Disaster Management: Recent incidents of floods in North East India and a cloudburst in Sikkim have resulted in the loss of human lives, damage to houses, roads and other infrastructure. They have disrupted normal life and had a significant impact on businesses and industries in these states.
The incidents of forest fires in Uttarakhand – reported as 11,256 in 2023–2024, spread across many districts – have caused heavy damage to the region’s biodiversity. These events highlight the need to examine the government‘s approach to disaster management and climate resilience, and whether course correction is required to contain such massive losses of life, property and business, besides long-term environmental and ecological impacts.
According to the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2025 (GAR) by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, the economic cost of disasters rises annually. From an average of $70–80 billion per year (1970–2000), the figure now stands at $180–200 billion.
The true cost, including indirect impacts, is estimated at $2.3 trillion. India alone suffered $12 billion in losses in 2023, against an average of $8 billion (2013–2021). Some projections indicate a medium-term GDP loss of 2% due to disasters, with trends suggesting further increases.
Disasters occur globally with alarming regularity, affecting communities, infrastructure, flora and fauna, the environment and economies. India’s Disaster Management Act, 2005, provides a framework for effective response and mitigation, including preventive measures. Section 6 empowers the NDMA/SDMA (national/state authorities) to issue guidelines for integrating disaster plans into departmental schemes and budgets.
Yet, has this enthused all departments to proactively address disaster risks? While post-disaster responses are commendable, preventive efforts remain lacklustre. The committee-based approach has failed to mainstream mitigation with the urgency warranted by its large-scale consequences.
Six disaster types – earthquakes, floods, storms, heatwaves, forest fires and droughts – account for over 95% of global direct losses, encompassing environmental damage, displacement, health crises and socio-economic disruptions. Every sector, from agriculture to SMEs, suffers. For vulnerable groups like special-needs children and Divyangjan, disasters are a daily reality.
Effective mitigation requires cross-departmental action. For instance, floods demand irrigation controls (Irrigation Department), infrastructure resilience (Public Works), crop protection (Agriculture), shelters (Animal Husbandry), supply chains (Food and Civil Supplies), education continuity (Education), afforestation (Forest), rehabilitation (Social Welfare/Revenue), security (Police) and disease control (Health). This underscores the need for climate resilience to be woven into all departmental programmes.
Does the current Disaster Management Act framework ensure this? Central and state coordination bodies appear insufficient. Most departments still view disasters as the sole remit of disaster or environment ministries, neglecting integration into core functions.
Disasters destabilise economies, strain public finances, exacerbate poverty and inequality, and erode development gains, besides inflicting social and psychological trauma. In 2024, climate disruptions forced 242 million students across 85 countries out of schools, 74% in low- and lower-middle-income nations.
Indian schools, often repurposed as shelters, face growing threats from heatwaves and urban pollution. The Covid-19 pandemic alone disrupted education for two years, with heatwaves, cyclones and floods now compounding risks. Globally, 90% of children endure climate-related hazards.
Health systems are equally vulnerable. Air pollution claims 4.2 million lives annually, while emerging pathogens like Covid-19 expose infrastructural frailties.
Can we afford reactive “postmortem” approaches? Risk mitigation must be embedded in all departmental strategies. Currently, climate resilience lacks systematic integration.
A parallel exists in North East India’s development. The North Eastern Council (NEC), established in 1972, initially struggled to secure departmental commitments despite high-level membership (Governors, CMs, Union Ministers). The 1998–99 mandate allocating 10% of each department’s budget to NE states – with unspent funds in a non-lapsable pool – proved transformative. Similar earmarking for climate resilience could ensure accountability.
Disasters are now routine. While post-event responses dominate, mitigation remains fragmented. Proactive states – coastal, hilly or flood-prone – engage stakeholders, but nationwide institutionalisation lags.
Future generations will confront escalating crises: melting glaciers, rising temperatures, wildfires, pollution, water scarcity and AI-driven disruptions. Resilience is now a prerequisite for sustainable development. Departments must identify risks and allocate resources accordingly. Global wildfire losses alone exceed $106 billion annually.
Mainstreaming climate resilience demands universal governmental buy-in. Adopting the NEC model – allocating a fixed budget percentage to resilience, with unspent funds in a non-lapsable pool – could revolutionise disaster management. This applies equally to central and state governments.
Such systemic funding would undeniably advance climate resilience and disaster preparedness in India.
