22nd January 2025

We are writing to you on behalf of concerned citizens and civil society organisations to draw your attention to critical issues that need to be raised regarding the proposed Disaster Management Amendment Bill in Rajya Sabha. The bill not only represents a missed opportunity to strengthen the country’s disaster management framework but also introduces changes that further weaken the existing framework. We present here our concerns in two segments, one that is immediate and needs urgent attention, and also a holistic critique of the Act.

Immediate Concerns:

1. Reinstatement of Loan Relief: The deletion of Clause 13 in the Disaster Management Act, which empowered the NDMA to grant loan relief to disaster-affected individuals, is deeply concerning. This removal hinders the ability of affected communities, such as those impacted by the recent Chooralmala Mundakai landslide in Wayanad, to recover from their losses. It is a double whammy for people to continue paying EMIs for destroyed houses and repay agricultural loans despite the devastation of their crops, the washing away of topsoil, and the deposition of debris on their land.

We demand the reinstatement of this clause and advocate for a full waiver of loans for agriculture, housing, and livelihood (SHG) loans. Additionally, provisions for interest-free loans should be reinstated as part of the recovery and rehabilitation process. It is crucial to recognise that while significant loan waivers have been granted to large corporations, the legitimate needs of disaster-affected individuals must not be overlooked.

2. Reinstatement of “Compensation”: The amendment bill replaces the term “compensation” with “relief” in Clause 61 of the original Act. This change significantly diminishes the level of support provided to disaster-affected individuals. Compensation implies restoring individuals to their original position, whereas relief is discretionary and may not adequately address their losses.

Compensation efforts during disasters often disproportionately focus on property owners, overlooking the widespread impact on livelihoods. Many individuals directly and indirectly affected by disasters face severe challenges. These include agricultural workers, informal labourers, small business owners who rent spaces, and those whose livelihoods are intricately linked to the local economy, such as headload workers, street vendors, and drivers.etc.

The term “compensation” in Clause 61 needs to be reinstated to ensure that disaster- affected individuals receive the necessary support to recover from their losses.

3. Livelihood restoration of directly and indirectly affected people: The direct and indirect impacts on livelihoods must be recognised and adequately compensated. It is crucial to explicitly define livelihood restoration measures within the Disaster Management Act to address the needs of both directly and indirectly affected communities.

The Act must explicitly recognise and address the livelihood impacts of disasters on both directly and indirectly affected people. This should include provisions for livelihood restoration for individuals engaged in various sectors, such as fishing, agriculture, and informal work, especially in the context of increasing climate-related disasters like cyclones and coastal erosion.

4. Need for transparency and public disclosure of State and National Database: The Disaster Management Act must enhance transparency and public disclosure regarding state and national plans. This includes the mandatory publication of key documents such as the Memorandum of Loss and Damage and hazard and risk vulnerability reports.

The newly proposed provision for creating state and national disaster databases should include a specific clause requiring these databases to be publicly accessible. This would ensure that local bodies and the general public have access to critical information, enabling informed participation in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.

5. Centralisation of Authority: The proposed amendment further centralises decision- making power, particularly regarding releasing disaster funds and responses. The insertion of clause 8A and 8B will lead to the concentration of power and authority in the hands of the centre / HLC to make decisions on financial assistance following disasters and to officers diluting the power and authority of the states, thus undermining federalism. The process under the NDMA has been criticised for being centralised and slow. The amendment does not specify how the HLC will ensure timely decision-making or establish accountability mechanisms to prevent delays.

The proposed amendment assigns the National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC) the responsibility of managing disasters deemed to have serious or national ramifications. However, the criteria for determining which disasters qualify as “serious” or “national” are neither defined in the original Act nor clarified in the amendment. This lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary decision-making and delays in disaster response. Clear guidelines are essential to ensure the effectiveness and responsiveness of both the NCMC and HLC in disaster management.

Decentralised and participatory mechanisms must be strengthened to enhance disaster resilience at all levels. The locus of control of access and disbursement of Disaster Response and Disaster Risk Reduction funds should be devolved to the local bodies in a planned, time-bound manner

Need for a more inclusive, rights based and climate-sensitive approach in Disaster Management.

There are significant gaps that must be addressed to ensure the legislation is inclusive, equitable, and responsive to the challenges posed by disasters, including those exacerbated by the climate crisis.

Globally the discussion around disaster has moved from dispensing relief to disaster risk reduction as enshrined in the Sendai Framework (2015) to which India is a signatory. It centers on the recognition and protection of human rights as a fundamental framework for mitigating and responding to disasters. In the Indian context, vulnerable communities, especially Dalits, Adivasis, fishworkers, and migrant labourers of the informal sector are forced to live in unsafe locations in precarious conditions, both in the rural and urban areas. Drivers of inequality and injustice, mainly caste, religion, ethnicity, class and minority status ensure that their resilience1 is abysmally low. They are hence disproportionately impacted by disasters, severely restricting their ability to recover. It is therefore important that the Bill should articulate an approach that emphasises inclusion and equity which respects their human rights2 dignity and participation at all levels in the process.

While the government claims that the amendment was brought about to integrate the learnings from the time of the Act till now, it seems that the disaster governance architecture has regressed in time by not including heat waves, coastal erosion, droughts etc in the framework of the definition. The omission of clause 13 which provides for loan relief and the deletion of the word compensation is regressive. It goes against the very principle of “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction” as envisaged by the Sendai Framework. It is the obligation of the state to uphold the right to life with human dignity regardless of any international charter, and such provisions are contrary to the letter and spirit of Article 21 of the constitution of India

In the debate in Loksabha on this amendment bill, many parliamentarians pointed out the over- centralisation of disaster response and relief funds and the mode of decision-making on disbursement of funds that is discriminatory towards those states which are governed by parties different from the one in power at the Centre. In many instances, funds were denied from NDRF to Tamil Nadu and Kerala with Chooralmala Mundakai landslide in Wayanad being the latest example. Even from the point of view of efficiency, centralisation is disastrous.

There were no widespread consultations or debates in civil society and other fora as claimed for this version of the Bill. Hence it needs to go before a select parliamentary committee and we hope that you will push for the same when the Bill comes before the Rajya Sabha. Kindly find below some of our key concerns. We hope you will raise them in the parliament.

1 https://www.preventionweb.net/files/44983_sendaiframeworkchart.pdf, Priority 3 Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience

2 https://www.preventionweb.net/files/44983_sendaiframeworkchart.pdf Guiding Principles “Protection of persons and their assets while promoting and protecting all human rights including the right to development”

KEY CONCERNS AND SUGGESTIONS :

1. Lack of Incorporation of a Rights-Based Approach

The proposed amendment fails to integrate a rights-based framework, which is essential for addressing prevention, mitigation, response, recovery, and rehabilitation holistically. The lessons learned from previous disasters, including COVID-19, should inform a framework that prioritises the rights and dignity of affected communities. The fundamental human rights that are violated in post-disaster situations include the rights to adequate housing, food, water and sanitation, health, work/livelihood, land, security of the person and home, information, participation, and education. The Bill should recognise and incorporate key human rights approach while legislating on disaster.

2. Fails to address Slow-Onset Disasters

The Bill fails to recognise several types of disasters and does not adequately address slow- onset disasters like droughts, heatwaves, and coastal erosion. These issues disproportionately impact vulnerable communities and must be brought within the ambit of the Disaster Management Act. The problem of heat waves and coastal erosion has been increasing in recent years with many reported mortalities and impact on the livelihood of informal labour in both urban and rural areas. Likewise, the changes in climate patterns, rising sea temperature and subsequent changes have resulted in loss of fishing days, erosion of coastal areas resulting in loss of housing and common spaces for fishing activities etc.

3. Need for an Equity and Inclusion approach

Past disasters have highlighted significant inequities in disaster response and recovery. Issues such as gender, caste, disability, and other vulnerabilities need to be explicitly addressed in the Act to ensure inclusive policies and practices. It is often seen that the most marginalised category is often left out and impacted by discriminatory practices in relief distribution, and provisions for compensation, to aid recovery. The fact that relief as well as compensation many a time are availed of by owners of the property and not by the workers whether they are fishers, agriculture workers, other informal labourers whose livelihoods get affected in the process. A human rights approach which focuses on people and not just the disaster itself is necessary as many vulnerable groups are getting affected repeatedly.

4. Urban Disaster Management Authority and Multiplicity of Bodies

The provision to create Urban Management Authorities has been critiqued for potentially creating overlapping responsibilities and institutions. There are municipal corporations and development authorities, who play similar functions and these institutions must work together in a synergetic way. While there are urban-centric disasters resulting from faulty, ecologically destructive urban development, many different forms of disasters can be seen on a continuum between the urban and the rural areas. There is a need to integrate the various mechanisms for an effective intervention. Many urban settlements have communities involved in informal labour. It is essential to recognise the rights of such communities in disaster response and rehabilitation with an emphasis on restoration of livelihood activities among others.

5. Lack of Financial Provisions for Disaster Response Teams

While enabling provisions have been created for disaster response teams, no financial mechanisms have been included to operationalise them effectively. Adequate funding and resources must be ensured to build robust response capabilities of the state, particularly the State disaster response teams. This has to be more than just training of the personnel and provision of equipment.

6. Need to update Minimum Standards

The minimum standards for disaster response and rehabilitation have not been revised to reflect lessons learned from recent disasters. These standards must be updated to ensure timely and effective assistance to the affected communities. As discussed earlier, a human rights approach ensures the rights and dignity of people with access to information and redressal of grievances. It is essential to ensure the protection of the survivors against violence, including gender-based violence, and guarantee the security of affected persons. People who have special needs such as people with disability, single women, single unaccompanied children, older people, people with different sexual orientations, and discriminated communities need to be attended to. This provision should explicitly include relief for people who become landless/ homeless due to disaster and similar size and nature of land and housing to be provided to them by the National or State Authority.

7. Need to align with addressing Climate Crisis Implications

The amendments do not align with the urgent need to address the climate crisis. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies must be integrated into disaster management frameworks to reduce vulnerabilities and build resilience. We are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events related to climate change which are impacting the most vulnerable populations. Reducing risks and losses should be an integral part of this framework, flowing from the loss and damage framework that has been conceived at the UNFCCC-COP levels.

8. Need to focus on Community Participation

The Act must recognize the critical role of local communities and civil society organizations in disaster preparedness and response. They are often the first respondent to any disaster. Community-led mechanisms and traditional knowledge should be incorporated into planning and execution. Community participation at all levels, transparency, access to information, planning and capacity building need to be built strongly into the framework. The prevention and mitigation measures need strong community involvement at all levels and stages including preparation of the plans. Training of the communities needs to be prioritised in identified risk- prone areas and should include indigenous and local knowledge of the communities.

We, the undersigned organizations, demand that the Bill be thoroughly reworked with inputs from disaster-affected communities and the valuable experiences of those involved in providing relief, recovery, and long-term prevention and mitigation efforts. As a first step, we urge you to advocate for the Bill to be referred to a Select Parliamentary Committee to ensure broader consultations and necessary revisions. The amendments must prioritize a people-centric, inclusive, and climate-resilient framework that strengthens disaster management across the country.

Thank you for your attention and support

Yours sincerely,

CONTACT

Friends of Earth, India // foeindia21@gmail.com

Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) // info@cenfa.org