:

Approach

• A comprehensive review of the objectives, scope

and provisions of the DM Act, 2005.

• An analysis of the new institutional structures

envisaged by the Act.

• A review of the duties and functions carried out

by the new disaster management institutions,based on consultations.

• Reference to legal and institutional frameworks

of disaster risk reduction in other countries.

Methodology

• Desk review of key documents (Acts, rules and

Government Orders)

• Feedback collected through a questionnaire

prepared and circulated for the review.• Regional level consultations with States, Union

erritories and other stakeholders.

• Consultations with Central Ministries and other

organisations, including those created under

the Act (e.g., the NDMA, the NIDM and the

NDRF).

• Consultations through the Solution Exchange

network of the UN system and workshops with

international organisations and NGOs.

1.5 Structure of the Report

Te Report contains eight chapters:

• Chapter 1 describes the context and rationale for

setting up the ask Force, its erms of Reference,

approach and methodology.

Box 1.2: MeThoDology followeD by The

TAsk foRce

• Ri dumt – At, Ru ad

grmt ordr.

• fda td tru a dtaid

qutiair.

• cutati at ria ad atia it

stat/UT/tr tadr.

• cutati it ctra Miitri ad tr

raiati, iudi t ratd udr t

At, .., t nDMA, t nec, t nIDM ad t

nDRf.

• cutati tru t suti exa

tr t Un tm a a tru

rp it itratia ad -

rmta raiati.


30/160

7


• Chapter 2 traces the evolution of the legal

framework for disaster management in India.

aking note of recent global trends in disaster

management legislation, it provides a historical

account of the evolution of disaster management

laws in India.

• Chapter 3 incorporates a review of best practices

culled from a study of disaster management

legislation in a select number of countries.

It examines the salient features of disaster

management laws of several countries and

attempts to draw lessons for India.

• Chapter 4 examines in detail the structures

and functioning of national level institutions

envisaged by the DM Act, 2005. It attemptsa critical analysis of the working of these

institutions based on the studies, review and

feedback received by the ask Force during its

elaborate consultations with various stakeholders,

formulating a set of recommendations and

required amendments to the relevant provisions

of the Act.

• Chapter 5 attempts a similar analysis of disaster

management institutions at the state, district

and local levels.

• Chapter 6 contains an analysis of the provisions

of the Act relating to the role of Central andState Governments, preparation of disaster

management plans, and the provisions relating to

the financing of disaster management activities

• Chapter 7 examines the provisions relating

to offences and penalties, and miscellaneous

aspects. It discusses the various suggestions of

stakeholders, analyses implementation issues and

also takes into account the recommendations of

studies by Commissions such as the Second

Administrative Reforms Commission andthe Law Commission, finally making some

recommendations for further improvement in

the relevant provisions of the Act.

• Chapter 8 enumerates the recommendations of

the ask Force.


31/160

8

2.1 Introduction

Laws and institutions evolve over time and are

influenced by the thoughts, ideas and events of

the time. Te DM Act, 2005, exemplifies this to

a great extent, for it reflects the ideas and events of

the decade preceding it – nationally and globally. It

would be both interesting and useful to delve into

some of the important developments and trends at

the international and national level which preparedthe ground for and accelerated the process of the

enactment of the Act.

Section I of this chapter:

• briefly describes recent global trends in disaster

management legislation and the role and

relevance of legislation in disaster risk reduction

Section II:

• recounts the evolution of disaster managementlegislation in India – a fascinating story of how

ideas and thinking have been influenced by

international developments and events of major

disasters

Section i

2.2 Recent Global Trends in

Disaster Management Legislation

2.2.1 Globally, a paradigm shift in the

approach to disaster management, from relief and

rehabilitation to prevention and mitigation within

a holistic and comprehensive framework, occurred

in the decade of the 1990s, observed by the UN

Evolution of the Legal Frameworkfor Disaster Management in India2

as the International Decade for Natural Disaster

Reduction (IDNDR). In 1994, the Yokohama

Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World was

adopted at the World Conference on Natural

Disasters. In 1999, a United Nations General

Assembly Resolution adopted the International

Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) and

created the Secretariat of the ISDR (UNISDR)

with the objective of ensuring its implementation.In 2003 and 2004, the UNISDR carried out a

review of the Yokohama Declaration. Tis review

formed the basis for the Hyogo Framework for

Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations

and Communities to Disasters (HFA) which was

adopted by the World Conference on Disaster

Reduction held in 2005 and subsequently endorsed

by the UN General Assembly.

2.2.2 All the above mentioned initiatives

were characterised by a considerable focus onlegislation, policy and institutional arrangements

as important ingredients of a holistic approach

to disaster management. For example, the HFA

identifies legislation as a critical aspect in forging a

comprehensive approach to disaster risk reduction.

It lists out five priorities for action the first of which

is to “ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national

and a local priority with a strong institutional basis

for implementation”. It enumerates eight key

activities to fulfill this priority. One such activity is:“Adopt, or modify where necessary, legislation to

support disaster risk reduction, including regulations

and mechanisms that encourage compliance, and to

promote incentives for undertaking risk reduction

and mitigation activities.”


32/160

9

Evolution of the Legal Framework for Disaster Management in India

2.2.3 Te Global Assessment Report on Disaster

Risk Reduction, 2011, of the ISDR indicates

that a majority of the existing legislations on

disaster management were drafted or reformed

from the mid-1990s onwards. In other words the

UNIDNDR (1990-1999) and the subsequentISDR (from 2000 onwards) played an important

role in accelerating the process of enactment of

disaster management legislations. According to

the above report, by 2011, 48 countries reported

substantial achievements in developing a

national policy and legislation on disaster

management.

2.2.4 An interesting aspect brought out by

UNDP’s various studies is that the development of

disaster risk reduction legislation is often triggeredand sustained by factors such as major disasters,

political shifts, the engagement of particularly

dynamic individuals, and well-educated and

participating communities1. In South Africa,

1 Llosa, Silvia and Zodrow, Irina, 2011, Global Assessment

Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2011: Disaster risk reduction

legislation as a basis for effective adoption, ISDR, Geneva.

legislative efforts were galvanised by devastating

floods and droughts, and the country’s high

motivation for change in the post-Apartheid era.

Te 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami had a triggering

effect on the development of national legislation

in affected countries such as Indonesia. In India,the process of enacting a disaster management

law at the national level, which had been initiated

subsequent to the High Power Committee (HPC)

report, and particularly after the 2001 Gujarat

earthquake, was accelerated in the aftermath of the

2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

2.2.5 Te role of a legal framework in disaster

management has been well recognised in the last

two decades by policy makers, practitioners and

analysts at the national and international level.

Consider the following statement from the Global

Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2011,

citing from various sources:

‘o implement such actions effectively,

legislation is necessary. A legal framework

establishes “legal authority for programs and

organizations that relate to hazards, risk

and risk management (Mattingly, 2002).

Tese laws may dictate – or encourage – policies, practices, processes, the assignment of

authorities and responsibilities to individuals

and/or institutions, and the creation of

institutions or mechanisms for coordination

or collaborative action among institutions”.

Britton (2006) asserts that “without a

comprehensive and binding legal directive

that obliges actors and agencies to take

action, the natural inertia of bureaucracies

means that non-specified essential tasks

are unlikely to be undertaken”. Law can be

used to provide penalties and incentives by

enforcing standards, to empower existing

agencies or establish new bodies with new

responsibilities, and to assign budget lines

Box 2.1: RecenT globAl TRenDs

• Paradim it rm ri ad raiitati t

prti ad mitiati, dd a iti

appra.

• The Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for

a Safer World, 1994, ad t Hyogo Framework

for Action, 2005 -2015: Building the Resilience

of Nations and Communities to Disasters (hfA),

2005.

• fu iati t upprt diatr ri

rduti.

• Ardi t IsDR’ Global Assessment Report

on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2011, 48 utri

rprtd utatia aimt i dpi

a atia pi ad iati diatrmaamt.


33/160

10


( Pelling and Holloway, 2006 ). In short,

legislation enables and promotes sustainable

engagement, helps to avoid disjointed action

at various levels and provides recourse for

society when things go wrong’. 2

2.2

Rpt TaskForce 300913

Documents