FFC SUBMISSION: AN ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT FUNDING ________________________ PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT 13 August 2002

Background Formal request in October 2001 from Minister of Provincial & Local Government Assessment includes funding implications for all three spheres of government FFC comments relevant for Bill and/or National Disaster Management Framework

Methodology Definition of “disaster management” in Bill is basis for different funding approaches Prevention / mitigation Emergency preparedness Emergency response Post-disaster recovery & rehabilitation Data issues Data only required for emergency preparedness, as other categories are situation-specific Inadequate data, but not insurmountable

International trends Mitigation the key to effective emergency management Particularly relevant where there is weak infrastructure and inappropriate location of settlements National co-ordination

Current funding arrangements Emergency preparedness: no funding mechanism (for local government) Prevention / mitigation: no dedicated funding mechanism Emergency response: provinces and munis can apply for assistance, but no guidelines Post-disaster recovery: Provinces can apply for access to contingency reserve Relief funds (Department of Social Development)

The case for centralised funding Central funding mechanisms needed for prevention/mitigation, emergency response, and post-disaster recovery Subnational jurisdictions may not have the necessary resources Intergovernmental co-operation should be facilitated Ability to deliver basic services could be compromised Integrity of budget frameworks and performance-based budgeting would be undermined

Funding Mechanisms: Emergency Preparedness Provincial & national government: funded by equitable shares Local government: Cost implications: policy framework, DM Centre, DM Plan, Advisory Forum, units of volunteers Are responsibilities assigned in Bill “new”? If no, assumed to be covered by equitable share If yes, funding for Start-up costs (conditional grants to selected municipalities) On-going costs: increase to equitable share

Funding Mechanisms: Prevention/Mitigation FFC Proposal: National gov’t identifies priority projects Munis & provinces apply for funding for priority projects For munis, funding provided on matching basis, with revenue-raising capacity taken into account Funding should be on MTEF budget of responsible national department

Funding Mechanisms: Emergency Response Very costly: evacuation, shelter, food FFC proposal: contingency reserve for emergency response once funds “exhausted” Provinces: funding once financial threshold exceeded (up to 1% of budget) Munis: funding once financial threshold exceeded (up to 1% of own revenue) Option of matching funding until final threshold is reached E.g. Matching funding up to .25%, then fully funded

Funding Mechanisms: Infrastructure Rehabilitation Section 56: cost borne by organ of state responsible for infrastructure FFC proposal: National departments, provinces, & munis submit requests Verified, & budget appropriation requested If funds can be spent during financial year, funded from contingency reserve Requests evaluated according to whether infrastructure is essential for basic service delivery and economic activity

Funding Mechanisms: Relief to Individuals Currently three funds, not efficiently operated FFC proposal: Three relief funds combined and administered centrally Funds should be on budget If funds exhausted, access to contingency reserve

Implications for the Disaster Management Bill 1 District and local municipalities Review of Chapter 5 needed for appropriate division of responsibilities Local municipalities should primarily responsible for disaster response Where capacity lacking, districts responsible until capacity developed Clarity required: where LM operates DM Centre, and/or takes responsibility for co-ordination, funding flows to LM

Implications for the Disaster Management Bill 2 Funding in Bill or in Framework? Current funding provisions in Bill: 7(2)(k): National DM Framework must include funding framework Prevention and post-disaster recovery included, but not emergency response 15(1)(e), 30(1)(e), 44(1)(e): National, provincial, & municipal DM Centres must make recommendations on funding Overlap with 7(2)(k)?

Implications for the Disaster Management Bill 3 Current funding provisions in Bill cont’d 56: Cost of public infrastructure borne by organ of state maintaining infrastructure 57: National assistance to provinces & munis for post-disaster recovery & rehabilitation Overlap with 7(2)(k)? Why assistance limited to post-disaster recovery?