Disaster Management Bill: Presentation to Portfolio Committee: Dr. Michael Sutcliffe, Chairperson MDB 28 August 2001

Disasters, municipal capacity and race Classifying disasters. Problem areas: (I) Joe Slovo, Alexandra; (ii) Foot and mouth disease (iii) The case of floods

National Projects

Provincial Projects

KZN Klood Update As Supplied by Department of Water Affairs Flood Page

February 2000 floods Areas affected: primarily former African areas without municipal capacity or infrastructure Infrastructure projects cost some R3.5 billion. To my knowledge none of that money has been put into municipal and community skills/capacity development. The challenge is to ensure such disasters become opportunities to build capacity.

Disasters, municipal capacity and race Reporting Disasters: The national data base on disasters

Disasters, municipal capacity and race Disasters as a result of apartheid’s legacy: the case of cholera

Incidence of cholera by municipality

White Paper on Disaster Management The White Paper on Disaster Management developed a new approach: an inclusive national coordinating and policy-making structure, one national Disaster Management Centre, a single nodal point in provinces (MEC) and implementation to be at a District/Metropolitan level. The WP called for national legislation which makes provision for: (I) Disaster declarations; (ii) the establishment of a National Disaster Management Centre; (iii) The establishment of provincial and local disaster management structures; (iv) The preparation and compilation of disaster management plans by all spheres of government; (v) Volunteers, their usage and insurance cover; and (vi) other relevant provisions. The question is, does the proposed legislation address the matters raised in the White Paper

The Bill: Is it a rational model? Firstly, the Bill does not create a single inclusive national Disaster Management Centre, but seems to call for them in all three spheres of government. This could result in duplication, confused lines of authority, question of who is responsible and the like. The White Paper’s call for a single nodal point in provinces (MEC) and implementation to be at a District/Metropolitan level should be emphasised as the Bill could be confusing: in which province does a Cross Boundary Municipality fall? Which Premier/MEC has authority in that case to decide on a provincial disaster?

Disaster Declarations The White Paper calls for a clear rationale for declaring disasters at national, provincial and local levels. These would include quick response to emergencies, facilitating speedy release of funds, ensuring rapid mobilisation and deployment of resources, special powers, etc. The Bill, however, simply draws a geographical distinction between local, provincial and national disasters: is a flash flood on the Orange River a provincial disaster simply because it straddles two provinces? What is required is a more functional approach.

National Disaster Management Centre The White Paper argues that there must be a national approach. There should be as little outsourcing of basic information and intelligence requirements as possible. Does the National Centre decide on standards, reporting mechanisms and the like? The National Centre must have powers to ensure it obtains the best information and also provides the best information management and advice to all spheres of government, the private sector and the broader community.

Provincial and local structures The White Paper specifically refers to provincial and local structures and not centres. This, then, ensures there is only one centre with strong links throughout the spheres of government (and region), private sector and community at large. The Bill, though, does not draw such a distinction. The Bill doesn’t outline how the provincial and local disaster management structures should operate and be organised, how the preparation and compilation of disaster management plans by all spheres of government will occur and how volunteers link in to this process.

Specific issues Definition of disaster: is it more than simply ability to cope with effects using their own resources? Definition of organ of state (also throughout Bill)? 4(1)© should SALGA not have at least ten representatives to ensure all provinces are covered? 7(1)(e) Why not Agri-SA, House Traditional Leaders, etc. as well? 15(1)(f)(ii) What is meant by ‘alignment of legislation with this Act?

Specific issues (Cont.) 16: Is there nothing compelling organisations to register? 23: A functional classification is required together with the geographical distinctions? 25: Is the approach of getting line function Departments to produce plans the best way or should not the National Inter-Governmental Committee approve an integrated plan which Departments must then implement? 36: Annual reports by MECs/Municipalities – should there not be one national report and after each individual disaster reports from the relevant authority (local, provincial, national) get submitted to the National Centre by the responsible party? 37: Should there not be a link to IDPs? 52(2)(b): Is this not too narrow: surely rebuilding should be done in terms of IDPs and allows restructuring?

Mitigation, capacity building and training Mitigation of disasters in SA is primarily about building capacity in formerly African areas. The Bill gives no content to making this an important principle guiding (some might say instructing) governance as a whole. Who is to pay for such critical initiatives?

Possible way forward Reconceptualise: Instead of Intergovernmental committee, national framework and National Centre, get consistency and make all Intergovernmental. This would clearly put the function in one place and then each sphere of government, organs of state, volunteer agencies and the like all become parts of this entity with specific (or general) responsibilities. The Centre can also be located anywhere and in a number of places, operating under a single mandate with single standards. Do not then need Provincial or Local Centres, but instead have Provincial and Local Structures (as White Paper suggests). The Intergovernmental Centre then ensures a single, unified approach. This also means that the disaster plans become integral part of IDPs and not adjuncts. Then the Bill needs to address the responsibilities of National, Provincial and Local spheres, including other organs such as traditional authorities.