Rpt TaskForce 300913
-
Upload
honey30389 -
Category
Documents
-
view
227 -
download
0
Transcript of Rpt TaskForce 300913
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
1/160
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
2/160
REPORT OF THE
TASK FORCEA Review of the
Disaster Management Act, 2005
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
MARCH 2013
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
5.4.2 District Disaster Management Authority 76
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
5.5.2 District Disaster Management Authority 82
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
6/160
i
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
Disaster Management Act, 2005 128
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
8/160
iii
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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
Disaster Management Act, 2005 42
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
10/160
x
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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,
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
12/160
xii
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
14/160
xi
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
16/160
xi
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
17/160
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
18/160
xiii
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
20/160
xx
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
• 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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
22/160
xxii
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
25/160
2
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
• 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,
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
27/160
4
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
28/160
5
Task Force Review: Context, Approach and Methodology
• 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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
29/160
6
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
30/160
7
Task Force Review: Context, Approach and Methodology
• 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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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.”
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
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.
-
8/19/2019 Rpt TaskForce 300913
33/160
10
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE: A Ri t Diatr Maamt At, 2005
( 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