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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)?

14. 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?