The Disaster Management Act (2005) in Section 39 (2) states that every department of the government of state should “integrate into its developmental plans and projects, the measures of disaster prevention and mitigation”. Further in Section41 (1) it asks the state government to set up a state disaster mitigation fund and district disaster mitigation fund. Section 47(1) asks the central government to set up a National Disaster mitigation fund for projects exclusively for mitigation. Section 39(2) upholds the principle of integrating disaster risk reduction into developmental planning. This is perhaps the only way to make disaster risk reduction sustainable. However, as we pass through section 41(1) and section 47(1) of DM act, it speaks of creation of funds for disaster mitigation at the national, state and district level; thus implying that disaster mitigation is a separate entity and has to be dealt in a project mode. This itself defeats the very idea of integrating disaster risk reduction with development thus creating contradictions amongst the various tenets of the act itself. The government needs to be clear whether disasters are going to be viewed as external shocks to the development process or the process of mitigation of disasters will rest within the developmental framework.
